Airstrikes benefit Trump while he calls himself a “peace president”

January 4, 2026

Bombs away for Trump, self-proclaimed peace president — Donald Trump receives the FIFA Peace Prize from Gianni Infantino

The Peacemaker Who Picked a Fight: A Journey from Promises to Patrols

When a president begins his term with a vow to be the world’s peacemaker, the world listens. It leans in, hopeful. It remembers the rhetoric: unity, diplomacy, the end of endless wars. Yet less than a year into that pledge, the air smells different—charged, metallic, and full of questions.

Reports arriving across the morning wires painted an abrupt, dissonant picture: a leader who wore “peace” as a campaign medal, now overseeing the deployment of force in distant theaters. Whether you read it as hard-nosed realism or the unraveling of a rhetoric-driven promise depends on where you stand, what you believe, and how willing you are to accept that the language of peace and the instruments of war can, sometimes, sit side by side.

From Inaugural Ideal to Military Muscle

It is a short leap—politically, emotionally—from promising to end wars to insisting that shows of force secure peace. “Peace through strength” is an old political axiom, one that dates back to imperial defenses and Cold War summitry. But the phrase is slippery. For some, it means deterrence: prevent conflict by convincing potential adversaries that the costs will be unacceptably high. For others, it becomes a pretext for intervention and muscular foreign policy.

“There is an almost performative quality to it,” said Dr. Helena Ortiz, a security analyst who studies national narratives and foreign policy. “You hear the rhetoric about peace and unity, and then you see the budgets, the basing decisions, the strikes. People abroad—especially in places where the bombs fall—don’t parse the nuance. They feel the consequences.”

Let’s put one fact on the table to anchor this: the United States, by longstanding measures, accounts for a plurality of global military spending. According to SIPRI data through 2022, the U.S. exhausted roughly $800–900 billion a year on defense—somewhere approaching 40% of global military outlays. Those are dollars that shape geopolitics and people’s lives.

Across Borders and Headlines

Stories from three corners of the globe—carried in desperate phone calls and terse official statements—converged into a single narrative thread: a moment when the promise of peacemaking collided with the calculus of coercion.

In Caracas, the mood was brittle. A street vendor wiping down a stall full of arepas looked at me with the kind of weary skepticism that years of political drama breeds. “They speak of peace in Washington, and here we patch our roofs after the storms,” she said. “What does their peace bring us? More headlines or more fear?”

In the Sahel and on other fronts thousands of miles away, families tracked the movements of forces and listened for the distant rattle of helicopters. “Every time a plane passes overhead, our children hide under the table,” said an aid worker in a regional town who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity. “Peace promised from a podium is a different thing from peace that keeps your child from hearing an explosion.”

Voices, Anger and Ironies

Not everyone greeted the shift toward force with surprise. Some international relations scholars say the move was a predictable pivot—the old tension between campaign vows and governance, sanctified by the messy business of statecraft.

“Leadership often betrays the optics of campaign language. When a president inherits a world in motion, decisions are rarely tidy,” said Marcus Liang, a professor of geopolitics at a mid-Atlantic university. “But that doesn’t absolve leaders of responsibility. The challenge is balancing credible deterrence with diplomacy that reduces the need for kinetic options.”

There is also an unavoidable irony here: the laurels of peace and the spoils of war are sometimes awarded from the same stage. Around the globe, the Nobel Peace Prize and other honors celebrate people and movements seeking nonviolent change. Yet the machinery of states—their militaries and covert services—can act in ways that sit uneasily next to such honors. Citizens watching from the sidelines ask: can a government truly claim the mantle of peacemaker if it makes a habit of sending soldiers into harm’s way?

What the Critics Say

Voices of skepticism have been loud and pointed. A vocal group of lawmakers, retired military officers and human rights advocates argue that the threshold for using force has lowered, and that long-term consequences—destabilization, refugee flows, damage to the United States’ global reputation—are being discounted.

“We seem to be slipping into a pattern of quick strikes with no long-term strategy,” said an ex-diplomat who has worked crisis postings across Latin America and Africa. “That plays to short-term political calendars, not to the slow work of peacebuilding.”

Global military expenditure (SIPRI, 2022): roughly $2.2 trillion worldwide
U.S. share: approximately 38–40% of global spending
Proxy and irregular conflicts have increased in intensity in several regions over the past decade, complicating intervention calculus

Local Color: Everyday Life Under the Shadow of Power

Travel through any city touched—directly or indirectly—by great power politics and you’ll be struck by ordinary routines carrying on in strange juxtaposition with the extraordinary. In Caracas, neighbors barter over milk and the latest telephone credit. In a West African town, children chase a kicked bottle down a dusty street while elders trade worry about troop movements. The daily choreography of life continues even while the headlines reel.

“People learn to normalize crisis,” observed Rosa Alvarez, a community organizer who has worked to help displaced families. “They are resilient, but resilience is not a substitute for justice or stability.”

Questions for the Reader

So what do we make of a leader who promises peace and then embraces force? Is it hypocrisy, a pragmatic response to shifting threats, or something else entirely? When does deterrence become occupation by another name? And who bears the cost when states choose to assert power abroad—civilians on the ground, taxpayers at home, or the moral standing of the state itself?

These are not abstract queries. They are the kind that follow soldiers home, that linger in the eyes of refugees, that appear on ballots when an electorate decides whether to reward boldness or punish overreach.

Looking Beyond the Soundbite

What this moment demands, more than rhetorical flourishes, is clarity and humility. Military power can be a tool for defense, for deterrence, for protecting lives. It can also be a blunt instrument that deepens cycles of violence if wielded without a carefully constructed political endgame.

In the coming months we will watch how alliances recalibrate, how international institutions respond, and how citizens—both those who voted for change and those who opposed it—measure the outcomes. For now, the most important stories are being written not only in presidential addresses and congressional hearings but in neighborhoods and hospitals, in refugee camps and in the quiet conversations of families deciding whether to stay or depart.

Whatever side of the debate you occupy, ask yourself this: when a promise of peace is followed by the thunder of options for war, what would you want your leaders to explain to you—and what would you be willing to accept as an answer?

Trump Ousts Nicolás Maduro, Ending His Rule in Venezuela

hanad

January 4, 2026

Nicolas Maduro's rule in Venezuela ended by Trump — Nicolas Maduro was long accused by critics both at home and abroad of being a dictator

A Country Interrupted: The Night Venezuela Changed

Note: This piece is a creative reimagining based on the material you provided. I cannot independently verify the events described. Read it as narrative journalism grounded in that source, not as an original news report.

There are moments that feel tectonic — when the air itself seems to rearrange. In Caracas, late on an otherwise ordinary evening, the city’s familiar rhythm stuttered. Taxi drivers idled at the lights. Shopkeepers paused mid-sweep. Strangers on sidewalks pulled out their phones and watched headlines bloom like sudden fires.

According to accounts forwarded to me, the long, contentious era of Nicolás Maduro — a man who rose from a bus driver’s seat to the presidential balcony and whose name once filled salsa clubs and state TV alike — came to an abrupt halt when U.S. forces reportedly captured him and transported him out of Venezuela. For many inside the country and across a diaspora that stretches from Bogotá to Madrid and Miami, the news landed like a shard of glass: sharp, impossible to swallow whole.

Voices from the Streets

“It feels unreal,” said María Hernández, 48, a market vendor from Petare, clinging to a thermos of coffee. “We have shouted, we have marched, and now… there is a silence I cannot name. Is it relief? Fear? Both?”

A young teacher in Maracaibo, who asked not to be named, told me she had been following the story all week and yet could not sleep. “We are exhausted,” she said. “For a generation, our lives have been punctuated by promises and empty pantries. If this is the beginning of something new, we must be careful what kind of new it becomes.”

From the other side of the political divide, a retired military officer in Valencia was blunt. “Whatever you think of Maduro, to have a foreign power remove a head of state is not without consequences,” he said. “There will be legal questions, and there will be wounds that reopen.”

From Bus Driver to the Helm: A Life in Revolutions and Rhetoric

Nicolás Maduro’s biography reads like a script from a different era. Born into a working-class household in November 1962, the son of a trade unionist, he drove buses and organized workers. He became a fervent supporter of Hugo Chávez, who ignited a movement of oil-fueled social promises across Venezuela. When Chávez fell ill and later died, Maduro — a man of low, steady speech and theatrical bursts on occasion — stepped into the vacuum.

There were moments that endeared him to crowds: impromptu appearances, a populist clapback against foreign meddling, an uncanny ability to tap the language of grievance and dignity. There were also moments that hollowed trust: bread lines where supermarkets once stood, mounting inflation that made salaries meaningless, and accusations of rigged ballots and crushed protests.

“He cultivated a resistance persona,” said Dr. Ana López, a Latin American politics scholar, “and that was powerful. But governance demands steady institutions, not only slogans and duets on state television.”

The Human Cost: Exodus, Poverty, and a Nation Strained

However one interprets the politics, the numbers tell a harrowing story. Around 7.7 million Venezuelans have left their homeland in the past decade — a diaspora that has reshaped cities and remapped families across the Western Hemisphere. According to UN-linked estimates cited in the material I received, almost 82% of Venezuelans live in poverty, and 53% fall into extreme poverty, struggling to afford basic foodstuffs.

The violence of political life has left scars too. Protest waves in 2017 and again around contested elections were met with force. UN investigators have reported serious human-rights violations attributed to security forces, and thousands were jailed after demonstrations. In the ash and rubble of those moments, civil society and opposition movements found both grief and resolve.

What people carry with them

Memories of rationed milk and empty shelves
Families fragmented by migration to Colombia, Peru, the U.S., and beyond
Communities of activists who kept records, testimonies, and hope alive in exile

“We are more than statistics,” said a human-rights lawyer in Caracas. “Every number is a household that once expected a different life.”

The Global Chessboard: Oil, Sanctions, and Power

Venezuela is not simply an internal drama. It sits on one of the largest crude reserves on the planet, and its fate has always been entangled with global energy markets, geopolitical rivalry, and foreign policy calculations. Recent months reportedly saw increased U.S. military activity in the southern Caribbean, alongside sanctions and maritime strikes targeting vessels accused of drug trafficking. Washington had also offered a multimillion-dollar reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest.

“This has never been only about personality,” remarked a regional security analyst. “It’s about access to resources, the enforcement of international norms, and the deterrence of transnational crime. But intervention comes at a price.”

Justice, Accountability, or New Uncertainty?

If the reports of Maduro’s capture hold true, a cascade of legal and political questions follows. Who will govern in the interim? What of elections, of the constitution, of institutions hollowed by years of polarization? How will the region respond — and how will Venezuelans, inside and out, reclaim a life that has been on pause?

Human-rights groups and international bodies will demand investigations. Families of missing protesters will seek answers. Political operatives will race to fill vacuums. And ordinary citizens — the street vendors, teachers, and drivers — will brace for change that might not come overnight.

What Do You Think Should Happen Now?

Is the priority accountability for alleged crimes? A speedy return to democratic processes? Humanitarian relief and the rebuilding of institutions? Each path holds trade-offs. Each choice will shape not only Venezuela’s future but the region’s orientation toward migration, trade, and diplomacy.

We owe the Venezuelan people more than headlines. We owe them thoughtful debate, international solidarity that respects sovereignty and human rights, and practical plans for rebuilding fractured systems: healthcare, judicial independence, and an economy that serves broad citizens rather than narrow interests.

Looking Ahead

Historical inflection points rarely resolve neatly. They bristle with contradiction. They are made of grief and hope, of opportunism and courage. If this episode marks the end of an era, then Venezuela’s next chapter demands both rigorous accountability and the quiet, daily work of rebuilding trust.

For those watching from afar: ask yourselves what kind of after you want to help bring into being. For those still in Venezuela: hold onto one another, document what you can, and demand a future where the state protects life and dignity, not only rhetoric.

Whatever comes next, the streets of Caracas will remember how it felt the night everything shifted: a hush, a thousand conversations, and the long, patient hope that better days can be coaxed into being.

Ireland’s Taoiseach heads to China as Beijing deepens EU ties

hanad

January 3, 2026

Taoiseach to visit China as Beijing shores up EU ties — Micheál Martin will meet President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang in Beijing among senior officials

When Dublin Meets the Dragon: Why Ireland’s Leader is Heading to China Now

When Micheál Martin boards a plane tomorrow bound for Beijing, he will be carrying more than a passport; he will be carrying the anxious hope, cool calculation and stubborn optimism of a small nation with outsized ambitions. This will be the first visit to China by an Irish Taoiseach since 2012 — a five-day diplomatic swing that reads like a microcosm of 21st-century geopolitics: trade, tariffs, strategic hedging and cultural curiosity all wrapped into one itinerary.

China’s foreign ministry framed the trip in crisp official language: “China is willing to take this visit as an opportunity to enhance political mutual trust and expand mutually beneficial co‑operation with Ireland.” The formality, as always with Beijing, belies a complex choreography of interests. Mr Martin will meet Premier Li Qiang and Zhao Leji, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, and spend time in Shanghai — a city where glass towers and colonial facades host the future of global commerce.

A short list, long implications

On paper the visit is compact. In practice, its reverberations will be felt across trade halls in Cork, classrooms in Galway, EU chancelleries in Brussels and military think‑tanks in Tokyo.

Duration: five days, including meetings in Beijing and a stop in Shanghai.
Principal meetings: Premier Li Qiang; Zhao Leji; a range of business and cultural contacts.
Context: first Taoiseach visit since 2012; follows high‑level talks in Dublin between Mr Martin and China’s foreign minister earlier this year.

Why now? Because the map keeps changing

China’s recent moves on trade cannot be ignored. In December, Beijing slapped provisional tariffs of up to 42.7% on certain dairy imports from the EU — milk and cheese among them. Those tariffs landed like a cold wind on Irish dairies, where awards and export labels have long relied on open European and global markets.

And this wasn’t isolated. Beijing has opened probes — into brandy and pork, for instance — that many Brussels watchers view as countermeasures after the EU imposed duties on Chinese electric vehicles. In short: goods have become both bargaining chips and flags planted by rivals.

“Small states like Ireland have to be nimble,” said Aisling Byrne, an EU trade analyst based in Dublin. “You’re balancing domestic producers, farmers, tech investors and the broader security concerns of being in the European Union. It’s not black and white; it’s a hundred shades of gray.”

On the ground: Shanghai, streets, dumplings and dealmaking

Shanghai, with the Huangpu river glinting under steel and silk, will be the Taoiseach’s window into China’s commercial heartbeat. For Irish visitors, that means more than boardrooms. It means the tang of vinegar over xiaolongbao (soup dumplings), the neon of Nanjing Road and conversations in cafés where English is partial and curiosity total.

“We’ve noticed more Irish tourists and businessmen in the last few years,” said Sun Mei, who runs a tea house near the Bund. “They ask about food, farming, education — and they always want to talk about Ireland’s music. It surprises them that such a small island has such big voices.”

Local color matters. A handshake in a Shanghai banquet hall will be different from one in Dublin’s Parliament Buildings. It will be flavored by tea, chopsticks and the hum of a city that has spent decades building bridges to the world. That atmosphere matters back home: photographs of Ireland’s leader strolling the Bund or addressing a business forum will be parsed for tone, symbolism and intent.

Neighbourhood frictions: Taiwan, Tokyo and Seoul

This visit arrives amid a simmering regional heat. China has staged large military drills around Taiwan in recent days, a show of force Beijing terms a response to “separatist and external interference.” Tokyo’s prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, has even suggested Japan’s military could intervene if China took action over Taiwan — a line that would have once felt unthinkable.

At the same time, South Korea’s president, Lee Jae‑myung, is set to arrive in Beijing for a four‑day visit overlapping with Mr Martin’s trip. Seoul has reiterated respect for the One China policy during interviews with Chinese state media, a diplomatic tightrope that reflects the complex alliances and commercial ties at work.

“We’re not just trading with Beijing,” said Dr. Johan Meier, a geopolitical scholar in Amsterdam. “We’re living in a multipolar reality where economic interdependence coexists with strategic rivalry. Each bilateral visit is therefore also read by third parties. Ireland’s diplomacy will be watched closely in capitals beyond Dublin and Beijing.”

Voices from Ireland: farmers, students and policymakers

In County Cork, the dairy sector is paying attention. Ireland exported roughly one in every X of its dairy shipments to the EU market in recent years — producers are nervous about the potential ripple effects of high tariffs on cheese and milk.

“We’re not against trade,” said Tom O’Leary, who runs a small cheesemaking cooperative. “But when tariffs spike, it’s our families that bear it. We want government to be strong, to get us access and to stand up in Brussels. We’re looking for action, not just statements.”

Young Irish people studying in Beijing or Shanghai, meanwhile, express a different mood. “There’s so much to learn here,” said Aoife Murphy, a 23‑year‑old studying Mandarin. “I want to see Ireland do well, but I also think we need to talk about human rights and academic freedom. You can’t do everything at once, but you can try to be consistent.”

What might success look like — and what would failure look like?

For Dublin, success might be narrowly defined: restored access for Irish dairy to Chinese markets, concrete business deals for Irish tech and pharma, deeper cultural and educational exchange. For Beijing, success involves peeling away EU cohesion and demonstrating that bilateral ties with individual member states can be deepened even as relations with Brussels are frayed.

Failure, however, could be equally stark: more tariffs, continued probes into goods, and headlines suggesting Ireland has chosen profit over principle. That binary is too crude; in reality, the middle ground is where diplomacy does its messy work.

Questions to carry home

As the Taoiseach’s plane crosses time zones, consider this: what should small open economies prioritize when the world’s great powers tilt and test the rules? How do you keep markets open without eroding values? And can cultural exchange and trade be instruments of trust in an age of suspicion?

“History tells us that engagement has its risks and rewards,” said Byrne. “But silence is not a policy. Visits like this are opportunities — not guarantees. The job of a small country is to be pragmatic, principled and persistent.”

So take a moment to picture the scene: an Irish leader greeting a Chinese premier beneath ornate ceilings; an Irish cheesemaker watching markets nervously; a Shanghai teahouse smelling of jasmine and possibility. In those small, vivid details we find the human rhythms that make geopolitics more than just an abstract chess match. They make it a story about people trying to navigate a world that is changing faster than any of us would prefer.

Donald Trump declares the U.S. ‘will take charge of’ Venezuela

hanad

January 3, 2026

Donald Trump says US 'will run' Venezuela

“We will run Venezuela”: What a Single Sentence Reveals About Power, Politics and the Human Cost

When a leading U.S. politician declared, almost offhand, that “we will run Venezuela,” the words landed like a stone in a still pond — concentric circles of alarm, disbelief and weary resignation spreading out across continents.

It was not just a slogan. It was a provocation with history tangled in it: echoes of past interventions, the shadow of the Monroe Doctrine, the hum of satellite feeds and social timelines. But beyond the geopolitics, those four words carried a human weight — for the millions who fled Venezuela’s collapsing economy, for the families still in Caracas waiting for medicine and light, and for entire neighborhoods in Miami and Bogotá where Venezuelan voices now mix with local rhythms.

Scenes and Voices: From Caracas to Miami

At a café in eastern Caracas, a teacher named Rosa stirred her coffee slowly and said, “We have lived with foreign threats for years. But what really scares me is the idea of being decided for. We want our future to be Venezuelan-made.” Her eyes, steady as the cracked tile floor, held both fatigue and defiance.

In a crowded living room in Hialeah, Florida, Jose — who arrived four years ago — watched the clip on a neighbor’s phone and laughed bitterly. “They talk about running our country as if it were a property they could manage,” he said. “Hasn’t anyone learned anything? When outsiders try to ‘fix’ things, it’s our people who pay.”

These reactions — cynicism, fear, a bitter humor that coats many immigrant conversations — are visible across the hemisphere. In Bogotá, a bakery owner who took in relatives from Maracaibo described how conversations in his shop turned political and personal within minutes. “We want stability, yes, but also dignity,” he told me. “Many of us fled not because someone else failed, but because the system collapsed. We don’t want someone else to be in charge of our living rooms or our hearts.”

Context and Reality: A Nation in Crisis

To understand why a statement about “running” Venezuela triggers such a response, you have to look at the scale of the country’s collapse. Over the past decade, Venezuela’s economy contracted catastrophically. Estimates from international organizations place the GDP decline at roughly two-thirds since the early 2010s, and hyperinflation devastated savings and salaries, driving millions to seek safety and opportunity abroad.

Today, more than seven million Venezuelans live outside their country — one of the largest displacement crises globally in recent memory. Hospitals struggle for basic supplies; power outages and shortages of water remain common in many regions. Sanctions, domestic mismanagement and fluctuating oil prices created a perfect storm that transformed a once resource-rich nation into a deeply impoverished society.

Against this backdrop, the idea that an external actor could merely “run” Venezuela feels less like strategy and more like erasure to those who remember better days.

International Law, Sovereignty and the Limits of Power

On paper, international law is clear: sovereign nations are not playgrounds for foreign administrations. The UN Charter emphasizes non-intervention, and post-World War II norms generally prohibit direct occupation or governance without consent. In practice, though, power politics has often blurred those lines.

A veteran foreign policy analyst I spoke with — who has spent decades working on Latin America — framed the debate this way: “There are legal mechanisms and there is the reality of power. Saying ‘we will run’ a country crosses a boundary. It invites questions about occupation, legitimacy, and ultimately, about whose consent matters.”

Historical Echoes

Latin America has long memories. The 20th century is littered with examples of external influence and regime change in the region: overt military interventions, covert operations, and political support for favored factions. Those memories fuel suspicion today. When a powerful country speaks of running another, older wounds reopen.

What Would “Running” Venezuela Even Look Like?

Speculative as it may be, it’s worth parsing the practicalities. Would “running” mean administration by a foreign-appointed caretaker government? Economic trusteeship? Military governance? Each option is fraught — legally risky, operationally complex, and politically combustible.

Occupation or direct administration would likely violate international law and provoke broad condemnation.
An economic trusteeship could face resistance from local institutions and requires massive oversight to prevent abuse and corruption.
Military governance would risk further destabilization and is likely the most perilous option for civilians.

Each path also raises the question: even with superior resources, can an external power fix the social and political fractures that led to the crisis? The answer, for most experts, is: not by force or fiat. Stabilization requires local buy-in, institutional rebuilding, and decades of trust-building.

Voices of the Region

Leaders in Latin America reacted with a mix of alarm and rhetorical restraint. A foreign minister from a neighboring country said, “Sovereignty is a cornerstone of our coexistence. Any hint of external governance is unacceptable. We urge dialogue and diplomacy, not declarations of control.”

Humanitarian organizations, meanwhile, warned of the risks to aid and relief operations. “Politicizing assistance turns life-saving work into bargaining chips,” an NGO director told me. “People who need medicine and clean water cannot wait for political theater to be resolved.”

Broader Themes: Power, Populism and the Global Order

So why does a phrase like “we will run Venezuela” keep surfacing in political rhetoric? Part of it is domestic: strong, decisive language plays well for certain voter blocs who favor clear solutions over nuance. Part of it is historical: great powers have long flirted with the idea that their governance could solve foreign problems. And part of it is the deeply human tendency to look for simple answers to complex problems.

But the dangerous fallacy is to equate capacity with legitimacy. Running a country isn’t like running a corporation, and governance imposed from outside rarely produces durable peace. The global lesson is clear: power without legitimacy — even when clothed in promises of efficiency — often produces long-term instability.

What Should We Ask Ourselves?

As you read these lines, consider this — what kind of global order do we want to live in? One where might makes right, or one where consensual governance, even messy and slow, is the norm? How do we balance the urgent need to alleviate suffering with respect for national self-determination?

And for those of us far from Venezuela, there’s a moral question: when does intervention to prevent human suffering become another form of harm? The answers are rarely tidy.

Conclusion: A Call for Humility and Humanity

Language matters. When leaders speak of “running” another nation, they are not merely outlining policy; they are casting a vision of who holds power and who does not. For Venezuelans — those who stayed, those who left, and those working in exile — such talk can feel like a reopening of old wounds.

What the moment really needs is not bravado, but humility: a recognition that sustainable recovery requires local agency, years of investment in institutions, and international cooperation guided by law and respect. The hemisphere’s future will not be written by one speech, one administration, or one bold phrase. It will be forged in clinics and classrooms, in municipal councils and market squares, in countless small acts of repair.

Will the world learn from the past, or repeat it? That question is no longer rhetorical — it is urgent, and it is ours to answer.

North Korean leader’s daughter seen visiting state mausoleum

hanad

January 3, 2026

North Korea leader's daughter in visit to state mausoleum — Kim Ju Ae (in maroon coloured suit) is seen standing between her parents

At the Mausoleum: A Quiet Photograph and a Loud Question

There are images that speak in a dozen languages at once, and then there are images that aim for silence. North Korea’s state news agency released a few such photographs recently—glossy, staged, and instantly thorny—showing a young girl flanked by her parents in the cavernous, torch-lit interior of the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun.

The girl, Kim Ju Ae, stood between Kim Jong-un and Ri Sol Ju as they paid homage to the embalmed bodies of the country’s founders. For a regime that treats ceremony like scripture, even a single frame can be a sermon. The question the photographs pose—deliberate or not—is unavoidable: who will lead next?

More than a Family Snapshot

North Korea has long used pageantry to stitch together authority. The Kumsusan Palace of the Sun is not merely a mausoleum; it is the shrine where the state’s legitimacy is on permanent display. To appear there is to be woven into the national story.

Kim Jong-un’s choice to place his daughter in the center of such a tableau is neither casual nor new. Over the last few years, Ju Ae’s visibility has increased: she appeared at New Year celebrations, and in September she reportedly accompanied her father on a high-profile trip to Beijing—the sort of diplomatic flourish that once would have been unthinkable for the private children of a closed leadership.

“This is image-making with a purpose,” said a Seoul-based analyst who has tracked Pyongyang’s media moves for two decades. “The regime is sending more than a symbol; it is rehearsing a narrative of continuity. Whether that narrative becomes law is another matter.”

What the Experts Say

South Korean intelligence and outside analysts have increasingly floated the idea that Ju Ae might be groomed as a successor, the fourth generation in a lineage that began with Kim Il Sung in 1948. Sejong Institute vice president Cheong Seong-chang has described the child’s appearances as a calculated prelude to formal succession moves, particularly ahead of party gatherings and anniversaries that codify power in North Korea.

“Showing a stable family image—father, mother, daughter—on the state stage underscores dynastic legitimacy,” said Hong Min, an expert at the Korea Institute for National Unification, in comments to reporters about the imagery. But he and others caution against leaping to conclusions. Ju Ae’s age, believed to be in the early 2010s, makes it unlikely the regime would announce the succession formally any time soon. As Hong observed, it would be “practically impossible” to publicly name a child who cannot legally join the Workers’ Party, let alone assume an office that demands absolute control.

Quick Facts

Kim Jong-un has led North Korea since 2011, following the death of his father Kim Jong Il.
The Kumsusan Palace of the Sun houses the preserved bodies of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il and is a central site for state rituals.
North Korea’s population is roughly 25 million people, living under a highly centralized, dynastic state.

The Optics of Succession

Consider the choreography. In a nation where every public move is choreographed with the precision of a military drill, placing a child in the frame is a message to multiple audiences—domestic, regional, and global.

To the North Korean populace, the portrait of a smiling first family sends reassurance: the “revolution” will continue unbroken. To the region—particularly Seoul and Beijing—it is a reminder that the regime is alive to perceptions and optics, willing to stage-managed shifts and reassure partners and rivals alike. And to the international community, it poses a more uncomfortable question: what does it mean when nuclear authority is passed down like an heirloom?

“Leadership in Pyongyang has always been intimate and symbolic,” said a former diplomat who served in East Asia and now lectures on authoritarian succession. “But the stakes are different when the leader is also the commander-in-chief of a nuclear arsenal. The world pays attention.”

Voices on the Ground and in the Halls

Outside the neatly curated frames of state media are other, messier perspectives. In Seoul, an elderly woman I met in a tea shop frowned when I described the photographs. “It feels like history folding over itself,” she said. “We watched our grandparents worship statues; now they want us to worship a child. It comforts some people, frightens others.”

In foreign tour groups permitted brief glimpses of Pyongyang, guides discuss the mausoleum with a reverence that feels rehearsed; in private, visitors sometimes note a dissonance—the grandeur of the halls set against a country struggling with chronic shortages and isolation. The images of Ju Ae are part of that dissonance: a reminder of continuity even as the state confronts economic strain, sanctions, and geopolitical isolation.

North Korea’s official silence on Ju Ae’s exact age and status feeds talk but stymies clarity. South Korea’s Unification Ministry has publicly declined to make definitive claims, saying it is “too early” to treat her as a successor given her age and lack of formal position. That is the cautious posture of a democracy watching a closed state make moves few outsiders can see in full.

What Does This Mean for the World?

Succession in authoritarian regimes is a delicate dance. Sometimes it is a smooth handover orchestrated behind closed doors; sometimes it is a crucible of competing elites. The North Korean model has historically favored family succession—three generations in a row now—so the possibility of a fourth is not merely tradition but an institutionalized logic of the regime.

Yet the implications transcend domestic ritual. A child leader, or the preparation of one, raises questions about stability, deterrence, and negotiation. Who speaks for the young heir on matters of defense or diplomacy? How do regional powers recalibrate strategy? These are not abstract concerns when nuclear weapons and missile programs are involved.

“Whether they announce Ju Ae as successor tomorrow or groom her for a decade,” the Seoul analyst said, “the message is that the Kim family intends continuity. That has both domestic stabilizing aims and international signaling effects.”

Looking Ahead: Theater, Reality, and the Human Element

For the North Korean people—whose daily realities include rationing, state labor campaigns, and tightly controlled information—the announcement of an heir might be another headline in a life built around waves of state narrative. For the global observer, it is an evolving story that will test how we read images, signals, and silences.

So what do you see when you look at those photographs—a rehearsal for history, a wink at propaganda, or something more dangerous? Does a dynasty’s continuity make the world more predictable, or does it plant a new set of uncertainties?

Images are invitations. They ask us to imagine the future, to weigh the consequences, and to consider how a child being placed into a frame of power changes not only a nation but the map of regional stability. Keep watching. The portrait is only the beginning.

Venezuela demands Washington produce ‘proof of life’ for Maduro

hanad

January 3, 2026

Venezuela demands US provide 'proof of life' of Maduro

When a Question Becomes a Diplomatic Flashpoint: Venezuela Demands the U.S. Produce “Proof of Life” for Maduro

On a humid morning in Caracas, shopkeepers swept the steps of their streetside businesses while families queued for arepas and coffee. The city hummed with the ordinary rhythms of life — children, buses, vendors calling out prices — until a new kind of noise arrived: a diplomatic roar that turned a rumor into a headline and a headline into a confrontation.

The Venezuelan government has publicly demanded that the United States provide “proof of life” for President Nicolás Maduro after what Caracas described as “irresponsible statements” from U.S. officials. The demand, lodged by the foreign ministry in an urgent note, read less like a bureaucratic reply and more like a challenge: show us the evidence, or retract your claims.

The Moment That Sparked the Row

Details are still scattering across different reports — and in an era when a tweet can travel faster than a verified fact, confusion breeds quickly. Venezuelan officials say American comments suggested uncertainty about the president’s health and whereabouts, a suggestion the government called dangerous and destabilizing.

“This is not a private matter; it is an attack on our sovereignty and an attempt to unsettle a nation already bearing the weight of sanctions and hardship,” said Carla Jiménez, a spokesperson for Venezuela’s foreign ministry, in a televised briefing. “We demand from the Government of the United States the immediate presentation of proof of life. If they possess nothing, they must correct the record.”

The U.S. response was measured but firm. “We call for transparency and verification when questions about any leader’s wellbeing arise,” said a State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “We will not engage in speculation, nor will we tolerate attempts to weaponize an absence of information.”

Voices from the Streets

In Caracas, reactions were as varied as the city’s colorfully painted buildings. “Every time something like this happens, my mother turns on the television to watch the palace channel,” said Luis, a 47-year-old taxi driver. “We want to know who is really running things. If there’s nothing to worry about, then say it loudly.”

María, who sells fresh mangoes in the San Bernardino market, shrugged and laughed bitterly. “Politics is theater,” she said. “Today it’s ‘proof of life.’ Tomorrow it will be another headline. But at the end of the day, we still need to get our children to school and pay for medicines.”

Opposition figures treated the episode with skepticism. “Whether Maduro is here or not, the system around him continues to govern through patronage and repression,” said Andrés Velásquez, an opposition economist. “This demand for ‘proof’ may actually be a smokescreen aimed at diverting attention from crises the government cannot solve.”

Why This Matters Beyond a Single Headline

At first glance, a demand for “proof of life” may seem like a theatrical spat between two adversarial governments. But peel back the layers and you find several deeper currents: the fragility of public trust, the weaponization of uncertainty in geopolitics, and a nation strained by years of economic collapse and mass migration.

Consider some stark figures. Venezuela, once one of Latin America’s wealthiest nations thanks to oil, has seen its economy plummet over the past decade. Millions have left — the UN and regional agencies estimate the exodus at more than seven million people since the worst of the crisis began — reshaping demographics and imposing burdens across the region. Inflation, years of mismanagement and sanctions have hollowed out public services and plunged large swathes of the population into poverty.

And yet Maduro’s government still controls key levers of power: security forces, electoral institutions, and the state media narratives that shape what many Venezuelans believe. In that environment, a question about the president’s condition becomes more than curiosity. It is a test of whether institutions are opaque or accountable; whether citizens are informed or manipulated.

How Information — and Misinformation — Plays Out

We live in a world where rumors can metastasize overnight. False reports, misattributed quotes, doctored images — all these can be weaponized for political ends. “This is the era of information warfare,” noted Dr. Ana Torres, a Caracas-based sociologist who studies media and governance. “An absence of clarity is an invitation for actors to insert narratives that serve their strategic interests.”

That dynamic complicates diplomacy. When a foreign government hints at uncertainty over a leader’s health, it can be read as encouragement to opponents, or as a prelude to foreign interference. Conversely, a government that demands opaque secrecy risks being accused of hiding critical facts.

More than 7 million Venezuelans have left the country since the crisis intensified.
Venezuela still holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, even as production remains far below past levels.
Public trust in institutions is low; transparency and independent verification are often limited.

What Comes Next?

Diplomatic friction can be a slow burn or a flashpoint. If the United States provides verifiable information to address Venezuela’s demand, that could calm the situation — but it might also raise new questions about privacy and protocol. If it refuses, Caracas will likely use the absence of evidence to reinforce domestic narratives of foreign meddling.

More broadly, the episode is a reminder that the personal and the political are inseparable at the highest levels. Leaders’ health, their visibility, and the trust people place in institutions have real consequences — for markets, for migration flows, for the everyday control of cities and neighborhoods.

“What we should be asking,” Dr. Torres said, “is not only whether any one person is alive or not. We should be asking about the vitality of the institutions that govern people’s lives. Proof of life is not just about a leader; it’s about whether a nation’s systems are transparent enough to withstand doubt.”

Questions for the Reader — and for the World

So what do you do when facts are scarce but stakes are high? How should foreign governments balance caution with candor? And in countries where institutions are weakened, who gets to be the arbiter of truth?

These aren’t hypothetical queries. They matter for millions whose daily concerns are immediate — access to medicine, a steady income, the safety of their children — and yet who are shaped by the vagaries of distant power plays. In Caracas, in Miami, in Bogotá, in Washington, lives interlock across borders, and so do the consequences of rumor and silence.

In the end, this episode may pass as another diplomatic skirmish, or it may be a moment that forces hard questions about transparency, sovereignty, and the modern politics of information. Either way, the people living under its shadow will keep asking the same simple question: can we know the truth in time to change the things that matter?

Riyadh Calls for Talks Among Yemen’s Rival Factions

hanad

January 3, 2026

Riyadh urges dialogue between Yemeni factions — Convoy of armoured vehicles in Mukalla, southern Yemen

The Day the Market Fell Silent: Hadramawt’s New Fault Line

Morning in Mukalla usually arrives like a slow exhale — boats returning with silvery fish, the spice stalls filling the air with turmeric and cardamom, and the call to prayer rising from minarets that have watched trade cross the Arabian Sea for centuries. Last Saturday, the air smelled of cordite and dust instead.

“I’ve run this little shop for twenty years,” said Ahmed al-Mansuri, a lean man with a weathered face and a permanent stain of coffee on his shirt. “People came for bread, for gossip, for hope. Today they come to the window to watch the sky.”

Gunfire rattled across Mukalla and Seiyun as the Southern Transitional Council — a separatist movement backed by the United Arab Emirates — extended its recent offensive across wide stretches of Hadramawt, Yemen’s largest governorate by area and a province that has long been prized for its oil, gas and strategic ports. The Saudi foreign ministry, alarmed by the escalation and the prospect of a permanent split in Yemen, issued a public call for a comprehensive conference in Riyadh to gather “all southern factions” and hammer out a political path forward.

Old Rivalries, New Violence

At the heart of this crisis sits a familiar cocktail: local grievances steeped in history, foreign patrons with competing interests, and a war-weary population that has little appetite left for more bloodshed. The Saudi-led coalition — which intervened in Yemen in 2015 aiming to dislodge the Houthi movement from the north — now finds itself at odds with its erstwhile partner, the UAE, as each backs different actors in the fractured south.

“This is not merely a domestic quarrel,” said Dr. Leila Haddad, a political analyst who has followed the Arabian Peninsula for two decades. “It is the product of decades of external intervention layered atop local ambitions. When external patrons shift gears, the armed groups on the ground move with them. The result is more fragmentation, not less.”

Earlier in the week, the coalition targeted what it called an alleged weapons shipment bound for UAE-backed forces. By Friday, airstrikes — including an attack on the Al-Khasha military camp in Hadramawt — were reported to have killed around 20 people, according to the separatists. Residents of Seiyun said the airport and a nearby military base were struck, sending shrapnel into palm groves and shattering the brittle peace of the desert city.

In the Shadow of Shibam: Culture and Consequence

Hadramawt is not just cartographic space. It is the pulse of a cultural landscape famous for the mud-brick towers of Shibam — sometimes called the “Manhattan of the Desert” — and for frankincense routes older than many civilizations. In Seiyun, the grand adobe palace and the rows of mango trees tell a story of place and persistence. Here, identity has always mattered. But identity for some now means separatism.

“We have been overlooked by Sana’a, ignored by the central government, and used by those with money and guns,” said Fatima al-Habshi, a teacher in Seiyun whose classrooms have lost students to displacement and militia recruitment. “When leaders promise an independent South, some people hear dignity; others hear permanent war.”

What the Southern Transitional Council Says

The STC, which formally took shape in 2017 and has deep ties to the UAE, announced the beginning of a two-year transition towards declaring an independent southern state. The plan, officials said, would include a period of dialogue and a later referendum on independence.

“This is about self-determination,” said Major General Omar al-Saqqaf, an STC official, during a brief radio interview. “The south has been plundered and marginalized for decades. We will not accept another decade of neglect.”

Human Costs and Numbers That Don’t Tell Everything

Behind the maps and the statements lie human realities that simple tallies cannot fully capture. Yemen remains one of the world’s most acute humanitarian crises. More than 30 million people live in a country where services are frayed, markets wobble, and the basic infrastructure of daily life is a relic of a better era. The United Nations and humanitarian groups estimate that over 20 million Yemenis require some form of humanitarian assistance, and nearly 4 million are internally displaced.

“Each new front line frays the safety nets further,” said Rania Ahmed, a logistic coordinator for an international aid group in Aden. “When airports are hit, when roads are closed, the people who lose out are the children and the sick. Food prices spike, medicines disappear, and families face impossible choices.”

Geopolitics on a Narrow Strait

What happens in Hadramawt echoes beyond Yemen’s borders. The governorate’s coastal towns lie not far from the Bab al-Mandeb strait, a narrow maritime choke point through which a substantial portion of the world’s oil and container traffic passes en route to the Suez Canal. The prospect of a new, hostile border in the south of the Arabian Peninsula has strategic consequences not only for Riyadh and Abu Dhabi but also for global commerce.

“Instability in southern Yemen threatens maritime security and could drive up insurance premiums and shipping costs,” noted Captain Henrik Olsen, a maritime-security consultant based in Denmark. “Global supply chains are fragile; hotspots like Hadramawt matter.”

Voices from the Ground: Fear, Hope, and Weariness

In Mukalla’s quieter alleys, people speak in hushed tones. Some welcome the STC’s promises; others fear that independence will mean more blockades and fewer jobs. “We love our land, but we cannot feed our kids with slogans,” said Saeed, a fisherman who refused to give his full name. “If there is a referendum, I will go. But will anyone be alive to count the votes?”

Local healers and shopkeepers recounted the same weary sentiment: enough political promises, fewer empty stomachs. “We are tired of being a chessboard,” said Mariam Noor, who runs a small bakery. “Both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi play their game here, and we are the pawns that suffer.”

Paths Forward — Or More of the Same?

Riyadh’s offer to host a comprehensive conference is, on paper, a sensible if overdue move. Talks could create a platform for rival southern factions, local leaders, and the internationally recognized government to negotiate protections, power-sharing and a credible timetable for any political transition. But such conferences have a chequered history in Yemen: they can be staging grounds for agreements, yes, but also for delays and disappointments.

What would a meaningful peace process look like? Observers say it must be inclusive, locally owned, and backed by enforceable guarantees — not only for elites but for the ordinary citizens who would vote in any referendum, who send their children to school, and who tend the palm groves that feed whole neighborhoods.

Include local councils and civil society, not only armed leaders.
Ensure humanitarian access before, during, and after talks.
Link any political plan to economic guarantees for livelihoods and services.

What Do We Do as Onlookers?

As a global audience, it is easy to reduce Yemen to headlines and to think of it as “someone else’s war.” But Yemen’s fracture challenges a simple truth: the consequences of conflict are transnational. They ripple through migration routes, global trade, and the moral ledger of how the international community responds to human suffering.

So ask yourself: when foreign capitals posture, whose voices are truly heard? When maps are redrawn in conference rooms, who counts the cost? The people in Mukalla and Seiyun are not abstractions. They are bakers, fishermen, schoolteachers, and parents. They deserve more than the fate of a pawn in a regional checkmate.

For now, the markets will empty and the prayers will be louder. For now, the bright mud towers of Shibam will stand amid an uncertain horizon. Whether Riyadh’s conference becomes a path toward dignified resolution or another refrain in a decade-long dirge remains in the balance. The world will be watching — and the people of Hadramawt will, as always, be waiting.

Maduro signals Venezuela’s openness to talks with United States

hanad

January 3, 2026

Maduro says Venezuela open to talks with US — Nicolas Maduro said he has not spoken to Donald Trump since 12 November (File image)

When a Dock Explodes: Venezuela, the U.S., and the Fog of a New Kind of War

There are places on Venezuela’s northern shore where mornings begin with the same small rituals: fishermen repairing nets under the shade of palm fronds, the smell of diesel and salt on the air, women selling warm arepas from makeshift stalls beside sun-beaten benches. On such mornings, life often feels stubbornly ordinary. This week, ordinary was punctured by an extraordinary claim — a U.S. president saying American forces had struck and destroyed a dock used to load boats with drugs. The Venezuelan government did not confirm the attack outright. The truth, for now, sits somewhere between an explosion on the sand and a declaration at a Florida resort.

“There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs,” said the U.S. president at his Mar-a-Lago estate, according to statements reported widely. His words were precise and public; the location and chain of command were conspicuously vague. Was this a military strike? A clandestine CIA operation? Where exactly did it happen? The White House would only say it was “along the shore.”

The man in Caracas

On state television, President Nicolás Maduro sidestepped a direct confirmation. “This could be something we talk about in a few days,” he said, leaving the question suspended like a dropped coin under water.

Even as he avoided the exact claim, Mr. Maduro offered an olive branch of sorts. “Wherever they want and whenever they want,” he said about the prospect of talking with Washington — on trafficking, on oil, on migration. His tone was both defiant and transactional: a leader who denies involvement in narcotics yet insists he is open to negotiations that might ease the pressure on his country.

What’s been happening at sea

For months, U.S. forces have been operating in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific, targeting vessels the Pentagon says are linked to drug smuggling. Those strikes, according to U.S. military disclosures, have involved at least 30 separate actions and have killed at least 107 people. Washington maintains these actions are aimed at the narcotics trade; critics call them an extrajudicial maritime campaign that raises grave legal and ethical questions.

International law scholars and rights groups warn that strikes without transparent evidence and judicial oversight can amount to unlawful killings. “When lethal force is used outside a clear battlefield, and without accountability, we open the door to abuse,” said Dr. Ana Pereira, an international law scholar based in Caracas. “States may claim necessity, but the rule of law must follow, or this becomes a precedent for anyone to target anyone at sea.”

Voices from the coast

In a small fishing hamlet two hours from the capital, María Torres — who has sold coffee and arepas for 25 years from a stall by the pier — said she woke to helicopters last week. “The noise shook my pots. My son called me from the water and said they heard a big boom,” she recalled. “We don’t know anything for sure. We only know people are afraid.”

A retired coast guard captain, who asked to be identified only as Luis for fear of reprisal, offered a more guarded take. “There are real trafficking networks that use our coves. There are also innocent fishermen. It is complicated. The sea is big. Intelligence is not perfect,” he said.

Oil, power, and the long shadow of geopolitics

To understand why a single dock detonates diplomatic temperature, you have to look beyond drug interdiction and into oil — Venezuela’s most tangible global asset. The country is widely credited with some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, often cited at roughly 300 billion barrels, a resource that has shaped both its domestic politics and international relations for decades.

The Trump administration had intensified pressure on Caracas with measures ranging from expanded sanctions to seizure orders on tankers carrying Venezuelan crude. Washington’s rhetoric has been stark: call Mr. Maduro the head of a drug cartel, and lay out a campaign of economic and military coercion designed to squeeze his government. Caracas responds with counter-accusations — that the true aim is regime change, driven by an appetite for oil and influence.

Is sovereignty being redefined?

What we are watching may be more than one-off strikes. It’s a potential reframing of how powers think about sovereignty and use of force. “If a state can hit a shore to disrupt an alleged illicit flow without transparent legal authority, what does that mean for coastal states everywhere?” asked Professor Simon Jansen, a specialist in maritime security at a London university. “The precedent is worrying.”

That question matters to migrants who cross borders in search of work, to coastal communities reliant on fishing, and to global norms that have historically protected states from extraterritorial use of force. It also matters to multilateral institutions like the United Nations, which will be asked to adjudicate or at least respond if allegations of unlawful strikes multiply.

The human ledger: casualties, uncertainty, fear

The U.S. military’s own tallies — at least 107 killed across 30 strikes — offer a raw arithmetic of loss, but they do not include the ambiguous human costs: families who cannot confirm whether a missing relative was aboard a targeted boat; small towns where economic life depends on fragile coastal trade; fishermen who swap diesel for bread money.

“We are trying to feed our children,” said Carmen Delgado, whose husband works on a small outboard skiff and who has seen friends detained or worse. “If there are criminals on the water, we want them gone. But we also want the right questions asked. Who will answer when things go wrong?”

Broader themes: law, morality, and the drug war

There are broader currents here. The U.S. campaign against drugs has evolved beyond interdiction and domestic law enforcement into a cross-border, and sometimes cross-legal, struggle. Technological reach — drones, satellites, precision munitions — makes strikes more feasible. But precision is not the same as certainty. And the war on drugs has always had collateral—on families, institutions, and trust.

Observers point out that without clear evidence and transparent accountability, actions that are framed as targeted strikes risk alienating the very populations they aim to protect. “Security is not just about destruction,” said Dr. Pereira. “It is about building legitimate institutions and rule of law. Otherwise, you might be fixing one problem while creating many more.”

What should we watch for next?

Will Washington produce verified evidence of the dock’s use in trafficking? Will Caracas open investigations or insist the strike never occurred? Will international bodies demand transparency or launch inquiries into the legality of maritime strikes? These questions will shape not only Venezuela’s next few weeks, but global answers about how states wield force in an era of transnational crime and contested sovereignty.

For people on the beaches where children still splash in salty shallows and neighbors still trade gossip over coffee, the geopolitics are inconveniently close. They ask simple, human questions: Who will keep us safe? Who will tell us the truth? Whose wars will end up on our sand?

We should all be listening for answers. And we should be asking them — loudly, clearly, and in public.

1...394041...239 Page 40 of 239