博客

  • Is Donald Trump ready to do business with Myanmar?

    Is Donald Trump ready to do business with Myanmar?

    For nearly three years following the 2021 military coup that ousted Myanmar’s democratically elected government and detained iconic leader Aung San Suu Kyi, Washington maintained a strict policy of diplomatic isolation, paired with targeted sanctions against figures tied to the junta led by Min Aung Hlaing. That long-standing posture now appears to be shifting, after the revelation that a senior Trump administration official held a historic face-to-face meeting with Min Aung Hlaing in Nay Pyi Taw last September, paired with recent adjustments to U.S. sanctions that have removed some junta-linked business figures from the restricted list.

    The September 15-16 meeting marked the first encounter between a senior U.S. official and Min Aung Hlaing since the general seized power. The participating official, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research Michael Vance, framed the discussion as primarily focused on securing the release of U.S. citizen Adam Castillo, who was detained in June amid a local dispute with the American Chamber of Commerce. But diplomatic analysts widely agree that the meeting covered far more than the Castillo case, as Vance’s status as the most senior U.S. official to meet the junta leader in three years carries major symbolic and strategic weight. It is also worth noting that Vance has a recent history of diplomatic engagement related to Myanmar: he met Burmese officials in Tokyo this June and again this month, and has also held talks with representatives of Myanmar’s anti-junta opposition movement.

    This apparent policy shift did not emerge overnight. Tracing its origins back to July of last year, at the peak of the Trump administration’s trade tariff war with China, President Trump sent a personal letter to Min Aung Hlaing that signaled a break from previous diplomatic protocol. In the letter, Trump notified the junta leader that Myanmar would face 40% tariffs on its exports to the U.S. – a move that sent shockwaves through many regional governments that had long aligned themselves with Washington. But Min Aung Hlaing responded not with condemnation, but with effusive flattery, mirroring Trump’s distinctive rhetorical style and thanking the president for the opportunity to continue accessing the world’s largest U.S. market.

    For Min Aung Hlaing, this acknowledgment from the U.S. president was a major diplomatic win. Since seizing power, the junta leader has been widely shunned by the international community, branded a war criminal with pending cases at both the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice, and recognized by only a handful of countries including Russia and China. Trump’s decision to address him as “Your Excellency” without any mention of the coup’s devastating human cost, the dissolution of Myanmar’s democracy, or the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi represented a significant break from the global consensus.

    That same month, the junta took steps to strengthen its ties to Washington, signing a $3 million contract with DCI, a long-standing Washington lobbying firm that previously worked for a past Burmese military regime in 2002 to improve its international image. Since that deal was struck, the military government has also hired controversial Trump confidant and lobbyist Roger Stone for a $50,000 monthly retainer to advance its interests in Washington. Adam Castillo, the detained U.S. citizen whose release was the stated purpose of Vance’s meeting, had himself been working to encourage re-engagement before his arrest: a former U.S. Marine and Trump supporter who recently stepped down as head of the Yangon American Chamber of Commerce, Castillo had traveled to Washington to argue that Washington’s decades-long sanctions strategy had failed, and that re-engagement could advance U.S. strategic interests by loosening China’s grip on Myanmar’s vast critical mineral reserves.

    Castillo’s arguments found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which had been scrambling to find alternative sources of rare earth minerals after China blocked rare earth exports to the U.S. in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs earlier that year. Myanmar is home to substantial rare earth reserves that are currently entirely controlled and exploited by Chinese firms, making them a highly attractive target for U.S. policymakers seeking to reduce dependence on Beijing.

    This shift in approach has also been reflected in U.S. guidance on international elections. The U.S. State Department recently issued new instructions to U.S. embassies worldwide barring them from publicly commenting on the fairness, integrity, or legitimacy of foreign electoral processes or the democratic credentials of host governments. When Myanmar held a widely criticized general election late last year that allowed Min Aung Hlaing to rebrand himself as a civilian president, most Western governments condemned the vote as neither free nor fair – but the U.S. remained silent, breaking with decades of precedent where Washington regularly issued judgments on the democratic status of foreign elections.

    The recent removal of some junta-linked individuals from the U.S. sanctions list has only reinforced perceptions that a major policy shift is underway. DCI, the lobbying firm working for the junta, recently noted in a newsletter that “For years, the U.S. approach to Myanmar has been defined by isolation, sanctions, and distance. That era is over… thankfully, President Trump has the courage to try something different.”

    Yet analysts argue that the change is more rhetorical and procedural than substantive. Richard Horsey, Myanmar adviser for the International Crisis Group, notes that Min Aung Hlaing himself remains under U.S. sanctions, and that “In practice less has changed than the headlines suggest. What is new is the level of contact and the location. Senior U.S. officials have now been to Nay Pyi Taw, which is exactly what Min Aung Hlaing wanted. What he wants next is sanctions relief, and that will be harder.”

    Other Trump administration policy changes have had far more tangible impacts on people in Myanmar and the U.S. Last year, the administration dismantled much of USAID’s programming in the country, cutting aid to opposition groups, independent dissident media, and displaced refugees by more than half. It also revoked Temporary Protected Status for 4,000 Burmese refugees who had settled in the U.S., a decision decried by human rights groups that leaves these refugees at risk of deportation back to Myanmar, where many would face imprisonment or even death.

    As for the prospect of the U.S. gaining access to Myanmar’s rare earth reserves, most experts are skeptical. The majority of these deposits lie in territory contested by ethnic insurgent groups, and are currently extracted by Chinese firms with decades of experience operating in Myanmar’s ungoverned border regions, before being transported to China for processing. There is currently no clear path for U.S. firms to gain meaningful access to these reserves.

    Skepticism also extends to the prospects of U.S.-Myanmar cooperation on cracking down on the country’s booming billion-dollar scam industry. While the junta has launched a few highly publicized raids on major scam compounds, analysts note that the criminal syndicates running these operations simply relocate to smaller, more remote sites, and many of these groups operate with the explicit backing of militia groups allied to the Myanmar military.

    Regional policy experts note that diplomatic engagement with Nay Pyi Taw is not inherently problematic, but that Washington must prioritize key issues in these talks. “Talking to Nay Pyi Taw is not wrong in itself,” says Hunter Marston, Southeast Asia director at the Lowy Institute. “The question is what Washington asks for and what it gives away. It should use the channel for the things that matter most: humanitarian access, an end to airstrikes on civilians. It should keep talking to the opposition and the ethnic armed groups, who hold much of the country. And on scams, the most effective thing the US can do is to co-ordinate with other governments in the region, including China, to go after the money.”

    The biggest open question remains whether the Trump administration, currently distracted by domestic political battles and other geopolitical priorities including tensions with Iran, has the bandwidth to maintain sustained focus on Myanmar, let alone challenge China’s long-standing dominant influence in the country.

  • No jeopardy but loads of fun – Champions League sets new goals record

    No jeopardy but loads of fun – Champions League sets new goals record

    Europe’s most prestigious club football competition is making history in its 2024-25 iteration, and it is not just the brand-new format turning heads – it is the explosion of goals that is redefining the Champions League viewing experience.

    When UEFA rolled out its revamped league-phase structure this season, expanding the competition from 32 to 36 teams and adjusting the fixture schedule, analysts and fans immediately debated what the shift would bring. Halfway through the early phase of the tournament, the data is in: this campaign is already the highest-scoring Champions League season on record.

    So far, 187 goals have been scored across the competition, pushing the average to a historic 4.16 goals per match. That mark tops every single Champions League campaign in the modern era, and ranks third across the entire 70-year history of the European Cup, trailing only the inaugural 1955-56 season (4.38 goals per game) and the 1959-60 tournament (4.19 goals per game).

    Recent matchweeks have driven this scoring surge to new heights. On a single Wednesday earlier this match cycle, 46 goals were scored – the third-highest single-day total in Champions League history, outstripped only by expanded 18-match final league-phase matchdays in future seasons. Combined with 40 goals from the previous Tuesday, the 78 total goals across that two-day stretch made matchday two the highest-scoring matchday in competition history. That topped matchday one of this same season, which had already notched the second-highest matchday total under the new format with 69 goals. Even this week, the tournament is already halfway to breaking that record before the final matches kick off.

    The new era of Champions League football marks the latest major shift in a competition that has evolved constantly since its 1955 founding. What began as a small six-team invitational tournament grew to a 32-team knockout bracket in 1967, before rebranding to the Champions League name with a group-stage format in 1992. After a short-lived experiment with two group stages, the competition settled into a stable 32-team, eight-group single group phase format from 2003 to 2024, with the top two teams from each group advancing directly to the round of 16.

    This season’s revamp represents the biggest change in two decades: the traditional group stage is gone, replaced by a 36-team single league phase, where each team plays eight one-off fixtures instead of six home-and-away matches against three group opponents. The top eight teams at the end of the league phase earn automatic spots in the knockout round, while teams ranked 9th through 24th compete in a two-legged play-off for the remaining knockout spots, and the bottom eight are eliminated early.

    Many analysts argue that this adjusted structure has directly fueled the scoring boom by reducing what is often described as “jeopardy” in early matches. With more fixtures and a wider margin for error to qualify for the knockout stage, teams face far less pressure to play conservative, defensive football to secure a result. That freedom has encouraged attacking, expansive play from even the continent’s biggest clubs, as seen in recent high-scoring thrillers like Paris Saint-Germain’s victory over Barcelona.

    The question on many football insiders’ minds now is whether this surge in goals translates to an overall improvement in the quality of the competition. Ashley Young, the former Manchester United and England winger, told BBC Radio 5 Live that the clinical finishing from attacking players has made the current season a spectacle, calling the number of goals “phenomenal.” Former Liverpool defender Stephen Warnock echoed that praise, describing the scoring volume as “incredible.”

    But not all observers frame the shift as an unqualified win. Tom Arnott, football writer for The Times, told BBC Radio 5 Live that while entertainment value has jumped, it is less clear that the overall quality of play has improved. “If I’m looking at the games it’s brilliant to watch and thrilling because the football itself is fantastic – but what do they mean?” Arnott said. He pointed out that the reduced stakes of early league-phase matches remove the incentive for teams to settle for a draw: with eight matches to play, a loss leaves far more room to recover than in the old tight group-stage format. “I think the format allows all the teams to loosen up,” Arnott explained. “The entertainment value is there but I think you come away from these matches sometimes and still think ‘what does it all mean?’ The lack of jeopardy early on does deliver entertainment.”

    For fans craving high-scoring, end-to-end action, the 2024-25 Champions League is already delivering. BBC Sport will air full highlights of every match from 22:00 BST Wednesday on BBC iPlayer, the BBC Sport website and mobile app, with a special “Champions League Match of the Day” broadcast airing on BBC One from 22:40 BST to 00:00 BST Wednesday for fans to catch all the historic goalscoring action.

  • ‘Trash Island’ or DC landmark? How a golf course landed Trump in a messy legal dispute

    ‘Trash Island’ or DC landmark? How a golf course landed Trump in a messy legal dispute

    Nestled along the waterfront of Washington DC, just three kilometers south of the White House, the 106-year-old East Potomac Golf Links has long been more than just a green space for local residents. For regulars like 35-year-old Jourdain Yardan, who tees up here twice a week, it is an accessible, inclusive community hub that welcomes everyone from first-time players to seasoned golfers at rates that fit nearly any budget. Its unpretentious, laid-back charm has made it a beloved fixture of DC life, but that identity is now under threat following a bold and divisive proposal from President Donald Trump.

    In a recent post on his Truth Social platform, Trump famously derided the historic public course as “Trash Island,” claiming the existing facility is “old, broken, dilapidated, and of no further use or effect.” The president, an avid golfer who owns more than a dozen private golf courses worldwide, has unveiled plans to shutter the course for 15 months starting this November to carry out a top-to-bottom renovation. His vision promises a reimagined space that will remain open to the public while meeting elite tournament standards, transforming it into what he calls “one of the Best and Most Spectacular Golf Courses anywhere in the World.”

    This renovation project is just one piece of Trump’s broader, controversial agenda to reshape iconic landmarks across the US capital, which also includes proposals for a new White House ballroom and a 250-foot commemorative arch. While the golf course project is smaller in scale than these other initiatives, it has struck a deeply personal nerve with local residents who rely on the affordable public amenity. Regular players warn that the overhaul will erase the course’s unique community-focused character and price out working-class and casual golfers.

    Yardan argues that a high-end renovation would strip away what makes the space special. “Anytime you hear about big league, big golfers, that also includes big prices,” he explained, noting that the course’s affordability is its greatest draw. He calls even a temporary closure for construction a “huge dent” in DC culture, warning that a redesigned elite course would eliminate the inclusive, approachable atmosphere that has defined the public links for more than a century.

    Seventy-year-old Thomas Snow, who has golfed at East Potomac for 15 years, echoes these concerns. While he acknowledges the course could use a minor “facelift,” he dismisses Trump’s scathing description of the facility as a “gross overstatement.” Currently, Snow pays just $29 for 18 holes of golf – a price point he says is unmatched anywhere in the broader DC, Maryland, and Virginia metropolitan region. If the renovation moves forward as planned, he fears the course will no longer be accessible to the everyday people who have used it for generations.

    Unlike the luxury private courses Trump has developed, East Potomac Golf Links requires no membership and caters to all comers. Its amenities are intentionally modest, offering casual food court-style dining rather than the upscale dining and high-end locker rooms that define exclusive golf clubs. That accessibility, combined with its prime location close to downtown DC, has made it a one-of-a-kind resource for local golfers.

    Trump’s plans have already hit a major legal roadblock. The course is managed by the National Park Service as one of DC’s three public golf facilities, and the DC Preservation League, along with two local golfers, has filed a lawsuit to block the renovation. The legal team representing the plaintiffs, Democracy Forward, framed the litigation as an effort to protect what they call a “community jewel” for the local residents it has long served.

    The legal dispute escalated dramatically this month, when the Trump administration authorized large-scale tree removal on the site without notifying the court or the plaintiffs. In response, a federal judge issued an order pausing all redevelopment work until at least October 26. Despite the court-ordered work stoppage, Trump reaffirmed his plans over the weekend, sharing design renderings of the proposed overhaul and reaffirming the 15-month closure timeline.

    As the legal process plays out, the clash over East Potomac Golf Links has become a microcosm of broader tensions around Trump’s efforts to remake DC’s public landscape. What began as a proposal to renovate an aging golf course has grown into a fight over access to public space, affordability, and the future of a community landmark that has shaped DC’s recreational culture for more than a century.

  • Macron told to not let Bahrain ‘buy France’s silence’ as he tours Gulf

    Macron told to not let Bahrain ‘buy France’s silence’ as he tours Gulf

    Emmanuel Macron, the French President, touched down in Bahrain on Tuesday for the third stop of his four-nation Gulf tour, facing immediate calls from 32 international and regional human rights organizations to confront Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa over a sharp escalation of domestic repression in the kingdom. Macron’s visit comes at a moment of deep political turbulence at home, where hundreds of thousands of protestors have taken to the streets to decry rising living costs and what they see as a broken French social contract.

    The coalition of rights groups, which includes the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD), Human Rights Watch, and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), submitted an open letter to Macron ahead of his meeting with King Hamad. The letter details a rapid intensification of crackdowns on political dissent following the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran in late February, noting that the current wave of repression is the most severe Bahrain has seen since the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings. The groups warn that deepening political and security cooperation between France and Bahrain risks emboldening the Al Khalifa regime to continue its abusive practices.

    Since the war began, Bahraini authorities have arrested more than 700 people accused of expressing sympathy for Iran, stripped citizenship from 69 citizens including 33 children – the youngest of which was only 19 days old at the time of the action. The letter also highlights the death in custody of 32-year-old Sayed Mohamed al-Mousawi, whose body showed clear signs of torture when returned to his family, and notes that 19 prisoners currently face the death penalty, 18 of whom have exhausted all legal appeals. Bahrain, a Sunni-ruled kingdom with a majority Shia population, has a long history of repressing democratic dissent dating back to the 2011 uprisings that were violently quelled by state security forces.

    Among the most high-profile political prisoners still detained are two European citizens: Bahraini-Danish activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, who has now spent 15 years in prison, and Swedish-Bahraini cleric Mohamed Habib al-Muqdad. Al-Khawaja’s daughter, prominent Bahraini activist Maryam al-Khawaja, drew a direct parallel between unrest in France and continued repression in Bahrain, saying: “At a time when students are protesting for better conditions in France, President Macron is in Bahrain, where two EU prisoners of conscience are still imprisoned after 15 years.”

    Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, a lifelong human rights defender, was arrested during the 2011 crackdown after masked security forces raided his family home in the middle of the night, beating him so severely he required four hours of reconstructive facial surgery. He was later sentenced to life in prison on charges of terrorism and attempting to overthrow the government, charges widely rejected by the international human rights community. “My father recently told me how it was a peaceful student protest that embarked him on his journey as a human rights defender. As an EU leader, I hope Macron calls for the release of my father and other prisoners of conscience,” Maryam al-Khawaja added.

    Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, advocacy director at BIRD, emphasized that France must not trade human rights commitments for economic and strategic gains. “France must not sacrifice human rights for lucrative Gulf deals under the guise of regional security. Bahrain must not be allowed to buy France’s silence. Those responsible for serious human rights abuses must face consequences, not rewards from France,” he said.

    Antoine Madelin, FIDH’s advocacy director, echoed this sentiment, linking the current energy crisis to long-term political stability. “The current crisis should remind President Macron that lasting energy security depends on respect for human rights and peace. France must look beyond immediate supplies and support the open, democratic societies on which a stable future depends,” he said.

    Despite the criticism, Macron’s visit proceeded with full ceremonial honors in the capital Manama on Tuesday, where crowds of school children lined the route waving French and Bahraini flags, and the French president walked a flower-strewn red carpet alongside King Hamad, his sons, and a military honor guard.

    Macron’s Gulf tour, which runs from October 19 to 21 and includes stops in Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar, is directly tied to addressing the energy crisis sparked by the war on Iran, which has blocked the Strait of Hormuz and sent global crude oil and energy prices skyrocketing. As domestic inflation and energy costs have spiked in France, sparking mass weekend protests that drew an estimated 550,000 people across the country, Macron used his trip to issue a statement condemning violent protest action while acknowledging that protestors held “legitimate concerns.”

    The Élysée Palace confirmed that Macron has already secured new energy commitments from Gulf producers, including 100,000 additional tons of diesel per month from the UAE and another 100,000 tons from Bahrain, with added supplies from Saudi Arabia bringing the total new monthly commitments to 295,000 tons – equal to just over 10 percent of France’s total monthly consumption. Beyond energy deals, Macron is also expected to discuss new defense cooperation agreements with Bahraini authorities. According to industry outlet Intelligence Online, following the full withdrawal of French forces from Iraq, Macron is preparing to announce the deployment of new French air defense troops to Gulf states to protect against frequent Iranian missile and drone strikes that have occurred since the outbreak of war in February. France charges millions of dollars annually for this type of air defense support, which also includes training for local armed forces, a model already in place in the UAE for many months.

    With Macron’s second term set to end in 2027 and French presidential elections scheduled for April of that year, the trip is also a key part of his administration’s efforts to shore up energy security and stabilize domestic politics ahead of the election. However, rights groups argue that any short-term gains from energy and defense deals will come at the cost of France’s reputation as a defender of human rights in the region.

  • Alberta’s decisive decision to stay in Canada gives Carney backing to take on Trump

    Alberta’s decisive decision to stay in Canada gives Carney backing to take on Trump

    Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stood before cheering crowds in Calgary, his stage decorated with bold red-and-white “Forever Canadian” banners, urging voters to “Vote like Canada depends on it.” That call appears to have resonated deeply with Alberta’s electorate: preliminary referendum results show more than two-thirds of the province’s voters cast their ballots in favor of remaining part of the Canadian federation.

    While the vote settles immediate questions of separatism, the future of Canada’s federation still hinges on this, the country’s most economically prosperous province. Home to the vast majority of Canada’s proven oil reserves, plus abundant natural gas and mineral reserves, Alberta plays a critical role in Ottawa’s strategy to weather a bruising trade war with the United States by diversifying global trade partnerships, strengthening domestic economic resilience, and forging new alliances across the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

    Carney, a former central banker who grew up in Alberta, has positioned himself as Canada’s lead nation-builder, both at home and on the global stage. Within hours of Monday’s referendum result confirming the scale of the unity victory, Carney emphasized the mandate Albertans had delivered: “They chose unity, to build together, and to take care of each other.” That overwhelming mandate for national unity also gives Carney a solid political foundation to advance his domestic and international policy agenda.

    Thomas Lukaszuk, a former provincial lawmaker who spearheaded the pro-union Forever Canadian campaign widely credited with shaping the referendum outcome, warned, “Don’t mess with Canada.” Speaking to jubilant supporters in Edmonton, Alberta’s capital, as pro-union votes continued to roll in, Lukaszuk stressed that the referendum “will send a very strong message to the rest of the world.” It is an open secret that the message is aimed primarily at Canada’s southern neighbor, particularly former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly joked about annexing Canada as the 51st U.S. state.

    Coincidentally, Trump delivered his own message to Canada during a Kansas rally held the same day as Alberta’s vote, just weeks ahead of U.S. midterm elections. “I will let you keep ice hockey, and I will let you keep your ‘O Canada’ national anthem,” he promised the crowd, before adding, “We’re only kidding.” For Canadians, however, the repeated threats and overtures are no laughing matter.

    In the lead-up to the referendum, Carney repeatedly warned that “there are some outside our borders who are working to break us, so they own us” — he never named the actors in question, but no clarification was needed for Canadian voters. The separatist camp made little effort to hide its own ties to the U.S. Several of the movement’s most prominent leaders admitted they had traveled to Washington three times in the previous year to meet with U.S. State Department officials, and laid out potential concessions an independent Alberta could offer, including a new cross-border oil pipeline to the Pacific Coast.

    While the historic vote sparked widespread national debate and concern across Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories, most of the international community has paid it little more than passing attention. Janice Stein, founding director of the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, notes that “short of a vote to separate, most foreign governments, with the exception of the United States, have little interest in domestic Canadian politics.” For foreign investors, she explains, the key priorities remain the timeline for completing major infrastructure projects, expected return on investment, and stable, predictable regulation — all central to Carney’s ambitious agenda of large-scale infrastructure projects designed to drive long-term Canadian economic growth. All are costly, and many will take decades to complete.

    One of the most high-profile projects is a proposed new oil pipeline to British Columbia’s Pacific Coast, which would open new direct export routes for Alberta’s crude oil to growing Asian markets. This project also addresses longstanding grievances from Albertans, who have long argued that federal environmental and energy policies have stifled the province’s economic growth. At a recent Alberta rally, Carney’s statement that the pipeline “will reduce our dependence on the United States” drew the loudest and longest applause of the entire event.

    Following the unity vote, Carney, who previously served as UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, framed the result as a step toward “unleashing our full potential as a global energy superpower with Alberta as its core.” Political observers note that this focus on energy growth has increasingly overshadowed the prime minister’s previous environmental commitments. “Build Canada Strong” has been Carney’s mantra since he entered politics as a political outsider just over a year ago.

    Domestically, the referendum included nine additional questions on issues ranging from expanded provincial autonomy to immigration policy to potential constitutional amendments. The final results on these questions are expected to have far-reaching consequences, sparking intense debate and new negotiations — or breakdowns — with Canada’s other nine provinces and three territories, all of which hold their own longstanding policy grievances against the federal government.

    Carney has also faced questions from journalists about his frequent foreign travel, undertaken to build new political alliances and trade partnerships, including an unprecedented and still uncertain push for Canadian associate membership in the European Union. The prime minister has pushed back firmly against criticism: “I can do both and I need to do both,” he recently responded in his characteristic straightforward style, before pointing to more than 16 major bills passed in the last parliamentary session covering everything from tax reform to public safety to fuel price regulation.

    For now, Carney is enjoying soaring approval ratings across Canada — even in Alberta, a province that has traditionally not supported his Liberal Party — in an extended political honeymoon that many veteran politicians can only envy. His firm, unapologetic response to Trump’s threats, including the implementation of retaliatory tariffs, has also boosted his profile on the global stage. This is an unexpected shift for a country that has long been sidelined in major global forums and even dismissed as “boring” by many international observers.

    This week, The Economist featured Carney on its cover, with a red maple leaf positioned between his teeth. One headline reads, “Mark Carney shows middle powers how to handle a dangerous world,” and the accompanying article also examines Canada’s underlying vulnerabilities, including the tensions exposed by Alberta’s referendum.

    Political scientist David Moscrop, author of the forthcoming book On Nationalism, argues that “the broader takeaway from this vote might be that Canadian unity is in fine shape.” But he poses a pressing question for the future: “But what happens after Donald Trump is gone and Canada no longer has a single, bombastic target which drives Canadians to rally around the flag?”

    Carney’s recent decision to walk away from contentious trade talks with the U.S. sparked a new wave of Canadian national pride. But if the ongoing trade war with the U.S. — which still absorbs 70% of Canada’s exports — drags on, Canadian households will face increasing economic pain in their daily lives. For the moment, however, Canada is celebrating its unity. As CBC journalist Janyce McGregor put it during the public broadcaster’s live coverage of the historic vote: “It’s a win for Team Canada and its resilience.”

  • Elon Musk says Tesla-SpaceX merger would be a ‘good idea’

    Elon Musk says Tesla-SpaceX merger would be a ‘good idea’

    In a bombshell revelation that has sent shockwaves through global business and financial circles, Elon Musk, the chief executive leading both electric vehicle giant Tesla and aerospace pioneer SpaceX, has publicly confirmed he supports the potential combination of the two high-profile firms and that the blockbuster merger proposal is currently under active evaluation.

    Musk shared his perspective during a quarterly results call with SpaceX financial analysts on Tuesday, stating plainly: “Do I think it would be a good idea? Yes.” While he emphasized that stakeholders should not take the merger as a foregone conclusion, and any completed deal would require the formal backing of shareholders from both companies, he revealed that independent special committees have already been established at both Tesla and SpaceX to examine the feasibility and terms of the transaction.

    “The special committees have not reached agreement on terms of any transaction and there’s no guarantee that they will,” Musk added during the call. “But I do think there is a lot of merit to merging and a lot to be gained.”

    If completed, the union would go down as one of the largest corporate mergers in history. Current market valuations put Tesla at roughly $1.5 trillion, while SpaceX carries a valuation of approximately $2 trillion, bringing the combined valuation of the new entity to a staggering $3.5 trillion.

    Notably, Musk has recused himself from the evaluation process, confirming he is not a member of either special committee tasked with reviewing the proposal. He explained that his dual role as top executive of both companies creates an inherent conflict of interest that disqualifies him from direct involvement in the review. Musk even framed public discussion of the merger possibility as a precarious challenge, comparing it to “tap dancing through a minefield.”

    Ultimately, Musk stressed, the final call on whether the merger moves forward will be made by shareholders. To pass, the proposal would need the approval of at least 50% of Tesla’s outstanding shareholders, a threshold Musk acknowledged is “quite a high hurdle to achieve.”

    This is a developing breaking news story, with new details expected to emerge as the special committees continue their deliberations. Updates will be published as additional information becomes available, and audiences can access real-time alerts through the BBC News mobile application or by following @BBCBreaking on the social platform X.

  • ‘Strategic threat’: Israel faces healthcare brain drain as 1,369 doctors leave in three years

    ‘Strategic threat’: Israel faces healthcare brain drain as 1,369 doctors leave in three years

    Fifteen months following the October 7, 2023 attacks led by Hamas and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza, a sharp and alarming wave of physician emigration has emerged as a major threat to Israel’s public health infrastructure, a new study from the Israeli Medical Association (IMA) confirms.\n\nThe IMA conducted its survey across 32 Israeli hospitals and medical facilities, unveiling a steady outflow of doctors that senior health officials warn could carry irreversible consequences for the country’s healthcare network. The organization presented its findings at an emergency summit focused specifically on the growing physician exodus, convened shortly after Tel Aviv University released independent projections showing 1,369 Israeli physicians will leave the country for stays of one year or longer between 2023 and 2025.\n\nBeyond the minimum 50 doctors who have already relocated permanently abroad in the first 15 months after October 7, the IMA found an additional 53 physicians who left Israel to pursue specialized medical training overseas and have failed to return within the pre-agreed timeline. Israeli news outlet Ynet, which first broke news of the IMA survey this week, reports that key medical specialties have been disproportionately impacted by the brain drain, including gastroenterology, oncology, internal medicine and psychiatry.\n\nWhile initial analysis cited four core drivers of emigration — insecure domestic conditions, personal motivations, pursuit of career advancement and higher compensation — one senior Israeli psychiatrist speaking at the emergency meeting clarified that pay ranks far lower on the list of contributing factors than widely assumed. Instead, the top catalysts for departure are persistent instability, deep anxiety over children’s long-term safety and future, widespread professional burnout, and access to broader career opportunities overseas. The psychiatrist added that since October 7, Israeli healthcare providers have been overwhelmed by an unprecedented surge in demand for mental health support — including from doctors themselves, a strain that has directly pushed many to consider leaving.\n\nThis widespread mental health crisis is not an isolated issue: ERAN, an Israeli non-profit focused on providing emotional and psychiatric support, estimates that one in four Israelis have exhibited symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the past three years, and the organization has fielded hundreds of thousands of requests for assistance from distressed citizens.\n\nZion Hagay, IMA chairman, noted that the most popular destination countries for departing Israeli doctors are the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany, explaining that Israeli-trained physicians are in high demand across global healthcare markets. Hagay framed the ongoing emigration wave as nothing less than a strategic threat to Israel, and announced plans to launch a dedicated advocacy forum to persuade departed doctors to return to the country.\n\nThe outflow of doctors is part of a broader national trend of emigration, recent Tel Aviv University research confirms: nearly 270,000 Israelis have left the country since 2023, with highly educated professionals like doctors making up a disproportionate share of those departures. What makes the current wave particularly worrying for health officials is that it is not only early-career medical staff leaving; a growing share of experienced senior physicians are also departing. The Tel Aviv University study found that 20 percent of doctors who left between 2023 and 2025 are over the age of 45, totaling 270 senior experienced clinicians. That marks a notable jump from the 2013-2015 period, when just 14 percent of departing physicians were over 45.\n\nOverall, the rate of physician emigration between 2023 and 2025 has spiked 94 percent compared to the 2013-2015 period, when 705 doctors left the country over two years. The gap between growing demand for care and shrinking physician supply is set to widen dramatically in the coming years: Israel’s population grew 1.2 percent in the last Jewish year to reach roughly 10.3 million people, and the Israeli Ministry of Health projected last week that the country will need 32,000 specialist physicians by 2035, compared to just 20,000 currently practicing in public health facilities. Currently, 24 percent of specialist physicians working in Israeli public hospitals are already approaching retirement age, making the loss of senior clinicians even more damaging.\n\nOne senior Israeli health official explained that the departure of medical interns and early-career doctors undermines the long-term stability of the healthcare system, while the exit of senior specialists — who are responsible for training the next generation of Israeli clinicians — will gradually erode the high standard of care the system has long been known for.\n\nThe physician exodus compounds pre-existing challenges facing Israel’s healthcare system, beyond workforce shortages. In recent years, Palestinian Israeli physicians working within the system have faced a growing wave of racist harassment and exclusion, even amid widespread staffing gaps. Hardline Israeli politicians and commentators have openly pushed to reduce the number of Palestinian medical staff working in Israeli hospitals, with one prominent pundit claiming last month that Palestinian clinicians are “poisoning Jews.” For Palestinian medical students and recent graduates, the barriers to employment are even steeper: a recent report found that roughly 4,000 Palestinian medical graduates are unable to secure open positions in Israel’s healthcare system.

  • Turkey secures a strategic win over Greece as eastern Libya backs the maritime deal

    Turkey secures a strategic win over Greece as eastern Libya backs the maritime deal

    A pivotal development has reshaped geopolitical dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean this week, as Libya’s Benghazi-based House of Representatives formally approved a long-stalled maritime boundary agreement with Turkey on Tuesday. In an official announcement posted to its website, the eastern legislative body also announced the revocation of a 2019 boycott targeting Ankara, a concrete signal of warming relations between Turkey and the eastern Libyan administration.

    The original agreement was first signed in 2019 between Ankara and Libya’s UN-backed Government of National Accord based in Tripoli, crafted explicitly to push back against competing maritime claims advanced by Greece and Cyprus in the energy-rich Eastern Mediterranean. For years, the deal remained trapped in political limbo, held up by Libya’s decade-long division into two competing governing blocs: the internationally recognized administration in Tripoli, and the self-declared government in eastern Libya led by Libyan Arab Armed Forces commander Khalifa Haftar.

    Over the past 18 months, however, Turkey has deliberately rebuilt diplomatic and economic ties with Haftar and his inner circle, particularly his son Saddam Haftar, a rising political figure in eastern Libya. Multiple sources familiar with the negotiations confirmed to Middle East Eye that the timing of the ratification—coinciding with a reported visit to Tripoli by Turkey’s intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin—was no accident. Kalin has cultivated deep personal connections with Haftar’s camp and drove the diplomatic push to finalize the agreement, the sources said.

    For years, regional diplomatic observers have noted that Greece exerted relentless pressure on Haftar to block the deal, a move that would severely undermine Athens’ own expansive maritime claims in the region. But analysts note that Haftar’s calculus shifted as he sought to diversify his regional partnerships, and Turkey offered tangible benefits that Greece could not match.

    “Turkey is a major regional power that can deliver significant support in the defense industry, open up new investment avenues, and help Haftar secure broader international legitimacy,” explained Bilgehan Ozturk, a non-resident fellow at the Doha-based Global Institute for Strategic Research. “Greece simply does not have those tools to offer.”

    The ratification also comes on the heels of a major political shakeup in eastern Libya earlier this month, when Haftar forced out long-time House speaker Aguila Saleh and installed his ally Al-Salhin Abdelnabi al-Obeidi in the role. Diplomatic sources say the approval of the deal is the first major signal of the new legislative leadership’s alignment with Haftar’s shifted regional approach.

    Tuesday’s vote builds on months of incremental diplomatic progress. Turkey has spearheaded diplomatic efforts alongside other regional powers to reconcile Libya’s rival political factions, culminating in a US-backed confidence-building agreement signed by both blocs in Tripoli this past August. That deal paves the way for national presidential and legislative elections to be held within the next two years, a major step toward ending years of political deadlock.

    According to a Libya-based source involved in the negotiations, the ratification served as a critical confidence-building gesture from Haftar’s camp to prove its commitment to improved ties with Ankara. “This is just the beginning,” the source told MEE. “We will see major restructuring of Libya’s governing system in the coming months.”

    The source added that a final unification deal, backed by the U.S. and its envoy Massad Boulos, would likely see current Tripoli-based prime minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh retain his post, while Haftar or one of his sons assume the presidency, merging the two rival administrations into a single national unity government.

    Ozturk added that Turkey’s own recent diplomatic overtures to Egypt and Saudi Arabia — key backers of Haftar for years — have also created the space for Haftar to deepen ties with Ankara. “All regional actors are looking to keep their options open right now,” he noted.

    The ratification follows a landmark visit by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan in early August, which saw Fidan travel to Tripoli and make the first ever visit by a senior Turkish diplomat to Benghazi, where he met with Haftar, his two sons Saddam and Belkacem, and then-speaker Aguila Saleh. Ankara framed the visit as a core part of its “One Libya” policy, which prioritizes the unification of the country’s competing institutions.

    Regional analysts have described Tuesday’s vote as a transformative moment for both Libyan politics and Eastern Mediterranean geopolitics. “You cannot overstate how important this decision is. It is deeply strategic, and it will change the entire trajectory of the region,” said Jalel Harchaoui, a leading Libya expert at the UK-based Royal United Services Institute. He called the ratification a watershed moment in Libyan politics, creating an irreversible shift toward political reconciliation after more than a decade of division and intermittent conflict.

    The deal also marks a major political win for Saddam Haftar, who Harchaoui confirmed is a rapidly rising power broker in eastern Libya. Harchaoui cautioned that the agreement will almost certainly trigger backlash from Greece, Cyprus, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates — all of which have long benefited from a frozen, divided conflict in Libya to advance their own strategic goals, including efforts to contain Turkish influence in the region.

    The analyst also offered a cautiously optimistic outlook for neighboring Sudan, where the ongoing civil war has been partially funded by backers in eastern Libya. Harchaoui predicted that if the new political trajectory holds, Saddam Haftar will likely end his support for the Rapid Support Forces, the paramilitary group leading the ongoing offensive against Sudan’s civilian government.

  • Zelensky says US intelligence sharing ‘works now’ after talks with Trump envoy in Oslo

    Zelensky says US intelligence sharing ‘works now’ after talks with Trump envoy in Oslo

    High-stake negotiations hosted in Oslo this week have marked a partial breakthrough in strained relations between Kyiv and Washington, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirming that U.S. intelligence sharing for early warnings of Russian missile and drone attacks is now functioning effectively. The resolution of this friction point came during closed-door talks between Zelensky and Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, clearing the way for the next phase of Western-backed peace efforts that will move to St. Petersburg when Witkoff meets Russian leadership on Wednesday.

    The meeting in the Norwegian capital followed weeks of growing tensions between the two allies, after Kyiv publicly accused Washington of holding back critical intelligence that could protect Ukrainian civilians from deadly airstrikes. That claim was immediately dismissed as “scandalous” by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has pushed back on suggestions the Trump administration is deliberately withholding military support. A parallel dispute has also emerged over SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet service, which Ukrainian military forces rely on for drone operations against Russian targets. Zelensky told reporters after the Oslo talks he remained hopeful for a positive resolution to recent reported speed restrictions on the platform, a issue that a bipartisan group of U.S. senators has already called for an urgent investigation into.

    Finnish President Alexander Stubb, one of the co-hosts of the multilateral talks alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, announced that participants had made “genuine progress” on drafting a set of peace proposals, though he declined to share specific details and cautioned that a negotiated end to the three-year conflict will require significant patience. Støre also emphasized a core European demand: that European nations must be included at every stage of any peace talks, a position that comes amid growing concern across the continent over inconsistent signals from the Trump administration on its commitment to Ukraine’s security.

    Witkoff did not appear at the joint press conference following Tuesday’s discussions, and the focus now turns to Moscow’s response to the drafted framework. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not yet issued a public comment on the latest developments, but Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has already signaled the Kremlin’s opening stance: while it will hear out Witkoff’s proposals, it will not make any political concessions. Moscow currently retains control of roughly 20 percent of Ukraine’s internationally recognized territory, three years after Putin launched a full-scale invasion of the country in 2022.

    On the same day the Oslo talks were held, Russian forces continued their regular airstrike campaign, killing at least 10 civilians across Ukraine: four in and around Kyiv, four in the eastern Donetsk region, and two in the central city of Dnipro. The deadly attacks underscored the ongoing urgency of early warning intelligence that Zelensky highlighted, noting that timely alerts allow civilians to take shelter before incoming ballistic missiles strike.

    The Oslo meeting was not the first round of backchannel talks between U.S. and Ukrainian representatives in recent weeks. Earlier this month, a Ukrainian delegation led by intelligence chief Rustem Umerov and lawmaker Davyd Arakhamia met Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner in Miami. That meeting ended abruptly after the delegation learned Trump would lift U.S. sanctions on Russian diesel exports, allowing Moscow to ship more than 300,000 tons of diesel to the U.S. and global markets. Zelensky reacted to the decision by calling it a “happy birthday present” for Putin.

    Recent weeks have seen a sharp downturn in public U.S.-Ukraine relations, with Trump repeatedly stating that it is time for Ukraine to negotiate an end to the war and even suggesting that Ukraine should replace its current leadership. Speaking to reporters at the White House after the Oslo talks, Trump reaffirmed his position that Kyiv should reach an agreement, saying Russia is also willing to finalize a deal and that the war must end. Ahead of upcoming U.S. midterm elections, Trump has also blamed Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries for rising U.S. fuel prices, a point echoed by Vice President JD Vance in comments this week that have alarmed European leaders.

    Vance said Monday that he does not consider Ukraine a formal U.S. ally, noted it is not a NATO member and should not join the alliance, and said Washington and Kyiv hold divergent interests on multiple issues, including strikes on Russian energy infrastructure. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz echoed widespread European anxiety this week, saying there are “mixed pictures and messages” coming from Washington on the war. Merz told Bloomberg TV that Europe remains committed to supporting Ukraine despite the heavy budgetary burden, and is working to convince the U.S. administration that the conflict must be resolved jointly with European partners.

    On the issue of U.S. military support, unconfirmed reports ahead of the Oslo talks suggested that the transfer of additional U.S.-made Patriot interceptor missiles – the only weapon system Ukraine currently has that can effectively shoot down Russian ballistic missiles – has not yet been approved by the Trump administration. Rubio, who is currently on an official visit to India, acknowledged that the new interceptors have not yet arrived in Ukraine but denied that Kyiv has been intentionally denied any requested military support. Zelensky added that he held a constructive discussion with Rubio ahead of the Oslo meeting on the need for early warning intelligence, additional Patriots, and a resolution to the Starlink restrictions.

  • Trump and Zelensky appear at loggerheads despite Oslo optimism

    Trump and Zelensky appear at loggerheads despite Oslo optimism

    A warm opening hug between former U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Oslo this week did little to mask the growing rift at the highest levels of U.S.-Ukrainian relations, as a series of controversial policy shifts from the Trump administration have left Kyiv questioning Washington’s commitment to its war against Russian invasion.

    The meeting, held in the Norwegian capital, comes after ten days of escalating public tension between Trump and Zelensky that has laid bare the fractious and unpredictable nature of their relationship. The two leaders have never enjoyed close ties, but recent exchanges have revealed a rupture deeper than any seen in years. Last week, Trump publicly attacked Zelensky in an interview with Newsmax, calling the Ukrainian leader “not a good guy” for the U.S. to work with. This week, he doubled down, dismissing Zelensky’s criticism of the U.S.-Russia diesel deal by saying “Zelensky doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

    These harsh words are characteristic of Trump’s blunt, inconsistent approach to diplomacy, observers note. For instance, just four months after lambasting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in June 2025, calling him a leader with poor judgment, Trump publicly endorsed him ahead of Israel’s elections. “Trump can always do another U-turn,” explained Ian Bond of the Centre for European Reform, “But this does look bad.”

    For his part, Zelensky has historically maintained a cautious public tone regarding his most unreliable yet critical partner, but this month his frustration has boiled over. Speaking to a visiting U.S. congressional delegation, Zelensky referenced “decisions on the American side that are hard to explain between friends” and openly voiced fears that Washington has made a political decision to slow down military support to Ukraine. Responding directly to Trump’s recent claim that he is the main barrier to a negotiated end to the war, Zelensky wrote on Telegram: “We have welcomed literally EVERY attempt by our partners to end this war with dignity.”

    This is not the first time U.S.-Ukraine relations have hit a crisis point. After a high-profile public altercation between the two leaders in the Oval Office in February 2025, when Trump accused Zelensky of “gambling with World War III,” Washington temporarily suspended military aid and restricted intelligence sharing. That crisis was resolved in a week, and when the Trump administration later decided to end direct U.S. financing for military assistance to Ukraine, it established a mechanism for European nations to purchase U.S.-made military equipment on Kyiv’s behalf.

    Today, however, the strains are being felt on the front lines of Ukraine’s air defense. One critical exception to the European funding model has been U.S.-made Patriot air defense missiles, which are badly needed by Kyiv to counter Russian ballistic missile attacks. Amid a global shortage of Patriot interceptors, supplies to Ukraine have slowed to a trickle. Citing an unnamed senior Ukrainian official, The Washington Post reported that only a handful of interceptors remain in Kyiv’s stockpile, and the Trump administration has delayed approval for U.S. allies to transfer their own Patriot stocks to Ukraine.

    The most consequential policy shift that has angered Kyiv came earlier this month, when Trump announced a new deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to open U.S. markets to Russian diesel exports. While experts have questioned whether the deal will actually lower U.S. gasoline prices ahead of congressional midterm elections – widely seen as the primary political motivation for the agreement – it sent a clear signal that Washington is willing to prioritize its own political and economic interests over Ukraine’s concerns, particularly in the wake of Ukraine’s long-range strikes on Russian oil infrastructure. For Kyiv, the deal was a sharp rebuke.

    Things got worse last Friday, when Trump waived a new round of sweeping sanctions on Russia that had been passed in the Graham Act – legislation named after late South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a prominent and longtime supporter of Ukraine. Trump justified the move by arguing the sanctions would derail his efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, but Kyiv and its supporters see it as further evidence that the White House is aligning with the Kremlin. “What the Trump administration is doing is providing carrots to the Russians and sticks applied to the Ukrainians,” former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor told the BBC, adding “It’s inexplicable and saddening.” Senior Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev echoed that reading, calling the move “an important and truly historic moment,” a development that aligns with Moscow’s vision of closer U.S.-Russia ties promoted after the 2025 Trump-Putin summit in Anchorage.

    Further eroding trust are unconfirmed allegations that the Trump administration has restricted intelligence sharing with Kyiv and limited Ukraine’s access to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet service, both critical tools for Ukraine’s defense against Russian drone and missile attacks. Zelensky told NBC News that for three days amid a wave of Russian ballistic attacks, Ukraine received no advance warning from U.S. satellite intelligence. On October 12, five Russian S-400 missiles hit central Kyiv before air raid sirens or mobile alerts could be activated, according to local reports. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has denied any intentional pause in intelligence sharing, blaming the gap on a temporary “software problem.”

    Similar confusion surrounds Starlink access. Ukrainian officials reported last week that connection speeds have been throttled, leaving military terminals unable to maintain the stable high-speed connections needed to intercept fast-moving Russian jet-powered drones, which have launched an escalating wave of attacks on Ukrainian cities in recent months. Reuters reported that the order to restrict access originated at the White House, but Rubio has denied that any such order was issued. Even so, the repeated emergence of these allegations points to a deep and ongoing breakdown of trust between the two sides.

    This long-running tension has deep roots. For more than a decade, Trump has harbored mistrust toward Ukraine, stemming from his debunked belief that Ukrainian officials interfered in the 2016 U.S. election to prevent him from winning, including the false claim that the Democratic National Committee stored a server on Ukrainian territory. When Zelensky took office in 2019, he resisted Trump’s demands to open investigations into both the 2016 election claims and then-candidate Joe Biden, a refusal that came as Trump was withholding $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine – a scandal that ultimately led to Trump’s first impeachment.

    While it remains unclear whether this historical resentment is shaping current U.S. policy, there is no question that the already volatile U.S.-Ukraine relationship has entered another period of severe strain. Following the Oslo talks, Witkoff is set to carry a new set of Ukrainian proposals to St. Petersburg for talks with Putin, leaving the international community waiting for Moscow’s next move. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, who hosted the talks, said the meeting had helped “to straighten out a few things,” and struck a diplomatic tone, saying “There’s nothing to gain from… digging into what was said yesterday or a week ago.”

    Zelensky struck an optimistic note after the talks, telling reporters he had a productive conversation with Secretary Rubio, that the early warning intelligence issue had already been resolved, and that he expected positive progress on both Patriot missile supplies and Starlink access. “I think we will have good results too,” he said. Even so, behind Zelensky’s carefully calibrated upbeat tone, it is clear that Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump are once again at odds, with the future of critical U.S. support for Ukraine hanging in the balance.