Nov 07(Jowhar)-Wararka naga soo gaaraya Badda Cas ayaa sheegaya in burcaddii shalay gacanta ku dhigtay markabka Hellas Aphrodite ay maanta si buuxda uga deggeen markabka, iyada oo aan la soo sheegin wax khasaare nafeed ah oo gaaray shaqaalihii saarnaa.
Tesla shareholders greenlight massive $1 trillion pay package for Elon Musk
A Billionaire’s Bet: Inside the Night Tesla Voted to Back Elon Musk’s $1 Trillion Vision
The ballroom in Austin felt less like a corporate meeting than a rock concert. Lights swept the ceiling, cameras bobbed among rows of shareholders, and a small troupe of dancing robots shimmied their servo-limbs to a beat that felt deliberately, defiantly futuristic.
By the time the applause settled, more than three-quarters of those entitled to vote had given a thumbs-up to a plan that reads like science fiction written into corporate law: a pay-and-incentives package for Elon Musk that, under its most generous accounting, could balloon toward a trillion dollars over the next decade.
“We are launching more than a product roadmap,” Mr. Musk told the crowd. “We are launching a series of bets on the next industrial revolution.” His voice was equal parts salesman and prophet; the dancing robots at his side gave the moment a carnival sheen.
Numbers That Make You Pause
The headline figures are dizzying. The plan lays out as much as $878 billion in Tesla stock that Musk could claim if a long list of ambitious milestones are hit over ten years — and, by some calculations in the package’s fine print, the ultimate payoff could be pushed close to $1 trillion once adjustments are taken into account.
Tesla’s own valuation entered the meeting as a critical piece of the puzzle. At roughly $1.5 trillion, the company would need to climb to $2 trillion and beyond multiple times over for the payment tranches to trigger — ultimately requiring a market cap of about $8.5 trillion if the most extreme targets are to be met. Milestones written into the plan include delivering 20 million vehicles, operating one million robotaxis, selling one million humanoid robots, and amassing up to $400 billion in core profit.
Investors responded with a modest bump in after-hours trading, shares edging up around 1% as the news registered on Wall Street.
Why Shareholders Said Yes — and Why Some Said No
More than 75% of votes cast supported the package, according to Tesla officials at the annual meeting; directors were reelected and a controversial move to allow the company to invest in Mr. Musk’s AI startup, xAI, passed — although with a notable number of abstentions.
“It’s a classic founder narrative: give the visionary long-term skin in the game and hope the tailwinds and execution follow,” said Dr. Laura Kim, a corporate governance scholar who has watched CEO compensation fights for years. “But the scale here is unprecedented. The alignment is extreme — and so is the risk.”
Opposition was real and visible. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, proxy advisory firms such as Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, and some large institutional holders voiced concerns that the package could dilute shareholder value, centralize power, and put too much faith in future, uncertain breakthroughs.
“We’re not just voting on compensation,” said Henrik Olsen, a representative for a Scandinavian pension fund. “We’re voting on corporate governance and the future of a public company that touches so many lives.”
Local Color: Austin, Robots, and the Showmanship of Modern Capitalism
Austin itself added flavor to the proceedings. Between sessions, investors stepped outside into the brisk Texas evening where food trucks served brisket and salsas, and conversations ran from battery chemistry to barbecue. “They staged it like South by Southwest,” joked Maria Alvarez, who works in downtown real estate and attended the meeting out of curiosity. “Half the crowd was there for the spectacle.”
The dancing robots were more than props; they were a visual shorthand for Tesla’s wider ambitions — cars that drive themselves, fleets of robotaxis rolling through cities, humanoid machines that might someday work alongside people. For some, the image was thrilling; for others, it was unnerving.
Conflict of Interest and xAI
One of the more delicate strands of the vote involved Tesla’s potential investment in xAI, Mr. Musk’s separate AI venture. While many see the strategic sense — Tesla needs cutting-edge AI to push toward full autonomy — the optics raised eyebrows.
“There’s an obvious synergy here: a company that builds the vehicles furnishing the data, and an AI shop that can turn that data into autonomy,” said Marcus Reid, an analyst who follows the auto-tech convergence. “But when the chairman and CEO stands to benefit on both sides, governance questions follow.”
Indeed, a number of shareholders abstained on that vote, signaling unease even among those who ultimately supported the broader compensation package.
What This Says About Power, Incentives, and the Future of Big Tech
Beyond the numbers and the spectacle, the vote speaks to a bigger cultural and economic moment. The way companies compensate founders and CEOs has become a proxy fight about the future — who gets to build it, and who pays the price if it fails.
“This is a story about concentrated leadership in an era when a single person can shape a trillion-dollar company’s trajectory,” said Samira Patel, an economist who studies inequality and firm structure. “It dovetails with broader debates about capitalism, accountability, and the role of public markets in funding audacious private ambitions.”
There are practical implications too. The package ties massive payouts to equally massive achievement thresholds: the company must significantly scale production, commercialize robotaxis, and build a humanoid robot business that sells a million units. Those are not merely technical challenges; they are logistical, regulatory, and social.
Milestones Built into the Deal
- Deliver 20 million vehicles annually
- Operate one million robotaxis
- Sell one million humanoid robots
- Generate up to $400 billion in core profit
Each item on that list reads like a country-sized industrial project. Each raises questions about supply chains, labor markets, regulation, urban design, and public safety.
So What Should You Think?
As a reader, you might react with exhilaration, skepticism, or a mixture of both.
Do we cheer a plan that plants a founder squarely in the driver’s seat, banking on a singular vision? Or do we worry that the concentration of power this vote cements could create accountability blind spots, especially as Musk splits time among rockets, social platforms, and policy debates?
“The market is a voting machine, yes—but it’s also a thermometer of longer-term faith,” said Dr. Kim. “Investors voted for a vision. Now the hard part begins: turning rhetoric into deliverables while staying transparent and fair to all shareholders.”
Final Thoughts From Austin
As the meeting adjourned and the last robot gave a little bow, the crowd spilled back into the Texas night — some buzzing with the thrill of possibility, others quietly tallying the risks. The package passed. The headlines were made. But the real test will come in the years when vehicles flood highways, when automated fleets are deployed, when humanoid machines maybe start appearing in factories and homes.
Will the ambitious targets materialize? Will the markets reward the risk? And what will it mean for workers, competitors, regulators, and the rest of us who will live in the world these technologies reshape?
Consider this your invitation to pay attention. After all, when a public company votes to bet a fortune on the future, the future becomes, in part, our shared experiment.
Achieving the 1.5°C climate target is now nearly unattainable
Belém in the heat: a river city hosting the planet’s fever
Stepping off the plane in Belém, the capital of Brazil’s Pará state, feels like walking into a warm, humid embrace. The Amazonian air wraps itself around you — thick with the smell of river mud, grilled fish, and açaí — while street vendors call out in a chorus that has sustained generations. This week, that same city has become the world’s uneasy living room: leaders, negotiators, activists and scientists milling together at COP30 as new data lands like a thunderclap from the World Meteorological Organization.
The message is stark: 2025 is shaping up to be one of the hottest years on record, part of an “unprecedented streak” in global temperatures. From January to August, global average surface temperatures sat about 1.42°C above pre-industrial levels — a hair cooler than the historic spike of 1.55°C recorded in 2024, but still well into the danger zone of systemic change.
Numbers that won’t warm anyone’s heart
Behind the numbers are weather systems and economies in upheaval. The WMO’s analysis makes clear that the years from 2015 through 2025 are the 11 warmest in recorded history, and the last three years alone are the hottest trio yet in 176 years of observations. Ocean heat — the slow, relentless battery of warming that feeds storms and bleaches reefs — continued to climb in 2025, eclipsing levels seen in 2024.
Sea levels, too, tell a worrying story: long-term rates of rise have doubled, and 2024 registered a new record for annual global average sea level. While 2025 shows a slight dip, scientists caution that this is likely temporary behavior superimposed on a long-term trend.
Key climate facts in full
- Jan–Aug 2025 global surface temperature: +1.42°C vs pre-industrial
- 2024 record high: +1.55°C
- 2015–2025: the 11 warmest years on record
- Ocean heat continued to rise in 2025 above 2024 records
- Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide were at record highs in 2024 and are expected to be higher in 2025 at many measurement sites
- Global investment in clean energy (2024): roughly $2 trillion — about $800 billion more than was invested in fossil fuels that year
Voices from the summit and the market
On the summit stage, officials speak in urgent tones. “We are sailing into uncharted waters,” a WMO climate scientist I met in Belém told me. “Even if El Niño — which amplified temperatures in 2023 and 2024 — has weakened to neutral, the underlying warming caused by fossil fuel combustion and land-use change keeps driving us upward.”
At Ver-o-Peso market, a vendor named Marisa — who sells smoked tambaqui and spoons of feverishly purple açaí — says the changes are visible in everyday life. “Our rivers are behaving differently,” she said, wiping her palms on her apron. “The rains come heavy, the fish move; my brother says the seasons don’t know their names anymore.”
A delegate from a small island state, whose country faces biopsy-thin coastlines and rising tides, leaned in during a panel and said simply: “Every millimeter of sea level rise is a threat to our school, our cemetery, our memory.”
Politics, money and the illusion of easy answers
The political theater in Belém is as charged as the air. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, hosting the event, has launched an ambitious Tropical Forest Forever Facility — a proposed finance vehicle intended to attract up to $125 billion in long-term investment to protect the world’s forests, with a $10 billion startup pot still seeking backers. It’s the kind of headline-grabbing move that shows both the potential and the limits of summit diplomacy: big promises, harder follow-through.
“Forests are worth more standing than cut down,” a policy advisor in Lula’s office told me, speaking of the logic behind treating standing trees as part of a nation’s wealth. “But turning that into cash flow — for communities, for conservation — requires political courage and creative finance.”
That courage is what United Nations voices are pleading for. “Each fraction of a degree matters,” a senior UN climate adviser said during a session. “Every year we spend above 1.5°C risks irreversible losses to ecosystems and human wellbeing. The difference between 1.5 and 2°C will be measured in lives and livelihoods.”
Money is shifting, but power still resists
There are reasons for guarded optimism. In 2024, investors poured roughly $2 trillion into clean energy — solar and wind are now the cheapest sources of power in many regions. Yet fossil fuels continue to enjoy sizable subsidies and entrenched political influence. “Clean energy is winning on price and potential, but political systems remain hooked on old revenues,” an energy economist told me in a corridor interview, running his hand through his hair.
He added, “The blocking is not technical; it’s structural. Corporations, some state policies, and legacies of trade and power are the hard part.”
On the ground: adaptation, loss and the ethics of response
Out beyond the conference center, in communities along the Amazon’s braided channels, people are already adapting in practical, sometimes heartbreaking ways. A fisherman named João showed me a rusted outboard motor he’d replaced three times in five years because flood patterns now wash it away. “We laugh, but it’s a bitter laugh,” he said. “My grandmother taught me to read the river like a book. Now the pages are torn.”
Policy debates in Belém will address mitigation — slashing greenhouse gas emissions toward ‘net zero’ — and adaptation, which involves expensive infrastructure, relocation, and social programs. But there’s a third dimension that rarely makes budget lines: justice. Who pays when a coastal community loses its home? Who profits when a corporate lobby delays a transition?
“Net zero is the only solution we have to halt the worst,” said an environmental campaigner from West Africa. “But net zero without justice becomes a new form of colonialism — where the poor pay to offset the emissions of the rich.”
Where do we go from here?
Walking back through Belém’s lanes, past stalls of manioc and tapioca and the echo of far-off drums, I kept thinking about choice. The science says a temporary overshoot of 1.5°C is now almost unavoidable without dramatic, immediate reductions — but it also says we can still bring temperatures back down by the end of the century if the world moves decisively.
So what will leaders choose? Short-term electoral gain or long-term survival? Subsidies for old industries or investments in communities and clean tech? A fund that protects forests — fully capitalized and governed with accountability — or lip service and spreadsheets?
Belém is a reminder that climate policy is not an abstract debate in distant capitals: it is a question of whether our children will remember the taste of river fish and the shade of standing trees. It is also a measure of our moral imagination.
As the mercury climbs and negotiators hunker down, the real test will be whether words on stage turn into laws, money into measured support, and guilt into action. Will this COP30 be remembered as the place where the world finally acted with the urgency science has long demanded — or as another chapter in the slow erasure of planetary commons?
Look around. The markets, the mangroves, the rivers — they are keeping score.
Dr Cali Xaaji”Xeer ilaalinta iyo CID-da ayaan la kaashan doonaa kiiska Isbitaalka Banaadir.”
Nov 07(Jowhar)-Wasiirka Wasaaradda Caafimaadka iyo Daryeelka Bulshada ee XFS, Dr Cali Xaji Adan, ayaa maanta booqasho degdeg ah ku tagay Isbitaalka Hooyada iyo Dhallaanka Banaadir, kadib dhacdo lagu faafiyay baraha bulshada ee muujinaysay hooyo Soomaaliyeed oo aan helin gurmad degdeg ah.
British woman on Indonesia’s death row returned home to the UK
From Kerobokan to Heathrow: A Quiet Dawn, Two Lives Returned
At first light, as Bali’s rice terraces steamed in the humid air and the island’s scooters began their endless river of honks and whistles, a Qatar Airways jet taxied away from Denpasar airport carrying two UK nationals whose lives had been measured in years behind bars rather than in sunsets over Seminyak.
They were not celebrities. They were not hardened fugitives on the run. They were, for a long time, names on a long, sombre ledger of Indonesia’s uncompromising drug laws. This morning, under a diplomatic agreement stitched together in recent weeks, those names were transferred from Kerobokan and Nusa Kambangan’s dark corridors to the legal custody of the British state — repatriated on humanitarian grounds, officials said.
Two stories, two islands, one route home
Lindsay Sandiford, once a tourist drawn by Bali’s white sand and friendly sunlight, spent the last decade under the shadow of Indonesia’s harshest sentence. Convicted in 2013 after authorities said they found 3.8kg of cocaine in the lining of her suitcase, she was condemned to death — a ruling that shocked observers because prosecutors had reportedly not sought the death penalty.
Shahab Shahabadi’s path was different but no less tragic. Arrested in Jakarta in 2014 amid an investigation into an international trafficking network, Shahabadi was convicted over shipments of methamphetamine and later given life imprisonment. He was held for years on Nusa Kambangan, the island prison often called Indonesia’s Alcatraz, before being moved to Bali ahead of the transfer.
Witnesses to the formal handover at Kerobokan jail described a small, civilised ceremony the day before the flight: officials, a smattering of journalists, and two figures cloaked in exhaustion. Sandiford reportedly hid her face behind a shawl. Shahabadi stood with a stillness that seemed more stunned than defiant. Then at dawn they were gone, bound for London via Doha.
Health, humanity and the lawyered fine print
“This is not a political victory,” a senior Indonesian ministry official told reporters, speaking softly but firmly. “This is a transfer of responsibility. We transfer them to the United Kingdom, and their legal fate will be decided there in line with our agreement.”
British diplomats framed the move in practical, compassionate terms. “When they first arrive, the priority will be health assessments and any necessary treatment,” a senior UK consular source said. “This repatriation is about humanitarian need.”
Both detainees reportedly suffer from serious health issues. Indonesian officials described Sandiford as “seriously ill”; Shahabadi was said to have several medical conditions, including concerns for his mental health. That element — visible and inescapable — was the pivot on which this unusual transfer swung.
Kerobokan and Nusa Kambangan: Places where time is thin
Kerobokan is a place of contrasts. Just beyond its walls, Bali’s tourist economy hums: cocktail umbrellas, art markets, the ritual smoke of incense at small household shrines. Inside, the prison is overcrowded, thick with the heavy smells of sweat and fried food, stories stacked against the walls like plates.
Nusa Kambangan is different — an island of silence and cliffs, where prisoners once marched to the firing squad in the shade of coconut palms. It has a legend of its own: hardened men who became names, names who became ghosts in the popular imagination. To be moved off that island is to be taken from a place that the public imagines as final. For some, repatriation is relief; for others, it’s another kind of exile.
What this transfer tells us about a changing policy
Indonesia’s stance on drugs remains severe — its laws among the world’s toughest. Yet in recent years, under President Prabowo Subianto’s administration and his predecessor governments, there have been glimpses of flexibility: high-profile repatriations, the return of several members of the notorious “Bali Nine,” and moves to ease tensions with countries whose nationals were sentenced to death.
Human rights groups track the scale of capital punishment in Indonesia. One local watchdog reports nearly 600 people on death row, including dozens of foreign nationals. The last state executions were publicly carried out in 2016, a memory that still cuts deep in diplomatic conversations.
Why now? Why these two? Officials whisper about medical reports and diplomatic diplomacy; advocates point to a global trend of diminishing appetite for executing people convicted of drugs offences. More than 100 nations have abolished the death penalty entirely — a fact that colours how Western governments approach consular negotiations. Yet Indonesia has its own domestic politics and a public that often sees tough drug laws as a necessity.
The human ledger: guilt, coercion and the question of choices
Sandiford has long been a figure of media fascination in Britain. In earlier letters and published accounts, she wrote of fear — of being coerced by gangs who threatened her children, of a life that had narrowed to the size of a cell. Whether her story fits neatly into categories of victim or perpetrator remains contested in courtrooms and in editorial columns.
“No one who knows these people says the law should be soft,” said a Balinese community worker who has visited Kerobokan. “But many of us believe punishment must be tempered with compassion, especially when health and coercion are factors. This island knows how to forgive, in its own way.”
Legal scholars stress the complexity of transfers. “A prisoner transfer is not an eraser,” a European criminal justice expert told me. “It’s a legal handover that preserves national sovereignty and respects verdicts, but it also opens the door to medical care and different penal philosophies.”
Beyond the headlines: what should we ask ourselves?
What does justice look like when a person has been sentenced to die but never executed? What do you do with a sentence that becomes, over time, an ethical problem as much as a legal one? And what responsibility do sending and receiving states bear toward rehabilitation, mental health, and the dignity of people who have served years in punitive systems?
These are not rhetorical luxuries; they are questions that shape policy. They determine whether repatriation is a one-off mercy or the start of a deeper re-evaluation of drug policy and penal practice.
Where they go from here — and what it might mean
Upon arrival in the UK, both will face health assessments, possible treatment, and a judicial process governed by British law. Whether their sentences will be altered, reduced, or upheld under UK statutes remains to be seen. For now, their immediate future is one of medical care and legal review — of slow bureaucracies and the fragile hope that comes with stepping off a plane and onto dry, familiar soil.
Back in Bali, a small shop owner who sells offerings outside Kerobokan paused and smiled with a kind of weary understanding. “We pray for anyone who is locked away,” she said. “On this island, every life touches the sea.”
As these two Britons cross time zones, their stories remind us of larger tides: the global debate over the death penalty, the human cost of the war on drugs, and the quiet power of diplomacy to pull someone back from the edge. Whatever your view on sentencing and justice, ask yourself: when the state’s finality meets human frailty, which should bend? And who gets to decide when mercy is deserved?
FAA mandates 4% reduction in U.S. flights amid government shutdown
Airports on a Tight Leash: How a Washington Shutdown Shrinks U.S. Skies and Strands Travelers
It began like any other weekday at a major American airport: the coffee carts were open, suitcases rolled, babies dozed in car seats. Then, midmorning, a quiet edict rippled through airline operations rooms and customer service desks—fleets trimmed, passengers nudged, plans rerouted. For many, the news arrived not as a headline but as a cancelled itinerary or a voicemail telling them to rebook.
The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered U.S. carriers to reduce domestic operations by 4% at 40 high-traffic airports, a temporary measure intended, officials say, to address safety risks tied to staff shortages amid the ongoing federal government shutdown. The cuts begin in the early hours of a specified Monday and, unless the political stalemate ends, could deepen to 10% at those same hubs later in November.
What’s being cut — and why it matters
On the surface, 4% sounds small. But translate that into the language of airports—planes parked, transfer times stretched, connections missed—and it becomes a cascade. Aviation analysts at Cirium estimate the initial reductions could mean as many as 1,800 cancelled flights and about 268,000 fewer airline seats available per day in the United States. For travelers planning trips, for freight moving just-in-time across borders, and for global supply chains that rely on air cargo, the effect is immediate and visible.
“We’re watching a system that runs on thin margins get squeezed,” said Laura Chen, a veteran air-traffic analyst in Washington. “Airlines can adjust by swapping in larger aircraft on busy routes or consolidating frequencies. But those are stopgaps. When controllers and screeners are stretched, the whole network is less resilient.”
People on the ground
On the concourse at Newark Liberty International, Delaware resident Grace Logeman’s travel day unraveled into a story many across the country now share. She drove two hours to catch a Frontier flight to Atlanta only to face a three-hour delay that cost her a crucial connection to the Dominican Republic.
“I’m devastated,” she said, holding her phone on mute while she waited on hold with customer service. “As far as the ongoing shutdown … it’s hurting me. I’m the one sitting here now.”
Messages like hers flooded social platforms and airline call centers. Travel app Hopper reported a near‑60% overnight jump in purchases of its “disruption assistance” after the government announced the reductions. Amid the chaos, carriers extended booking flexibility; the Transportation Department reiterated that passengers are entitled to full refunds for cancelled trips, though it stopped short of mandating reimbursements for meals or hotels when cancellations are due to government decisions.
Behind the scenes: a workforce stretched thin
What prompted the FAA to take this unprecedented step? The shutdown has forced roughly 13,000 air-traffic controllers and some 50,000 security screeners to continue reporting for duty without pay. Absenteeism has climbed—reports from several airports cite rates above 30%—as workers take second jobs, scramble for childcare, or simply find it impossible to keep working without wages. Even before the shutdown, the FAA estimated a baseline shortage of approximately 3,500 controllers; now the system is in danger of being further depleted.
“People are human,” said Miguel Rosales, a former controller who now advises airlines on staffing. “You can’t expect folks to perform at peak when they’re worried about paying the mortgage or feeding their kids. Overtime can only erase the fatigue for so long.”
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford have both sought to calm the public, emphasizing that measures are precautionary and that flying remains safe. “We are taking prudent steps to manage traffic flow to protect passengers and staff,” Duffy said in a statement. “Safety is our north star.” Bedford warned regulators could take further action if conditions deteriorate.
Which airports and airlines are affected?
The order targets 40 major U.S. airports—places like New York’s JFK and LaGuardia, Los Angeles International, Chicago O’Hare, and others where congestion compounds any staffing shortfall. International flight schedules, according to the FAA, were not part of the initial cuts; the focus is on domestic operations.
Major U.S. carriers moved quickly to comply. American Airlines said it would cut roughly 4% of its flights across the affected airports, translating to about 220 daily cancellations in the earliest phase. United and Delta reported reductions of similar scale, and Southwest and Alaska also acknowledged limited cancellations on high-frequency routes. Frontier advised passengers with critical travel needs—funerals, weddings—to consider backup bookings.
- American Airlines: ~220 cancellations per day during initial phase
- Delta Air Lines: ~170 U.S. cancellations on day one
- United Airlines: under 200 cancellations a day in initial phase
- Southwest/Alaska/Frontier: localized cancellations, mostly on high-frequency or regional routes
Counting the costs
Airlines and analysts are scrambling to estimate the financial fallout. The hope among carriers is that the quieter travel season between early November and the Thanksgiving surge will blunt the economic hit. If the shutdown ends before peak holiday travel, many predict earnings impacts will be manageable.
Still, the numbers are already stark: airlines estimate more than 3.2 million travelers have experienced delays since the shutdown began on October 1. Passenger throughput at Transportation Security Administration checkpoints dipped in the first week of November compared with last year, a sign that consumer confidence and travel patterns are shifting.
“When uncertainty rises, travel budgets shrink,” commented Sara Patel, an economist who studies consumer spending. “Higher fares from reduced capacity could be offset by people deciding not to travel at all. The net effect isn’t just on airlines—it’s on hotels, restaurants, and the small businesses that rely on steady tourist flows.”
Beyond the terminals: what this says about governance
This is not merely a logistical headache. It is a reminder of how public-sector dysfunction translates into private-sector pain and personal heartbreak. In an interconnected world, local policy stalemates can ripple across borders. Cargo bottlenecks can delay medicines or parts for factories; missed connections can leave international travelers stranded far from home.
So, what should travelers do? Build redundancy into plans if you can. Consider flexible tickets. And ask yourself: how much contingency is reasonable to factor into travel during political storms?
For those trapped in airport chairs tonight, words on paper offer little comfort. What provides relief is action in Washington—a resolution that restores pay and morale to the people who make the skies safe, and lets a system designed for mobility breathe easy again.
“This is about more than lines on a spreadsheet,” said Laura Chen. “It’s about real people. Controllers and screeners are the pulse of aviation. When the pulse is weak, the whole body feels it.”
Auditor Calls Louvre Robbery a ‘Resounding Wake-Up Call’ for Security
When the Louvre’s Silence Was Broken: A Daylight Heist and a Museum’s Reckoning
On an ordinary Wednesday in Paris, beneath the glass pyramid and the soft buzz of camera shutters, four thieves walked through a gap in the city’s sense of invulnerability and out again carrying a piece of France’s crown. The jewels they took were not just gemstones; they were symbols—heirlooms of history, spectacle and national identity—valued at around €88 million. The brazen daylight robbery did more than empty a display case. It punctured a myth: that the world’s most-visited museum is an unassailable fortress.
Standing where visitors queue for entry, you can still hear the murmur of Mandarin, Spanish and French. You can smell espresso from a corner cafe and the warm varnish of frames. That is the Louvre’s great magic: it seduces six continents into a single foyer. Yet the audit released this week by France’s Cour des Comptes lays bare how fragile that magic has become—an institution of astonishing cultural and financial heft that has nonetheless let decades of security upgrades drift into the slow lane.
A deafening wake-up call
Pierre Moscovici, who heads the audit court, did not mince words: the robbery is a “deafening wake-up call.” His office’s report reads like a dossier on missed opportunities. A security audit launched in 2015 concluded the museum was insufficiently monitored and not ready for a crisis. Yet more than a decade after that initial warning, the Louvre still had cameras in just 39% of its rooms as of 2024. Major upgrades that might have changed the outcome were only tendered at the end of last year, with completion pushed out to 2032.
Those are jaw-dropping timelines when you picture priceless gems leaving the building before any effective system had time to stop them. Investigators have charged four suspects in the case, but the jewels themselves remain missing—testimony, if you needed it, to the gap between theatrical headlines and operational reality.
What the audit found
The Cour des Comptes’ analysis is both detailed and unflinching. It points to several structural issues that widened the museum’s vulnerability: decades of upgrades deferred, an overzealous acquisition policy that swallowed funds, and a wave of post-pandemic projects that stretched resources thin.
- Only about a quarter of the museum’s vast holdings are on public display, yet acquisition spending has been heavy.
- Investment in digital and information systems has been labelled “chronically underfunded,” undermining internal controls.
- Some recent development projects were launched without thorough technical or financial feasibility studies.
The audit includes ten recommendations: slow down acquisitions, consider higher ticket prices, overhaul governance, beef up IT infrastructure, and strengthen internal control. It’s a strategic reset, but one that requires will as much as money.
Voices from the galleries
“I’ve worked in this wing for 12 years,” said an experienced tour guide who asked not to be named. “We always felt safe—until that day. After the heist, the chatter among staff is different. It’s not just about installations or lines anymore; it’s about whether we can keep the art safe when people come to see it.”
Outside, near the Tuileries Garden, a retiree named Jean—who comes every Sunday to sit and watch people—shook his head. “People think Paris is romantic and museums are sacred,” he said. “But security is like the roots of a tree. You don’t see them until a storm pulls the tree up.”
Security experts contacted for this piece pointed to a global pattern: museums everywhere are balancing accessibility against protection. “The pandemic changed everything,” said Dr. Anna Keller, a museum security consultant who has advised institutions across Europe. “Many places redirected funds to survive. Now, as visitors return, gaps in systems are exposed. The Louvre’s situation is extreme, but it’s not unique.”
Local color and the human geography of risk
Walk the streets around the Louvre and you feel the city’s paradox. Luxury boutiques and cheese shops, buskers tuning accordions—life goes on. Yet planners are talking about anti-vehicle barriers on nearby public roads, new anti-intrusion devices and discreet physical measures that will make the plaza less porous without stripping it of its atmosphere.
That balance is a cultural question as much as a logistical one. How do you fortify a place that has to remain open to the world? How do you secure a painting that is, literally, the Mona Lisa—whose own display has been a study in protective theater since the 20th century?
Beyond glass and cameras: the broader stakes
This theft and the audit that followed force us to ask larger questions. Museums are custodians of national memory, yes, but they are also living businesses, employers, tourist magnets and nodes in a global trade of culture. When one of the planet’s most famous institutions is exposed as underprepared, the ripple effects go far beyond Paris. Insurance premiums for exhibitions rise. Lenders become more cautious about loans of fragile works. Smaller institutions watch and worry: if the Louvre can be hit, who is next?
There’s also a socio-political dimension. The report argues for higher ticket prices and fewer acquisitions—both fraught recommendations. Raising prices could finance improved safeguards, but it risks excluding audiences who rely on affordable access. Slowing acquisitions might pare down the museum’s growth, but at what cost to cultural enrichment and scholarly work?
What needs to happen next
The audit’s message is clear: the money is there, according to authorities, but the Louvre must move faster and smarter. Here are the priorities the report and experts converge on:
- Accelerate the security upgrade schedule and complete installations well before 2032 where possible.
- Invest in information systems and internal controls to modernize monitoring and incident response.
- Reassess acquisitions and budget allocations, with transparent public discussion about priorities.
- Design access and protection measures that preserve the visitor experience while strengthening safety.
Culture Minister Rachida Dati has signaled urgency, and Laurence des Cars, the Louvre’s director, has said she supports most of the recommendations while defending the museum’s long-term transformation plan. Moscovici’s parting note was a push: the institution must “do so without fail.”
What will we accept in the name of safeguarding culture?
As readers around the globe, what are we willing to trade for security? More barriers and higher prices? Fewer new acquisitions and a slower rhythm of cultural exchange? These are not simply administrative questions; they are choices about access, equity and the future of memory itself.
When you next stand in front of a masterpiece—whether in Paris, Lagos, Tokyo or Buenos Aires—think for a moment of the invisible scaffolding that holds it there: funding lines, staff shifts, server rooms, emergency plans. The jewels that left the Louvre that day are more than a headline. They are a mirror reflecting the brittle fault lines beneath institutions we assume will always be there.
And so the Louvre’s silence, briefly broken, may have done us a service. It revealed a truth many of us preferred not to see. Now we must decide how loudly we are willing to respond.
Formerly united on climate policy, US and China now at odds
The Sauna at the Door: How Two Superpowers Are Rewriting the Climate Story
Step outside the conference centre in Belém and the air hits you like a warm bath—thick, green, and impossibly humid. The city hangs under a ceiling of clouds and the buzz of insects. Vendors call out in Portuguese; a street cook flips tapioca on a hot griddle. This is the Amazon on a November afternoon, and the heat is doing more than making delegates sweat. It’s reminding them why they are here.
A decade ago, in a cavernous hall in Beijing, two leaders stood shoulder to shoulder and made history. Back then, Barack Obama and Xi Jinping issued a joint call to action that helped unlock the Paris Agreement a year later. It was the kind of diplomatic choreography that suggested the worst of the climate fight could—maybe—be handled by the two biggest emitters.
Fast forward ten years, and that coordinated rhythm has splintered. One of those pillars—voice, finance, or policy—has stepped back. The other has leaned in. The result is a world in which climate diplomacy no longer hums along a bipartisan, transatlantic axis but is being rewritten on new, asymmetric terms.
When Giants Diverge
For a long time global climate leadership depended on the tacit duet between Washington and Beijing. Their combined policies, investments and rhetoric shaped markets, bankrolled research, and gave air cover to smaller nations trying to pivot away from coal and oil.
Then came the years of whiplash. The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under President Trump was a headline-grabbing rupture that left many allies shell-shocked. Policies that once nudged the global economy toward renewables were rolled back or openly dismissed. In diplomatic corridors, observers speak candidly about a period when Washington’s tone—skeptical, sometimes hostile—undermined collective momentum.
“It felt like someone had yanked us off the dance floor,” said a veteran climate negotiator from a European delegation. “You can’t get countries to commit if the biggest player treats the whole thing as optional.”
Into that vacuum stepped Beijing. Not overnight—and not without its contradictions—but with a steady, industrial-scale push. China now manufactures more solar panels and wind turbines than any other country, controls much of the global supply chain for lithium-ion batteries and rare earths, and has invested in renewable projects from Southeast Asia to Africa. In recent years Beijing has announced tighter targets, pledged emissions peaking timelines and amplified financing for green infrastructure.
“We are seeing an industrial revolution of a new kind,” a Brazilian climate negotiator told me, wiping sweat from his brow. “You can smell it in the factories—hot metal, transformer oil, and the ozone of machines working on the next generation of turbines.”
On the Ground: People Feeling the Shift
What does this geopolitical shift look like for people on the front lines?
Outside the conference, in a market a few blocks away, an Amazonian fishmonger named Rosa leaned on her crate and said, “The river has changed. Fish are showing up at different times. The seasons used to be our calendar—now we guess.” Her concern is less about strategy than survival; who will fund mangrove restoration, or the small irrigation schemes that keep crops alive during erratic rains?
On a remote Pacific island, a minister—who asked to speak through a translator—put it more bluntly. “We do not have the luxury of waiting for geopolitics to be sorted. Our islands are drowning while capitals debate bravado.”
These are the voices that stress the moral stakes. Small island states and low-lying coastal communities are losing time—literally—every year the global response stagnates.
Numbers That Don’t Bargain
The stakes are not just poetic; they are numeric and unforgiving. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry hover around 36 billion tonnes per year according to the Global Carbon Project and the International Energy Agency—numbers that allow no room for complacency. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have crossed thresholds not seen in millions of years. And the climate’s tail risks—rapid ice melt, methane releases from thawing permafrost—remain existentially costly and poorly understood.
Renewable energy deployment has accelerated, but unevenly. In many places, solar and wind are now the cheapest sources of new electricity generation; yet the transition is hampered by supply-chain geopolitics, financing gaps and the enormous demand for minerals—lithium, cobalt, nickel—needed for the green tech revolution.
“We used to speak in tons of oil. Now we talk in tons of nickel,’’ said a supply-chain analyst in São Paulo. “Whoever controls these minerals will inherit a lot of leverage.”
Petrostate vs. Electrostate: A New Geopolitics
Observers increasingly frame the geopolitical contest as “petrostate versus electrostate.” Countries that have prospered on fossil-fuel rents find themselves squeezed between short-term revenues and long-term decline. Countries that master renewable manufacturing and mineral processing stand to shape the rules of tomorrow’s energy economy.
“It isn’t just about good will,” said an academic who studies energy transitions. “It’s about factory floors, mining laws, ports and shipping lanes. It’s about which companies get the contracts to build the grids of the future.”
And yet, this competition raises uncomfortable questions. Who pays the social cost of transition in coal towns and oil-dependent economies? How do countries avoid swapping one form of dependency—on fossil-fuel buyers—for another—on foreign financiers and industrial giants who control critical technologies?
Belém’s Reminder and the Road Ahead
At COP30 in Brazil, the rainforest’s edge offers a visceral lesson. Delegates step into the moist air and are confronted by the material stakes of inaction: forests that sequester carbon, rivers that feed millions, communities whose traditional knowledge is keyed to seasonal rhythms. The Amazon’s presence is both warning and resource; how the world treats the basin will reverberate for decades.
“We don’t need speeches that sound good in New York or Beijing,” one Indigenous leader told a packed break-out session. “We need money for protection, respect for our territories and real partnerships.”
Questions Worth Asking
As readers, as citizens, what should we hold our leaders to? How do we balance geopolitical competition with the urgent need for collaboration? Can industrial policy be married to climate justice so that the green transition benefits workers and vulnerable communities, not just shareholders?
These are not rhetorical niceties. They are the hard politics of financing, procurement and diplomacy that will determine whether the next decade is one of managed decline—or managed recovery.
The story unfolding in Belém is not a simple binary of good versus bad actors. It is a messy, human drama of national interests, moral claims, industrial ambitions and ecological limits. It calls for imagination, pressure and the kind of solidarity that remembers the fisherman in Rosa’s market and the minister in the Pacific as equally central to the plot.
So when you hear the soundbites and the polemics, remember to ask: who is there, and who is missing? Who is paying, and who is profiting? The answers will shape not just the outcome of one summit, but the contours of the century.
Israel Conducts Airstrikes on Hezbollah Targets in Lebanon’s South
Smoke Over the Olive Groves: How a Single Evacuation Order Reopened Old Wounds in South Lebanon
On a hot afternoon in southern Lebanon, a message on a smartphone changed everything. A map. Three red dots. A command to leave. By the time the smoke began to curl into the cerulean sky, families had already begun folding mattresses, stuffing small suitcases with bread and photos, and shepherding children and the elderly down narrow lanes toward the safety of the main road.
The Israeli military posted evacuation notices on the social platform X at 3pm local time, identifying three buildings in Aita al-Jabal, Al-Tayyiba and Tayr Debba and ordering residents to stay at least 500 metres away. An hour later, aircraft struck. Thick, black plumes rose above the villages; the smell of burned wood and diesel drifted through the air. Lebanon’s civil defence poured into the lanes, helping people onto buses and into cars. Health authorities had not yet tallied the full toll by evening; the ministry had earlier confirmed that separate strikes that day killed one person.
On the Ground: Small Actions, Big Fear
“I grabbed my mother’s scarf and my son’s shoes,” said Fadi, a shopkeeper from Tayr Debba, standing where his grocery was once painted blue. “We left everything else. You can rebuild a shop, but not a body.” His voice was flat; the kind that comes when someone has rehearsed shock until it becomes routine.
A volunteer with the civil defence, Amal, described the evacuation as efficient but wrenching. “We moved entire households in less than an hour,” she said. “Old women, toddlers, the dog. People thanked us, but I saw a man return to pick up his grandfather’s cane and cry like a child.” Her hands were still smudged with soot.
Residents here speak of a repeated humiliation: to be told to flee, to watch dust fill the air where their olive trees had stood for generations, then to return home to count what’s left. The villages named in the notification sit along the contours of the Blue Line—the United Nations-drawn boundary that has long been a seam of tension—and their terraces and citrus groves breathe a different kind of life and fear into the landscape.
Voices from the Capital and the Border
In Jerusalem, government spokesperson Shosh Bedrosian told reporters that Israel would “continue to defend all of its borders” and pressed for strict enforcement of the ceasefire agreed a year earlier. “We will not allow Hezbollah to rearm and rebuild the capabilities that were reduced in 2023–24,” she said, summarising the security rationale driving these limited yet dramatic strikes.
Hezbollah, for its part, reiterated its public commitment to the ceasefire while cautioning that it retains a “legitimate right” to resist. Since the truce came into force roughly a year ago, the group has largely refrained from cross-border fire, even as the Lebanese army has spent months conducting operations to clear suspected arms depots from the south—a process that Lebanon’s cabinet was reviewing the same afternoon an army commander, Rodolphe Haykal, updated ministers on the progress.
“We are trying to restore state authority in areas where non-state holdings were found,” a Lebanese official said anonymously. “It’s messy. You cannot untie a knot without pulling at threads that go far up the political rope.”
Why the Evacuation—Why Now?
Why did Israel single out these buildings with an evacuation flag before striking? Officials argue the warnings are an effort to reduce civilian casualties while hitting military targets. Avichay Adraee, who frequently posts operational notices, shared maps and guidance to the public, underscoring that these were specific, calibrated actions, not the indiscriminate bombardments of past years.
But context is everything. The ceasefire that stilled a more than yearlong round of fighting in 2023–24 left deep wounds: human losses measured in the thousands—the death toll in Lebanon’s recent cross-border violence and wartime scores passed an estimated 4,000 people—and landscapes disrupted, economies drained, and lines of political authority blurred. New strikes, even when limited, risk undoing fragile gains. They also test how much trust remains in the mechanisms meant to enforce the truce—UNIFIL patrols, bilateral understandings, and the Lebanese army’s own efforts to assert control.
At the Edge of Escalation
Observers say these kinds of operations live in an uncomfortable middle ground: precise enough to send a message, ambiguous enough to invite miscalculation. “What we see is a contest over thresholds,” explained Dr. Lina Hashim, a Beirut-based analyst who studies militias and state capacity. “Israel wants to prevent rearmament. Hezbollah wants to preserve deterrence. The Lebanese state is trying, often precariously, to exercise authority. Each action rests on assumptions about how the other side will respond.”
Those assumptions matter. In conflicts marked by asymmetry—state militaries versus well-armed non-state actors—operations that aim to be targeted can still collide with civilian life. Evacuations mitigate harm, yes, but they also underscore the tenuous line between securing a border and perpetuating displacement.
What This Means for People—and for the Region
For the towns along the southern strip, life is a series of contingency plans: when to close a shop, where to store elder family members, how to secure documents and livestock. For fishermen in Tyre, whose boats skim the same Mediterranean that has fed families for generations, each flare of conflict shrinks a workspace that was never abundant to begin with.
“We are tired of being part of someone else’s argument,” said Layla, a schoolteacher who fled for a second time this month. “There are children in my classroom who ask me if the sky will fall. How do you tell a child the world is safe when the sky keeps sending messages otherwise?”
Beyond the borders of Lebanon and Israel, the incident reverberates through regional diplomacy. Iran’s influence over Hezbollah, the United States’ security commitments to Israel, and the European Union’s interest in Mediterranean stability all converge when calm frays. The international community’s ability to enforce ceasefires, fund reconstruction, and back political solutions is being tested anew.
Paths Forward: Enforcement, Empathy, and the Hard Work of Rebuilding Trust
No easy fix exists. Greater transparency around military targets, stronger mechanisms for civilian protection, and sustained diplomatic pressure to keep channels open could lower the temperature. So could a bolder approach to the southern border—one that supports the Lebanese state in exercising legitimate, accountable control while shielding civilians from the ripple effects of security operations.
But technical solutions aren’t enough. People here want dignity: jobs, schools that don’t shutter with every siren, and the ability to harvest olives without fear. They want their leaders to prove that the state can protect them without turning their towns into battlefields by proxy.
As night settled on the villages, small generators hummed in living rooms turned into temporary shelters. Children colored in the margins of hastily distributed notebooks. Neighbours shared nuts and tea. Against a backdrop of geopolitical chess, ordinary lives quietly insisted on moving forward.
What would you do if a map told you to leave your home for an hour, a day, or forever? In moments like these, the question is not only tactical. It is moral. And until the region addresses both the ammunition and the anxieties that fuel it, the smoke will keep returning to the same sky.
Israel Designates Egypt Border Region as Restricted Military Zone
At the border and at the grave: how drones and a returned body expose the human and strategic toll of a drawn-out conflict
The desert air along Israel’s southern frontier had a different texture this week — not only the hot, dusty stillness of Sinai-adjacent terrain, but the taut, watchful quiet that comes when a line on a map becomes a flashpoint.
In a terse public notice, Israel’s defence minister announced that the strip of land abutting the border with Egypt would be designated a closed military zone. The stated reason: to clamp down on an increasingly dangerous trend — the use of remotely piloted aircraft to ferry weapons and other materiel toward Gaza.
“We cannot allow the sky to be another front,” said one senior defence official I spoke with on condition of anonymity. “Drones change the geometry of smuggling; they skirt barriers and sanctions. You either adapt, or you leave a gap that will be exploited.”
This is more than a tactical adjustment. It is a small, sharp ripple in a much larger pattern: modern conflicts are being reshaped by technology that can be bought online, piloted from a nearby ridge, or launched from a road under cover of night. Border closures and tighter rules of engagement are familiar refrains — but the mood here has a new edge. Farmers who have raised crops and livestock along this corridor for generations now watch the horizon with binoculars and the knowledge that a buzzing shadow could mean weapon components three meters long, bound for someone else’s fight.
One returned body, many stories
Meanwhile, amid the strategic chess moves and the sterile language of defence communiqués, there was a moment that could not be reduced to policy — the return of remains. The body of a young man, far from home in life and in death, was repatriated. His name: Joshua Loitu Mollel, a 21‑year‑old Tanzanian student who had come to Israel on an agricultural internship program and was killed in the violence of 7 October 2023.
Grief needs a place to land. For Joshua’s family in Tanzania, for friends in the kibbutzim and host communities where he worked the land, and for a broader circle of people tracking the long human ledger of this war, the return of his remains was both a merciful closure and a renewed puncture of pain.
“They told us he was found,” a family friend told me over the phone, voice breaking with a mixture of relief and sorrow. “We cannot dig him up again. But we need to bury him, to speak his name in the right place.”
According to statements from Israeli authorities, Joshua’s remains were one of 22 sets returned since a ceasefire took effect in early October — a truce that, at the outset, left 48 people unaccounted for as hostages: 20 alive and 28 deceased, officials say.
The returned bodies include citizens of multiple nationalities: 19 Israeli, one Thai, one Nepali, and Joshua himself. Small details — a jacket button, a shard of a wristwatch — become the somber tokens of identification work that is both forensic and deeply human. “Following identification processes, the ministry informed the family,” the Prime Minister’s office said in a formal notice, underlining both the bureaucratic and intimate sides of what such returns entail.
The human ledger
Numbers matter — they are how governments plan and negotiate — but they cannot fully capture the texture of loss. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, an advocacy group that has been a constant presence at family briefings and at public protests, said Joshua’s return “offers some comfort” to relatives who have lived with unbearable uncertainty for more than two years.
“Comfort is not the same as healing,” said Dr. Miriam Halawi, a psychologist who works with families of missing persons. “What families want — and deserve — is truth: how, why, and by whom. Without that, grief can calcify into anger that never really leaves.”
Walking through a cemetery outside Jerusalem last week, I watched a line of mourners — some in long coats, some in sandals sun-darkened from fieldwork — follow a simple casket to the ground. People spoke about Joshua as if filling in a life: the way he laughed while harvesting olives, his plans to send money home to support younger siblings, a joke about the stubbornness of Israeli goats. Small, quotidian recollections make the absence almost unbearably real.
From tunnels to propellers: how smuggling is evolving
For years, the archetype of illicit supply into Gaza was subterranean: tunnels, burrowed under the border, complex networks that drew global attention and military responses. Today, the sky is another artery.
“Drones are cheaper and faster than tunnels,” said Avi Ben-Zion, a security analyst who studies non-state actors’ procurement methods. “You can launch a quadcopter, fly it 10–20 kilometers, drop a payload and be gone. That means a lot of small-scale deliveries, less predictable than the bulk shipments that tunnels used to provide.”
That unpredictability fuels policy shifts. Declaring a closed military zone is practical: it gives forces latitude to engage, to intercept, and to police movements. But it also affects ordinary lives. Traders, shepherds, day laborers find their movements restricted; checkpoints move; farmers can’t reach fields during critical harvest moments. The ripple effects of a security measure are always social as well as strategic.
What does this tell us about the wider war?
If there is a through-line running from the drone incidents to Joshua’s burial, it’s this: modern conflict continually complicates the boundary between civilians and combatants. Young foreign interns gathering in agricultural greenhouses can become collateral in a broader geopolitical maelstrom. The tools of war — drones, tunnels, rockets — evolve; the human consequences do not.
Consider these questions: How should the international community balance pressure for security with the rights and livelihoods of border communities? How do families obtain answers when the fog of war obscures both motive and method? And how do we, as observers and citizens of a crowded planet, keep compassion at the center of discussions that otherwise default to numbers and strategies?
These are not just policy debates. They are weekly, daily realities for people like Joshua’s family, for the farmers whose fields now fall within a closed military zone, and for soldiers who must make split-second decisions that will shape other people’s lives forever.
After the return
In the small Tanzanian village where Joshua grew up, neighbors have already begun to plant a tree in his memory — a ritual older than modern borders. Back in Israel, those who knew him walk a little more carefully through places that once held laughter. The official announcements and tactical briefs will continue, as they must. The funerals will end. But the traces of a life, and the questions about how it was cut short, persist.
If you are reading this from hundreds or thousands of miles away, take a moment to imagine a name and a neighborhood and a single returned body — and ask what it reveals about the strange new contours of conflict in the 21st century. We talk a lot about deterrence and capability. Maybe we should talk a little more about dignity, closure, and the small rituals that stitch human beings back together after violence tears them apart.
- Key figures: 22 sets of remains returned since the ceasefire took effect in October; 48 hostages held at the truce’s start — 20 alive, 28 deceased.
- Nationalities among returned bodies include Israeli, Thai, Nepali and Tanzanian.
- Policy response: a closed military zone declared along the Israel-Egypt border to combat drone-borne smuggling.
What would you prioritize if you were making policy in this moment — security, humanitarian access, transparent investigations, or community livelihoods? The answer, of course, is not simple. But the real work of peace and accountability begins when we refuse to let numbers eclipse names.
Dog’s blunder lets bull and horse wander into Australian home
When a Steer Walked Into the Living Room: A Darwin Tale That’s Equal Parts Domestic Comedy and Cultural Snapshot
Imagine coming home to find a...
Egypt Challenges Labeling of Iran Fixture as Pride Match
When Pride Meets the Pitch: A World Cup Match That Refuses to Be Just a Game
On a late-June afternoon in Seattle, the air will...
Trump Announces US Seizure of Oil Tanker Off Venezuela Coast
When a Tanker Vanishes: Oil, Power and the Rising Tide off Venezuela
There are moments when the roar of an engine and the flash of...
UN reports 200,000 flee rebel advance across Democratic Republic of Congo
On the Road to Uvira: When a Lakeside Town Becomes the Measure of Peace
The road into Uvira winds like a promise along the eastern...
Ukraine and European partners to deliver peace-plan documents to Washington
On the Brink: How a Patchwork of Diplomacy Aims to Stitch a War-Torn Tomorrow
There is a particular hush that settles over a city when...