Hegseth’s use of Signal may have put U.S. troops at risk

December 5, 2025

Hegseth's use of Signal could have endangered US troops — Report into Pete Hegseth's actions has not yet been made public

The Ping That Could Have Changed a Mission

It began, astonishingly, with a small blue dot on a phone screen: a Signal message, seconds ticking away, a chorus of taps and replies among some of the most powerful people in Washington. For a brief, dizzying moment, the mechanics of modern war and the intimacy of private messaging collided — and the Pentagon’s internal watchdog has now suggested that collision might have been dangerously misjudged.

According to an Inspector General review obtained by reporters, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used the encrypted messaging app Signal on his personal device to send information about an imminent strike in Yemen. The IG faulted the practice as risky, saying that, if intercepted, the messages might have endangered service members and compromised the operation.

But the report stops short of a clean-cut verdict on classification. It acknowledges a thorny, constitutional-administrative fact: a cabinet secretary has substantial latitude to decide what information is formally classified. That gray area — at once procedural and profound — sits at the heart of the controversy and has everything to do with trust, norms, and how democracies manage the secrecy of violence.

When Signals Cross Wires

The instant messages in question were not part of a routine Pentagon cable. They were part of a small, private chat within a circle of President Donald Trump’s top national security aides — a group that accidentally, and consequentially, included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. Goldberg later published screenshots of the messages in an article that set the whole inquiry in motion.

In the screenshots, Hegseth appears to have messaged about the timing of a strike and even discussed targeting an individual aligned with Yemen’s Houthi movement, two hours before the operation unfolded. The IG report says the material had been deemed classified by the military at the time it was transmitted.

“If this kind of targeting information leaks before an operation, the practical effects are immediate,” said a retired intelligence officer who reviewed the IG findings. “Bad actors — or even the targets themselves — could change their movements, disperse to civilian areas, or otherwise make safe execution more difficult. That puts people at risk, and it imperils mission success.”

Signals, Screenshots and the Limits of Privacy

Signal, for many, has come to embody privacy: it uses the Signal Protocol, an open-source method of end-to-end encryption also used by other popular apps. Encryption makes surveillance and third-party eavesdropping difficult. But encryption is not an invulnerability cloak for sensitive government data. Beyond technical protection, there is process: where messages are stored, how access is controlled, and whether messages are part of an official record.

“Encryption protects the message in transit, but it doesn’t remove the responsibility of leaders to follow established information security protocols,” said a national security analyst in Washington. “Operational discipline isn’t optional when lives are at stake.”

Politics, Procedure and Public Perception

The political fallout has been swift. Representative Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, described the report in blunt terms. “This report is a damning review of an incompetent secretary of defense who is profoundly incapable of the job and clearly has no respect for or comprehension of what is required to safeguard our service members,” Smith said.

Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, framed the revelation as part of a broader pattern. “The report underscores that this was not an isolated lapse,” Warner told reporters, adding that multiple Signal chats appear to have been used for official business.

Hegseth, for his part, has pushed back. On X he posted: “No classified information. Total exoneration. Case closed.” He also declined to be interviewed for the IG investigation, telling the investigators in a written submission that, as secretary, he reserved the right to declassify information where he saw fit and that he only shared what he judged posed no operational risk. He called the probe politically motivated — even as both Republican and Democratic lawmakers had asked the IG to look into the matter.

Beyond One Message: What This Means

To anyone outside the bubble of Washington, it might seem like a quarrel about etiquette. But the stakes are higher. The U.S. has a long history of carefully protecting details of targeting, timing, and tactics precisely because such details can determine whether an operation succeeds cleanly, and whether civilians are spared.

“Imagine you’re a mother in Sanaa or a small coastal community watching military aircraft overhead,” said Amal al-Hadidi, a Yemeni scholar who studies the conflict, speaking over a grainy phone connection. “The difference between a safe corridor and a wrong turn is half an hour. Information has consequences for people who are already living under unimaginable pressure.”

There’s also a global argument here about how public servants use private communications. Since the rise of private, encrypted apps, more officials have adopted them for convenience and perceived security. The IG’s findings suggest that convenience can metastasize into institutional risk.

Operational secrecy matters because it protects both military personnel and civilians.
Encryption does not absolve leaders of the duty to classify or handle information according to established rules.
Private chats can become public artifacts — as this case shows — and then shape public trust.

Voices from the Ground and the Halls of Power

Not everyone sees the episode the same way. “We rely on judgment at the highest levels,” said a former defense official who asked not to be named. “Sometimes that judgment is right; sometimes it’s not. The office of the secretary isn’t an ordinary job. But it’s not an unchecked license either.”

In port cafés along the Caribbean, where the Pentagon has been criticized for its recent operations against suspected drug-smuggling vessels, local fishermen and activists are watching closely. “We saw the navy planes, then a patrol boat, then rumors — but nothing official,” said Carlos Mendoza, a fisherman in Puerto Plata. “People here want clarity. When governments act in secret, people suffer the consequences of uncertainty.”

And among former intelligence officers, there’s a mix of exasperation and worry. “This is a symptom of a larger erosion of norms,” said one ex-analyst. “When institutional controls slacken, you get improvisation. And improvisation with lethal force is terrifying.”

Questions to Ask — and to Answer

As readers, what should we make of this? Do we trust elected leaders to self-determine classification when stakes are life and death? Can privacy tools be reconciled with institutional safeguards? How do we balance transparency, oversight and the need to act swiftly in dangerous moments?

These questions are not academic. They ripple outward — into the lives of troops, into the justice of military campaigns, into the credibility of democratic institutions tasked with conducting war on behalf of citizens.

Where This Goes Next

The IG report has not been fully released to the public at the time of writing. What it contains beyond the findings already reported will matter: whether the IG recommends disciplinary action, changes in policy, or new training and safeguards. Lawmakers, activists and military families will all weigh in. The debate will test the ability of institutions to adapt to a digital age where the difference between public and private is often just one tap.

One final thought: technology changes fast; human judgment does not always keep pace. If a ping can unsettle a mission, it can also unsettle a nation’s faith in how its wars are waged. Maybe the most urgent task is not to demonize a device or a person, but to rebuild the norms and systems that make the use of force accountable — and to ask, again and again, what the rules should be when war and WhatsApp collide.

Committee hears US forces allegedly attacked shipwrecked sailors at sea

hanad

December 4, 2025

US attacking 'shipwrecked sailors', committee hears — US Navy Admiral Frank Bradley gave behind-closed-door briefings to US lawmakers in Washington today

When the Sea Returns a Story: Shipwrecks, Strikes, and the Question of Humanity

On a late summer night this year, a wooden smuggling boat ruptured under a hail of gunfire somewhere in the Caribbean. Men and women who had survived that first savage encounter clung to splinters and floating debris, their faces pale under a knife of moonlight. Minutes later, according to lawmakers who watched a classified video in a secure hearing room, American forces returned and finished the job.

That single scene — the image of people in the water, motionless and vulnerable, followed by another blow from the world’s most powerful military — has become a symbol and a scandal. It has also forced a simple, terrible question into public debate: when a state declares a maritime front against narcotics, what rules bind it? And what do those rules mean for the people who wash up on the wrong shore?

What happened — and why it reverberates

The incident at the center of the storm took place on 2 September. It was the opening salvo in a campaign of strikes the US military says targeted narcotics-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and offshore. Officials now link the operation to more than 80 deaths over a series of actions — a toll that has prompted a wave of criticism at home and a diplomatic backlash across the region.

Inside the secure room where members of Congress watched the footage, several Democratic and Republican lawmakers described what they saw as deeply unsettling. “I saw men and women who had already been cut loose from their boat — wounded, unable to move — and then we watched forces engage them again,” one senior Democrat told reporters after the session. “In my view, this is one of those moments where policy and ethics collide.”

“The law is clear,” a retired naval officer who reviewed the video for lawmakers said. “Survivors at sea are to be treated as non-combatants unless they pose an imminent threat. These individuals had no means of locomotion. They were not a threat to a ship or to the United States in that moment.”

From counter-narcotics to counterinsurgency: a rhetoric that changes rules

From Washington, the operation has been presented as a tough but necessary line of defense. The administration has framed the campaign as part of a battle against “narco-terrorists” — a phrase that compresses complex drug networks into a single enemy the military can target. Aircraft carriers, surveillance planes and special operations units have been sent into the Caribbean, officials say, to choke off the flow of illegal narcotics toward the United States.

Yet this militarized approach has opened diplomatic wounds. Venezuela’s president seized the moment to denounce the buildup as cover for regime change, accusing Washington of using drug trafficking as a pretext to interfere in Caracas. “They are looking to overthrow us,” a Venezuelan government spokesman told reporters, echoing a sentiment that has hardened the region’s political contours.

Local voices, local pain

On a quiet fishing pier not far from where one of the strikes occurred, a middle-aged fisher with oil-stained hands and a voice that had known storms for decades shook his head. “We fish these waters every day,” he said. “Some nights you hear the planes, sometimes the shots. When a boat goes down, it’s not the first time we have seen people struggle in the water. But to attack them after — that’s not what we expect from those who say they protect lives.”

Across the region, families of those killed say they have not been informed, or worse, that their loved ones were labeled criminals rather than human beings. “My brother was a father,” one woman told a local radio host. “He left home to make money. He did wrong things, maybe — but when the sea takes you, you don’t shoot the person who’s trying to breathe.”

Lawmakers and legal lines: possible violations and accountability

At the Capitol, the footage prompted lawmakers to ask hard, legal questions. Several described the video in stark terms; some raised the prospect of war crimes. Others argued for a methodical probe, insisting that rules of engagement are complex and that commanders must sometimes make split-second decisions.

“If true, this is a breach of the fundamental protections afforded to shipwrecked people under international law,” a human rights attorney specializing in maritime law said. “The law of armed conflict expects states to take precautions to avoid harm to civilians and to treat survivors humanely.”

The White House and Pentagon officials have sought to shift some of the blame onto operational commanders, telling reporters that the Defense Secretary did not micromanage the engagement. Yet critics counter that political rhetoric that casts traffickers as terrorists narrows the moral and legal lenses through which decisions are made — and ultimately rests accountability at the top.

Who is responsible?

Operational commanders who authorized or carried out the strike bear responsibility in the immediate chain of command.
Senior civilian leaders are questioned for the policies that set the tone — declaring a quasi-war on narco-trafficking that invites military solutions.
Lawmakers argue that, in a democracy, political accountability runs from the field back to those who design strategy.

Bigger themes: militarization, drug policy, and the cost of force

This episode is not merely about one tragic engagement. It sits at the intersection of several global debates: the militarization of law enforcement, the limits of transnational use of force, and the human consequences of drug prohibition policies that funnel vast sums toward violent, volatile markets.

How do we balance the imperative to stop illegal flows of narcotics that can devastate communities with the obligation to preserve life and obey international norms? And how should democracies scrutinize decisions made in secrecy — in classified rooms — that have such irreversible outcomes?

“We must ask whether deploying carriers and strikes is the right tool for a problem that is ultimately social and economic,” a policy researcher at a Caribbean university told me. “Seizures here are a band-aid. They make headlines. But the drivers of this trade—inequality, demand, limited legal opportunity—remain.”

What comes next — and what readers should watch for

Investigations have been promised. Congressional hearings will likely expand. Families will seek answers. For readers, the challenge is not simply to follow the procedural arc — who is blamed, who resigns, who is exonerated — but to hold in view the human ledger: how many lives were taken, how many questions left unanswered, and how policy choices map onto those outcomes.

Will this moment change strategy — less guns, more diplomacy and aid — or will it harden into precedent for more aggressive maritime targeting? Will the region push back with stronger sovereignty claims, or will countries reconcile to foreign forces in their waters because they feel pressured by the scale of the drug trade?

There are no easy answers. But when you imagine those faces in the water, you are asked to decide what kind of state and what kind of world you want: one that preserves the strict rule of law even against those accused of the worst crimes, or one where the perceived immediacy of a threat corrodes long-standing protections.

As these questions ripple outward from classified footage to public outrage, remember that policy isn’t only made in briefing rooms — it is made in small coastal towns, in family kitchens, and on the quiet docks where fishermen watch the horizon and mark the cost of distant choices. What would you have done? And who, at the end of the chain, should be made to answer?

Trump grants clemency to Democratic congressman amid bribery allegations

hanad

December 4, 2025

Trump pardons Democratic congressman in bribery case — Henry Cuellar and his wife had been facing several charges of conspiracy and bribery (file pic)

A pardon that ripples from Laredo to Baku: what one act of clemency reveals

On a humid afternoon in South Texas, a woman arranging tamales behind the counter of a corner tienda looked up from her work and squinted at her phone. “A lot of folks around here follow Congressman Cuellar,” she said, folding masa with the practiced hands of someone who has fed a neighborhood for decades. “Some will say it’s justice, some will say it’s politics. Either way, it changes the conversation at our dinner tables.”

The conversation changed sharply after the former president announced, in the clipped cadence of social media dispatches, a full and unconditional pardon for Representative Henry Cuellar — the Democratic congressman from South Texas who had been charged in a federal bribery and conspiracy case tied to payments allegedly from an oil and gas company with links to the Azerbaijani government.

“I am hereby announcing my full and unconditional PARDON of beloved Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar … I don’t know you, but you can sleep well tonight – Your nightmare is finally over!” the message read on Truth Social, a platform that has become a modern podium for sweeping gestures and political theater.

The immediate fallout: relief, fury, and weary resignation

Cuellar himself, who had pleaded not guilty, responded on his own social feed with gratitude: “I want to thank President Trump for his tremendous leadership and for taking the time to look at the facts,” he wrote on X. His supporters in the district — ranchers, teachers, and small-business owners — expressed relief that the man who has long been a fixture in South Texas politics will no longer face what one neighbor called “a disaster for the family.”

Yet for critics and anti-corruption advocates, the pardon felt like a blow to institutional norms. “When high-profile pardons touch on foreign influence or alleged bribery, it raises real questions about accountability,” said a former federal prosecutor speaking on condition of anonymity. “The concern isn’t only about one case; it’s about precedent.”

Those concerns aren’t abstract. Across the world, prosecutors and watchdog groups have spent decades building cross-border corruption cases, and a single executive decision in Washington can erase years of work. To some observers in Central America and the Caucasus, the message is unmistakable: geopolitics can, sometimes, override legal process.

Voices from the border

“He’s been in our community for a long time,” said Marisela Garza, a school librarian in Laredo. “People respect he knows how our border life works. But trust in institutions is fragile. Some of us will be happy he doesn’t have to go through a trial. Others worry what it means for rule of law.”

On the other side of the spectrum, an immigrant rights organizer in the Rio Grande Valley was blunt: “Pardons like this look like picks in a game where ordinary people rarely get lucky. We’ve seen how enforcement acts against the vulnerable — why is there a different game for powerful players?”

Presidential pardon power: broad, swift, and controversial

The U.S. Constitution vests the president with the power to grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses. It’s an authority that is intentionally sweeping, meant to be a check against unjust prosecutions and a merciful lever in extraordinary cases. But it is also inherently political.

“A pardon can be an instrument of mercy,” said a constitutional law scholar I spoke with. “It can also be a blunt political tool. The law gives the president latitude; how that latitude is used determines whether the act restores faith or erodes it.”

In recent months the act of clemency has been far from sedate. The president, now serving a second term, has used the pardon power in several headline-grabbing instances: a former Honduran president was released from a West Virginia detention facility after a surprise pardon, and earlier in the year an Illinois governor’s conviction was transformed into forgiveness. Each move reverberates across policy areas — immigration, international justice, local governance — and across borders.

Why this case feels different

This pardon isn’t just about a Member of Congress. It’s about the entanglement of local politics, energy money, and geopolitics. The accusations against Cuellar and his wife, which they denied, involved hundreds of thousands of dollars allegedly funneled from a company with partial state ownership by a foreign government. For residents in Cuellar’s district — where Spanish and English coexist on storefronts and where cross-border family ties are the fabric of daily life — the case hit close to home. It was not an abstract Washington scandal; it was a storyline playing out on Main Street.

For the international community, the optics are troubling. When U.S. actions reverse accountability in transnational corruption cases, partner nations and anti-corruption bodies take notice. “There’s a message sent whenever a high-profile pardon intervenes in cross-border cases,” said an international governance expert. “It complicates cooperation and undercuts efforts to build consistent norms.”

Broader themes: partisan blame, weaponised justice, and the erosion of trust

In announcing the pardon, the former president claimed without evidence that the prior administration had “weaponised” the justice system against political opponents. That refrain — that legal institutions become political tools — has become a familiar political salve. It resonates with a base that believes the system is stacked against them; it alarms those who worry about the politicisation of independent institutions.

Ask yourself: when trust in the justice system wanes, what fills the vacuum? Populist narratives. Conspiracy theories. Cynicism. Those are the silent companions of many Western democracies today.

Statistics and context to consider

The presidential pardon power is among the most absolute in U.S. governance: it applies only to federal offenses and can be granted at any time, even before formal charges.
Border states like Texas — with more than a thousand miles of shared boundary with Mexico — have central roles in national debates about immigration and trade, making local politicians from these regions particularly visible on the national stage.
Transnational corruption cases often rely on complex financial tracing across jurisdictions; they can take years to build and involve cooperation among multiple countries’ investigators.

Final thoughts: what this moment asks of us

Pardons are, by design, exceptions. They are meant to be rare, to correct injustices or to temper mercy with prudence. When they are used frequently or in ways that align closely with partisan lines, they force us to reassess: what do we value more — political loyalty, institutional integrity, or the messy, slow play of due process?

Here in Laredo, a man sipping café de olla on a shaded bench summed it up quietly. “We all want fairness,” he said. “Whether he did wrong or not, this will be talked about at barbecues, at church, at schools. How we talk about it matters. We can’t let it make us forget the things that really bind us—family, work, the little daily kindnesses.”

So where do we go from here? Do we insist on clearer rules, more transparent processes, or a rethinking of the pardon power itself? Or do we accept that mercy — messy and subjective — has always been part of politics and always will be?

Tell me what you think. How should societies balance mercy, accountability, and the ever-present hum of politics? Your perspective matters, because stories like this one are not just Washington headlines — they are threads woven into the daily lives of communities from Laredo to the capitals of distant lands.

France confirms two MERS cases in international tour group

hanad

December 4, 2025

France detects two MERS virus cases among tour group — MERS is a more deadly but less contagious variation of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Two Tourists, One Virus: A Quiet MERS Scare and What It Reveals About a Connected World

There is a peculiar hush that falls over a city hospital at night: fluorescent lights hum, footsteps echo on linoleum, and conversations are measured as if sound itself might spread something unseen. That hush returned to a Paris ward this week when health authorities confirmed two people from a single tour group had been infected with the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus — MERS, a pathogen with a reputation that makes even seasoned public health officials sit up and take notice.

“We’re not panicking, but we are very vigilant,” said a ministry spokesperson in Paris, leaning on the language of reassurance that officials use when the public’s anxiety threatens to outpace the facts. “Those two patients are stable. Contact tracing is underway. We are taking every measure to prevent onward transmission.”

A travel story that turned clinical

The two patients had recently returned from what they expected to be a postcard-perfect circuit through the Arabian Peninsula — a mixed group of retirees and mid-career travelers drawn by bazaars, mosques, and the hush of desert dunes at sunrise. Instead, part of their souvenir collection now includes hospital wristbands and weeks of monitoring for fellow travelers.

“We were supposed to be tasting dates and drinking tea in a small courtyard,” said Sophie, a 58-year-old who asked to be identified only by her first name. “The trip turned into masks, thermometers, and waiting. It’s surreal.”

MERS is not a household name for many, but it carries a history that demands respect. Discovered in 2012, the virus has caused around 2,600 reported human infections and nearly 1,000 deaths worldwide — a mortality rate that hovers around 35–40% in reported cases. For comparison, SARS in 2002–2003 caused around 800 deaths. MERS is deadlier, even if it has proven less willing to race around the planet in the way SARS-CoV-2 did.

How does MERS spread — and why does that matter?

Researchers believe the virus originated in bats, but camels are the usual bridge to people. Most human infections have been linked to direct or indirect contact with camels or to close contact with infected patients, especially in healthcare settings. Human-to-human transmission is possible, but it typically requires prolonged, close exposure — the kind you get in a crowded ward or a family home, not from a hurried interaction at a market stall.

“MERS behaves differently from the new coronavirus that caused the pandemic,” said Dr. Marie Laurent, an infectious disease specialist at a major Paris hospital. “It doesn’t spread as easily in the community, but when it does take hold — especially in hospitals — the consequences can be severe.”

That pattern was painfully visible in 2015, when a single traveler returning to South Korea ignited an outbreak that led to 186 cases and dozens of deaths and sent the country into a brief but intense public health emergency. The Korea experience remains a cautionary tale: one infected traveler, a crowded emergency room, and the virus found fertile ground.

Response and reassurance

French authorities say the two patients are stable, isolated, and receiving appropriate care. Contact tracing — the painstaking detective work of identifying and monitoring anyone who may have been exposed — is in full swing. The measures include symptomatic screening, instructions for self-isolation, and stringent infection prevention steps for hospital staff and household contacts.

“We are implementing barrier gestures: masks, hand hygiene, and limited contact for anyone exposed,” the ministry official explained. “We are also advising health professionals to be alert for respiratory symptoms even if mild.”

For travelers, the advice is straightforward: if you are visiting regions where MERS is known to circulate, avoid close contact with camels, do not consume raw camel products, and seek medical attention promptly for fever or respiratory symptoms.

Between fear and facts: the social dimension

Fear is an old companion to any outbreak. In the café near the hospital, a nurse named Ahmed commented over a cup of coffee: “People are always frightened of what they cannot see. But when you talk to them, when you explain testing and exposure, it calms them. It’s education that wins here.”

That education has a global role. In an era where flights knit continents together and packaged tours promise curated experiences from Marrakech souks to Riyadh skylines, infectious diseases have fewer borders. A virus that prefers hospital transmission still arrives in far-off places on the backs of travelers who share souvenirs and stories — and sometimes, infection.

How we react matters as much as what the pathogen does. Heavy-handed travel bans tend to do more social and economic harm than good, while clear communication, prompt case finding, and supportive isolation can prevent a local scare from becoming an international crisis. The World Health Organization recommends ongoing vigilance without knee-jerk alarm: a balanced approach that protects public health and preserves the dignity of travelers, patients, and healthcare workers.

Local color: markets, camels, and a recipe for risk

Picture an early morning camel market on the Arabian Peninsula: men bargaining over livestock, children darting between stalls, the air scented with spices and the dust of a thousand footsteps. Camels are woven into local economies, cuisine, and culture. Yet they are also the reservoirs for a virus that spilled into humans. That cultural complexity makes public health messaging tricky. You cannot simply ask people to abandon heritage or livelihood; effective interventions must respect life as it is lived.

“We have to work with communities, not against them,” said Dr. Aisha Al-Salem, a public health specialist who has worked with camel herding communities. “Simple measures — safe handling, boiling milk, wearing gloves when dealing with sick animals — can reduce risk without erasing culture.”

What should you take away?

If you find yourself planning a trip, consider a few practical steps: stay informed about local advisories, avoid direct contact with camels and their raw products, and seek medical attention for fever or cough after travel. If you work in healthcare, use protective equipment diligently and report unusual respiratory illnesses promptly.

And there is an invitation here, too — an invitation to reflect on how our shrinking world alters the calculus of risk. MERS has not sparked a pandemic. Yet its very existence reminds us of the fragility and resilience braided together in public health: a fragile moment of infection, a resilient system of detection and response.

“Outbreaks tell us as much about people as they do about microbes,” Dr. Laurent reflected. “They show our vulnerabilities and the strengths of our institutions: how quickly we act, how openly we share, how carefully we care.”

In the quiet of the ward and the bustle of the market, those choices are being made every day. What would you do if you were on that tour? How would you weigh the warmth of a new experience against the caution of a public health alert? The answers are personal, but the responsibility is shared — across borders, duties, and generations.

‘Japa’ trend fuels mass exodus as millions emigrate from Nigeria

hanad

December 4, 2025

'Japa' - Cultural phenomenon sees millions leave Nigeria — Sylvia decided to try and leave Nigeria after her parents died in 2007

Japa: The Great Nigerian Exodus — Stories from the Road North

There is a word on the lips of Lagos motorcyclists, in university halls, in the back rooms of Lagos bars and in WhatsApp groups across the country: Japa. It comes from Yoruba, literally meaning “to split” or “to run away,” but it has grown into something larger — a movement, a mood, a cultural pulse that tells you more about Nigeria than any statistic alone.

Walk down Broad Street in the old commercial quarter and you’ll hear it in the music bumping out of a roadside speaker. Sit in a lecture hall at the University of Lagos and students will tell you, with a mixture of swagger and sorrow, about plans to “go Japa.” It is shorthand for the decision that keeps families awake at night, the quiet hinge on which futures turn: to stay and try to build here, or to leave and gamble everything on a perilous road that promises work, safety, or simply survival.

A young nation, restless

Nigeria is no small place in the imagination of the world. With well over 230 million people, its population is overwhelmingly young — the median age hovers around 18, and roughly two-thirds of Nigerians are under 30. That demographic energy can be an engine of innovation, or a pressure cooker.

For many, the pressure has become unbearable. Despite intermittent economic growth and bullish headlines about an emerging market, poverty remains stubbornly widespread. Conservative estimates place more than 100 million Nigerians in conditions of poverty; other measures that capture multidimensional deprivation put that number higher, often cited around 130 million. When opportunities at home feel scarce, the road away can look like the only way out.

Dr. Alabi: “You can’t measure what you can’t see”

“The official numbers are always lagging an ocean behind reality,” says Dr. Tunde Alabi, a sociologist at UniLag who has spent years studying migration. “A lot of this is irregular, moving through Sahara routes that no census counts. But what we can see — the doctors, the lecturers, the nurses leaving — tells you that emigration is increasing.”

He points to two linked phenomena: a youth bulge with limited formal employment, and the erosion of institutions — security, health, education — that push talented people to look for greener ground. “When a surgeon tells me he’s applied for licensure overseas, we should be asking why,” he says.

Lives on the Line: Two Journeys

Sylvia: “I thank God I’m still alive”

Sylvia’s story is not unique, but it is unforgettable. She lost her parents in 2007 and, suddenly adrift, decided to leave. “My friend said Norway was peaceful,” she told me, staring at her hands as if tracing the path of memory. “So I started walking toward that light.”

She flew under the radar with a borrowed passport to Madrid, then boarded buses north until the snow of Oslo and the promise of asylum. A relationship developed with a Norwegian man; they married in Lagos in the hope of regularizing her stay. When authorities suspected a marriage of convenience, progress stalled. Despair nudged her back toward the desert route.

From Lagos to Agadez to Sabha: the journey reads like a geography of fear. “We walked for days,” she said. “The heat took everything. I saw people fall and never get up.” Traffickers crammed migrants into Hilux pickups, then doors opened on a more ruthless reality: bands of kidnappers, known in the region as Asma Boys, who snatch people for ransom; long stretches without water; trucks leaving groups to test the road ahead.

“We drank our own urine,” she whispered. “If you close your eyes you can still taste the salt of the sun.” They reached Sabratah and the Mediterranean, but not into the arms of the dream. Weeks of gunfire. Chaos. United Nations workers eventually pulled her from a site of violence; the International Organization for Migration helped her get back to Lagos.

Now she is back in the city she tried to escape. “I am grateful,” she says simply. “But am I happy? No. I bury my friends in my head. I cannot go through that again.”

Chiutu: “Don’t let them deport me”

Then there’s Chiutu, who took a different route and for a while tasted a more ordinary immigrant life. He flew to Frankfurt on a tourist visa in 2014, applied for asylum and learned German. He qualified as a carer and found work in a nursing home during a brief period when Germany was opening doors to migrants under the banner of “Wir schaffen das.”

“I was one week from residency,” he said, the frustration in his voice still raw. A workplace dispute — a patient left in soiled sheets — led to his dismissal. He fell into casual, exhausting labor and, after five years away from his children, made the decision to return voluntarily.

“I told my wife, ‘If I die there, I die alone.’ I missed my children too much. But sometimes I look back and think, maybe I left too soon.” He is both relieved and regretful, a tidy portrait of the dilemmas that haunt returnees.

Voices from the Lecture Hall

At UniLag, students give a kaleidoscope of reasons for wanting to go. Florence said, “Lots of people Japa because they’re scared — insecurity is everywhere.” Jaqueline spoke of education and skills; Benjamin wants a stint in the UK so he can bring knowledge home afterward. Wuraola said plainly: “If you go and learn, come back. Build.”

These contradictory attitudes — leave versus return, escape versus investment — are important. Migration is not only a loss. Diasporas send remittances, open networks, and sometimes return with capital and ideas. But the flip side is clear: when doctors and professors leave en masse, the institutions that nurture a nation get hollowed out.

Why it matters beyond Nigeria

What’s happening in Nigeria is part of a larger global narrative: the movement of people shaped by inequality, climate stress, insecurity and changing labor markets. Europe, North America and parts of Asia are destinations; smugglers and perilous routes are the corridors. The policy challenges are enormous. How do destination countries balance humanitarian obligations and border control? How do origin countries create enough opportunity to keep their best people?

As you read this, ask yourself: if you were 22 and promising, with few chances to build a life where you were born, what would you do? Would you risk dunes and desert, or the uncertainty of asylum courts? Would you leave a child behind for five years in search of a future?

Paths forward

The answers will not be simple. Economists point to investments in education, healthcare and security. Experts urge better legal migration pathways and faster recognition of foreign qualifications. Diasporas can be bridges, not drains. “Policy that harnesses migration instead of just trying to stop it wins twice,” Dr. Alabi told me. “You keep the human potential connected to the homeland.”

And on the ground? Lagos keeps humming. In the markets, traders haggle over peppers and suya, young entrepreneurs hack on laptops beneath buzzing fans, and mothers whisper prayers against another empty seat in a family home. Japa is as much a symptom as a story of stubborn resilience — people trying, in whatever way they can, to carve dignity out of hardship.

So the next time you hear the word — on a bus, in a song, in a student grad speech — remember this: Japa is not just about leaving. It’s about longing, about the cost of staying, and about the kind of societies we are building. How we answer those questions will shape the next chapter of a nation that refuses to be defined only by the headlines.

Macron urges Xi that France and China must bridge their differences

hanad

December 4, 2025

Macron tells Xi China, France must overcome 'differences' — French President Emmanuel Macron and Chinese President Xi Jinping walk during a state visit at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing

Under the flags: a Parisian handshake in the heart of Beijing

It was cold enough in Beijing that the ceremony planned on Tian’anmen Square moved indoors, from sun-bright symbolism to the cavernous, gold-paneled intimacy of the Great Hall of the People. Still, nothing about diplomacy is ever entirely about temperature. It is about timing, theatre and the stubbornly human rituals that sit behind headline-grabbing policy.

Emmanuel Macron arrived with his trademark composure—scarf tucked against the wind, Brigitte at his side—walking a narrow diplomatic tightrope between concerted engagement and pointed pressure. Opposite him, President Xi Jinping and First Lady Peng Liyuan offered the reserves of a host who knows how capitals look when they want to be taken seriously. A military band played, bouquets were presented, and for a brief, almost incongruous instant on a day heavy with strategy, Mr Macron blew kisses to children who stood with flowers.

“We cannot pretend differences do not exist,” Mr Macron told Mr Xi later in the day, his words carrying the double weight of a leader trying to coax action from a partner and ally in international stability. “But the real promise of statecraft is to square them, for the sake of peace and global stability.”

What was on the table

The talks blended the ceremonial and the urgent. At the centre of Mr Macron’s agenda was Ukraine—now entering a fourth winter of conflict after Russia’s 2022 invasion—a crisis that has remade alliances and tested the limits of global diplomacy.

For months, Paris and other Western capitals have quietly hoped Beijing will do more than advocate “peace talks” in principle. The French president pushed for Beijing to use its influence with Moscow to dial down the violence, to move beyond rhetoric and nudge the warring parties toward a ceasefire.

“China can play a decisive role,” said Élise Laurent, a former French diplomat now advising on Eurasian security. “Even if Beijing won’t publicly chastise Moscow, Beijing can use channels—economic, diplomatic, backdoor—to encourage de-escalation. Macron’s job was to make that ask clearly and humbly.”

President Xi, in carefully measured language, returned the sentiment of stability without conceding lines he won’t cross. “We seek a more stable relationship with France,” he said, adding that China would work to “exclude interference” and fortify the “comprehensive strategic partnership” between the two countries. It was both a reassurance and a reminder of where Beijing draws its red lines.

Between words and deeds: the question of Russia

China’s blanket call for dialogue on Ukraine faces skepticism in Europe and the United States, particularly because Beijing has not condemned Russia’s 2022 invasion. Western governments, citing intelligence assessments and trade patterns, argue that China—through commerce and technology transfers—has eased some of the economic pressure on Moscow.

“We are not naïve about the gap between rhetoric and effect,” said Dr. Li Mei, an international relations scholar at a Beijing university. “The question France asked is whether China will move from words to practical steps that reduce the capacity for conflict.”

Trade, tech and the taste of panda diplomacy

High politics gave way, at times, to the everyday business of nations: trade. Europe runs a yawning trade deficit with China—recent figures put the imbalance at roughly $350 billion—and Macron used the visit to press for a rebalancing of that relationship.

“Europeans cannot be reduced to passive consumers of the world,” said one advisor travelling with the president. “We want China to consume more and export less; we must also make Europe produce more and save less.” It was blunt, economically framed advice: a call for Beijing to open domestic markets while allowing European industry room to breathe and innovate.

The tech sector sat in the margins of the talks but loomed large. Macron has been vocal about European tech sovereignty—arguing that the continent should not become a “vassal” to Silicon Valley or to major Chinese platforms. It is a debate about data, investment, standards and the future architecture of the digital economy.

And then, lighter and yet telling, there was Chengdu: the final stop on Mr Macron’s short visit. The city was the destination for a softer kind of diplomacy—two giant pandas that had been loaned to France were returned to their homeland, and Beijing, not wanting to lose the public-relations heartbeat of panda diplomacy, promised new animals would soon be sent in their stead.

“It may sound trivial, but cultural ties like these matter,” said Sophie Martin, a Paris-based China analyst. “They sustain public goodwill and remind people—on both sides—that the relationship is not just about geopolitics. It is about shared curiosity.”

Voices from the street

Near the entrance to the Great Hall, a tea vendor named Zhao, 62, who sells small porcelain cups to passing tourists and officials, had a simple take. “Politicians speak big, but for us it is about trade and jobs,” he said with a shrug. “If two countries get along, maybe I sell more cups.”

A university student who watched Macron’s earlier visit to Guangzhou years ago remembered the energy. “Students love Macron because he listens,” she said. “When leaders talk about big ideas—technology, climate, war—we feel the impact in internships and classrooms.”

What to watch next

Whether Beijing takes concrete steps—sanctions, trade curbs, or private pressure—to change Moscow’s calculus in Ukraine.
Any new trade or investment commitments that aim to shrink the EU-China deficit of roughly $350 billion.
Moves on technology governance that could tilt the balance toward European regulators and platform rules.
Soft-power exchanges—like the panda arrangement—that keep channels of goodwill open even amid strategic competition.

Looking beyond the handshake

If diplomacy were a film, this Beijing meeting would not be the climactic finale; it would be a tense midpoint—a scene that sets up the hard work ahead. Macron’s trip was less about immediate breakthroughs and more about laying groundwork: reminding Beijing of shared interests, pressing on red lines, and testing where China might be willing to bend.

So what does success look like? Not necessarily a sudden ceasefire, nor a vanishing of strategic rivalry. Success might be incremental: clearer channels through which Beijing nudges Moscow, more balanced trade flows, and a framework for cooperation on global challenges from climate to cyber governance.

And for the everyday people whose lives these high-flown words ripple through—vendors like Zhao, students, and office workers—the hope is simple. “We want stability,” a Chengdu teacher told me. “Stability means planning for the future; it means not having to decide if our children will leave to find work. That is what leaders should be working toward.”

In the end, the photograph of the two presidents—flags behind them, an ornate ceiling overhead—will travel the world. But the real story is quieter, slower, and harder to capture: the months of diplomacy, the back-channel conversations, the economic adjustments and the cultural exchanges that stitch one country’s fate to another’s.

How do you measure the success of a visit that mixes gala and gravity? Perhaps not by the headlines alone, but by whether, months from now, the ripples born in a Beijing hall have made Europe’s streets a little steadier and the negotiating table in Kyiv a little nearer to peace. Do you think that is possible? Or are some differences simply too stubborn to overcome?

Colombia’s president issues stern warning against attacks on national sovereignty

hanad

December 4, 2025

Colombia suspends intelligence sharing with US — Gustavo Petro said the order would remain in place while the US continues to conduct missile attacks on boats in the Caribbean (file photo)

When a President’s Words Cross a Border: The Jaguar, the Missile, and the Question of Sovereignty

On a humid evening along Colombia’s Pacific coast, fishermen pull in their nets beneath a sky bruised purple by sunset. Children chase a stray dog past a church whose bell has rung for generations. It is a scene ordinary enough to belong in any travelogue. Yet beneath that ordinary life, a far more dangerous conversation hums: who has the right to strike, to patrol, to punish, or to cross a neighbor’s line in the name of stopping drugs?

Last week, a White House cabinet-room comment rippled through Latin America: “Anybody that’s doing that and selling it into our country is subject to attack,” the U.S. president told reporters, pointing to cocaine shipments as justification. The bluntness of the sentence—international policy spoken like a headline—forced an immediate response from Bogotá.

“Do not threaten our sovereignty, or you will awake the Jaguar,” Colombia’s president shot back on X, warning that any assault on Colombian territory would amount to a declaration of war. “Attacking our sovereignty is declaring war,” he added, a line that landed like a stone dropped into an already choppy regional pond.

A conflict that is both immediate and symbolic

The rhetoric is not abstract. Over recent months, U.S. forces have intensified strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific against vessels the administration says are drug-running. Some of those strikes have been devastating: a campaign that has, by official and independent tallies, been linked to scores of deaths, with one wave of attacks earlier this year followed by more than 80 fatalities. In one recent episode, two sequential strikes on the same alleged smuggling boat reportedly killed 11 people.

“We are not seeking to pick fights with our neighbors,” a U.S. official said on background. “But we face a crisis of overdose deaths at home and we will deny traffickers the safe harbor they have exploited.” The unspoken fact behind that statement is familiar to many Americans: the U.S. has suffered more than 100,000 drug-overdose deaths per year in recent statistics—numbers that shape public sentiment and policy urgency.

Yet legality remains contested. The White House said a U.S. admiral, acting under the authority of the Pentagon leadership, ordered the “double-tap” operation—the tactic of striking survivors after an initial attack. “The action was conducted in compliance with the law of armed conflict,” a senior Pentagon spokesperson claimed. But international law experts point to a stark line in the Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual: orders to fire upon the shipwrecked or the rescued would be clearly illegal. “If true, a second strike on people in the water violates the most basic protections of humanity,” said Dr. Ana Morales, a professor of international humanitarian law. “There are legal norms precisely to prevent the sort of escalation we saw.”

Local voices: fear, frustration, and fragile livelihoods

In coastal hamlets where boats are as common as buses, conversations are raw and personal. “We’ve seen drones, we’ve seen helicopters,” said Marco, a 46-year-old fisherman who asked that only his first name be used. “Sometimes we don’t know who is chasing whom. My brother was once chased. He says they shoot at anything that moves.”

Those who live amid coca fields offer a different perspective. “You think people plant coca because they love it?” asked María Torres, a farmer from a hillside village in Nariño. “There are no factories here for making clothes, no big employers. You grow a crop and feed a family. And then the planes come and say we are criminals.” Her voice was steady, the kind worn from years of explaining to strangers why choices are sometimes a matter of survival.

President Gustavo Petro—himself no stranger to confrontation with Washington and subject to his own run-ins with U.S. measures—pointed to Colombia’s anti-drug operations, declaring that Colombia destroys a drug-producing laboratory “every 40 minutes” without missiles. For Petro, the point is both practical and principled: Colombia will fight drugs, but not at the cost of its territorial sovereignty.

Beyond borders: Venezuela, politics, and regional fault lines

Complicating the geography is Venezuela. The U.S. administration has publicly accused President Nicolás Maduro of involvement in the trafficking networks that feed U.S. drug markets—an allegation Maduro vehemently denies. “There is no drug cultivation in Venezuela,” he told state media earlier this year, insisting that his country is a forced transit route for Colombian production. Tensions between Caracas and Washington have spiked, and the build-up of U.S. military assets in the Caribbean has only narrowed political breathing room.

“This is not merely a Colombia-U.S. issue,” said Diego Fernández, a regional security analyst. “When one neighbor’s policy is to use force offshore, it changes diplomatic calculus for all littoral states. Nations like Panama, Costa Rica and the island states of the Caribbean—many of which have limited naval capacity—are watching closely.”

Questions of law, morality, and strategy

Experts debate not just whether particular strikes were legal, but whether this approach can succeed. Military action may interrupt flows temporarily, but underlying demand—inside the United States, among other countries—remains. “We are trying to treat a public-health and economic problem with a kinetic tool,” said Dr. Lucia Valenzuela, a public policy scholar who studies drug markets. “Without reducing demand or investing in alternative livelihoods, we risk a cycle: more violence, more impunity, more displacement.”

There is also an irony: measures meant to secure domestic safety abroad can deepen insecurity at home. When foreign strikes generate civilian deaths or are perceived as overreach, they can fuel narratives used by cartels, insurgent groups, and even anti-U.S. politicians—giving them recruitment and legitimacy.

What does sovereignty mean in a hyper-connected world?

Ask yourself this: when cross-border harms are real—when drugs made in one country help tear families apart in another—what’s the right response? Do states have the moral license to pursue perpetrators across borders? Or does sovereignty retain a sacrosanct shield, even when a neighbor’s failure to control criminal networks has cascading effects?

There are no easy answers. The story unfolding off Colombia’s coasts is a messy intersection of human suffering, law, geopolitics and the everyday needs of people like Marco and María. It forces us to weigh urgency against caution, security against the sanctity of national borders.

In the end, the image that lingers is small and human: a child on a seaside stoop watching a distant light blink on the horizon, not knowing whether it signifies a patrol, a rescue, or something more ominous. That is the world policy debates are supposed to protect—but sometimes, paradoxically, they put directly at risk.

How would you weigh these competing claims? What mix of diplomacy, justice, aid, and enforcement would you trust to resolve them? The answers we choose will determine not only the fate of states, but the daily lives of those who simply want to fish, farm, and raise their children in peace.

1...404142...206 Page 41 of 206