Auditor Calls Louvre Robbery a ‘Resounding Wake-Up Call’ for Security

November 7, 2025

France intensifies hunt for Louvre thieves — The world-famous art museum remained closed following Sunday's robbery

When the Louvre’s Silence Was Broken: A Daylight Heist and a Museum’s Reckoning

On an ordinary Wednesday in Paris, beneath the glass pyramid and the soft buzz of camera shutters, four thieves walked through a gap in the city’s sense of invulnerability and out again carrying a piece of France’s crown. The jewels they took were not just gemstones; they were symbols—heirlooms of history, spectacle and national identity—valued at around €88 million. The brazen daylight robbery did more than empty a display case. It punctured a myth: that the world’s most-visited museum is an unassailable fortress.

Standing where visitors queue for entry, you can still hear the murmur of Mandarin, Spanish and French. You can smell espresso from a corner cafe and the warm varnish of frames. That is the Louvre’s great magic: it seduces six continents into a single foyer. Yet the audit released this week by France’s Cour des Comptes lays bare how fragile that magic has become—an institution of astonishing cultural and financial heft that has nonetheless let decades of security upgrades drift into the slow lane.

A deafening wake-up call

Pierre Moscovici, who heads the audit court, did not mince words: the robbery is a “deafening wake-up call.” His office’s report reads like a dossier on missed opportunities. A security audit launched in 2015 concluded the museum was insufficiently monitored and not ready for a crisis. Yet more than a decade after that initial warning, the Louvre still had cameras in just 39% of its rooms as of 2024. Major upgrades that might have changed the outcome were only tendered at the end of last year, with completion pushed out to 2032.

Those are jaw-dropping timelines when you picture priceless gems leaving the building before any effective system had time to stop them. Investigators have charged four suspects in the case, but the jewels themselves remain missing—testimony, if you needed it, to the gap between theatrical headlines and operational reality.

What the audit found

The Cour des Comptes’ analysis is both detailed and unflinching. It points to several structural issues that widened the museum’s vulnerability: decades of upgrades deferred, an overzealous acquisition policy that swallowed funds, and a wave of post-pandemic projects that stretched resources thin.

Only about a quarter of the museum’s vast holdings are on public display, yet acquisition spending has been heavy.
Investment in digital and information systems has been labelled “chronically underfunded,” undermining internal controls.
Some recent development projects were launched without thorough technical or financial feasibility studies.

The audit includes ten recommendations: slow down acquisitions, consider higher ticket prices, overhaul governance, beef up IT infrastructure, and strengthen internal control. It’s a strategic reset, but one that requires will as much as money.

Voices from the galleries

“I’ve worked in this wing for 12 years,” said an experienced tour guide who asked not to be named. “We always felt safe—until that day. After the heist, the chatter among staff is different. It’s not just about installations or lines anymore; it’s about whether we can keep the art safe when people come to see it.”

Outside, near the Tuileries Garden, a retiree named Jean—who comes every Sunday to sit and watch people—shook his head. “People think Paris is romantic and museums are sacred,” he said. “But security is like the roots of a tree. You don’t see them until a storm pulls the tree up.”

Security experts contacted for this piece pointed to a global pattern: museums everywhere are balancing accessibility against protection. “The pandemic changed everything,” said Dr. Anna Keller, a museum security consultant who has advised institutions across Europe. “Many places redirected funds to survive. Now, as visitors return, gaps in systems are exposed. The Louvre’s situation is extreme, but it’s not unique.”

Local color and the human geography of risk

Walk the streets around the Louvre and you feel the city’s paradox. Luxury boutiques and cheese shops, buskers tuning accordions—life goes on. Yet planners are talking about anti-vehicle barriers on nearby public roads, new anti-intrusion devices and discreet physical measures that will make the plaza less porous without stripping it of its atmosphere.

That balance is a cultural question as much as a logistical one. How do you fortify a place that has to remain open to the world? How do you secure a painting that is, literally, the Mona Lisa—whose own display has been a study in protective theater since the 20th century?

Beyond glass and cameras: the broader stakes

This theft and the audit that followed force us to ask larger questions. Museums are custodians of national memory, yes, but they are also living businesses, employers, tourist magnets and nodes in a global trade of culture. When one of the planet’s most famous institutions is exposed as underprepared, the ripple effects go far beyond Paris. Insurance premiums for exhibitions rise. Lenders become more cautious about loans of fragile works. Smaller institutions watch and worry: if the Louvre can be hit, who is next?

There’s also a socio-political dimension. The report argues for higher ticket prices and fewer acquisitions—both fraught recommendations. Raising prices could finance improved safeguards, but it risks excluding audiences who rely on affordable access. Slowing acquisitions might pare down the museum’s growth, but at what cost to cultural enrichment and scholarly work?

What needs to happen next

The audit’s message is clear: the money is there, according to authorities, but the Louvre must move faster and smarter. Here are the priorities the report and experts converge on:

Accelerate the security upgrade schedule and complete installations well before 2032 where possible.
Invest in information systems and internal controls to modernize monitoring and incident response.
Reassess acquisitions and budget allocations, with transparent public discussion about priorities.
Design access and protection measures that preserve the visitor experience while strengthening safety.

Culture Minister Rachida Dati has signaled urgency, and Laurence des Cars, the Louvre’s director, has said she supports most of the recommendations while defending the museum’s long-term transformation plan. Moscovici’s parting note was a push: the institution must “do so without fail.”

What will we accept in the name of safeguarding culture?

As readers around the globe, what are we willing to trade for security? More barriers and higher prices? Fewer new acquisitions and a slower rhythm of cultural exchange? These are not simply administrative questions; they are choices about access, equity and the future of memory itself.

When you next stand in front of a masterpiece—whether in Paris, Lagos, Tokyo or Buenos Aires—think for a moment of the invisible scaffolding that holds it there: funding lines, staff shifts, server rooms, emergency plans. The jewels that left the Louvre that day are more than a headline. They are a mirror reflecting the brittle fault lines beneath institutions we assume will always be there.

And so the Louvre’s silence, briefly broken, may have done us a service. It revealed a truth many of us preferred not to see. Now we must decide how loudly we are willing to respond.

Formerly united on climate policy, US and China now at odds

hanad

November 7, 2025

US and China were once united on climate, no longer — The US and China are among the biggest polluters on the planet

The Sauna at the Door: How Two Superpowers Are Rewriting the Climate Story

Step outside the conference centre in Belém and the air hits you like a warm bath—thick, green, and impossibly humid. The city hangs under a ceiling of clouds and the buzz of insects. Vendors call out in Portuguese; a street cook flips tapioca on a hot griddle. This is the Amazon on a November afternoon, and the heat is doing more than making delegates sweat. It’s reminding them why they are here.

A decade ago, in a cavernous hall in Beijing, two leaders stood shoulder to shoulder and made history. Back then, Barack Obama and Xi Jinping issued a joint call to action that helped unlock the Paris Agreement a year later. It was the kind of diplomatic choreography that suggested the worst of the climate fight could—maybe—be handled by the two biggest emitters.

Fast forward ten years, and that coordinated rhythm has splintered. One of those pillars—voice, finance, or policy—has stepped back. The other has leaned in. The result is a world in which climate diplomacy no longer hums along a bipartisan, transatlantic axis but is being rewritten on new, asymmetric terms.

When Giants Diverge

For a long time global climate leadership depended on the tacit duet between Washington and Beijing. Their combined policies, investments and rhetoric shaped markets, bankrolled research, and gave air cover to smaller nations trying to pivot away from coal and oil.

Then came the years of whiplash. The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under President Trump was a headline-grabbing rupture that left many allies shell-shocked. Policies that once nudged the global economy toward renewables were rolled back or openly dismissed. In diplomatic corridors, observers speak candidly about a period when Washington’s tone—skeptical, sometimes hostile—undermined collective momentum.

“It felt like someone had yanked us off the dance floor,” said a veteran climate negotiator from a European delegation. “You can’t get countries to commit if the biggest player treats the whole thing as optional.”

Into that vacuum stepped Beijing. Not overnight—and not without its contradictions—but with a steady, industrial-scale push. China now manufactures more solar panels and wind turbines than any other country, controls much of the global supply chain for lithium-ion batteries and rare earths, and has invested in renewable projects from Southeast Asia to Africa. In recent years Beijing has announced tighter targets, pledged emissions peaking timelines and amplified financing for green infrastructure.

“We are seeing an industrial revolution of a new kind,” a Brazilian climate negotiator told me, wiping sweat from his brow. “You can smell it in the factories—hot metal, transformer oil, and the ozone of machines working on the next generation of turbines.”

On the Ground: People Feeling the Shift

What does this geopolitical shift look like for people on the front lines?

Outside the conference, in a market a few blocks away, an Amazonian fishmonger named Rosa leaned on her crate and said, “The river has changed. Fish are showing up at different times. The seasons used to be our calendar—now we guess.” Her concern is less about strategy than survival; who will fund mangrove restoration, or the small irrigation schemes that keep crops alive during erratic rains?

On a remote Pacific island, a minister—who asked to speak through a translator—put it more bluntly. “We do not have the luxury of waiting for geopolitics to be sorted. Our islands are drowning while capitals debate bravado.”

These are the voices that stress the moral stakes. Small island states and low-lying coastal communities are losing time—literally—every year the global response stagnates.

Numbers That Don’t Bargain

The stakes are not just poetic; they are numeric and unforgiving. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry hover around 36 billion tonnes per year according to the Global Carbon Project and the International Energy Agency—numbers that allow no room for complacency. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have crossed thresholds not seen in millions of years. And the climate’s tail risks—rapid ice melt, methane releases from thawing permafrost—remain existentially costly and poorly understood.

Renewable energy deployment has accelerated, but unevenly. In many places, solar and wind are now the cheapest sources of new electricity generation; yet the transition is hampered by supply-chain geopolitics, financing gaps and the enormous demand for minerals—lithium, cobalt, nickel—needed for the green tech revolution.

“We used to speak in tons of oil. Now we talk in tons of nickel,’’ said a supply-chain analyst in São Paulo. “Whoever controls these minerals will inherit a lot of leverage.”

Petrostate vs. Electrostate: A New Geopolitics

Observers increasingly frame the geopolitical contest as “petrostate versus electrostate.” Countries that have prospered on fossil-fuel rents find themselves squeezed between short-term revenues and long-term decline. Countries that master renewable manufacturing and mineral processing stand to shape the rules of tomorrow’s energy economy.

“It isn’t just about good will,” said an academic who studies energy transitions. “It’s about factory floors, mining laws, ports and shipping lanes. It’s about which companies get the contracts to build the grids of the future.”

And yet, this competition raises uncomfortable questions. Who pays the social cost of transition in coal towns and oil-dependent economies? How do countries avoid swapping one form of dependency—on fossil-fuel buyers—for another—on foreign financiers and industrial giants who control critical technologies?

Belém’s Reminder and the Road Ahead

At COP30 in Brazil, the rainforest’s edge offers a visceral lesson. Delegates step into the moist air and are confronted by the material stakes of inaction: forests that sequester carbon, rivers that feed millions, communities whose traditional knowledge is keyed to seasonal rhythms. The Amazon’s presence is both warning and resource; how the world treats the basin will reverberate for decades.

“We don’t need speeches that sound good in New York or Beijing,” one Indigenous leader told a packed break-out session. “We need money for protection, respect for our territories and real partnerships.”

Questions Worth Asking

As readers, as citizens, what should we hold our leaders to? How do we balance geopolitical competition with the urgent need for collaboration? Can industrial policy be married to climate justice so that the green transition benefits workers and vulnerable communities, not just shareholders?

These are not rhetorical niceties. They are the hard politics of financing, procurement and diplomacy that will determine whether the next decade is one of managed decline—or managed recovery.

The story unfolding in Belém is not a simple binary of good versus bad actors. It is a messy, human drama of national interests, moral claims, industrial ambitions and ecological limits. It calls for imagination, pressure and the kind of solidarity that remembers the fisherman in Rosa’s market and the minister in the Pacific as equally central to the plot.

So when you hear the soundbites and the polemics, remember to ask: who is there, and who is missing? Who is paying, and who is profiting? The answers will shape not just the outcome of one summit, but the contours of the century.

Israel Conducts Airstrikes on Hezbollah Targets in Lebanon’s South

hanad

November 7, 2025

Israel launches strikes on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon — Smoke billows from the area following Israeli attacks on the town of Tayr Dibba in the southern Lebanese province of Tyre, Lebanon

Smoke Over the Olive Groves: How a Single Evacuation Order Reopened Old Wounds in South Lebanon

On a hot afternoon in southern Lebanon, a message on a smartphone changed everything. A map. Three red dots. A command to leave. By the time the smoke began to curl into the cerulean sky, families had already begun folding mattresses, stuffing small suitcases with bread and photos, and shepherding children and the elderly down narrow lanes toward the safety of the main road.

The Israeli military posted evacuation notices on the social platform X at 3pm local time, identifying three buildings in Aita al-Jabal, Al-Tayyiba and Tayr Debba and ordering residents to stay at least 500 metres away. An hour later, aircraft struck. Thick, black plumes rose above the villages; the smell of burned wood and diesel drifted through the air. Lebanon’s civil defence poured into the lanes, helping people onto buses and into cars. Health authorities had not yet tallied the full toll by evening; the ministry had earlier confirmed that separate strikes that day killed one person.

On the Ground: Small Actions, Big Fear

“I grabbed my mother’s scarf and my son’s shoes,” said Fadi, a shopkeeper from Tayr Debba, standing where his grocery was once painted blue. “We left everything else. You can rebuild a shop, but not a body.” His voice was flat; the kind that comes when someone has rehearsed shock until it becomes routine.

A volunteer with the civil defence, Amal, described the evacuation as efficient but wrenching. “We moved entire households in less than an hour,” she said. “Old women, toddlers, the dog. People thanked us, but I saw a man return to pick up his grandfather’s cane and cry like a child.” Her hands were still smudged with soot.

Residents here speak of a repeated humiliation: to be told to flee, to watch dust fill the air where their olive trees had stood for generations, then to return home to count what’s left. The villages named in the notification sit along the contours of the Blue Line—the United Nations-drawn boundary that has long been a seam of tension—and their terraces and citrus groves breathe a different kind of life and fear into the landscape.

Voices from the Capital and the Border

In Jerusalem, government spokesperson Shosh Bedrosian told reporters that Israel would “continue to defend all of its borders” and pressed for strict enforcement of the ceasefire agreed a year earlier. “We will not allow Hezbollah to rearm and rebuild the capabilities that were reduced in 2023–24,” she said, summarising the security rationale driving these limited yet dramatic strikes.

Hezbollah, for its part, reiterated its public commitment to the ceasefire while cautioning that it retains a “legitimate right” to resist. Since the truce came into force roughly a year ago, the group has largely refrained from cross-border fire, even as the Lebanese army has spent months conducting operations to clear suspected arms depots from the south—a process that Lebanon’s cabinet was reviewing the same afternoon an army commander, Rodolphe Haykal, updated ministers on the progress.

“We are trying to restore state authority in areas where non-state holdings were found,” a Lebanese official said anonymously. “It’s messy. You cannot untie a knot without pulling at threads that go far up the political rope.”

Why the Evacuation—Why Now?

Why did Israel single out these buildings with an evacuation flag before striking? Officials argue the warnings are an effort to reduce civilian casualties while hitting military targets. Avichay Adraee, who frequently posts operational notices, shared maps and guidance to the public, underscoring that these were specific, calibrated actions, not the indiscriminate bombardments of past years.

But context is everything. The ceasefire that stilled a more than yearlong round of fighting in 2023–24 left deep wounds: human losses measured in the thousands—the death toll in Lebanon’s recent cross-border violence and wartime scores passed an estimated 4,000 people—and landscapes disrupted, economies drained, and lines of political authority blurred. New strikes, even when limited, risk undoing fragile gains. They also test how much trust remains in the mechanisms meant to enforce the truce—UNIFIL patrols, bilateral understandings, and the Lebanese army’s own efforts to assert control.

At the Edge of Escalation

Observers say these kinds of operations live in an uncomfortable middle ground: precise enough to send a message, ambiguous enough to invite miscalculation. “What we see is a contest over thresholds,” explained Dr. Lina Hashim, a Beirut-based analyst who studies militias and state capacity. “Israel wants to prevent rearmament. Hezbollah wants to preserve deterrence. The Lebanese state is trying, often precariously, to exercise authority. Each action rests on assumptions about how the other side will respond.”

Those assumptions matter. In conflicts marked by asymmetry—state militaries versus well-armed non-state actors—operations that aim to be targeted can still collide with civilian life. Evacuations mitigate harm, yes, but they also underscore the tenuous line between securing a border and perpetuating displacement.

What This Means for People—and for the Region

For the towns along the southern strip, life is a series of contingency plans: when to close a shop, where to store elder family members, how to secure documents and livestock. For fishermen in Tyre, whose boats skim the same Mediterranean that has fed families for generations, each flare of conflict shrinks a workspace that was never abundant to begin with.

“We are tired of being part of someone else’s argument,” said Layla, a schoolteacher who fled for a second time this month. “There are children in my classroom who ask me if the sky will fall. How do you tell a child the world is safe when the sky keeps sending messages otherwise?”

Beyond the borders of Lebanon and Israel, the incident reverberates through regional diplomacy. Iran’s influence over Hezbollah, the United States’ security commitments to Israel, and the European Union’s interest in Mediterranean stability all converge when calm frays. The international community’s ability to enforce ceasefires, fund reconstruction, and back political solutions is being tested anew.

Paths Forward: Enforcement, Empathy, and the Hard Work of Rebuilding Trust

No easy fix exists. Greater transparency around military targets, stronger mechanisms for civilian protection, and sustained diplomatic pressure to keep channels open could lower the temperature. So could a bolder approach to the southern border—one that supports the Lebanese state in exercising legitimate, accountable control while shielding civilians from the ripple effects of security operations.

But technical solutions aren’t enough. People here want dignity: jobs, schools that don’t shutter with every siren, and the ability to harvest olives without fear. They want their leaders to prove that the state can protect them without turning their towns into battlefields by proxy.

As night settled on the villages, small generators hummed in living rooms turned into temporary shelters. Children colored in the margins of hastily distributed notebooks. Neighbours shared nuts and tea. Against a backdrop of geopolitical chess, ordinary lives quietly insisted on moving forward.

What would you do if a map told you to leave your home for an hour, a day, or forever? In moments like these, the question is not only tactical. It is moral. And until the region addresses both the ammunition and the anxieties that fuel it, the smoke will keep returning to the same sky.

Israel Designates Egypt Border Region as Restricted Military Zone

hanad

November 6, 2025

Israel declares Egypt border area a closed military zone — Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said the move is being made to combat weapons smuggling via drones

At the border and at the grave: how drones and a returned body expose the human and strategic toll of a drawn-out conflict

The desert air along Israel’s southern frontier had a different texture this week — not only the hot, dusty stillness of Sinai-adjacent terrain, but the taut, watchful quiet that comes when a line on a map becomes a flashpoint.

In a terse public notice, Israel’s defence minister announced that the strip of land abutting the border with Egypt would be designated a closed military zone. The stated reason: to clamp down on an increasingly dangerous trend — the use of remotely piloted aircraft to ferry weapons and other materiel toward Gaza.

“We cannot allow the sky to be another front,” said one senior defence official I spoke with on condition of anonymity. “Drones change the geometry of smuggling; they skirt barriers and sanctions. You either adapt, or you leave a gap that will be exploited.”

This is more than a tactical adjustment. It is a small, sharp ripple in a much larger pattern: modern conflicts are being reshaped by technology that can be bought online, piloted from a nearby ridge, or launched from a road under cover of night. Border closures and tighter rules of engagement are familiar refrains — but the mood here has a new edge. Farmers who have raised crops and livestock along this corridor for generations now watch the horizon with binoculars and the knowledge that a buzzing shadow could mean weapon components three meters long, bound for someone else’s fight.

One returned body, many stories

Meanwhile, amid the strategic chess moves and the sterile language of defence communiqués, there was a moment that could not be reduced to policy — the return of remains. The body of a young man, far from home in life and in death, was repatriated. His name: Joshua Loitu Mollel, a 21‑year‑old Tanzanian student who had come to Israel on an agricultural internship program and was killed in the violence of 7 October 2023.

Grief needs a place to land. For Joshua’s family in Tanzania, for friends in the kibbutzim and host communities where he worked the land, and for a broader circle of people tracking the long human ledger of this war, the return of his remains was both a merciful closure and a renewed puncture of pain.

“They told us he was found,” a family friend told me over the phone, voice breaking with a mixture of relief and sorrow. “We cannot dig him up again. But we need to bury him, to speak his name in the right place.”

According to statements from Israeli authorities, Joshua’s remains were one of 22 sets returned since a ceasefire took effect in early October — a truce that, at the outset, left 48 people unaccounted for as hostages: 20 alive and 28 deceased, officials say.

The returned bodies include citizens of multiple nationalities: 19 Israeli, one Thai, one Nepali, and Joshua himself. Small details — a jacket button, a shard of a wristwatch — become the somber tokens of identification work that is both forensic and deeply human. “Following identification processes, the ministry informed the family,” the Prime Minister’s office said in a formal notice, underlining both the bureaucratic and intimate sides of what such returns entail.

The human ledger

Numbers matter — they are how governments plan and negotiate — but they cannot fully capture the texture of loss. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, an advocacy group that has been a constant presence at family briefings and at public protests, said Joshua’s return “offers some comfort” to relatives who have lived with unbearable uncertainty for more than two years.

“Comfort is not the same as healing,” said Dr. Miriam Halawi, a psychologist who works with families of missing persons. “What families want — and deserve — is truth: how, why, and by whom. Without that, grief can calcify into anger that never really leaves.”

Walking through a cemetery outside Jerusalem last week, I watched a line of mourners — some in long coats, some in sandals sun-darkened from fieldwork — follow a simple casket to the ground. People spoke about Joshua as if filling in a life: the way he laughed while harvesting olives, his plans to send money home to support younger siblings, a joke about the stubbornness of Israeli goats. Small, quotidian recollections make the absence almost unbearably real.

From tunnels to propellers: how smuggling is evolving

For years, the archetype of illicit supply into Gaza was subterranean: tunnels, burrowed under the border, complex networks that drew global attention and military responses. Today, the sky is another artery.

“Drones are cheaper and faster than tunnels,” said Avi Ben-Zion, a security analyst who studies non-state actors’ procurement methods. “You can launch a quadcopter, fly it 10–20 kilometers, drop a payload and be gone. That means a lot of small-scale deliveries, less predictable than the bulk shipments that tunnels used to provide.”

That unpredictability fuels policy shifts. Declaring a closed military zone is practical: it gives forces latitude to engage, to intercept, and to police movements. But it also affects ordinary lives. Traders, shepherds, day laborers find their movements restricted; checkpoints move; farmers can’t reach fields during critical harvest moments. The ripple effects of a security measure are always social as well as strategic.

What does this tell us about the wider war?

If there is a through-line running from the drone incidents to Joshua’s burial, it’s this: modern conflict continually complicates the boundary between civilians and combatants. Young foreign interns gathering in agricultural greenhouses can become collateral in a broader geopolitical maelstrom. The tools of war — drones, tunnels, rockets — evolve; the human consequences do not.

Consider these questions: How should the international community balance pressure for security with the rights and livelihoods of border communities? How do families obtain answers when the fog of war obscures both motive and method? And how do we, as observers and citizens of a crowded planet, keep compassion at the center of discussions that otherwise default to numbers and strategies?

These are not just policy debates. They are weekly, daily realities for people like Joshua’s family, for the farmers whose fields now fall within a closed military zone, and for soldiers who must make split-second decisions that will shape other people’s lives forever.

After the return

In the small Tanzanian village where Joshua grew up, neighbors have already begun to plant a tree in his memory — a ritual older than modern borders. Back in Israel, those who knew him walk a little more carefully through places that once held laughter. The official announcements and tactical briefs will continue, as they must. The funerals will end. But the traces of a life, and the questions about how it was cut short, persist.

If you are reading this from hundreds or thousands of miles away, take a moment to imagine a name and a neighborhood and a single returned body — and ask what it reveals about the strange new contours of conflict in the 21st century. We talk a lot about deterrence and capability. Maybe we should talk a little more about dignity, closure, and the small rituals that stitch human beings back together after violence tears them apart.

Key figures: 22 sets of remains returned since the ceasefire took effect in October; 48 hostages held at the truce’s start — 20 alive, 28 deceased.
Nationalities among returned bodies include Israeli, Thai, Nepali and Tanzanian.
Policy response: a closed military zone declared along the Israel-Egypt border to combat drone-borne smuggling.

What would you prioritize if you were making policy in this moment — security, humanitarian access, transparent investigations, or community livelihoods? The answer, of course, is not simple. But the real work of peace and accountability begins when we refuse to let numbers eclipse names.

Pelosi, first woman to lead House as Speaker, announces retirement

hanad

November 6, 2025

Pelosi, first woman to serve as House speaker, to retire — Nancy Pelosi's announcement ends a four-decade career, she was first elected in 1987

The Last Stiletto: Nancy Pelosi Steps Back and Leaves a Shifting Capitol

There are images that lodge in a city’s bones—Ghirardelli chocolate windows on a foggy afternoon, the strollered sweep of Pacific Heights, the steady clack of heels through the marble corridors of power. For nearly four decades, Nancy Pelosi carried those images between two worlds: the neighborhoods of San Francisco and the mazelike halls of the United States Capitol. Today, she announced she will not run for re-election in 2026, and with that a long, incandescent chapter of American politics begins to close.

The announcement feels like the end of a long, complicated novel. Not because Pelosi was ever predictable—she was not—but because she became a living repository of modern congressional history: a voice for progressive causes, an unflinching tactician at the dais, a target for ferocious partisan anger. “She’s the personification of a certain kind of American political life: relentless, fiercely loyal to institutions, and utterly aware that power can be used to protect vulnerable people,” said a longtime Washington correspondent who has covered Congress for three decades.

From Neighborhood Meetings to National Stage

Pelosi’s political career began in local Democratic circles in San Francisco. She won her first congressional seat in 1987 and, in doing so, began a trajectory that would make her the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House. Over 20 terms—an era spanning Orleans-length fights over budgets, wars, social policy, and the very character of American democracy—she became synonymous with a particular brand of pragmatic liberalism and institutional mastery.

Her tenure included two stints as Speaker, from 2007 to 2011 and again from 2019 to 2023. She shepherded major legislation across the finish line, most notably the Affordable Care Act in 2010—an achievement she has often described as the proudest of her career. “Healthcare became our big issue and that will be the biggest thing that I’ve ever done in Congress,” she said in a 2022 reflection that captured how legislation and moral purpose were intertwined for her.

Icon of Strategy, Flirtation with Infamy

Pelosi’s time in power was never without its theatrical moments. Many will remember the 2020 State of the Union scene—an icy handshake withheld by then-President Donald Trump, followed by Pelosi dramatically tearing up a printed copy of his speech. “Every page contained a lie,” she later said, and the image became a shorthand for a country arguing over truth, leadership, and mutual contempt.

She used the gavel to take on Trump directly, overseeing two House impeachments—one in 2019 and another after the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Both efforts underscored Pelosi’s belief that the House held a duty to test presidential power against the law. Senate acquittals frustrated Democrats, but they did not dim Pelosi’s conviction that institutions mattered and must be defended, even at political cost.

San Francisco’s Daughter: Personal Stories and Local Color

Walk around Pelosi’s San Francisco and you’ll hear as many hearty recollections as pointed critiques. “She’s our matriarch,” said a woman selling steamed crab near Fisherman’s Wharf. “She remembers people’s kids. She loves her city, and she never pretended it was anything but messy.” Another neighbor in Pacific Heights laughed while recounting Pelosi’s famously idiosyncratic diet—hot dogs for lunch, a streak of Ghirardelli chocolate, an ice-cream-topped breakfast. “She’s human,” the neighbor said. “And for a long time, she made Washington feel human, too.”

The personal stakes of politics brushed her household with violence in 2022, when an intruder attacked her husband, Paul Pelosi, in their home. The assault—motivated by a right-wing conspiracy theory—left a family reeling and the nation asking how political vitriol can spill into the streets and living rooms of its leaders.

Generational Tensions and the Democratic Family

Pelosi’s departure arrives amid a generational tug-of-war inside the Democratic Party. Younger lawmakers have long chafed at what they see as an aging leadership slow to pivot to new priorities and new faces. That dissatisfaction boiled into public moments of frustration—most starkly during the fraught 2024 campaign season when an elder president faltered on the national stage and those elders were pressed to make room for the future.

“We need institutional memory, but we also need room for fresh voices,” said a young progressive organizer in Sacramento. “Pelosi made space in ways she could, but there will always be a tension when power accumulates.”

Hakeem Jeffries has stepped into Pelosi’s former leadership role in the House, and the party’s gaze is increasingly fixed on a roster of younger figures. The House has 435 seats; each will be fought for in a climate polarized by gerrymandering, redistricting, and razor-thin margins. In California, a recent ballot measure—Proposition 50—sought to redraw lines with the aim of flipping several seats back to Democrats, a move framed by state leaders as a response to aggressive redistricting elsewhere, particularly in Texas.

Numbers That Matter

Some facts ground the theater of politics: the House remains 435 members, the Speaker stands second in the presidential line of succession, and money matters—Pelosi was known as a prodigious fundraiser. “I had to raise like a million dollars a day,” she once quipped, and at many moments she did, banking committee seats and campaign war chests that kept the Democratic apparatus running.

What Her Exit Means—Locally and Globally

Pelosi’s retirement is not merely a domestic reshuffling; it resonates globally. She was a frequent interlocutor with foreign leaders, a staunch defender of human rights, and a high-profile critic of authoritarian figures. Her voice anchored U.S. congressional diplomacy at a time when allies and rivals alike calculated how American political flux would affect trade, security, and democratic norms.

“When Nancy spoke, foreign leaders listened,” said a former diplomat who worked closely with congressional delegations. “She embodied continuity in an era of discontinuity.”

But the world is evolving. Populist movements, the fragility of democratic institutions, and the accelerating pace of media and technology mean that the next leaders will likely have a different temperament—less reverence for process, perhaps, and more appetite for speed and spectacle.

Looking Ahead

As she walks away from the Capitol, the question is not only who will replace Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco’s seat or in the House leadership—but what kind of party and what kind of country her departure will help produce. Will Democrats use this moment to renew, to invest in mentorship and generational succession? Or will the churn accelerate fragmentation, as factions compete for the soul of a movement?

“She taught generations how to play the long game,” said a veteran labor organizer. “Now it’s up to the next generation to decide whether they will play long, too.”

Readers might ask themselves: what do we want our institutions to look like when seasoned hands step down? How do we balance reverence for experience with hunger for renewal? Pelosi’s exit is an invitation to that civic conversation, and for as long as the Capitol bells toll, the answers will shape more than just leadership charts—they will shape the country’s future.

Key facts: Pelosi first elected 1987; served as Speaker 2007–2011 and 2019–2023; House has 435 members; Speaker is second in line to the presidency.
Local color: San Francisco staples—Ghirardelli chocolate, Pacific Heights lanes, hot-dog lunches—thread her public persona.
Wider stakes: generational turnover, partisan polarization, and the international reverberations of U.S. congressional leadership.

Pelosi’s story is not simply one of power accrued and relinquished. It is a study in how politics wears on people, how institutions end up bearing both scars and lamps, and how a single figure can be loved, loathed, feared, and relied upon—often all at once. As the city fog rolls in and the stiletto clicks grow quieter, a nation watches the slow, messy work of renewal begin.

Putin Weighs Restarting Nuclear Tests After Trump’s Recent Remarks

hanad

November 6, 2025

Putin mulls resuming nuclear tests after Trump comments — Russia has not conducted a nuclear test since 1990, the year before the collapse of the USSR

When the Arctic Holds Its Breath: A Return of Nuclear Testing to the World’s Coldest Stage?

There is a strange poetry to Novaya Zemlya in winter: a string of islands at the top of the globe where the sky and sea meet in a long, bone-white horizon, and where the wind sounds like memory. For decades, the archipelago’s frozen plateau has been a silent witness to the worst of human invention — the thunder of explosions that once reshaped geopolitics and scarred the land. Now, after a volley of words on social media and a Kremlin security meeting, the specter of nuclear testing has slipped back into international conversation.

Last week, a terse message from Washington set off alarms in Moscow. Reported comments from the US president urging the Pentagon to “start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis” with other powers triggered an immediate response: Russian President Vladimir Putin convened a security council session and ordered defence and foreign officials, along with security services, to collect information and draft plans “on the possible start of preparation works for nuclear weapons tests.”

Not quite thunder — yet

To be clear: neither Moscow nor Washington has announced an intention to detonate a nuclear device tomorrow on some windswept island. But in international affairs, talk is rarely idle. Words can prod machinery into motion — procurement, test-prep, a policy shift — and each step nudges the equilibrium of fear and restraint.

“We have not seen a public move to resume explosions,” said a retired arms-control official who served in negotiations with Moscow during the 1990s. “But when a leader says ‘prepare,’ it sends a message down the chain of command: look at capabilities, plan contingencies, dust off dormant sites.”

History’s footprint on the tundra

Novaya Zemlya is not a random suggestion. It was the site of some of the Soviet Union’s most infamous tests, including weapons that left behind a complicated legacy: resettled indigenous communities, long-term environmental contamination, and an archive of technical know-how. Russia’s last nuclear test, by most accounts, was in 1990 — the year before the USSR dissolved. The United States’ last full-scale underground test dates to the early 1990s as well. Aside from North Korea’s series of detonations in the 21st century, no state has conducted an atomic bomb explosion since then.

That pause has not erased the instruments of power. Strategic arsenals have been modernised rather than rested — new delivery systems, more accurate warheads, and renewed investments in command-and-control. The treaty architecture that once constrained tests has frayed: the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was opened for signature in 1996 but never entered into force, leaving a legal vacuum that politicians can exploit.

Voices from the edges

On the edge of the Arctic, the story is not abstract. “When the ground shook here, we lost reindeer and seasons for years,” said an elder from a northern community who remembered tales passed down of old blasts and forced relocations. “The sky would turn yellow. You are young and thinking about power — we remember the cost.”

A scientist who has studied Arctic contamination described the lingering traces with quiet urgency. “Cesium and strontium don’t vanish overnight,” she said. “Even if tests are underground, the human, social, and ecological aftermath echoes for generations.”

And in Moscow, a defence analyst offered a different register: “This is about bargaining power. Russia cannot be seen to unilaterally disarm its options if other states are signaling renewed testing. It’s posture, not immediate precipitation.”

What the numbers and treaties tell us

More than a thousand tests were carried out globally during the Cold War, leaving behind a calculus of deterrence that many strategists still cite. Modern arsenals, while numerically smaller than at the Cold War’s peak, are often more precise and, in some cases, more survivable. New START — the last major bilateral arms control treaty between Washington and Moscow — remains one of the few formal checks, with its current verification tools and limits on deployed strategic warheads lasting into the mid-2020s.

But treaties cannot bear all the weight. The CTBT, despite broad international support in principle, has not entered into force because a handful of states have not ratified it. That institutional gap means that the legal and normative cost of resuming tests is uncertain—some states would decry it, others would frame it as parity, and still others would seize the moment to expand their influence.

Why should anyone outside Moscow or Washington care?

Because the impulse to test is more than technical. It is a rehearsal of power that changes political incentives everywhere. If one nuclear-armed state resumes testing, others face a painful choice: follow, accept decreased deterrent margins, or step back diplomatically while relying on extended deterrence. Allies feel tremors too. NATO members watch for ripples that could alter their security assurances. Asian states weigh whether a renewed testing era will accelerate regional arms races.

“If testing returns to the lexicon of policy, we risk opening a door to arms competition at a time when global resources are being stretched by climate, pandemics, and economic strain,” said an international-relations scholar. “This is not simply an old feud being replayed; it’s a choice about priorities in a fragile world.”

Between fear and foresight

So what does restraint look like? For some leaders, it is the steady work of diplomacy and verification: investing in monitoring networks, renewing dialogue, and strengthening treaties. For others, it is the quiet maintenance of conventional and nuclear arsenals, hedging against worst-case scenarios. The danger arrives when rhetoric outpaces reality and rhetoric becomes policy.

“Words can be a test too,” an expert on strategic communications observed. “If a leader signals capacity and intent, adversaries respond — sometimes with missiles, sometimes with treaties, sometimes with words of their own. The best outcome is a cooling-off and credible steps back towards arms control. The worst is a scramble that normalizes explosions as policy tools.”

What I left the Arctic thinking

Walking along a ridge of black rock in the late light, I felt the weight of the past and the uncertainty of the present. The land remembers in ways governments do not. If the world edges back towards testing, it won’t just be numbers in a ledger or a shift in budgets; it will be a change in how nations choose to speak — and to resist speaking — to each other.

So I ask you: if the oldest, loudest instruments of power come back into play, what do we lose besides quiet? What wills and institutions must be strengthened now so that testing remains an idea, not a policy? The choices made in the corridors of power will ripple all the way to the white horizon of the Arctic, where people still remember the thunder and the nights the sky turned strange. History isn’t a script to be repeated; it’s a ledger of consequences. How much are we willing to write on it?

Israel confirms recovered hostage remains belong to a soldier

hanad

November 6, 2025

Israel says returned hostage remains are those of soldier — Itay Chen was killed during the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel and his body was brought to Gaza

The Return: A Son Comes Home from a War That Never Should Have Been

They brought him back in the quiet hours between dusk and dawn, when the world’s distant roar softens and the weight of grief becomes almost audible. For the Chen family, a new kind of silence descended — one that carried the contours of a life lost and the relief of finally having something to bury.

On a cool evening, Israeli authorities confirmed what the family had been bracing for: the remains handed over the day before by Hamas belonged to Staff Sergeant Itay Chen, a dual Israeli-American soldier seized during the October 7, 2023 attacks that ignited the Gaza war. The 19‑year‑old was a combat soldier in the 77th Battalion of the 7th Brigade, posted at the border when militants attacked. He was one of dozens of hostages whose fates have haunted both sides for years.

A Family’s Long Vigil

“We feel the support of the entire nation, the people are behind us and want to see all the hostages returned,” said Ruby Chen, Itay’s father, in the days before the handover. “I hope the prime minister and the chief of staff understand this too — seize the opportunity to finish this mission.”

His mother, Hagit, captured the same unbearable mix of pain and purpose: “I will not be able to take a single step forward in my life without Itay’s return,” she had told reporters. “Even when we break down, which happens every day, I remind myself that we have not finished our mission.”

These words are raw and ordinary — the language of parents who have lived with the impossible for more than two years. Their son’s last sign of life came on the day the attack began, a final contact that became a talisman for them. The Israeli military announced in March 2024 that Itay had died in combat and that his body had been taken into Gaza; the formal identification this week transformed a painful possibility into a confirmed loss.

Numbers That Tell a Story

Behind the headline — one more young life returned — is a tableau of slow, bureaucratic and bloody arithmetic. Since a ceasefire came into effect on 10 October (as reported during the truce negotiations), Hamas has handed over the remains of 21 deceased hostages to Israel.

Starting point: 48 hostages in Gaza at the ceasefire’s outset — 20 were alive and 28 were believed deceased.
Survivors: Over the course of the truce, all surviving captives were released.
Deceased returned: 21 bodies repatriated — 19 Israelis, one Thai national and one Nepali.

These are more than statistics. Each number brackets a family, a neighborhood, a set of rites and remembrances now disrupted by war. They also expose the slow machinery of diplomatic exchanges, where bodies and bargaining chips get entangled with politics and pain.

Where the Remains Came From

Hamas’s armed wing said Itay’s remains were recovered in Shujaiya, a battered neighborhood east of Gaza City, during excavation and search operations inside the so-called “yellow line” — the boundary marking Israeli military positions within Gaza. The group has repeatedly explained that many of the deceased are difficult to recover because bodies lie beneath rubble from intense urban fighting.

“We are working to complete the entire exchange process as soon as possible,” a Hamas spokesman said, stressing the logistical hurdles and the need for equipment and personnel to carry out recovery operations. The group has appealed to mediators and humanitarian organizations — including the Red Cross — for assistance.

On the Ground: Voices from Both Sides

In Khan Younis, where Nasser Hospital has been receiving casualties for months, hospital staff say they have been handling the exchange’s logistical realities alongside a steady stream of patients and the daily dangers of shortages. “We receive bodies, we receive wounded, and we try to provide dignity for everyone,” a medic at Nasser Hospital told a visiting journalist on condition of anonymity. “There are no winners in this for us, only the obligation to treat the living and honor the dead.”

In Israel, the identification process was carried out by the Israel Defense Forces and civil authorities before informing the Chen family. “Following the completion of the identification process, IDF representatives informed the family of the fallen hostage that their loved one has been returned to Israel and positively identified,” said an official bulletin from the prime minister’s office.

Across small towns and the big cities, neighbors and synagogue congregations have gathered to offer condolences, a mosaic of communal rituals — prayers, candle lighting, visits known in Hebrew as “shivah” — that will now be reshaped around Itay’s return. “We always said we would do everything for the families,” said one community member. “But that doesn’t stop your heart from breaking when a child does not come home.”

What This Exchange Reveals

Beyond the immediate tragedy, the repatriation raises broader questions about how modern conflicts handle human remains, hostage diplomacy and the slow, bureaucratic art of closure. In the age of drones, satellite imagery, and relentless news cycles, the most intimate act — a family burying a child — remains stubbornly analog and painfully personal.

Consider the practical obstacles: rubble-filled neighborhoods, ongoing military operations, the negotiation of safe corridors, and the imperative for forensic verification before returns can occur. These are the grim building blocks of so many modern wars, where recovery and reconciliation stretch out long after ceasefires are declared.

And there are political dimensions too. Israel has accused Hamas of delaying returns; Hamas points to operational difficulty and requests for assistance. Mediation by third parties — some diplomatic, some humanitarian — has been essential. In this case, the deal was brokered by the United States, according to official accounts, highlighting the continuing international role in a conflict that touches far beyond a single border.

Questions That Stay with Us

What price is paid by families who live for years without certainty? How does a society reconcile the need for security with the rituals of mourning that require time and tenderness? And in a world where conflicts are increasingly urban and protracted, how can international institutions better support the retrieval of the dead — and the return of the living?

These are questions that outlast any single exchange. For the Chen family, the practicalities now turn to mourning and burial rites — to a fistful of moments where the public recedes and grief becomes private once more.

“We miss him; the pain is unbearable,” Hagit Chen said simply. Those words, unadorned and true, are a reminder that beneath the headlines are families tasked with giving names back to bodies and stories back to lives.

After the Burial

When the funeral concludes, when the last guest has left the house and the shivah candles burn low, the larger tableau of this war will still be there — the negotiations, the rubble, the families waiting for closure. But for a moment, a family will have one point of certainty in a world of ambiguity: a son who came home at last.

And as you read this, elsewhere in Gaza, in an overburdened hospital, or around another kitchen table broken by loss, similar stories unfold. How do we, as a global community, carry them — not only in headlines but in policy, in aid, and in the quiet work of restoring dignity to the dead and care to the living?

Irish prime minister to address COP30 leaders’ summit in Brazil

hanad

November 6, 2025

Taoiseach to address COP30 leaders summit in Brazil — The Taoiseach will confirm that Ireland will achieve its target of a €225m contribution to international climate finance

Belém at Dawn: Where the Heat of the Amazon Meets the Heat of Diplomacy

Morning in Belém arrives not with a whisper but with a chorus: the trawl of market vendors, the hum of diesel boats on the Guajará Bay, the rasp of banners being unfurled along Avenida Presidente Vargas. The air is thick with humidity and the scent of smoke from barbecues selling tacacá and grilled tambaqui. On every corner, blue-and-green COP30 logos flutter against a sky the colour of river silt.

Into that humidity stepped Ireland’s Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, for a two-day official visit to the heart of the Amazon. His mission is plain yet vast in ambition: to speak in the opening plenary, deliver Ireland’s national statement, meet fellow leaders and, with some ceremony and some grit, endorse a plan meant to do what politicians have long promised and rarely delivered—turn large-scale finance into a bulwark for tropical forests.

What’s at Stake in the Shadow of the Canopy

Belém is a fitting stage. The city is the gateway to the Amazon, a place where the global logic of carbon markets, development aid and geopolitics bumps up against indigenous rights, riverside communities and a landscape that has been under relentless pressure for years.

At the centre of COP30’s early days is an idea being championed by Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva: the Tropical Forests Forever Facility. The proposal is simple to state and fiendishly hard to implement. Create a finance vehicle big enough to reward nations that keep rainforests standing and to invest in enforcement, community stewardship, and incentives that make conservation more valuable than conversion to agriculture or mining.

“It’s not charity,” said Dr. Liam O’Connor, a climate finance specialist at Trinity College Dublin. “It’s a re-alignment of global finance so that protecting a rainforest becomes a predictable, bankable outcome. But you can’t have a payout mechanism without ironclad safeguards—indigenous land rights, independent verification, and clear clauses to prevent perverse outcomes.”

Money, Trust, and the Long Slog of Negotiation

The Facility will be a headline: leaders will pose for photographs and sign declarations. The hard work, though, will be in the negotiations—who controls the money, who audits it, how quickly funds flow to local communities, and how to ensure that conservation doesn’t become a cover for displacement or elite capture.

“We need a mechanism that works for small communities who have been protecting these forests for generations,” said Maria Silva, a fisherwoman from a riverside community near Santarém who travelled to Belém to join a civil-society delegation. “If the money goes only to capitals or big corporations, nothing changes on the banks where we live.”

Ireland’s Voice—and Its Complex Record

Taoiseach Martin’s speech will strike a familiar but necessary chord: climate change is not a future risk, it is a present reality. He’s expected to highlight domestic storms—the aftermath of Storm Éowyn is a recent, visceral example—and to remind listeners that extreme weather is now a global rhythm. He will underscore an important point Ireland has made in recent years: the country has cut greenhouse gas emissions even as population rose roughly 50% since the 1990 baseline.

At the same time, Martin will admit the work is unfinished. “There is more to do,” he said ahead of the trip. “The government needs to help citizens make the transition.” He will reiterate a commitment first made at COP26 when Ireland pledged to double its international climate finance contribution to €225 million by 2025—a target the government expects to meet this year.

For a small country, those numbers matter. But they will also be weighed against a larger grievance on the global stage: the $100 billion annual climate finance pledge from rich countries to poorer ones remains a sore point. Developing nations argue that promised funds have been slow to materialise and too often tied up in loans rather than grants—fueling a persistent trust deficit.

People First: Refugees, Rivers and Real Lives

Beyond boardrooms and plenaries, the Taoiseach will visit the UN Refugee Agency’s office in Belém and meet groups supported by the agency. Ireland has provided more than €25.5 million to the agency so far in 2025, funds that help people forced from their homes by conflict, persecution—and increasingly, climate impacts.

“We see displacement in our communities,” said Ana Rodrigues, a coordinator with a local NGO working with riverine families. “Rains that used to come predictably now arrive like a surprise wave. Houses are flooded one year and parched the next. It’s not abstract.”

Those encounters are a reminder that COP30 is not just about national pledges and finance packages. It’s about livelihoods—about the artisan who loses customers when a river changes course, the farmer whose yields drop after a season of drought, the young person who relocates to a city and becomes part of an urban story of climate-driven migration.

Between Ceremony and Substance: The Hard Questions

How will the Tropical Forests Forever Facility be governed? Whose voices will count in decisions? How will payments be measured, and who will verify that forest conservation is happening on the ground and not just on paper? These are the questions negotiators will wrestle with in Belém.

“You need accountability at every step,” said Dr. Sofia Mendes, a Brazilian environmental lawyer. “Without community oversight and legally binding protections for Indigenous territories, money flows can just replicate old patterns of extraction cloaked in green language.”

There’s also the geopolitical angle. COP30 happens as the world’s major emitters navigate frayed relationships. Yet for nations like Ireland, the summit is an opportunity to build momentum: Martin reminded audiences that Ireland will lead EU negotiations at COP31 during its presidency. That is leverage—and responsibility.

Why You Should Care

Why does this matter to a reader in Dublin, Delhi or Dakar? Because what happens in Belém ripples outward. Tropical forests help regulate the global climate, sustain biodiversity, and support millions of livelihoods. Their fate is woven into food prices, migration patterns, and the frequency of extreme weather events.

Ask yourself: do we want conservation to be a moral sentiment or a functioning global strategy? Do we trust markets alone to protect fragile ecosystems, or do we demand systems that center communities, scientific evidence and legal safeguards?

Lessons for the Long Road

COP30 will generate headlines, photo ops and a handful of concrete announcements. But the real test will be whether those announcements turn into durable institutions and transparent flows of money that land where they are needed most.

“Finance is a tool, not a panacea,” Dr. O’Connor said. “If we design it well—mixing grants, incentives for conservation, technical assistance for sustainable livelihoods, and strict accountability—then we have a chance. If we rush, politicize, or privatize it without protections, we squander another decade.”

As the sun slants low over Belém and banners rip once more in the evening wind, the mood is both hopeful and impatient. There is hunger here—literally and politically—for solutions that respect the land and the people who live on it.

Will COP30 be the moment when words meet money in a way that truly protects the Amazon and other tropical forests? Or will it be another chapter in a story of missed opportunities? The answers will be written slowly—in boardrooms, in village councils, in the audit trails of funds—and the world will be watching, from the shade of the canopy to the concrete of capital cities.

1...91011...142 Page 10 of 142