New Delhi blast kills at least eight people

-

November 10, 2025

Trump pardons Giuliani, others accused of subversion — Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani was among 77 people pardoned by Donald Trump

A sweeping pardon, a nation holding its breath

When the proclamation landed on a Friday and unfurled across screens, it felt less like a legal document and more like a weather front moving across a polarized landscape.

“This will end a grave national injustice and continue the process of national reconciliation,” the document declared — language meant to soothe, and for many, to inflame. The proclamation, posted publicly and amplified by a Justice Department official on social media, granted federal pardons to dozens of people tied to the scheme to present alternative slates of 2020 electors. The list, the document said, included at least 77 names.

For readers around the world who have watched American democracy as a kind of living experiment, the scene was unmistakable: a president exercising one of the oldest and most absolute powers in the constitutional toolbox at a moment when the country’s political wounds are raw and widely visible.

What happened — in plain terms

Federal prosecutors had investigated a plot in which supporters of the former president assembled competing elector certificates in several states after the 2020 election. Those efforts were part of a broader attempt to challenge the certified results that ultimately showed Joseph R. Biden Jr. the winner in 2020. The Justice Department’s inquiry looked into whether the submission of alternative electors and related actions crossed the line into criminal conduct.

The recently released proclamation pardons many of the participants. Presidential pardons erase federal criminal liability, but they do not touch state prosecutions. That distinction matters here: states including Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin and Nevada launched their own probes — and some filed charges — while in Michigan certain criminal cases were dismissed in September.

Who is on the list

Among the names singled out were high-profile figures from the former administration and its allied legal and political teams: top advisers, lawyers and operatives whose public roles in 2020 were widely reported. The proclamation and accompanying materials named Mark Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, Christina Bobb, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn and Kenneth Chesebro, among others. The document made clear the list could include additional individuals not explicitly named in the public posting.

Voices from the ground: Americans respond

In small towns and big cities alike, reaction was immediate and polarized. In Maricopa County, Arizona, where election workers spent months defending the integrity of local ballots, one long-time elections clerk told me, “We counted ballots like we always do. We did the work; our names are on the paperwork. A pardon doesn’t change that.”

Across town, a volunteer for a local conservative nonprofit said, “People were criminalized for trying to protect the Republic. This proclamation is a reset — a chance to stop using the justice system as a political weapon.”

Legal scholars, too, weighed in with sharp, measured critiques. “Pardons are legally within the president’s power,” said Dr. Maria Alvarez, a constitutional law professor. “But their use here raises important normative questions about accountability, deterrence and the message we send about political malpractice.”

“Think about it through the lens of civic trust,” added James Reynolds, a veteran federal prosecutor who spent two decades at the bench. “When pardons follow immediately on the heels of contested political behavior, they can erode confidence in impartial enforcement.”

What the law actually does — and doesn’t — do

Two simple facts are worth stressing.

Presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes. They cannot erase state charges or civil liability.
A pardon forgives legal culpability but does not formally declare the actions lawful; it removes penalties and a legal bar to prosecution at the federal level.

That means individuals pardoned today might still face state-level scrutiny. In Georgia, for instance, a sprawling state investigation has led to indictments in recent years connected to the 2020 post-election period. Those proceedings will continue to test the boundaries between state and federal authority.

Why numbers matter

The document named at least 77 people, but the number itself feels less decisive than the signal it sends. For context, the U.S. presidential pardon power is broad and historically used in diverse circumstances — from Thomas Jefferson’s mass pardons after the Whiskey Rebellion to modern, controversial clemency decisions. What makes this moment distinct is scale plus political context: the pardons relate directly to efforts to overturn an election.

Local color and the textures of everyday life

Walk through downtowns in Reno or the courthouse square in Georgia and you’ll see how these national dramas land in the everyday. In bakeries and barbershops, people trade versions of the same question: who gets to decide when politics becomes crime? An older woman at a Nevada diner, stirring her coffee, said, “We grew up believing the law was above politics. I’m not sure that’s how everyone sees it anymore.”

On social platforms, the images were stark — courthouse steps, legal filings, proud group photos of activists cradling stacks of certificates. In a way only modern life can manage, those images turned private memories into public myth-making almost overnight.

Global eyes, local consequences

Abroad, diplomats and democratic observers watch with concern. The U.S. ruling framework — the interplay of pardons, state prosecutions and constitutional checks — provides a lesson for other democracies on how fragile trust in institutions can be when legal actions intersect with politics.

“What happens in the U.S. resonates globally,” said an international governance analyst in Brussels. “When a major democracy uses a constitutional power in a contested political context, it’s a case study for reformers and autocrats alike.”

What comes next?

There are several likely threads to follow in the weeks and months ahead.

State prosecutions: Some cases will proceed. Different outcomes in different jurisdictions will keep the story alive in courtrooms across the country.
Public trust: The civic fallout — how institutions are perceived, and whether people accept the integrity of elections — will be a longer, harder to measure consequence.
Political mobilization: Both parties will use this moment to rally bases and shape narratives ahead of the next campaign cycle.

So what do you think? Is the presidential pardon a rightful check on overcriminalization, or a troubling shield for political actors? Does forgiving federal liability bring closure, or does it prolong distrust? The questions are not merely legal; they are moral and civic, and their answers will help define how this country — and others watching closely — understands the relationship between power and accountability.

As the seasons turn and the headlines move on, the courts, the states and the conversations at kitchen tables will keep this story alive — long after the proclamation fades from the top of the news feed.

Madaxweyne Xasan Sheekh oo ka dagay dalka Aljeeriya

By

-

November 10, 2025

Nov 10(Jowhar)-lMadaxweynaha Jamhuuriyadda Federaalka Soomaaliya Mudane Xasan Sheekh Maxamuud iyo wafdi sare oo ka socda Dowladda Soomaaliya ayaa galabta gaaray Caasimadda dalka Aljeeriya ee Aljeris, halkaas oo uu ku tegay marti-qaad rasmi ah oo uu u soo diray Dhiggiisa dalkaas Madaxweyne Cabdulmajiid Tabuun.

BBC Director-General Tim Davie and News CEO Resign from Posts

By

-

November 10, 2025

BBC Director General Tim Davie and News CEO resign — Tim Davie said his resignation was 'entirely my decision' (file photo)

A Sudden Silence in Broadcasting House: What the BBC’s Leadership Shake-Up Really Means

On a crisp London morning, the marble foyer of Broadcasting House—where for a century the nation’s stories have been gathered, argued over and sent out into the world—felt a little quieter. Staff drank their tea in smaller groups, conversations trailing off as word spread: the director-general and the head of news had stepped down after a storm over an edited clip in a high‑profile documentary.

It is the kind of institutional rupture that travels fast, not only through the BBC’s corridors but across global news cycles, social feeds and parliamentary chambers. For an organisation that prides itself on being a public mirror, the mirror has cracked.

Two resignations, a cascade of questions

Tim Davie, who led the corporation through five turbulent years, announced his resignation, saying the decision was his and that he wanted a successor to have time to shape upcoming charter plans. His departure was joined by that of Deborah Turness, the BBC’s chief executive of news—both exits triggered by fallout from a Panorama episode that drew accusations it misrepresented former US President Donald Trump’s words.

“This isn’t just about a single clip,” a senior producer at the BBC told me, asking not to be named. “People are frightened for what it means for the editorial culture here. We make mistakes, we correct them—but leadership is supposed to protect standards.”

The scene plays out on several fronts. On one hand there is a newsroom grappling with internal morale; on another, politicians and regulators pressing for explanations; and finally, a global audience asking whether one of the world’s most trusted news organisations can be trusted.

What happened on screen

At the heart of the controversy was a sequence of footage taken from President Trump’s speech on 6 January 2021—an event that culminated in the storming of the US Capitol. The Panorama edit assembled fragments in a way that critics said changed the meaning, giving the impression the former president instructed supporters he would lead them to the Capitol and urged them to “fight like hell.” In the full, unedited recording, the remarks were different in tone and intent; Trump urged the crowd to “walk with me… and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

To viewers who watched the documentary, the edit felt damning. To others it germinated a different concern: editorial sleights and a shrinking tolerance for nuance in politically febrile times.

Politics, trust and the licence fee

Culture, Media and Sport ministers weighed in, describing the matter as “incredibly serious” and adding to a wider set of questions about editorial standards at the BBC. The corporation, which is funded by a television licence paid by UK households and framed by a royal charter, has long been caught between its public-service remit and fierce political scrutiny.

“The BBC is not just a broadcaster; it’s a national institution,” said Dr Amina Rahman, a media ethics scholar at a British university. “That status makes it a lightning rod. When something goes wrong, the political stakes are high—because trust in the BBC feeds public trust in journalism itself.”

Those stakes are not theoretical. For millions in the UK, the licence fee is a tangible contribution to public life. Beyond Britain, the BBC World Service broadcasts in dozens of languages and reaches audiences across continents. When a flagship programme like Panorama—on the air since 1953 and the world’s longest-running investigative show—faces credibility questions, the ripple effects extend far beyond a single editorial office.

Not the first crack

This episode did not arrive in isolation. Earlier this year the corporation apologised for “serious flaws” in a documentary about Gaza. In that case, parts of the programme were deemed materially misleading by the UK regulator, and producers acknowledged failures in editorial oversight. For some observers, the current resignations are the immediate consequence of a pattern: mistakes, apologies, and mounting pressure from both the public and regulators.

“We’ve seen how quickly public confidence erodes,” said Hannah Ortiz, a veteran BBC editor who now freelances. “Frontline journalists feel the heat. Producers are working at pace, with less time and fewer resources than in the past. That’s not an excuse—standards have to hold—but it’s part of the environment.”

Voices on the ground

Outside the broadcaster, reaction ran the gamut. A commuter who grew up listening to the Today programme said, “I rely on the BBC for my news. I’m angry if something is manipulated, but I also want the BBC to be able to investigate powerful people without being hounded out of existence.”

A parliamentary aide in Westminster commented, “We support accountability. But be careful—this can quickly become about political point-scoring. The BBC must be transparent, but politicians shouldn’t be pulling the strings.”

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the former president publicly welcomed the resignations. “Finally, a bit of justice,” read one social post from a supporter. There were also those on the left who argued the resignations would not fix deeper problems around funding, editorial independence and the digital attention economy.

What regulators and the public might expect

Parliamentary committees have asked for a full explanation, and Britain’s media regulator has eyes on the affair. Observers expect the BBC chair to appear before MPs and likely to offer a fuller account and possibly further apologies.

Investigations will focus on editorial processes: who signed off on the edit, what oversight existed, and whether patterns of error point to systemic failure.
There will be calls for transparency from the top: clearer lines of accountability, improved fact-checking and perhaps new safeguards around archival and edited material.
And there will be debate about governance: how best to insulate editorial decisions from political pressure while ensuring public accountability.

Why this matters beyond the BBC

We live in an era where “deepfake” technology and fast-moving misinformation chisel away at the boundary between fact and fiction. A public broadcaster’s credibility is a defensive bulwark against that tide. When that bulwark is questioned, it weakens public resilience to falsehoods.

“If audiences stop believing mainstream media, they will gravitate to alternative sources with fewer checks—some of which thrive on outrage and falsehoods,” Dr Rahman warned. “The BBC’s crisis is, in many ways, a crisis for the entire information ecosystem.”

Where do we go from here?

Resignations will not be the final chapter. The BBC now faces an urgent task: to rebuild trust by being ruthlessly transparent about what went wrong, strengthening editorial systems and engaging openly with critics. That will mean uncomfortable conversations in committee rooms and quiet adjustments in editorial suites.

But it also invites a wider question to readers: what do we expect from public media in a fractured age? Do we want a vigorous, sometimes imperfect institution that holds power to account, or a sanitised broadcaster so cautious it loses its edge? Is our appetite for perfect, instant certainty realistic when journalism often involves chasing complex truths?

One producer summed it up: “Mistakes will happen in any newsroom—what matters is how you own them, learn from them, and change. That’s the test now.”

We’ll be watching as the BBC replies to parliament, as new leadership steps in, and as a global audience decides whether this institution still reflects the values it once set out to represent. In the meantime, the marble still gleams in Broadcasting House, and the microphones are still live. The next story—whatever it may be—will tell us a lot about how the BBC wants to be seen.

Rough seas batter Tenerife, leaving three dead and 15 injured

By

-

November 10, 2025

Three killed, 15 injured as rough seas batter Tenerife — A wave swept ten people into the sea at Puerto de la Cruz in northern Tenerife (stock image)

When the Atlantic turned savage: a day of grief and warning in Tenerife

The sea — that wide, weather-tempered neighbor that has long made Tenerife an island of sun, surf and story — turned fierce overnight and left a small chain of tragedies in its wake.

By the time the helicopters and ambulances finished their work, three people were dead and at least 15 more were injured, emergency services said. The incidents, scattered across the north and south coasts of the island, were a brutal reminder that even familiar places can be suddenly treacherous.

What happened — the scene along the coastline

In the chill of a morning rippling with rain-lashed light, a rescue helicopter plucked a man from the surf off La Guancha, a rugged beach in the island’s north. The pilot and crew fought swollen waves and wind to winch him into the aircraft, but he was pronounced dead on arrival at hospital, officials said.

Further down the coastline, at El Cabezo in the south, a second man was found floating and unresponsive on the shoreline. Lifeguards and medical staff who scrambled to the scene were unable to resuscitate him.

Then, in Puerto de la Cruz — a town whose palm-lined promenades and volcanic-sand beaches have welcomed generations of visitors — a single wave swept a group of ten people from the coast into the sea. Eyewitnesses said the swell came in suddenly. A woman in the group suffered a heart attack and died; three others sustained serious injuries and were taken to hospital.

Emergency services mobilize

Emergency coordinators say the island remains on alert for coastal hazards. Local agencies, including the regional emergency service and maritime authorities, deployed helicopters, Guardia Civil officers, port police and medical teams to multiple sites. “Our teams worked under very difficult conditions,” a spokesman for the Canary Islands emergency service told reporters. “Wind and wave action made rescue operations hazardous, but the crews did everything possible.”

On social media, the regional 112 account posted images of the helipad buzzing with activity and thanked the crews who responded. For residents and tourists who watched the operations from a distance, it was a sobering, live demonstration of how quickly the ocean can turn from scenic to savage.

Voices from the shore

“I’ve been lifeguarding these beaches for 12 years,” said María Hernández, a lifeguard in Puerto de la Cruz, her voice low and raw. “We know the patterns, we read the swell charts, but sometimes the sea surprises you. One moment families were standing on the rocks, the next the wave took them. We did CPR, we did what we could. But it was just… too powerful.”

Local shopkeeper Antonio Delgado, who runs a small cafe near the promenade, described the scene as “like watching a kettle boil over.” “People were shouting, children were crying,” he said. “We offered blankets, hot coffee, anything. It’s so awful. We’re a seaside town; the sea is our life and sometimes it’s our heartbreak.”

A tourist visiting from the U.K., who asked not to be named, recalled the surreal contrast: “Yesterday we were sunbathing and listening to reggae, and now there are police tape and helicopters. It makes you think — you come for a holiday, but nature has its own agenda.”

Why the sea turned dangerous

Storm-swept swells and shifting currents in the North Atlantic can generate powerful coastal surges along the Canary Islands, even outside the stereotypical storm season. Oceanographers point to several factors that can conspire to create hazardous conditions: distant storms sending long-period swell, local wind patterns funneling water into coves, and bathymetry — the underwater topography — that amplifies waves as they approach shore.

“A long-period swell from a storm far out to sea can arrive with very high energy,” explained Dr. Laura Méndez, a marine scientist based in Tenerife. “Combined with onshore winds, those waves can become unpredictable and break in shallow areas where people think it’s safe to stand. Add to that the popular practice of taking photos on rocks or promenades, and you have many people in harm’s way.”

Climate change also looms as a modifier of coastal risk. While the Canary Islands are not subject to tropical cyclones in the same way as other regions, rising sea levels and changing storm patterns can increase the frequency of unusual surge events and higher base water levels.

Context: tourism, livelihoods and vulnerability

The Canary archipelago is a major tourist magnet, drawing roughly 12–14 million visitors annually in pre-pandemic years, many of them to Tenerife’s beaches and resorts. Tourism is a lifeline: hotels, restaurants, tour operators and small businesses depend on the sea’s steady generosity.

But that close economic relationship with the ocean creates vulnerability. “People live and work right at the water’s edge,” Dr. Méndez said. “That’s wonderful for local economies, but it increases exposure to coastal hazards.”

For islanders, the sea is woven into daily life — fishermen launching at dawn, families gathering for sunset walks, surfers chasing the next swell. The cultural fabric includes the scent of grilling pescado at seafront stalls, the ionic tang of Atlantic wind, and the ritual cup of dark coffee after an early-morning stroll by the black sand. When tragedies occur, they ripple through the community with disproportionate force.

How authorities are responding

Officials have urged caution. Signs along promenades and alerts on regional platforms are being updated to warn against entering the water or standing on exposed rocks during high surf. Port authorities have restricted access in some areas, and lifeguard services are increasing patrols where possible.

Helicopter rescue teams and maritime units remain on heightened readiness.
Coastal monitoring equipment is being checked to ensure real-time data on wave heights and sea conditions.
Public advisories urge people not to approach the waterline and to respect rope-and-sign barriers even when the beach appears calm.

What can readers take away?

It’s tempting to think of beaches as benign backdrops to relaxation. But the ocean is a dynamic force with moods that can change quickly. How do we reconcile our love for coastal spaces with the reality of growing environmental volatility?

Some practical reminders from local authorities and safety experts:

Check official warnings and sea-state forecasts before heading to the shore.
Respect lifeguard flags and signage — they’re there for a reason.
Keep a safe distance from cliff edges and wave-prone promenades, especially during storms or high swell.
Avoid turning your back on the ocean; sneaker waves can arrive unexpectedly.

Looking beyond this moment

As Tenerife mourns and the emergency responses wind down, the islands will face hard conversations about preparedness, public education and the changing nature of coastal risk. There will be inquiries, perhaps calls for more visible warnings, and renewed training for first responders — all sensible steps.

But there is also a quieter, more human task: grieving and remembering. For families who lost loved ones, there will be funeral rites and communal support; for the lifeguards and first responders who witnessed the last moments of strangers, there will be hours of debriefing and consolation. The sea that gives so much also demands our humility.

So when you next plan a coastal stroll or a holiday by the water, pause for a moment. Look at the horizon. Consider the invisible forces at work. And ask yourself: how can we love these places more responsibly?

Departing BBC CEO rejects claims of institutional bias at broadcaster

By

-

November 10, 2025

BBC is 'not institutionally biased', says outgoing CEO — Tim Davie and Deborah Turness resigned from their positions at the BBC

Inside the storm at Broadcasting House: what the BBC’s leadership shake-up means for public trust

It was a grey London morning when the cameras gathered outside Broadcasting House and the sound of footsteps across Portland stone felt louder than usual. People paused with coffees in hand, scrolling through notifications: two of the BBC’s most senior figures had handed in their notices. The outgoing head of BBC News and the director-general were leaving at once — a dramatic coda to a summer of criticism that has left staff, audiences and politicians asking the same blunt question: can the corporation still be trusted?

The scene around the newsroom was charged. Inside, journalists moved between desks, their screens filled with stories, complaints and internal memos. Outside, a woman who works in a nearby bakery shook her head. “People always say the BBC is the gold standard,” she told me. “When things like this happen, it feels like the whole thing wobbling.”

What happened — and why it mattered

The immediate trigger was a finding that elements of a high-profile documentary had been edited in a way that misrepresented a speech by a former US president. An internal review, prompted by a memo from a former adviser to the editorial standards committee, suggested that clips had been spliced together so viewers could draw a different inference about what had been said on the day the US Capitol was stormed.

For millions of viewers, the BBC’s Panorama is a venerable institution — the sort of investigative programme that taught a generation how to read a camera and trust a voice. To see that trust questioned by an internal memo, and then to watch the corporation’s most senior leaders step aside, felt seismic.

Voices from the newsroom and the street

“You start to worry about the ripple effects,” said a veteran BBC foreign correspondent, who asked not to be named because they work on sensitive reporting. “One small mistake, or even the perception of one, and people on all sides will say the whole house is rotten.”

A younger producer in the current-affairs team was blunt. “We do our best, we fact-check, we argue over wording till late. This isn’t about laziness — it’s about how decisions are made when pressure piles up.”

Across the river, a community organiser who runs civic workshops in south-east London described a different anxiety. “My students ask me whether they can trust what they read. They see headlines about ‘bias’ and then this. It erodes civic literacy. When trusted outlets wobble, everything else becomes noise.”

Accountability, public funding, and a fragile social compact

What’s at stake is bigger than one programme. The BBC is funded primarily through a licence fee paid by UK households — a public compact that, depending on your year of reference, brings in roughly £3.7–4 billion annually to sustain broadcasting and public service journalism. That compact depends on a shared belief: that the institution will be impartial, accurate and accountable.

Criticisms in recent months have stacked up. The corporation has faced scrutiny over editorial lapses, controversies around streamed performances, and allegations about behaviour by presenters. For some critics, these incidents are evidence of systemic problems; for many staff, they are serious but solvable mistakes in a large, complex organisation.

“No public broadcaster is perfect,” said Dr Ana Rivera, a media ethics scholar at a London university. “But the BBC’s role makes it uniquely vulnerable. It must not only avoid bias; it must be seen to avoid bias. Perception matters as much as reality when an institution is publicly funded.”

How institutions fail — and how they recover

Institutional failure rarely looks like an earthquake. It is more often a series of small cracks ignored until they meet. Decision-making pathways blur. Warnings go unread. Junior staffers are asked to execute high-stakes edits under tight deadlines. An internal auditor raises a flag, but the signal doesn’t get the full attention it deserves.

“The problem isn’t that people are corrupt,” said an independent media consultant who has worked with public broadcasters in Europe and Africa. “It’s that processes can become complacent. Culture eats policy for breakfast.”

Recovering from such a crisis demands more than apologies. It requires visible change: fresh oversight, transparent inquiries, clearer guidelines and — crucially — public engagement. Without those, patchwork fixes will never restore confidence.

Global implications: why a BBC crisis matters beyond the UK

The BBC is not just a national broadcaster. Its World Service, television channels and online offerings reach a global audience, making it a touchstone of international news for many countries where domestic media are less independent. When the BBC stumbles, it amplifies a wider global story about declining trust in institutions and the rise of misinformation.

Consider this: across many democracies, public trust in traditional news organisations has been on a long-term decline, especially among younger people. When international outlets are caught in controversies, authoritarian regimes seize the opportunity to delegitimise independent media. That makes the stakes political as well as reputational.

“Every major broadcaster must grapple with polarization and the echo-chamber effect,” said Dr Rivera. “The difference is whether they respond by doubling down on transparency and editorial rigor, or by retreating behind closed doors.”

Concrete steps forward

If the BBC is to rebuild, several elements will be essential:

Transparent investigations: an independent review of the editorial decisions behind the disputed programme, with public findings and a robust methodology.
Stronger governance: a clearer chain of editorial accountability so that warnings aren’t lost in bureaucracy.
Active public engagement: forums where licence-fee payers can ask questions and see how complaints are handled.
Investment in training: supporting journalists and editors in ethical decision-making and in an era of fast, sometimes manipulated, audiovisual material.

What should the public expect next?

Leadership transitions can be moments of renewal, or they can deepen uncertainty. The corporation’s chairman is expected to communicate with Parliament, and the outgoing director-general has said he will oversee an orderly transition. But words will not be enough. People want evidence: demonstrable changes that protect the integrity of reporting.

Ask yourself: how much do you rely on traditional news brands, and how would you feel if they no longer held the moral high ground? In an age of algorithm-driven information, the work of restoring trust is not just a corporate task — it’s a civic one.

As reporters and listeners walk back into the newsroom, there is a quiet resolve. One junior editor, gathering up her notes, summed it up simply. “We need to show people who we are again — not by saying we’re trustworthy, but by acting like it.”

For the BBC, and for every public institution under pressure, that is both the challenge and the chance. Will they meet it?

Shir looga hadlayo arrimaha Bini’aadanimo ee dalka oo ka furmay magaalada Jowhar

By

-

November 10, 2025

Nov 10(Jowhar)-Madaxweynaha Dowlad-Goboleedka Hirshabelle, Mudane Cali Guudlaawe Xuseen, ayaa maanta si rasmi ah u furay Shirka Madasha Arrimaha Bini’aadannimada Soomaaliya oo Meertadaan lagu qabtay magaalada Jowhar ee caasimadda Hirshabelle.

COP30 Told: Coordinated Climate Action Vital to Achieve Global Goals

By

-

November 10, 2025

Coordination on climate efforts essential, COP30 to hear — An aerial view of a deforested area on Marajó Island, Amazon Region, northern Brazil

Belém Awakes: A River City at the Center of a Planet on Fire

There is a heat here that announces itself before anything else—a humid, floral temperature that hits you when you step off the plane and into Belém’s river-breeze. Boats drift lazily on the brown water of the Guajará Bay, vendors call out in the sun-baked aisles of Ver-o-Peso market, and the Estação das Docas, where the conference buzz is thickest, is bedecked with a smiling COP30 mascot that tourists queue to photograph.

But beneath the color and the açaí stands, there is an urgency that cuts through the carnival atmosphere. The leaders’ summit wrapped days ago, and now negotiators gather for two intense weeks of talks that may determine whether the Paris Agreement remains a living framework or a letter of good intent. The message coming from Belém is blunt: climate co‑operation must be more than rhetoric.

The Three Tests Facing Negotiators

Simon Stiell, the UN Climate Change Executive Secretary, framed the task simply: the talks must show that nations are “fully on board” and acting together. He set out three interlocking goals negotiators need to meet.

Agree strong outcomes across the board so that global cooperation is visible and credible.
Move faster to implement the climate pledges already made—across energy, transport, agriculture and industry.
Make climate action real in people’s lives—linking it to jobs, health, cleaner air and affordable, secure energy.

“We must show up for each other,” Stiell told delegates in the shadow of palm trees and shipping containers. “If the world’s nations don’t coordinate, the gap between what we promise and what we do will keep widening.”

From Political Declarations to Tangible Action

The leaders’ summit that preceded the talks brimmed with rhetoric about solidarity—a chorus, in many ways, responding to past years of fractured U.S. climate policy and the jarring reality of climate denial. António Guterres, the UN Secretary‑General, delivered one of the more urgent refrains: global temperatures are poised to cross the 1.5°C threshold temporarily in the early 2030s unless the world changes course immediately.

“One year above 1.5 degrees,” he warned, “is not a statistic; it is a sentence—written in droughts, in reefs gone, in villages under water.” The moral framing was deliberate: protecting a livable planet is not a geopolitical nicety, the secretary‑general insisted, it is an imperative tied to survival and dignity.

The Weather Isn’t Waiting

Outside the conference halls, evidence of that “sentence” is stacked in headlines and in the lives of people across the tropics. From Hurricane Melissa’s strikes on the Caribbean to super-typhoons flattening coastal communities in Vietnam and the Philippines, and a tornado that ripped into southern Brazil, the echoes of extreme weather are global and immediate.

Weather agencies warn that 2025 is set to be among the warmest years on record. The World Meteorological Organization reported that 2025 could be the second or third warmest year, and climatologists remind us that each of the 10 hottest years ever recorded has occurred in the past decade.

“You come to a place like Belém and you can see the climate story in people’s faces,” said Dr. Maria Oliveira, a Brazilian climatologist who spent her childhood near the Amazon’s tributaries. “It isn’t abstract. It’s floods that ruin crops, heat that makes work impossible, and storms that force people to move.”

Forests at the Top of the Agenda

For the first time in three decades of COP meetings, tropical forests—the planet’s lungs—are not an afterthought. Brazil’s President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has pushed hard to make forests central to the conversation. He announced a plan, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, to marshal an initial $25 billion from governments with the aim of leveraging another $100 billion from financial markets.

“If standing forest is worth more than cleared land,” Lula said, “we will have changed the math that drives deforestation.” The facility’s ambition is to make conservation economically preferable to conversion—so an acre of Amazon rainforest is permanently more valuable standing than as farmland.

That simple equation is powerful. Norway, a wealthy nation that paradoxically also benefits from oil revenues, pledged $3 billion over ten years to the fund—an infusion that rode the headlines here. China said it would participate though it offered no immediate figure; France and Germany signalled possible support, while some countries, including the UK, held back.

“This is not charity,” said Ana Tavares, an indigenous leader from Pará, her voice threaded with weary hope. “This is reparation—because our forests were never just trees. They are our medicine, our river, our future.”

Money, Trust and the Politics of Fairness

Money—or the lack of it—has always been the hard part of climate negotiations. Developing nations have long accused richer, industrialised countries of failing to deliver promised climate finance. The “Call of Belém for Climate,” produced at the end of the leaders’ summit, urged the restoration of trust and collective mobilisation. Negotiators will spend much of the coming days arguing over how much, how fast, and under what conditions aid should flow.

“Finance is the bridge between promise and action,” said Dr. Kwame Mensah, an economist with a climate finance institute. “If trust erodes, so does cooperation. This isn’t just numbers on a page—this is livelihoods, adaptation and the ability to plan.”

Expectations are high, and so is scepticism. Many delegates argue that climate action must be fairer and more inclusive—particularly in ways that protect indigenous rights and local livelihoods. That, too, will test the negotiators’ ability to stitch policy to real-world justice.

Leaving Belém: A Question for the World

As the sun sets over the docks and the carnival colors dim, the questions remain stubborn: can nations translate bold language at summits into immediate, equitable, and durable action? Can tropical forests be treated as assets in a reimagined global economy rather than as resources to be extracted? And can the people most affected—indigenous communities, small farmers, coastal towns—have their voices turned into protections rather than footnotes?

Standing on the riverwalk, an old fisherman named José watches barges slip by and talks about changes in the tide and in the fish. “My grandfather taught me to read the river,” he says. “Now the river reads us. We must learn to listen.”

Will the negotiators in Belém listen? Will they build the bridges of finance, justice, and implementation that Stiell, Guterres, Lula, and others call for? The answers will shape whether we keep the 1.5°C red line as a threshold of hope or allow it to slide into history—one warm year at a time.

What will you do when your leaders return home with promises from Belém—will they be enough? The planet is waiting for the answer.

Madaxweyne Xasan iyo wafdi Wasiiro ah oo saaka u ambabaxay dalka Aljeeriya

By

-

November 10, 2025

Nov 10(Jowhar)-Madaxweynaha Jamhuuriyadda Federaalka Soomaaliya, Mudane Xasan Sheekh Maxamuud, iyo wafdi uu hoggaaminayo ayaa goordhow ka ambabaxay magaalada Muqdisho, iyagoo ku sii jeeda magaalada Algiers ee caasimadda dalka Aljeeriya, halkaas oo uu madaxweynuhu ku tegayo booqasho rasmi ah.

Trump iyo madaxweynaha Syria Ahmet Shara oo maanta ku kulmaya Aqalka Cad

By

-

November 10, 2025

Nov 10(Jowhar)-Madaxweynaha Maraykanka, Donald Trump, iyo hogaamiyaha ku meel gaarka ah ee Suuriya, Ahmet Shara, ayaa ku kulmi doona Aqalka Cad maanta oo ay taariikhdu tahay 10-ka November.