Video: Irish woman saved amid deadly flooding in South Africa

By

-

January 21, 2026

Watch: Irish woman rescued in deadly South Africa floods — Several rivers burst their banks causing widespread flooding.

Night of the River: A Rescue from the Wilds of Kruger

The rain came like a story someone had been telling for years—one that finally decided to spill itself across the land. It was black and steady, the kind of downpour that makes the air heavy and the world shrink to the sound of water on tin.

Kim McNaughton had been learning the rhythms of the bush for months. She was a trainee field guide at a small safari lodge on the Olifants River, near Phalaborwa in South Africa’s Limpopo province—an edge-of-the-world place where hippos bellow at dusk, elephants wander across red dust tracks, and lions’ roars roll like distant thunder through the night.

“We thought it would be another storm,” Kim told me over the phone, her voice still carrying the rawness of someone who’d slept in the open and been hauled out by a helicopter. “By Wednesday night, the river was a wall. We could hear furniture banging inside the lodge. Someone knocked on my door and just said, ‘We have to go—now.’”

When Rivers Become Walls

Across Limpopo, several rivers that normally thread through savanna and mopane woodland swelled and broke their banks. The Olifants, a major tributary of the Limpopo River that traverses the Kruger National Park, rose with astonishing speed, turning roads into rivers and low-lying camps into islands.

Initial escape plans—walking out, driving a jeep—fell apart. A nearby bridge was gone in the night, torn away by the current. Vehicles bogged in mud that felt like concrete. The group of 18 at Kim’s lodge had only what they wore. Survival choices were raw and immediate: the only sensible option was uphill.

“Survival mode just kicked in,” Kim said. “We scrambled up a hill behind the lodge in the dark, rain in our faces. All we could think about was higher ground—and what might be up there. In Kruger, higher ground can mean lions or elephants. Tonight it just meant a place to wait.”

Between Wild and Rescue

Imagine climbing a hill with the rhythm of hippos echoing through waterlogged plains below, with the sky flashing every so often with distant lightning, the smell of wet earth heavy and metallic. The group huddled, three hours became two hours became a long, cold, anxious wait. Then a silhouette appeared—rotors humming in the black—and a South African Air Force helicopter began lifting people out, three at a time.

“They came like angels,” said one of the staff, a lodge manager who asked to remain unnamed. “You don’t know the feeling until you’re sitting on that slope with water five metres below and you see lights swinging. The pilot kept saying, ‘Keep calm, we’ll get you.’”

They were flown to safety, shaken but alive. Kim’s relief was immediate and complicated. “I’m so grateful we got out,” she said. “And then you look at the pictures, at the treetops sticking out of water, hippos swimming where land used to be, and you think—how many didn’t make it?”

Counting Losses and Looking Ahead

The floods’ toll in Limpopo has been severe. At least 19 people have been reported dead, and many more displaced as homes, roads and livelihoods were washed away. Across the region—Mozambique and Zimbabwe included—torrential rains have left thousands of homes damaged and tens of thousands of people facing evacuation.

Reuters’ video footage from the region showed entire river valleys submerged, only treetops visible above the brown, fast-flowing water. Hippos, bewildered and driven into odd places by the floodwaters, were seen bobbing between drowned trees.

“We’re watching a pattern repeat itself,” said Dr. Amina Khatri, a climate scientist who researches extreme precipitation in southern Africa. “Heavy rainfall events are becoming more frequent and intense as the planet warms. The physics are simple: warmer air holds more moisture—about 7% more per degree Celsius—and when that moisture falls, it falls in torrents.”

Climate models, including the IPCC’s assessments, predict that with ongoing warming many regions will see more extreme rainfall and flood events. For the communities living on river plains and for reserves like Kruger, the implications are immediate—ecosystems stressed, infrastructure vulnerable, tourism economies interrupted.

Lodges, Guides, and Local Economies

A safari lodge is more than a business; it’s a nexus where conservation, tourism, and local livelihoods meet. Guides-in-training like Kim are the next generation of custodians of the bush, relying on predictable seasons and safe access to trails. When infrastructure fails—roads, bridges, power lines—so do livelihoods.

“Most of our staff are local,” said the lodge manager. “When the lodge is closed or damaged, it’s not just about repair costs. Families go hungry. School fees get delayed. You feel the ripple.”

Tourism is a major economic engine in the region. Kruger National Park itself covers roughly 19,485 square kilometres, drawing millions of visitors over the years and supporting a complex web of hospitality, guiding, transport, and conservation jobs.

Stories from the Edge

I spoke briefly with an older villager in a small settlement outside Phalaborwa who had lost his maize field to the floods. He spoke in a mix of Xitsonga and English, pausing between words to find the right phrase.

“We wake up to the new rains,” he said. “We have prayed for rain for a good harvest. But this—this takes houses, it takes crops. It takes time.”

That tension—the blessing and the curse of water—runs through many lives here. The same rains that sustain the bush and fill the rivers also have the potential to overwhelm fragile infrastructure and erode decades of quiet preparation.

What Comes Next?

Rescue operations continue in affected areas. The South African Air Force and local emergency teams have been praised for swift action, but logistics are complex when roads are gone and communication networks shaky. Rebuilding will mean both immediate relief—shelter, food, medical care—and longer-term investment in resilient infrastructure.

Experts urge that adaptation measures be implemented alongside traditional humanitarian responses. That means better flood mapping, reinforced bridges, elevated camps, and disaster planning that includes the realities of a warming climate.

Short-term needs: shelter, clean water, medical aid, psychosocial support.
Medium-term: repair of roads and bridges, restoration of utilities, support for livelihoods.
Long-term: climate-resilient infrastructure, better early-warning systems, community-based adaptation.

“This is not just about weather,” Dr. Khatri urged. “It’s about the way we build our communities and manage our landscapes. We have to move from reaction to resilience.”

What Do We Take Away?

There are images that will stay with Kim: the feel of cold rain on her face, the unexpected hush after the helicopter left, the sight of hippos in floodwater behaving like castaways. There are also numbers and maps and policy memos. But there is something else—as a global audience, we can’t ignore the human texture of events like this.

How do we balance the need for development with protecting people and places? How do we preserve wild landscapes that are also homes and livelihoods? And as a traveler, a policymaker, or a neighbor, what responsibility do we bear when storms once considered rare arrive more often?

“I’m grateful to be alive,” Kim said. “But I can’t help thinking about those who weren’t. I can’t help thinking about the animals, the people, the guides whose work is now uncertain. We need to learn—and fast.”

When the sun finally came out days later, the landscape looked fresh and stunned, as if blinked awake. It will take longer for the wounds to heal. For now, those who were rescued carry with them the memory of a night when the river rose and the hill saved them; and a wider region carries the knowledge that the age of sudden, devastating floods is no longer a forecast—it’s real, and it’s here.

Trump vows not to use force, pushes for Greenland talks

By

hanad

-

January 21, 2026

Trump 'won't use force', seeks Greenland negotiations

The Morning Brussels Felt Like a Barometer

On a rain-slick morning in Brussels, steam rises from café cups and the umbrellas open like little flags. Diplomats stride past the European Commission’s glass façade with the practiced hurry of people who live inside briefings and late-night phone calls. Yet beneath the routine hum, there’s a new, darker energy: a word repeated in hushed corridors, on televised panels, and in op-eds across continents—“spiral.”

“We are seeing a dangerous downward spiral between allies,” an EU official told me over bitter espresso, voice low but urgent. “It’s not just about a single row over tariffs or words at a summit. It’s about the cumulative erosion of trust.”

What “Downward Spiral” Looks Like

Imagine a trialogue where each speaker gradually leans away from the table. Trade friction becomes tit-for-tat tariffs; security commitments fray into accusations of shirking; public statements turn from constructive criticism to corrosive rhetoric. The fabric that binds allies—shared intelligence, coordinated sanctions, interoperable militaries—doesn’t break in a single snap. It frays, thread by thread.

Here are some of the threads the diplomats worry about:

Trade and tech: Disagreements over industrial subsidies, export controls, and digital regulation are reshaping economic alliances.
Defense and burden-sharing: The NATO benchmark of spending and equipment interoperability remains a sore spot almost a quarter century after the alliance’s renewal.
Values and diplomacy: Conflicting responses to regional crises—whether in the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific, or on the EU’s eastern flank—expose different political instincts and domestic pressures.

Voices on the Ground

“I run a small import business,” said Leila, a shopkeeper near Place Luxembourg, the heart of EU institutions. “One week my supplier worries about tariffs, the next week about shipping routes. It feels like the rules are shifting faster than our ability to adapt.”

A Brussels-based security analyst, asking not to be named, offered a sterner view. “This isn’t mere policy disagreement. It’s a crisis of trust. When allies can’t trust one another on trade, they doubt each other’s commitments on security. When they doubt commitments, they hoard advantages. That breeds more suspicion.”

Across the Atlantic, an American diplomat noted: “Public rhetoric sometimes outruns nuanced policy. Leaders have to be careful—sharp words can become self-fulfilling. If you accuse an ally of betrayal, you make room for it.”

Data That Matters

Numbers help explain why the stakes feel so high. The European Union and the United States together account for a vast share of global trade and investment—over $1 trillion in goods and services exchanged in peak years, making cooperation more than a diplomatic nicety; it is an economic necessity. Defense spending, meanwhile, has climbed across many Western countries since 2014, yet disparities remain: some NATO members meet and exceed spending benchmarks, while others lag, prompting frustration and renewed calls for equitable burden-sharing.

Energy is another arena of rapid change. The EU dramatically reduced energy dependency on a disruptive supplier in recent years, accelerating moves to diversify supplies and invest in renewables. Those shifts have domestic winners and losers, and they rewire geopolitical ties in ways that require careful management among allies.

Where Cultural Fault Lines Appear

Beyond policy, culture shapes how allies read each other’s actions. Populist currents in several countries amplify nationalist instincts. Media ecosystems reward conflict. Leaders who once prioritized coalition-building now face electorates demanding quick fixes and simple narratives.

“There’s a temptation to treat coalition politics like a zero-sum game,” said Dr. Ana Mateo, a political sociologist. “That’s dangerous because alliances are fundamentally about mutual resilience. When that mindset shifts, you start timing actions for domestic political advantage rather than shared long-term stability.”

Small Moments, Big Signals

Consider the small but telling incidents: a delayed ceremonial handshake at a summit; a trade probe announced with unusually pointed language; a leaked memo that gets amplified on social feeds. These are not, on their own, existential threats. But stacked together, into a steady stream, they change expectations. They teach leaders to expect friction rather than partnership.

“Diplomacy lives in the margins,” a veteran ambassador observed. “It’s in courtesy calls, in who’s invited to what meeting, in the tone of a communique. Those are the places where trust is made and unmade.”

What Can Be Done?

The answer, according to several officials and analysts I spoke to, begins with honesty and humility. Not the performative kind—real humility. Recognize mismatches in interest, speak candidly about domestic constraints, and create mechanisms to manage disputes before they metastasize.

Concrete ideas floating in briefings include:

Regularized ally forums for rapid dispute resolution, beyond the ritual of annual summits.
Transparency frameworks on subsidies and industrial policy to reduce surprise and suspicion.
Renewed investment in people-to-people ties—student exchanges, joint research, cultural programs—that build resilience beyond policy teams.

The Wider Lens: What This Says About Our Era

Alliances have always been instruments of both interest and identity. In a multipolar age, with authoritarian competitors actively courting fractures, maintaining cohesive partnerships is not just idealistic—it’s strategic. The drift among friends signals something deeper: the strain of managing domestic politics while stewarding global public goods.

Ask yourself: do we take alliances for granted until they wobble? Would we recognize the warning signs early enough to change course? History shows that fractures can widen quickly when complacency and partisanship combine. But history also shows recoveries—when leaders choose to rebuild trust rather than exploit differences.

A Human Moment to Close

On that rainy morning in Brussels, a young policy officer paused at the window and said, “You don’t notice the threads until they tangle. Then everyone notices.” There was exhaustion in the voice, but not resignation—an ember of urgency. It reminded me that alliances are less about abstract treaties and more about daily commitments, punctuated by coffee and conversations, phone calls and corridor meetings.

So what will the next chapter be? Will leaders stitch the frayed fabric back together, stitch by stitch, through humility and hard work? Or will the downward spiral become a self-fulfilling prophecy, eroding the very concepts—security, prosperity, shared values—that alliances were created to protect?

Where do you stand as a reader: skeptical that such institutions can hold, or hopeful that politics still bends toward cooperation? The future of allied relations won’t be decided by one summit or one statement. It will be written in countless modest choices—how we debate, how we bargain, and whether we remember that strong alliances are a global public good worth defending.

MEPs vote to send Mercosur trade deal to EU top court

By

hanad

-

January 21, 2026

MEPs vote to refer Mercosur deal to top EU court — Farmers gather to demonstrate against the free trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur countries in Strasbourg yesterday evening

A Trade Pact in the Balance: Europe, South America and the Two-Year Pause

There was a hush in Brussels that felt more like the held breath of a continent than a single institution. On paper, the European Union had just signed what officials called its biggest trade agreement ever with four South American partners—Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. In practice, European lawmakers pressed the pause button.

By a slender margin—334 votes to 324—Members of the European Parliament voted to refer the deal to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to seek clarity on whether the agreement fits the bloc’s legal and policy framework. The move does not kill the pact outright, but it is likely to stall implementation for roughly two years, the typical time the court takes to offer an opinion.

Why the Referral Matters

At heart this is a story about competing visions of trade. Brussels touts a pact that would tear down tariffs on more than 90% of bilateral trade between the EU and Mercosur, promising easier market access for European cars, wine and cheese and broader economic ties across an economic area that together accounts for about 30% of global GDP.

Opponents, led politically by France and echoed by Ireland, Austria, Hungary and Poland, warn that the treaty will flood European markets with cheaper South American beef, poultry, sugar and soy—products that could undercut local farmers and accelerate environmentally harmful land use practices. “This is not just about prices,” said a French dairy cooperative leader in Brittany. “It’s about the future of our villages, our cheese, and the way we farm.”

A legal knot

A group of 144 MEPs has lodged a formal challenge asking the CJEU to determine whether parts of the agreement can be applied provisionally before every member state completes full ratification, and whether the treaty would restrict the EU’s ability to set future environmental and consumer-health protections.

“We need to be certain that the EU retains full sovereignty to enact stricter climate rules, food standards, and protections for biodiversity,” said an environmental policy adviser in Brussels. “Handing over commercial breathing room that could block those laws would be reckless.”

On the Ground: Kitchens, Pastures and Protest Lines

Walk through a market in Lyon or Bordeaux and you will smell warm bread and melting cheese; walk the streets of Buenos Aires and you will find the smoky scent of asado—grilled beef—wafting from parrillas. Trade pacts like this one are not abstract documents. They rearrange what ends up on family tables and alter livelihoods from village cooperatives to export-oriented agribusinesses.

In recent weeks, thousands of farmers have taken to the roads in France, Ireland, Austria, Hungary and Poland. Tractors have clogged roundabouts, hay bales have been parked in front of government buildings, and the message has been blunt: European agriculture is fragile and price-sensitive. “We welcome trade, but not at the cost of our ability to survive,” said a young dairy farmer in County Cork, Ireland, who joined a demonstration with a banner that read, “Fair Trade, Not Cheap Goods.”

On the other side of the Atlantic, exporters see opportunity. A soybean cooperative president in northern Argentina told me, “For years we have produced more than we could sell locally. Opening to Europe is a chance for farms here to stabilize and grow.” Yet even in South America, concerns simmer. Smallholders recall past waves of commodity demand that enriched large exporters while leaving local communities facing deforestation and volatile prices.

Local color and stakes

The cultural texture of this debate matters. In France, protecting terroir—the unique taste of a region’s wines and cheeses tied to place and tradition—has become shorthand for defending identity. In Brazil and Argentina, the pampas and cerrado carry histories of land use, migration and modern agribusiness expansion. Those landscapes are also frontline battlegrounds in the climate crisis: agriculture accounts for a substantial share of greenhouse gas emissions globally, and changes in land use are a leading driver of biodiversity loss.

What the Agreement Would Do—and What It Wouldn’t

Here are the headline mechanics that animate the dispute:

Tariff elimination: The treaty foresees scrapping duties on more than 90% of bilateral trade, which would ease the flow of goods both ways.
Winners and losers: European exporters of cars, machinery, wine and cheese stand to gain greater access. South American suppliers of beef, poultry, sugar, rice, honey and soy would find it easier to sell into EU markets.
Legal and environmental questions: Opponents argue the text could limit the EU’s future regulatory freedom on issues such as pesticide bans, meat production standards and deforestation-linked imports.

The European Commission said it regrets the Parliament’s decision to seek an opinion and insisted the deal is compatible with EU policy. “We remain committed to making trade work for people, for the planet and for European businesses,” a Commission spokesperson said in a statement. But regret does not equate to immediate action; the referral hands the clock to the judiciary.

Beyond Tariffs: A Test of Values

This is more than economics. It is a test of whether trade policy can be married to environmental and social aspirations. In a world confronting a faster-warming climate, accelerating biodiversity loss and rising inequality, the pressure on trade agreements to embed safeguards is fiercer than ever.

“Trade is a blunt instrument if it only measures profit,” reflected a Geneva-based trade scholar. “We have learned from past deals that without enforceable standards, the benefits tend to concentrate and the costs are social and ecological.”

Two Years of Uncertainty—What Comes Next?

With the CJEU review likely to take around two years, stakeholders will have time to lobby, protest, and rethink. Member-state ratifications will still be required. That interregnum may be used to reopen political conversations about how to strengthen environmental clauses, ensure traceability of supply chains and build transitional measures for vulnerable farmers.

Will that be enough to bridge the gap between Brussels and rural France, between Buenos Aires exporters and Amazon stewards? Only time will tell. But the referral has at least bought a continent a breathing space to ask the harder question: what kind of globalization do we want?

As you read this, consider your own plate. Where does your cheese come from? How far did that steak travel? Trade deals shape the food on our tables, the air we breathe and the futures our children inherit. The debate over this pact is not just a parlamentarian tussle; it is a public conversation about values. Will governments write trade rules that privilege short-term growth, or can they build bargains that protect communities and the living planet?

There will be rallies and rejoicing, columns and counter-briefs, and perhaps a verdict from the court that changes the shape of the agreement. Whatever happens, the story of this pact will be a prism through which we can see how the world balances commerce with care. Will policymakers listen to the market—and to the people who live in farmhouses and favelas alike? The coming months will tell.

Israel orders families in southern Gaza to evacuate to safer areas

By

hanad

-

January 21, 2026

Israel orders families in southern Gaza to move — Most of Gaza's population has been displaced multiple times

Morning leaflets, sudden departures: Life again upended in southern Gaza

At dawn, the paper descended like a blizzard—thin, white rectangles drifting down into a settlement of tents and battered houses on the outskirts of Bani Suhaila, east of Khan Younis.

For families already squeezed into a shrinking patch of Gaza, the leaflets were both a message and a summons: “Urgent message. The area is under IDF control. You must evacuate immediately,” read Arabic, Hebrew and English lines that fluttered across the canvas of makeshift roofs.

“We woke to the sound of people crying,” a woman who asked to be called Fatima said, clutching a plastic bag of clothes as she prepared to move. “My son asked if the war had started again. I had no answer for him.”

What happened — the immediate facts

On Monday, Israeli forces dropped leaflets over the Al-Reqeb neighbourhood in Bani Suhaila, telling dozens of Palestinian families to leave their homes. Residents and officials from Hamas described the move as the first forced evacuation orders since the U.S.-brokered ceasefire in October.

The Israeli military confirmed the leaflet drops but framed them differently, saying they were intended to warn civilians against crossing a demarcation line and to prevent people from approaching troops. The army denied plans to forcibly displace Palestinians from the area.

Who is affected

Local residents said the notices affected at least 70 families living in tents and partially damaged homes. Ismail Al-Thawabta, director of the Hamas-run Gaza government media office, told reporters that Israeli forces have expanded zones under their control east of Khan Younis several times since the ceasefire, displacing thousands.

“Since the truce, the expansion has forced at least 9,000 people to move repeatedly,” Al-Thawabta said. “This latest order impacts roughly 3,000 people and deepens a humanitarian crisis already at breaking point.”

The human geography of a trapped population

The numbers make the predicament stark. Gaza is home to more than 2 million people, and since hostilities paused in October, most residents have been corralled into roughly a third of the territory—clusters of tents, school compounds and damaged high-rises where families try to rebuild a daily life under the watch of local administrators and aid groups.

For many, “home” is now a location defined more by the next distribution of food and water than by walls and memories. The repeated displacements of 2023 left people exhausted, gardens turned to dust, and possessions reduced to what one can carry in arms.

“You cannot keep uprooting people and expect them to recover,” said Leila Mansour, a humanitarian worker who has coordinated relief convoys through southern Gaza. “Every move shreds a little more of their safety net—schools, social ties, income. The psychological toll is enormous.”

Leaflets, history and fear

Leaflets have a bitter history in this conflict. During the intense fighting before the ceasefire, Israeli aircraft often dropped written warnings over neighborhoods that were later struck, giving some families only hours or even minutes to flee. Residents say the latest flyers bring back those memories.

“When the paper falls, you don’t know if it’s an invitation or an alarm,” said Ahmed, a father of three who has moved multiple times since last year. “We learned to run. We learned to leave quickly. But where are we supposed to go now?”

Between the lines: the political and humanitarian context

The ceasefire that took effect in October halted the worst of the fighting but left many questions unresolved. Under its first phase, an exchange of hostages for Palestinian detainees took place and major offensive operations paused, yet control of land remained contested. Israel withdrew from less than half of Gaza, according to various assessments, and both sides accuse each other of violations.

Talks about future phases—disarmament of militant groups, further Israeli withdrawals and the establishment of an internationally-backed administration to rebuild Gaza—have made slow progress. The plan floated by the U.S. envisages a stepwise path toward reconstruction and governance, but the details and timelines remain contested.

Casualties and displacement — a sobering ledger

Since the ceasefire, local authorities in Gaza reported more than 460 Palestinians killed and three Israeli soldiers killed, numbers that remind us how fragile even a pause in hostilities can be. These figures sit against the broader tragedy that exploded in October 2023: Israeli tallies put the death toll from the initial Hamas-led attack at about 1,200 people, while Gaza’s health authorities, run by Hamas, report tens of thousands of Palestinian dead during the subsequent months of conflict.

Population of Gaza: more than 2 million people
Territory currently functioning as refuge for most residents: roughly one-third of Gaza
Reported displacement in eastern Khan Younis since ceasefire (Hamas figure): at least 9,000
New evacuations affecting: approximately 3,000 people

Voices on the ground and the wider implications

An Israeli military spokesman told a local correspondent, “Our operations are focused on securing our forces and preventing infiltrations across the agreed line. Warnings are issued when necessary.” That statement, measured and procedural, contrasts sharply with the frantic scenes in the streets where children clutch blankets and neighbors share food.

A UN aid official, speaking on condition of anonymity, warned of mounting pressures: “Shelter space is finite. When one camp is asked to move, ten more families scramble to find room. It creates a chain reaction that undermines everything relief organizations are trying to do.”

Is this simply the latest episode in a localized tug-of-war over territory? Or does it point to a larger crisis in how modern conflicts treat civilians—especially those already crowded into densely populated urban environments?

Local color: everyday resilience in small acts

Even amid the upheaval, life persists in small, stubborn ways. A man named Youssef grilled sardines over a shared fire, offering them to neighbors who had hurriedly packed. A woman painted eye-catching patterns on a child’s shirt to cheer him up. The local mosque’s minaret still calls the faithful to prayer, a sound that for many anchors them to a sense of normalcy while everything else is unmoored.

“We are used to loss, but not to losing hope,” said an elderly neighbor, who declined to give his name. “We tell each other: one day, this will be a story we survived.”

Looking outward: what this tells the world

The scene in Bani Suhaila is not simply a local incident; it refracts larger questions about ceasefires, civilian protection, and the mechanics of rebuilding after urban conflict. How do you design a ceasefire that is resilient to small escalations? Whose job is it to ensure humanitarian corridors remain open? And what obligations do occupying and defending forces have to prevent repeated displacement?

For readers far from Gaza, consider this: millions globally live in similar limbo—displaced by conflict, climate, or economic collapse. The questions raised here are not unique to one place; they reflect the modern challenge of safeguarding human dignity amid geopolitical turbulence.

After the leaflets

By evening, many families had moved again, carrying what little they could. Some went to relatives, others to crowded shelters. Aid groups scrambled to register the new arrivals, reroute supplies, and assess needs. The numbers will shift; the names will multiply. The leaflets, though ephemeral, made a permanent mark.

What will happen next depends on negotiations, military decisions, and the stubborn, intimate acts of everyday people trying to keep their world together. As the region waits for the next phase of the ceasefire to be negotiated, these families wait too—suspended between a paper warning and the fragile hope of a safe home.

Where do you think responsibility lies when civilians are given 48 hours—or less—to move from a place they can barely call home? How should the world respond when pauses in war become the norm, but peace remains out of reach?

Agaasimaha Warfaafinta Madaxtooyada Soomaaliya oo dhaliilay safarrada dhuumashada ah ee Madaxweynaha Somaliland

By

aden

-

January 21, 2026

Jan 21(Jowhar)-Agaasimaha Warfaafinta Madaxtooyada Somaliya Abdiasis golfyare ayaa si wayn u weeraray Madaxda Somaliland.

Continue

Diyaaradda Air Force One oo siday Madaxweyne Trump oo dib ugu labatay Mareykanka

By

hanad

-

January 21, 2026

Watch: A rewind of Trump's first year back in office

jan 21 (Jowhar)- Donald Trump ayaa uga digay hoggaamiyeyaasha Yurub inaysan “dib uga laaban” hanjabaaddiisa ah inuu la wareego Greenland, ka hor kulan ka dhici doona Davos, Switzerland.

Continue

Trump to Address Global Leaders in Davos as Greenland Tensions Rise

By

hanad

-

January 21, 2026

Trump to address leaders in Davos amid Greenland tensions — US President Donald Trump has insisted that mineral-rich Greenland is vital for the United States

Dark Cabin Lights, Bright Headlines: A President’s Interrupted Flight and an Arctic Obsession

The engines had barely settled into a steady rumble when the cabin lights on Air Force One winked out—an odd, breathless moment that felt more symbolic than mechanical.

For the passengers on that Boeing 747, many of them advisers primed for a high-stakes appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, it was an inauspicious beginning: a short, nervous taxi back to Andrews Air Force Base, a hurried transfer to a smaller jet and, hours later, a late arrival to a Swiss mountainside already humming with conversation, schmoozing and consequence.

“It felt like being on a stage and someone pulled the curtain,” said a senior aide who boarded the replacement plane. “People started texting and refreshing the news. It was a two-hour hiccup, but in Davos minutes are everything.”

Davos is a town accustomed to drama—global CEOs, activist delegations, and heads of state moving through an alpine choreography of private dinners and public panels. Yet this year the drama had nothing to do with fintech or green bonds. It orbited around a single, improbable obsession: Greenland.

Greenland: Not Just Ice, but Geopolitics in High Relief

To anyone who follows Arctic geopolitics the moment was confusing, to say the least. Greenland, an island roughly the size of Western Europe with just over 56,000 residents, has long been a strategic outcrop—its vast stretches of ice and rock cradling mineral deposits, new shipping lanes and a runway for northern defense installations like the U.S. Thule Air Base.

“This is not a real estate transaction,” said a Greenlandic fisherman, who asked to be identified only as Anders, sitting in a fish market stall in Nuuk via a call to a reporter. “We breathe this place. We have language, a culture. People come here because it is home, not because someone wants to plant a flag.”

The White House briefing room offered a different tone. Asked how far the United States might go to try to acquire Greenland, the president—already enmeshed in a transatlantic row—leaned into the ambiguity and said, “You’ll find out.”

Those three words ricocheted through diplomatic channels. Leaders in Europe bristled. At a Davos panel, the French president summarily described the posture as bullying—and his rebuke landed hard in a forum built on norms and mutual interest.

Alliances on the Line

The problem, for many analysts, was not merely the idea of buying or annexing a territory. It was the implied willingness to break long-standing diplomatic norms in pursuit of transactional gains—and the cost to relationships that underpin global security.

“NATO’s cohesion rests on mutual trust and predictability,” said a former NATO official who now teaches international security. “When a member publicly toys with using military options to acquire territory, it raises the prospect of normalizing aggressive behavior. That has ripple effects from Kyiv to Reykjavik.”

Indeed, reports in the business press suggested that grand plans—such as an $800 billion package of aid and investment for Ukraine that had been scheduled for commitment discussions in Davos—were thrown into disarray as leaders diverted their attention and political capital to contain the Greenland controversy.

Back in the snowy squares of Davos, diplomats were asked if a presidential preference for “deals” could be worth straining alliances. “We have done more for NATO than anyone,” the president responded at a news conference, insisting that his actions were in the alliance’s interests even as allied leaders bristled.

Small Island, Big Questions

Greenland’s government and Denmark have offered a series of alternatives—deeper economic engagement, increased military cooperation, joint development projects—that would allow for a larger American presence without formal transfer of sovereignty.

“We have proposed expanded partnerships, investment in infrastructure, and shared security arrangements,” said a Danish diplomat in Davos. “But sovereignty is not a bargaining chip.”

For many Greenlanders, the debate felt detached from their day-to-day reality: a life shaped by short summers, long winters, the ebb of fishing seasons and an intimate relationship to the land and sea. “We have more to fear from climate change than from a visitor with dollar signs in his eyes,” Anders the fisherman said. “Our glaciers are our history and our warning.”

Beyond Greenland: Economic Messages, Diplomatic Ripples

Despite the distraction, the president aimed to use his Davos stage to tout what his team calls a resurgent American economy—lower unemployment, record equity markets and a growth narrative intended to reassure investors. The White House also signalled plans to propose changes allowing Americans to tap retirement savings for home purchases, a policy pitched as a solution to housing affordability.

But polling at home suggested a more skeptical public: months of inflationary pressure and the social costs of rising housing prices have left many voters wary of broad economic optimism. “Numbers don’t always translate into lived experience,” noted an economist who follows household finances. “Median wages, housing affordability and regional disparities matter as much as headline GDP growth.”

While in Davos, the president scheduled meetings with the leaders of Switzerland, Poland and Egypt, and planned to preside over a ceremony for a newly minted “Board of Peace” tasked with rebuilding Gaza—an initiative that some humanitarian experts fear could bypass established multilateral institutions.

“The UN has frameworks and legitimacy that a private board simply cannot replace,” said a humanitarian policy expert. “If reconstruction becomes a prize for the well connected, we risk undermining coordination, standards and the protections that civilians need.”

What Are We Willing to Trade for Influence?

There is an old phrase in geopolitics: the more things change, the more they reveal about what matters. This episode has pulled back a curtain on visceral questions: How transactional should diplomacy be? How fragile are the norms that underpin alliances? Who gets to sell—or be sold—and on what terms?

In the cafés and corridors of Davos, delegates cycled between small talk and existential debate. A Swiss hotel concierge, watching the parade of suits and security aides, shrugged and said, “Every year they say it’s the globe’s most important conversation. Every year, still, it seems the loudest voices are the ones that push people away.”

So what will we accept in the name of national interest? Is a resource-rich island worth unsettling long-term partnerships? And when private boards and alternative governance models sprout in the shadow of international institutions, will they solve problems—or create new ones?

There are no easy answers here, only the slow unspooling of consequence. Greenland is not a punchline; it is a test case. Davos was supposed to be a showcase for coordinated responses to global challenges. Instead, it became a mirror reflecting how fragile the web of international cooperation can be when tested by personality, posture and politics.

Where We Go From Here

When the president finally took the Davos stage, the world listened—partly because of policy, partly because of spectacle. But the more important listening must happen in living rooms and legislatures, in Nuuk and Copenhagen, in capitals that must now ask whether diplomacy is a marketplace or a covenant.

As snow fell behind the panoramic windows of the conference center, one delegate summed it up: “We trade ideas in Davos, but we also trade trust. Once that ledger is imbalanced, it takes years to repair.”

How do you weigh today’s headline-grabbing moves against tomorrow’s alliances? If geopolitics is chess, what pieces are you willing to lose to win a square? The answers will shape not just policy papers but the lives of people who call far-flung places home—long after the lights have been turned back on.

Kooxda Shabaab weerar qaraxyo ku bilowday ku qaaday deegaanka Kudhaa

By

aden

-

January 21, 2026

Jan 21(Jowhar)-Malayshiyaadka argagixisada ah ayaa saakay weerar kula jarmaaday deegaanka Strategy ah ee Kudhaa halkaas oo ay saldhigyo ku leeyihiin ciidanka Jubbaland.

Continue

What Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ Is and How It Will Operate

By

hanad

-

January 21, 2026

What is Trump's 'Board of Peace' and how will it work? — The Board of Peace will be chaired by US President Donald Trump according to its founding charter

A Billion-Dollar Seat at the Table: Inside Trump’s “Board of Peace” and the Price of Peacekeeping

Imagine being handed an invitation to join a new international council whose chairman is also its gatekeeper — and whose permanent members are, in effect, those who can afford the premium seating. That is the surreal choice now facing diplomats from Beijing to Buenos Aires: pay $1 billion and claim a permanent spot on what its founders are calling the “Board of Peace,” or join on shorter terms and cede influence to a chair with unprecedented powers.

The board — conceived publicly as a vehicle to manage post-conflict reconstruction, originally pitched around Gaza — reads on paper like an attempt to codify a new, private-style layer of global governance. The charter, circulated by the White House and reviewed by news outlets, describes an organization whose stated purpose is “to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” But the devil, as always, is in the details.

Who Runs the Room?

At the center of the design is one man: Donald J. Trump. The charter names him chairman, and gives the chairman the power to appoint an executive board, to create or dissolve subsidiary bodies, and — crucially — to approve the decisions of member states. In a tie vote, the chairman may cast a vote. The chairman can be removed only by voluntary resignation or incapacity.

“Structure matters,” said a Washington foreign-policy analyst who asked not to be named. “This isn’t just another club. It concentrates authority in a way modern multilateral institutions usually try to avoid.”

The charter lists seven members of an operational executive board that would “operationalise” the mission: the U.S. secretary of state (named in the charter as Marco Rubio), former UK prime minister Tony Blair, Jared Kushner, the World Bank president Ajay Banga, and several financiers and close Trump aides. The optics — an intermingling of political figures, billionaire financiers, and former technocrats — sparked immediate debate about the nature of authority in the age of private capital and political entrepreneurship.

Pay to Stay? The $1 Billion Question

Most striking is the fee structure. Member states may serve three-year terms under normal rules; but any government that contributes more than $1 billion in cash within the first year secures an exemption from that term limit — effectively permanent membership.

“It’s plain and simple: money buys permanence,” said Amira Zaki, a civic activist in Cairo who works with post-conflict community rebuilding projects. “In our neighborhoods, we see donors come and go. Long-term rebuilding is about trust, not cheques.”

The cash-for-permanence clause has already reshaped the diplomatic calculus. Invitations have gone out to dozens of leaders — from Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi to Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky — and a scattering of nations have signaled interest. Canada, for one, said it will participate but balked at paying the billion-dollar sum. France has declined to join, prompting a blistering reaction from the U.S. — including a presidential threat of punitive tariffs on French wine that sent a ripple of anxiety through vineyards from Bordeaux to the Loire.

“If trade snarls over politics, people lose first,” said a winemaker in Bordeaux, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Our harvests can’t be turned into bargaining chips without costs that go far beyond price tags.”

What Would the Board Actually Do?

The charter claims the board will operate “in accordance with international law” and to “promote stability” in conflict zones. That language is intentionally broad, leaving vast discretion to the board — and, under the charter’s mechanics, to its chairman.

Analysts say this opens both opportunities and risks. On the positive side, some see a potential for faster, more flexible coordination of reconstruction funding and logistics than cumbersome UN processes sometimes allow. “There’s a hunger for nimble responses,” said a European diplomat. “When a city needs electricity, a sluggish approval cycle is a moral problem.”

But critics caution that speed without accountability risks prioritizing projects that favor political allies or commercial interests. “We used to talk about the privatization of war; now we’re seeing the privatization of peace,” said Dr. Lena Ortiz, an expert in post-conflict governance. “If heavyweight donors steer reconstruction to their preferred contractors and political outcomes, we could entrench divisions rather than heal them.”

Geopolitics on the RSVP Line

Perhaps the most geopolitically curious aspect is the list of invitees: the board opens its doors to rivals and allies alike. China, India, Russia, Ukraine, and a swath of countries spanning Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America have reportedly received invitations. That means the board could become a theater where global tensions play out — a forum where Moscow and Kyiv find themselves in the same room, or Beijing and Washington calibrate influence through cash contributions.

“Being in the room doesn’t mean being on the same page,” warned a foreign minister from a Middle Eastern country. “Diplomacy is messy. Sharing a table with an adversary is part of the craft, but the rules have to be trusted.”

Local Voices, Global Stakes

In a narrow street market in Cairo where food vendors stacked flatbreads and oranges, people were less concerned with procedural nuance than practical outcomes.

“If the money rebuilds schools and hospitals, I’ll be relieved,” said Rania Hassan, a mother of three who lost her home in conflict. “But if it builds luxury apartments no one can afford, what’s the point?”

Her question cuts to the heart of a larger debate: reconstructing a city is not simply concrete and steel. It is about livelihoods, governance, and the dignity of those who live in the shadow of conflict. That is why many experts insist that any new mechanism must embed local participation and transparent accountability — not only deliverables signed off by distant capitals and financiers.

Big Picture: What Does This Mean for Global Governance?

We stand at a crossroads. The Board of Peace, as proposed, is a radical experiment in reimagining how the world funds and manages recovery from war. It is also a test of public tolerance for a model that explicitly ties influence to financial firepower.

Consider the numbers: global military spending topped roughly $2 trillion in recent years, while reconstruction needs for major conflicts run into the billions — sometimes tens of billions. If wealthy states view a billion-dollar buy-in as a price worth paying for permanent influence, the shape of international institutions could change in ways we have yet to fully appreciate.

Is that change an efficiency gain or a dangerous erosion of multilateral principles? Should healing wounded cities be a matter of market dynamics and political patronage, or of collective responsibility and rule-bound institutions? These are not abstract questions for diplomats alone; they will affect the lives of millions seeking shelter, schools, and steady work.

Questions to Take Home

Do you trust concentrated decision-making — even if it promises speed — with the futures of cities and citizens?
Would you support a model where countries can essentially purchase permanent influence over reconstruction efforts?
How should global institutions balance urgency with accountability?

The Board of Peace is still being assembled; the charter takes effect once three states consent. But the choices we make today about who sits at the table and who pays for the privilege will echo into tomorrow’s rebuilt neighborhoods. If we are to believe in peacebuilding, it must be more than a ledger entry. It must restore dignity as well as infrastructure — and do so under rules that earn the trust of the people who will live under the results.

So ask yourself: would you take a seat at a table where the price of permanence is paid up front? And if not, what alternative would you design?

Trump to Address Global Leaders in Davos Amid Rising Greenland Tensions

By

hanad

-

January 21, 2026

Snow, Power and the Price of Place: Davos, Greenland and a Fraying Alliance

The cable cars hummed and the snow-silenced pines glittered as the world’s governors and CEOs landed in Davos. It is the sort of place that, for a few days each winter, feels suspended from ordinary time—an alpine bubble where policy, profit and personality collide over espresso and après-ski. This year the air smelled less of coffee and more of tension: a diplomatic dispute so unlikely it read like a Cold War fever dream — the question of Greenland’s fate — had jolted the very idea of what it means to be allies.

In the hotel lobbies and side rooms, the usual small talk—growth forecasts, emissions targets, the newest tech darling—kept bumping up against the same refrain: who gets to decide the destiny of a remote, windswept island of fewer than 60,000 people? And what happens when an assertion of “national interest” collides with long-standing alliances?

Why Greenland Matters

Greenland is not simply a dot on a map. It is the world’s largest island, a place of jagged fjords and ice that holds both cultural identity and geopolitical value. It is sparsely populated—roughly 56,000–57,000 inhabitants—yet sits astride Arctic shipping routes, hosts strategic military infrastructure such as Thule Air Base, and is thought to contain significant mineral wealth including rare earth elements and uranium. As the Arctic warms at a rate nearly four times the global average, previously inaccessible waters and deposits are opening up, making Greenland a chess piece in a game where Russia, China and Western powers all have stakes.

On the slopes in Davos, you could hear seasoned diplomats and young policy wonks trading sober calculations. A security analyst from a European think-tank summed it up this way: “It’s not just about rocks under the ice. It’s about basing rights, surveillance corridors, and the economic patterns that follow them. Whoever controls access to the Arctic has leverage.”

From Backroom Banter to Public Row

What began as a whispered strategic interest quickly escalated. Threats of tariffs, public mockery, and an unusually blunt diplomatic back-and-forth replaced the usual niceties. European leaders, gathered beneath the glass domes of Davos, framed the dispute as an affront to shared rules and the sanctity of allied relationships. In terse speeches and private conversations, they described a pattern of unilateral moves that risked corroding trust.

At a makeshift picket in Copenhagen, a Danish pensioner held a Greenlandic flag and said, “We were allies when the bombs fell in 2001. Sovereignty isn’t something you auction off to the loudest bidder.” Nearby, a student shouted that small nations should not be bargaining chips in great-power theatre. These were not the words of diplomats; they were ordinary people grappling with the idea that their neighbors and friends could be thrust into a global tug-of-war.

Voices from the North

In Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, the mood was wary and resolute. A shopkeeper who has lived her whole life on the harbor told me, “We are not an item to be bought. We fish, we hunt, we raise our children here. Decisions about our land should be made by us.” Her eyes, weathered by salty wind and long winters, refused to be minimized into a geopolitical abstraction.

A freelance fisherman from the west coast put it more bluntly: “If outsiders think they can come in and take what they like, they’ll learn. This is our home, and home has a price you can’t pay with money.”

Indigenous perspective

Indigenous rights advocates at Davos underscored that autonomy and voice matter as much as mineral maps. “Greenlanders must lead all discussions,” an advocate told a small panel, emphasizing the reality of self-governance and the delicate balance between economic development and cultural preservation.

Politics and the Trade Weapon

Back in Davos ballrooms, the conversation darkened when tariff talk entered the room. Threats of a 25% tariff on several European countries — framed publicly as a show of force — sent shudders through business delegations. For many in Europe, the idea of economic coercion as a response to diplomatic disagreement felt like a step toward transactional diplomacy at the expense of norms.

An EU trade expert later described the move as a test: “If tariffs become the tool of first resort, then multilateral trade agreements start to look fragile. Countries will hedge differently, supply chains will recalibrate, and smaller economies will suffer the consequences.”

Alliances Under Strain

At the heart of the row is a deeper question: what binds alliances together when national interests clash? Allies are not always friends in the cozy sense; they are partners with shared obligations. Yet Davos showed how quickly frictions can widen into institutional crises. Lithuania’s president warned in private commentary that any aggressive move against an allied nation would be a seismic blow to collective security. The message was blunt: actions that undermine trust can unravel decades of cooperation.

Conversely, some American politicians and delegates at Davos argued that reasserting national interest is simply realpolitik. A visiting US senator told a group of journalists, “Allies should understand the fundamentals of power. We act when our security requires action. That’s not a threat—it’s principle.” Whether such principle promotes stability or fuels insecurity depends on where you stand.

Russia, China and the Arctic Theater

Elsewhere on the forum’s agenda, Russia and China watched with interest. Moscow celebrated the rift as proof of Western discord, while Beijing kept a cautious but attentive posture, surveying opportunities to expand investment and influence. The Arctic, once peripheral to global strategy, is now a stage where the big powers test one another’s reach.

A foreign policy professor commented, “We’re witnessing the Arctic transform from a zone of cooperation to one of competition. Climate change accelerated this conversion and now geopolitical ambitions are following.”

What’s at Stake for Everyday People?

Beyond diplomatic sniping and strategic calculations, the row has human consequences. Greenlanders fear that external posturing will accelerate mining projects without proper safeguards; Europeans fear tariffs and fractured partnerships that could dent economies; Americans worry about overextension and diplomatic isolation.

In a Davos café, a Swiss hotel receptionist sighed as she stacked reservation folders. “We get the world for a week, but we also witness its fractures. It’s a reminder that decisions taken in these rooms travel far. People will pay the price where they live.”

Quick facts

Greenland’s population: approximately 56,000–57,000 people.
Greenland area: about 2.16 million square kilometers—making it the world’s largest island.
Arctic warming: the region is heating at a rate multiple times the global average, exposing new shipping lanes and resource opportunities.

Questions to Carry Home

As you read, consider this: how should the world balance the rights of small communities with great-power strategy? Is it better to keep contentious questions in diplomatic backchannels, or to air them publicly as leverage? And finally, can long-standing alliances survive moments when national priorities diverge sharply?

Davos will move on. The ski lifts will keep turning. But the Greenland row is a reminder that the frozen edges of the map are no longer margins; they are central to the geopolitics of the century. What happens next will test not just governments but the assumptions about how nations should treat one another—and about who, in a changing world, gets to decide the fate of a place and the people who live there.

For now, the island watches. So do the allies. So should we.