Trump Vows to Raise U.S. Tariffs on Colombia

October 20, 2025

Trump says US will increase tariffs on Colombia — US President Donald Trump spoke with media on board Air Force One

When Tariffs Became a Baton: A Caribbean Strike, Two Presidents, and a Country Caught in the Crossfire

There are moments when diplomacy gives way to theater — when a single sentence, uttered amid the clack of notebook pens and the drone of an airplane, can redraw the map of a relationship between nations. On board Air Force One, flanked by reporters and the pale wash of cabin lights, President Donald Trump did just that: he announced tariff hikes on Colombia and said plainly, “I’m stopping all payments to Colombia.”

The words landed like a stone in a pond that was already rippling. For weeks, the Caribbean Sea — its blue expanse a ribbon between islands and mainland — has been the scene of a deadly tit-for-tat: US forces striking vessels suspected of ferrying illicit narcotics, and Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, denouncing what he calls extrajudicial shootings of ordinary people. The latest exchange between Washington and Bogotá has pushed that feud into a new, feverish phase.

A strike, a statement, and competing narratives

On X (formerly Twitter), Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted that US forces had destroyed a vessel in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility and that three people were killed. He further asserted that the ship was tied to Colombia’s leftist National Liberation Army (ELN), painting it as part of an illicit narcotics smuggling operation.

Colombian President Petro responded with a different script. “That boat belonged to a humble family, not a rebel group,” he wrote back on X, his words tinged with the indignation of a head of state defending sovereignty and the humanity of his citizens. “Mr. Trump, Colombia has never been rude to the United States … but you are rude and ignorant to Colombia.”

Both sides are staking claims to the truth. The Pentagon, for its part, refrained from adding detail beyond Hegseth’s post.

Lives at sea: more than just headlines

Ask people in the coastal towns and the answers are granular, immediate, and human. In a small port village on Colombia’s northern coast, a woman who asked to be identified as Ana — her hands rough from rope and salt — described the fear that has settled over fishing communities.

“We wake at dawn and look at the horizon like we are expecting both the fish and the bomb,” she said. “Who will tell us if the boat they take for a cartel ship is my brother’s?”

Another fisherman, José Ruiz, remembered a cousin who sailed for a living. “We are poor people. We have no cartel colors. We have nets and kids,” he said. “This is how war reaches the least among us.”

Human-rights groups and legal experts say the U.S. strikes — which independent monitoring groups allege have killed dozens in recent months — raise serious legal and ethical questions about the use of force in international waters, the standard of evidence for such strikes, and the accountability mechanisms that follow.

Statistics that complicate the story

To understand why Washington asserts such a muscular approach, look at the broader numbers: coca cultivation in Colombia has surged since the mid-2010s, swelling into hundreds of thousands of hectares across different regions — a trend tracked and verified by international agencies. The result is not only a booming illicit industry but also a patchwork of armed groups and criminal networks profiting from the trade. In September, the Trump administration listed Colombia among several countries it said had “failed demonstrably” to uphold counternarcotics commitments.

And yet, counter-narcotics policies alone do not erase decades of distrust. Colombia, once among the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid in the Western Hemisphere, saw flows shift dramatically this year after USAID — the government’s traditional channel for humanitarian assistance — was shuttered. Against that backdrop, a presidential announcement to halt “all payments” is not merely symbolic; it could bite into health programs, agricultural support, and post-conflict initiatives that communities depend on.

From visas to tariffs: a catalogue of strains

The current rupture has a recent history. Earlier this year, the United States revoked President Petro’s visa after he joined a pro-Palestinian demonstration in New York and urged U.S. soldiers to consider conscience in the face of presidential orders. The diplomatic frost only deepened after reports that U.S. strikes in the Caribbean had taken Colombian lives — an allegation Washington has sometimes denied and at other times presented as part of its counternarcotics campaign.

Colombia currently pays a baseline 10% tariff on most imports into the United States, a figure President Trump has applied to multiple countries. Announcing he would increase tariffs on Colombian goods, Trump framed the move as both punitive and preventive: a response to what he called Bogotá’s complicity in the drug trade. “They don’t have a fight against drugs — they make drugs,” he told reporters. The bluntness of the accusation has been viewed in Bogotá as not just inflammatory but personally insulting to the nation and its president.

Sovereignty, power, and the politics of enforcement

There is a philosophical rift running beneath the headlines. On one side sits a doctrine that prizes deterrence and unilateral action: if illicit narcotics cross the sea, the vessel should be struck. On the other side is a cry for due process and respect for national sovereignty: striking a ship that belongs to citizens of another nation without coordination or transparent evidence is an affront to law and life.

“It’s not just about drugs,” said Mariana López, a human-rights lawyer in Bogotá. “It’s about how powerful states use force—and how the people most affected are never those making policy in Washington. Accountability is the difference between targeted law enforcement and an international incident.”

Analysts point out that the war on drugs has increasingly become a geopolitical instrument. Tariffs are a form of economic leverage; revoking aid is a blunt tool of punishment. But these levers reverberate through markets and communities in ways that rarely align neatly with political aims.

What happens next?

Colombia’s foreign ministry has vowed to seek international support, framing the U.S. accusations as an attack on the dignity of its president and the autonomy of the Colombian people. Legal challenges, appeals to multilateral organizations, and a public campaign to win hearts and minds are all likely to be part of Bogotá’s playbook.

For ordinary Colombians, though, the calculus is simpler and sharper: will these diplomatic blows make their lives safer or more precarious? Will tariffs raise consumer prices? Will aid cuts disrupt clinics and social programs? Will fishermen feel the sea is a place of livelihood or danger?

And for readers around the globe: what do we want international security to look like in an age of transnational threats? Is a world where powerful militaries strike across borders, guided by suspicion and limited transparency, one we can accept? Or must the norms that govern interstate behavior evolve so that human rights and rule of law are not collateral in the pursuit of security?

Conclusion: a fragile calm, and questions that won’t go away

The sea is as indifferent to politics as it is to borders, but the consequences of decisions made on solid ground race across its surface like wavelets. Colombia and the United States now stand at a fraught juncture: one of diplomacy, legal contestation, and human pain. Between the two capitals, there are communities whose names never make headlines yet whose futures may turn on decisions announced on a press deck tens of thousands of feet above the earth.

These are the human stakes hiding behind tariff percentages and terse X posts. When the ink dries on new policies, when courts deliberate and diplomats negotiate, it will be the fishermen, the families, the human-rights activists, and the small-town mayors who feel the reverberations most keenly. Their voices — anxious, resolute, incredulous — deserve more than a statistic. They deserve a reckoning.

Gaza truce appears stable — will it hold long-term?

hanad

October 20, 2025

Gaza ceasefire seems to be holding but can it last? — Donald Trump's plan envisions an international stabilisation force and a technocratic Palestinian committee to govern Gaza

In the Rubble, a Pause — and a Question: How Long Will the Ceasefire Hold?

Ten days after the guns fell silent, Gaza feels like the world’s most fragile breathing room. People are returning to neighborhoods that read like archaeological sites — doorways half-closed, children’s toys half-buried, the smell of smoke still clinging to the air. The ceasefire has carved out a narrow corridor of calm, but for many what matters most is not whether the shooting has stopped, but what fills the silence.

“We came back because my mother wanted to sleep in her own house,” says Amal, a woman in her forties who guided me through the ruins of Al-Gabari. “There is a mattress, there is a photograph on the floor. There is also the memory of explosions. I don’t know if it’s peace or a pause.”

Gaza is home to roughly 2.3 million people, compressed into a 365-square-kilometre strip of land that has been under blockade in one form or another since 2007. Years of restrictions and repeated rounds of violence have hollowed institutions and frayed social safety nets. War left hospitals, schools and markets in ruins; now a ceasefire has left a different kind of devastation: a governance vacuum.

The Vacuum and the Actor Who Fills It

When an authority disappears, something — or someone — almost always rushes to take its place. In Gaza that something has been Hamas. The group, battered and pressed, has been reasserting control over the areas vacated by the Israeli Defence Forces. To some, it looks like the default action of any organized entity left standing: patrols, checkpoints, attempts to restore basic services.

To others, it is consolidation.

“There is a difference between restoring order and eliminating rivals,” says Dr. Leila Mansour, a Gaza-based civil society leader who has tracked local governance since 2008. “What worries people on the ground is when ‘restoring order’ includes executions, or the rounding up of opponents. That turns temporary caretaking into long-term control.”

Hamas has reportedly told mediators it recognizes the need to step aside for a future technocratic administration. But talk and action are different things. As one local shopkeeper put it bluntly: “Who else do we go to when our streetlight is broken, or when we need a permit to move a truck?”

Outside Promises, Inside Realities

Diplomacy has produced a sketch of a solution: an international stabilisation force, overseen by a technocratic Palestinian committee, guaranteed by regional powers. The idea has the makings of a global safety net — France, Britain and the United States have signaled a UN Security Council bid to authorise such a mission. Indonesia has reportedly pledged as many as 20,000 troops, Azerbaijan has offered personnel, and Egypt is likely to lead coordination on the ground.

“This kind of operation can work, but only if you get the timing right,” says Professor David Klein, an international security expert. “Deploying a multinational force is not like turning on a tap. Logistics, rules of engagement, political clearances — all of it takes weeks. In that window, the most organized armed group in town will set the agenda.”

The risk is obvious: the longer the delay in deploying stabilisation forces, the more embedded Hamas becomes in everyday life. And small acts of authority — roadblocks, arrests, neighborhood courts — can calcify into governance norms hard to unwind.

Who’s Guaranteeing the Agreement?

There is a new element this time: guarantors with real leverage. Egypt, Qatar and Turkey have signed on as guarantors of the deal. The United States — which, in a dramatic turn, is being portrayed as a chief broker — asked Turkey to lean on Hamas. That regional trio has both influence and a reputation to defend.

“When countries stake their credibility on a deal, it changes incentives,” says an EU diplomat involved in the talks. “Qatar bankrolls reconstruction, Egypt controls crossings, Turkey has channels into Gaza. They are not neutral bystanders.”

But guarantors can only push so far if the international community does not follow through. The stabilisation force, if and when it arrives, will need clear mandates and sustained political backing. Otherwise, it risks being a short-lived spectacle rather than an instrument of durable order.

Politics at Home: How Israel’s Calculus Matters

Inside Israel, there is a rare, uneasy alignment. Political elites who spent years promising more aggressive campaigns now speak in the language of closure and civilian recovery. That shift is as much about war fatigue as it is about political calculation; with national elections looming for some, leaders keenly feel the domestic appetite for ending the crisis.

“We wanted the hostages back,” a retired teacher in Tel Aviv told me. “We also wanted the war to end. Those are not contradictory things when you have spent so long under sirens.”

Whether Israel will live up to its part — easing some restrictions, permitting reconstruction aid, and not re-launching large-scale operations — is a question that cannot be answered by a single statement from a ministry. It will be tested day by day.

The Broker and the Burden of Follow-Through

Donald Trump’s role — as presented in the conversations around the ceasefire — has been unmistakable. He brought parties to the table, applied pressure, and announced the agreement with theatrical flair. But bargaining power built on personality is brittle.

“A deal is only as durable as the work that follows it,” says Dr. Klein. “The risk is not that the broker fails to negotiate; it’s that he moves on once the cameras leave.”

If sustained international engagement wanes, three things can happen: Israel’s incentives shift; guarantor states lose leverage; and Hamas deepens its roots. That is a recipe for a return to violence, not peace.

What This Means for Ordinary People

For the families sifting through rubble, politics are not abstractions. They are whether a child gets a functioning clinic, whether a pump delivers water, whether permits allow a truck of flour into a neighbourhood. “We are experts now in survival,” says Khaled, a father of three. “What we want is not politics — it is bread, medicine, safety.”

And yet this moment also presents a rare window. If the stabilisation force arrives, if aid flows, and if guarantors pressure spoilers, there is potential to build institutions that protect civilians and provide services without handing monopolies to any single armed group.

That is no small task. It asks the international community to do the patient, dull work of logistics, oversight and sustained diplomacy. It asks regional actors to use leverage responsibly. It asks citizens — on all sides — to choose reconstruction over revenge.

Questions to Carry Home

As you read this, ask yourself: do you believe ceasefires are ends or beginnings? Who do you imagine when you hear “stability” — soldiers in blue helmets or social workers repairing a school? And what sort of pressure should external powers apply when life on the ground depends on their follow-through?

This ceasefire could be the first breath of a longer peace, or simply another interlude between wars. The variables are many, and fragile: logistics, regional politics, local loyalties, and the stamina of international actors. For people in Gaza, however this plays out will not be measured in headlines but in the daily count of meals, medicines and nights slept without the thunder of bombs.

For now, the silence is both gift and test. The world is watching. Will it show up?

Ireland’s Tánaiste to join EU foreign ministers’ summit

hanad

October 20, 2025

Tánaiste to attend EU foreign minister meeting — Tánaiste Simon Harris is to attend the meeting which set to focus on the Middle East and Russia's war in Ukraine

At the Crossroads in Luxembourg: Ireland’s Call for Aid, Sanctions and a Hard Look at Europe’s Conscience

The rain had a way of making Luxembourg’s cobblestones gleam like polished coins, the kind that only seem to exist in postcards and the corridors of power. Today, those corridors are carrying weightier things than tourist snapshots: foreign ministers from across the European Union threading through a palace of meeting rooms to debate decisions that will shape lives far beyond these neat little streets.

Among them is Tánaiste Simon Harris, Ireland’s deputy prime minister and foreign affairs minister, who arrived intent on turning diplomatic language into action. His brief is blunt and urgent—press the EU to flood Gaza with humanitarian assistance and tighten the screws on Russia with additional sanctions—while also keeping an eye on simmering crises in Moldova, Georgia and Sudan.

A moral argument in a leather-bound setting

“We have to preserve the ceasefire and get life-saving aid into Gaza,” Harris told reporters as he stepped out of the delegation car, his voice steady against the patter of rain. “The people of Gaza have endured unimaginable suffering. Ireland will do more.” Those words echo with meaning back home: Dublin has pledged an extra €6 million aimed at food, medical care and essential services for Gazans.

It’s important to name what that donation means in practice. For a small country—and in European terms Ireland is small—an extra €6 million is not symbolic; it buys field hospitals, ambulances, vaccines, and warm meals for families who have been uprooted. It buys fuel for water pumps when infrastructure has been bombarded, and it pays the salaries of aid workers who risk everything to reach people behind checkpoints. As Éimear Collins, director of a Cork-based humanitarian NGO, put it, “Six million euros could be the difference between a clinic staying open or closing its doors in a besieged neighbourhood.”

Gaza: beyond headlines, human rubble

Walking through the meeting rooms, you can feel the tension between legalese and human need. For many delegates, the Gaza debate is no longer abstract. Humanitarian organizations estimating mass displacement, shortages of food, fuel and clean water—together with crumbling hospitals—make the question immediate: how can a union with deep resources not do more? UN agencies have repeatedly warned of catastrophic conditions; Gaza, home to roughly 2.3 million people, is where the limits of international goodwill are being tested.

“Aid is not charity,” says Miriam al-Sayed, who runs logistics for an international relief group in Amman and coordinates convoys into Gaza. “It is a matter of human dignity. If the EU can direct more funding and insist on safe corridors, lives will be saved.” Her voice over a crackly line sounds both weary and fiercely resolute—an echo of the scenes aid workers bring back: hospitals overflowing, families sleeping in school courtyards, children clinging to battered toys.

Russia, Ukraine and a critical moment for European security

When Harris pivots from the Middle East to Ukraine he speaks like someone two steps ahead in a chess game others still see as a tangle of pieces. “This is a critical moment for Ukraine and European security,” he says, pushing for further sanctions on Russia and reiterating Ireland’s support for Ukraine’s path to EU accession. Since Russia’s large-scale invasion in 2022, the EU has rolled out multiple sanction packages targeting energy, finance and military supply chains. The question now is whether the bloc can sustain unity as economic and political pressures mount.

“Sanctions have a cost,” an EU policy analyst in Brussels commented over coffee, “but inaction also has a cost—the erosion of the rules-based order that underpins our security. Supporting Ukraine’s accession is not just symbolic; it’s a signal that Europe remains committed to enlargement as a tool of stability.”

Ireland’s support for Ukraine is also shaped by a domestic calculus. Across Irish towns, every election conversation seems to find its way back to whether a neutral nation like Ireland can, and should, play a louder role on the security stage. “We are a small country with a moral heart,” said Siobhán O’Leary, a teacher in Galway, “but we are also part of Europe. There are moments when moral clarity must meet practical policy.”

From Moldova to Sudan: a continent watching its neighbors

It’s not just Gaza and Ukraine on the table. The meeting will also focus on Moldova and Georgia, both countries wrestling with geopolitical pressure and internal reforms, and Sudan, where a brutal conflict has unleashed humanitarian chaos. In each case the EU faces a familiar dilemma: how to act decisively without overstepping, how to support sovereignty while protecting vulnerable populations.

Moldova: rising geopolitical pressure close to EU borders, with concerns over energy and security vulnerabilities.
Georgia: democratic backsliding and regional tensions that could be exploited by external actors.
Sudan: ongoing conflict between armed factions since 2023 has devastated civilians and displaced millions.

“The leitmotif here is resilience,” said Dr. Pavel Novak, a security expert at a European think tank. “Resilience of institutions, resilience of supply chains, resilience of humanitarian networks. These are not abstract goals; they’re survival strategies for millions.”

People, policy and the pulse of public opinion

Back in Dublin, you can sense the public tug-of-war. Charity collections and vigils have become regular fixtures, and social media is a fierce marketplace of competing narratives. Yet there is also a quieter, steadier current: ordinary people wanting their government to act, and to press partners in Brussels to do the same. “We may be small,” said an Irish pharmacist I spoke with near St. Stephen’s Green, “but when we speak from our values, people listen.”

How the EU responds in Luxembourg will matter—practically and symbolically. Will ministers steer money to where it will immediately relieve suffering? Will sanctions be calibrated to limit harm to civilians while pressuring political elites? Will the union remain cohesive amid a complex web of crises? These are not rhetorical questions. They are the kinds of decisions that fill nights of briefings, shape refugee routes and determine whether hospitals in Gaza keep their lights on.

What should readers take away?

As you read this, consider: what do we expect from a shared Europe? Is it a club of trade and passports, or a community that shoulders hard choices when human life is at stake? There is no easy answer, but the Luxembourg meeting is one point on a long map, a moment when the EU’s heart and will are tested simultaneously.

“We cannot outsource our conscience,” Harris told the plenary before the vote. Whether those words turn into policy will depend on persistence, pressure and the messy art of coalition-building. For now, Dublin’s extra €6 million is a promise. The challenge is to ensure promises become pipelines of relief, lines of accountability, and ultimately, a measure of real change for people who have been waiting far too long.

So, what do you think? Should the EU lean harder into humanitarian corridors and sanctions at the same time? How should democratic governments balance moral responsibility with geopolitical risk? Drop a thought, light a candle, or simply hold someone in your community a little tighter—these distant crises are stitched into our shared future, whether we like it or not.

Trump: Gaza truce still holding despite recent strikes

hanad

October 20, 2025

Gaza ceasefire still in effect following strikes - Trump — Smoke billows following an Israeli strike that targeted a building in the Bureij camp for Palestinian refugees

After the Calm, a Flicker of Gunfire: Inside a Ceasefire That Feels Fragile

There are moments when peace feels like a breath held too long. On the tarmac outside Air Force One, surrounded by reporters and the constant hum of engines, US President Donald Trump offered a short, measured reassurance: yes, the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is still standing — even after Israeli strikes in Gaza that killed dozens following what Jerusalem called violations of the truce.

“Yeah, it is,” he said, pauses loaded with the gravity of weeks of bloodshed. “It’s going to be handled toughly, but properly.”

Those words, on their surface, announce a commitment to stability. But they also betray the precariousness of any truce negotiated in the middle of a grinding conflict that has reshaped an entire enclave and the lives of its inhabitants. After nine days on paper, the truce has already shown how quickly a fragile calm can be punctured.

What Happened

Israeli forces struck positions in Gaza after accusing Hamas of targeting its troops — the most serious clash since the ceasefire took effect on 10 October. Gaza’s civil defence agency, which operates under Hamas administration, reported at least 45 people killed across the territory in the strikes. Israeli military spokespeople said they were investigating reports of casualties.

Shortly afterward, Israeli authorities announced they had resumed enforcement of the ceasefire, a move that underscores how enforcement can be as elastic as the political will behind it.

Snapshots from the Ground

Fatima al-Sayed, a 42-year-old mother who lives in Gaza City, stood amid dust and twisted metal outside what used to be a busy mosque. “We had hope for a little sleep,” she said, voice thin but steady. “Then the sky felt like it was breathing fire again. The children wake up screaming — they don’t know if now is safe or if soon will be the next siren.”

Across the border in an Israeli town near the Gaza Strip, some residents described a different kind of anxiety. “We want our soldiers and our people to be safe,” said Avi Shalev, a father of three and volunteer in a local civil defense unit. “But every rocket, every breach, makes being calm almost impossible.”

For aid workers and international monitors, the ceasefire has been an anxious experiment in delivering relief and negotiating practicalities. “We have seen convoys reach hospitals that had been cut off,” said Dr. Leila Haddad, a humanitarian coordinator with a regionally based NGO. “But a single escalation can undo days of progress — for patients, for supplies, for confidence.”

The Anatomy of a Fragile Agreement

The truce — brokered with heavy US involvement and announced amid intense international pressure — promised more than a pause in fighting. It set out a blueprint: staged hostage and prisoner exchanges, a roadmap for Gaza’s reconstruction, and a broader regional arrangement that, officials say, would include Gulf Arab support for disarmament and security infrastructure.

Truce start date: 10 October
Primary aims: halt hostilities; arrange hostage/prisoner exchanges; enable humanitarian access
Key challenge: verifying disarmament and enforcing local ceasefire breaches

“You can write down clauses on a piece of paper,” said Professor Miriam Kahn, a Middle East policy analyst. “What you cannot always script is the local dynamic: splintered armed groups, confused command chains, and civilians whose grief fuels local reprisals. So when you hear leaders say the leadership might not be involved — that’s not unusual. But it’s dangerous to assume isolated incidents won’t spill over.”

Gulf States and the Security Question

Vice President JD Vance framed part of the solution as building a regional security infrastructure — a role he sees Gulf Arab countries playing to verify that Hamas is disarmed. “The Gulf Arab states, our allies, don’t have the security infrastructure in place yet to confirm that Hamas is disarmed,” he said, suggesting external support is critical to cementing the deal.

But building such infrastructure takes time. It also requires trust among parties who have spent decades shaping their strategies around mutual suspicion. Even with billions in reconstruction pledges and diplomatic momentum, turning an agreement into a durable peace is an exercise in political patience — and in robust, independent monitoring.

Why This Matters to the World

Beyond the immediate human toll — destroyed homes, interrupted schooling, hospitals stretched beyond capacity — the Gaza truce is a test case for how the international community manages explosive conflicts in an era of quick media cycles and fragile alliances.

Gaza is densely packed: about 2.3 million people live in a strip 41 kilometers long and a few kilometers wide. Years of blockade, repeated rounds of conflict, and a shattered infrastructure mean that even a limited spike in violence can have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. When the fighting resumed briefly, aid deliveries halted, and already fragile services were further threatened.

What happens in this littoral stretch of the Mediterranean reverberates beyond its borders. refugee flows, regional diplomatic entanglements, and alliances with Gulf states touch geopolitical nodes from Cairo to Tehran, Washington to Brussels. The ceasefire’s endurance — or collapse — will ripple through global diplomacy, refugee policy, and debates over how to prevent urban warfare from becoming perpetual.

Voices That Linger

“We are tired of holding our breath,” said Mariam Qasem, a teacher who runs a makeshift school in western Gaza. “Education is supposed to help rebuild a future. When there are bombs, there is only rubble and memory.”

“There will be fits and starts,” Vice President Vance told reporters, adopting a long view: a truce, in his framing, is a process rather than a clean switch. But for the people who count the dead and wake to the smell of smoke, that patience is tested daily.

What to Watch Next

There are several lines to follow in the coming days and weeks:

Verification mechanisms: Will independent monitors be allowed sustained access to confirm disarmament and prevent spoilers?
Humanitarian corridors: Can aid flows be made reliable and predictable to prevent another collapse in basic services?
Regional commitments: Will Gulf states concretely step up to build the “security infrastructure” that officials say is necessary?

Where Do We Go From Here?

Conflict economies are full of broken promises and reparable dangers. The current ceasefire is a breath; whether it becomes a steady exhale depends on hundreds of small, often invisible decisions — where a convoy is allowed through, whether a local commander heeds central orders, how quickly a hospital receives fuel.

So I ask you, the reader: when peace arrives like a fragile bridge, do we invest in cautious repair or in bold redesign? Do we accept temporary calm as an endpoint, or do we treat it as the first, precarious step toward rebuilding lives and institutions? The answers will require not only diplomats and generals, but teachers, aid workers, and ordinary citizens who live every day inside the architecture of conflict and hope.

For now, the ceasefire stands — barely. The question is not merely whether bullets stop, but whether the international will exists to make sure calm becomes something more than a short-lived absence of noise.

Youth Protests Surge Worldwide, Toppling Several National Governments

hanad

October 19, 2025

Governments topple as youth protests spread worldwide — A group of people from the so-called 'Generation Z' push a metal container to use as a barricade during clashes in Madagacar

A Generation on the Move: How Zoomers Are Rewriting Protest Around the World

Walk through a capital city these days and you might find a straw hat bobbing above a crowd, a skull-and-crossbones flag with a grin, and a chorus of voices too young to remember the last time their leaders weren’t on the defensive. The images are intoxicating: teenagers chanting in the rain, university students threading through checkpoints, whole neighborhoods humming with the kind of urgency that ages into history.

Call them Gen Z, call them Zoomers — the cohort born roughly between the mid-1990s and the early 2010s — they are the first cohort to have never known a world without the internet. That digital fluency is shaping not just the tools they use, but the music, the symbols, and the impatience that animate their protests. And the geography is startling: from South Asia to West Africa, from Lima’s plazas to the alleys of Jakarta, young people are pushing back against stagnant economies, failing services, and what they see as an ever-tightening civic noose.

Where the Fire Has Spread

There is no single script to these uprisings. In one capital, students have toppled a statue of a long-entrenched minister. In another, last-ditch negotiations are playing out as young demonstrators build barricades of burning tyres. Cities as different as Antananarivo, Kathmandu, Lima, Manila, Jakarta, and Rabat have felt the tremor. Sometimes the protests are localized and single-issue: a social-media blackout, a tuition hike, a proposed law that feels like censorship. Other times grievances combine—crushing poverty, few job opportunities, a sense that wealth circulates only within an elite loop.

“My cousin could get any job in Europe, but here he collects bottles and sells them to eat,” says Asha, a 22-year-old who took part in street actions in her provincial city. “We don’t want charity — we want a chance to build a life.”

Demographics matter. In many of the countries where these demonstrations are most explosive, more than a third of the population is under 25. In parts of Sub‑Saharan Africa, roughly two in five people are children under 15 — a youthful tilt that contrasts sharply with much of Europe, where that share hovers around the mid‑teens.

Numbers That Explain the Restlessness

Globally, more than a billion people are between the ages of 15 and 24, and in many countries the youth unemployment rate runs well above the national average. In places where formal-sector jobs are scarce and inflation eats savings, young people feel the squeeze most acutely. “It’s not abstract political theory for them,” says Dr. Lina Sato, a cultural sociologist who studies youth movements. “It’s waiting three years for a job interview, overcrowded hospitals, and leaders who appear to live in a different economy.”

Leaderless, Loud — and Sometimes Leaderful

There’s a paradox in modern protest: decentralization gives movements resilience but can blunt strategy. Many of these actions lack a single, recognizable leadership figure. That makes them harder to dismantle by arresting a few people, yet also leaves them with fuzzy demands and shallow organizational structures.

“Leaderless doesn’t mean listless,” says Emiliano Ortega, who spent six months documenting neighborhood assemblies in coastal cities. “What it often means is horizontal decision-making, assemblies, and rotating spokespeople. But when the goal is structural change — a new constitution, a new social contract — you eventually need mechanisms for translating moods into policy.”

History offers cautionary tales. Some movements burn bright and then fade once the immediate grievance is addressed; others solidify and produce long-term institutions. The test for today’s protests will be whether they can turn bursts of anger into durable political vehicles that can compete in the ballot box and the bureaucracy.

Symbols, Storytelling, and the Power of Pop Culture

One unmistakable feature of this wave: the appropriation of pop-culture symbols. A fictional pirate crew from a long-running Japanese manga has become a recurring emblem of resistance: a grinning skull wearing a straw hat, transformed from comic merch into a banner of defiance. Why such a symbol? Because stories travel fast — and because the themes resonate: ragtag bands fighting corrupt empires, friendships forged in adversity, a moral code against authoritarian greed.

“When you’ve grown up online, your politics and your fandoms entwine,” says Dr. Maya Thapa, a 24‑year‑old activist who helped coordinate a school‑strike in Kathmandu. “A straw hat feels playful and fierce at once. It tells us who we are to each other.”

Authorities have noticed, too. In some cities, police removed flags and painted over murals; in others, officials denounced the imagery as disrespectful. These clashes over symbols often tell a larger story about identity, generational ownership of public space, and the cultural languages younger people bring to politics.

On the Streets — and on the Line

There are haunting scenes you cannot shake. In one capital, a makeshift barricade smelled of diesel and plastic as older residents threw water and rice at passing youth, torn between fear and solidarity. In another, a mother stood on the steps of a government building, her face streaked with soot, clutching a sign that read: “My son deserves a future.”

Security forces have played a decisive role in many outcomes. Where militaries and police remain loyal to incumbents, governments have survived waves of protest. Where they step aside, resignations and power shifts can follow quickly. “The balance of coercion is everything,” notes Professor Adil Noor, a political scientist. “A protest movement can wager on public sympathy, but without cracks in the security apparatus, it rarely wins a quick, clean victory.”

What Comes Next?

There are no neat endings yet. In some places the protests have cooled into dialogues; in others they have stoked further instability. The broader question isn’t simply whether regimes will fall, but whether these mobilizations will restructure political life: create new parties, alter social contracts, or push for radical reforms in taxation, education, or digital rights.

“We are watching a generation test the limits of what they can influence,” says Dr. Sato. “They are impatient, global in outlook, and more ready than any before them to link local grievances to transnational narratives about inequality, climate, and free expression.”

Points to Ponder

Can leaderless movements institutionalize without losing their energy?
How will governments respond to protests that are as much cultural as they are political?
Will the global conversation about youth unemployment, affordable housing, and digital rights grow louder — and more effective?

As you read this, somewhere a chorus of strangers are discussing strategy in a cramped room, sewing symbols onto flags in a sweatshop, livestreaming a march at dawn, or arguing over whether to demand reform or revolution. What would you do if you were 19 in a country where the economy is stalled and the older generation holds the keys?

One thing is certain: these are not isolated flashes. They are part of a broader generational reckoning — a revaluation of what political life should deliver. The story will be messy, beautiful, and sometimes tragic. It will be told in slogans, in courtrooms, in parliaments, and in the quiet exchanges between parents and children. And it will reshape politics in ways we are only beginning to imagine.

Thieves make off with ‘priceless’ jewels from Paris’s Louvre

hanad

October 19, 2025

Thieves steal 'priceless' jewels from Louvre in Paris — French police officers stand guard outside the entrance to the Louvre Museum

A brazen four‑minute theft at the Louvre: how Paris woke to a story that reads like a thriller

Paris in the early morning is almost a character in itself—trams whispering along the Seine, boulangeries already steaming, and museum staff threading their way through echoing halls to start the day. On an ordinary morning this week, that calm was fractured. The Louvre, cathedral of art and the world’s most‑visited museum, was the setting for a lightning raid: thieves targeted a display in the gilded Galerie d’Apollon, and in less time than it takes to eat a croissant, some of France’s most prized jewels were gone.

“It was surgical, not chaotic,” Culture Minister Rachida Dati told reporters, her voice carrying the strain of someone used to protecting a national patrimony. “They knew exactly what to take. This is organised crime hunting objects of high cultural and monetary value.”

Four minutes that felt like an hour

Investigators say the operation lasted roughly four minutes. Security footage and police briefings describe a small, mobile team—three or four people—arriving on a scooter, carrying compact battery‑powered cutting tools described by authorities as “small chainsaws,” and using a service goods lift to reach the Apollo gallery without attracting attention.

“They moved as if this room had been rehearsed,” said a senior police source who is familiar with the ongoing probe. “They cut through display cases very quickly, grabbed the pieces, and were gone. It’s what you’d call a professional job.”

There were no injuries. Visitors and staff were unharmed, though shaken. The Louvre announced on its social account that it would be closed for the day for “exceptional reasons”, a rare silence in a space that usually hums with languages from every continent.

One glint returned to the pavement

Among the few concrete facts emerging in the hours after the theft: a piece of the stolen jewellery was recovered close to the museum. Interior Minister Laurent Nunez described the items as “priceless,” underscoring that, beyond market value, what was taken carries centuries of history and national symbolism.

“It’s not just metal and gems,” said Dr. Camille Lefèvre, an art crime specialist at the University of Lyon. “These objects embody dynasties, ceremonies, and stories. When they disappear, so does a thread of national memory.”

Galerie d’Apollon: more than a room, a cultural ledger

The Apollo Gallery is a room of light and elaboration: ornate ceilings, sunlit paintings framing crowns and diadems—a space where France displays jewels and regalia tied to its monarchy and identity. For visitors, the room is almost a shrine. For thieves attuned to the black market or to private collectors who prize lineage as much as carats, it can appear as the ultimate prize.

The Louvre’s own history contains dramatic echoes. Museums, even the most guarded, have been targets before—the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa remains one of the most infamous museum crimes—yet the contemporary risk landscape has evolved. Today’s thieves are fleet, technological, and often linked to networks trading in looted cultural goods across borders.

Numbers that trouble the conscience

Consider the scale: before the pandemic, the Louvre was welcoming nearly 10 million visitors a year—9.6 million in 2019. Even as tourism rebounds, museums remain public spaces thrust into a complex world where art is desirable not only to museums and collectors, but to organised criminal groups. International agencies describe the illicit trade in cultural goods as a multi‑billion‑dollar problem; Interpol and UNESCO regularly warn that tens of thousands of objects are looted, trafficked, or simply vanish every year.

“Cultural heritage theft is not fringe crime,” said Dr. Lefèvre. “It’s a transnational business. The items flow through networks that convert heritage into cash and anonymity.”

Paris reacts: voices from around the square

Near the museum, a street vendor named Karim wiped down his stall and watched a line of police tape flutter like a grim bunting. “We’ve always had tourists, always had stories. But when you see the guards, the machines, you realize how exposed even the big institutions are,” he said. “It makes you think: what are we really protecting?”

A curator inside the museum, speaking on condition of anonymity, admitted to a mixture of professional dread and fierce resolve. “You train your whole life thinking about preservation, context, scholarship. To see that someone treats these objects as commodities is painful. But this will bring change. We’ll reassess, upgrade.”

For the public, the theft poses awkward questions: How do we balance openness—museums are public realms—with the need for impenetrable security? How much can a nation privatize access to its history in the name of protection?

Experts map possible answers

Security upgrades will likely accelerate: more discreet barriers, hardened casework, biometric surveillance, and coordination with customs and international police databases. But Dr. Lefèvre warns against turning museums into fortresses.

“We need layered solutions,” she said. “Better technology and trained personnel, yes—but international cooperation to choke off buyers is just as vital.”
“Public awareness matters,” added a former museum director. “When communities value and watch their heritage, thieves have fewer hiding places.”

Beyond the theft: what this moment asks of us

There is a cinematic quality to the story—a scooter, a chainsaw, four minutes—and yet beneath the drama are deeper questions about stewardship. These jewels, because they are public objects, belong to everyone and to no single owner. Their disappearance is a loss that travels beyond France’s borders, a parting that leaves a space in our shared cultural map.

What will change after this day at the Louvre? Security will tighten; inquiries will stretch across police precincts and embassies; one recovered stone will be catalogued and cleaned, a small testament to both vulnerability and hope. But perhaps the larger shift should be in how societies value and protect cultural memory—not as trophies to be locked away, but as living assets that need vigilance and shared responsibility.

As Paris inhales and the museum prepares to reopen, ask yourself: what is the cost of openness? And what—even at the price of a few more barriers—does it mean to keep history available to the world?

The story is still unfolding. The Louvre is cooperating with investigators, the nation is watching, and the world is waiting to see whether these jewels—or stories—will be returned to their rightful frame.

Digital euro: Advantages and risks of using ECB-issued digital cash

hanad

October 19, 2025

Digital euro: Benefits and pitfalls of tapping ECB cash — The idea is that the digital euro will be as close to cash as possible, and that cash is European Central Bank money

A new kind of cash: Europe’s quietly unfolding experiment with a digital euro

Walk into a bustling Dublin café on a rainy Tuesday morning and you’ll see the same choreography everywhere: a barista with a tattooed forearm, a queue of people tapping phones to a payment terminal, and the faint chime of three-word receipts. The future of money feels mundane—tiny, frictionless, invisible. Yet behind that casual tap lies one of the biggest financial experiments Europe has ever tried to stage: converting central-bank money—the sort you keep under a mattress or in a coin jar—into something that lives on your phone.

At the European Central Bank’s quiet offices in Frankfurt, and in ministries from Copenhagen to Lisbon, an idea that once sounded like a technocratic thought experiment has picked up speed. Officials speak of a “digital euro” not as a flashy cryptocurrency but as digital cash: instant, sovereign, and designed to sit alongside banknotes and coins. “If money is digital, central-bank money should be too,” said one senior policymaker to me, leaning forward over a cluttered desk. “It’s about keeping a public anchor in a world increasingly rented out to private platforms.”

Why now? Politics, payments and the power of platforms

The timing is not accidental. Rampant digitalisation of payments has knocked cash back across the continent: between 2019 and 2024 the share of payments made with cash at physical points of sale dropped from 72% to 52% by volume, and from 47% to 39% by value. Smartphones and contactless rules have already rewritten how Europeans spend. But there’s a second, less visible driver: geopolitics.

European officials are painfully aware that much of everyday card and wallet infrastructure depends on two American giants, Visa and Mastercard. In moments of geopolitical strain, private firms have shown they can pull services with little notice—a reality that gained renewed attention during the Russia-Ukraine conflict and in conversations about regulatory shifts in Washington. A pragmatic worry has taken root: what if a future geopolitical jolt left parts of the eurozone unable to process basic card payments?

“We are not trying to be anti-American,” said a eurozone finance official, who asked not to be named. “We are trying to be resilient.”

How will it work—wallets, limits and offline use

The blueprint being sketched is simple on paper, fiendishly complex to deliver. Citizens would open a digital-euro wallet via their bank, post office or another regulated provider and load it from a regular account. The money in that wallet would be central-bank money—just like the euro cash in your pocket—rather than a commercial bank deposit or a dollar-pegged stablecoin issued by a tech firm or fintech.

That last difference is the point. “A euro kept in an ECB-backed digital wallet is not a claim on a bank,” explained Dr. Ana Ferreira, a payments researcher. “It’s a liability of the central bank—so it changes the risk landscape.”

To preserve the role of commercial banks in lending, officials plan to cap how much an individual can hold in a digital wallet. Early discussions floated a figure of around €3,000 per person; simulations using that limit showed that, in a hair-raising worst-case scenario where everyone shifted the maximum from bank deposits into wallets, about €700 billion could move out of banks—roughly 8.2% of retail deposits. The modelling suggested that under extreme stress a handful of smaller banks might see buffer levels squeezed dangerously low.

“In the digital age bank runs can happen faster than ever,” warned a member of the European Parliament’s economic committee. “It’s like a fire spreading through a dry forest—if the conditions are right.”

Planners say the alarm scenario is improbable. For the wholesale transfer to occur, every consumer across the euro area would have to act in the same way at the same time. Still, the exercise has sharpened policy debates about limits, emergency liquidity backstops and the role of deposit insurance.

Practical features are under discussion too. The ECB insists the digital euro should work even when the internet does not. During an Iberian blackout this spring—when digital payments briefly failed—consumer spending in affected regions plunged by 42% and online commerce fell by 54%. Officials now emphasise an offline option: secure near-field communication (NFC) between devices, essentially letting phones behave like physical cash when networks are down (so long as the battery holds).

Privacy, surveillance and the promise of near-anonymity

Perhaps the thorniest debate is about privacy. Cash has a moral aura in Europe—the freedom to transact without intermediaries logging every purchase. Could the digital euro preserve that? Policymakers have pitched the project as “almost as private as banknotes,” though not completely anonymous. The tension is real: anti-money laundering rules demand visibility for suspicious flows, but citizens rightly expect some degree of privacy for everyday spending.

“You don’t want a central ledger that can be rummaged through by the state or monetised by corporations,” said a civil-society campaigner. “At the same time, nobody wants the payment system to become a haven for criminal finance.”

Who will accept it, and who will pay?

Adoption will hinge on a mundane but existential question: will merchants pick it up? The European Commission has even suggested merchants who accept commercial card payments should offer the digital euro too. Cost is a battleground. A PwC estimate suggested deployment might cost up to €2 billion per bank—or as much as €18 billion across the eurozone. The ECB’s counter-calculation is considerably lower, pegging total costs in the single-digit billions over several years.

In Ireland, where contactless mobile wallets have surged—some 60% of contactless transactions in the first half of 2025 used mobile wallets—consumers prize speed and low friction over ideological purity. “I don’t care if it’s called the digital euro or the shiny coin,” laughed Siobhán from Cork, tapping her phone at a bakery counter. “Just don’t charge me to buy my bread.”

Beyond payments: sovereignty, stablecoins and the global stakes

The digital euro is not only about domestic convenience. It is also defensive: a way to blunt the rise of privately issued stablecoins—digital tokens pegged to currencies whose global supply has grown toward the hundreds of billions of dollars. If a private provider were to launch a euro-equivalent and it failed, the reputational damage to the euro could be substantial. “If the ECB doesn’t provide a safe public option, the market will,” said Rebecca Christie, a European policy analyst. “And that could be messy.”

So where does this leave us, the people who actually spend and save? For most Europeans, the digital euro will land as a background feature: an app, a wallet, a silent switch when you tap for coffee. For policymakers, it is a massive institutional project that ties together technical engineering, legal safeguards and political bargaining across 20-ish economies and thousands of banks.

Will it give citizens more control over their money—or simply move control from banks to a central ledger? Will it strengthen Europe’s autonomy in a shifting geopolitical map, or will it entangle personal privacy in new ways? Those are the questions that policymakers, shopkeepers and ordinary savers must decide together.

In the end, the success of the digital euro will not be decided in a boardroom in Frankfurt but at the counter of that Dublin café, when a customer asks, “Do you take the digital euro?” and the barista replies, “Of course.” How that “of course” sounds—hesitant, pragmatic, or enthusiastic—will be the true measure of this experiment.

1...678...118 Page 7 of 118