Category World News

International NGOs Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have decried a sharp decline in civil liberties and a pervading “injustice” in Tunisia since President Kais Saied came to power in 2019, as authorities escalate their crackdown on the opposition, activists and foreign nongovernmental organisations.

“Tunisian authorities have increasingly escalated their crackdown on human rights defenders and independent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) through arbitrary arrests, detention, asset freezes, bank restrictions and court-ordered suspensions, all under the pretext of fighting ‘suspicious’ foreign funding and shielding ‘national interests’,” Amnesty International said in a statement on Friday.

Tunisia’s crackdown on civil society has reached an unprecedented level, according to Amnesty, as six NGO workers and human rights defenders from the Tunisian Council for Refugees are “being criminally prosecuted on charges solely related to their legitimate work supporting refugees and asylum seekers”. The trial’s opening session, initially scheduled for October 16, has been adjourned to November 24.

It is a long way from the heady days of the Arab Spring in 2011, when Tunisia appeared to be the only country to emerge relatively unscathed in the initial years that followed with a bona fide democracy in full flow.

A sweeping power grab in July 2021, when he dissolved parliament and expanded executive power so he could rule by decree, saw Saied jail many of his critics. That decree was later enshrined in a new constitution – ratified by a widely boycotted 2022 referendum – while media figures and lawyers critical of Saied have also been prosecuted and detained under a harsh “fake news” law enacted the same year.

‘Entire case has been a masquerade’

Within the past four months, Tunisia has temporarily suspended the activities of at least 14 Tunisian and international NGOs, said Amnesty, including the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women and the World Organisation against Torture.

Individuals have been similarly targeted.

Human Rights Watch said in a statement on Friday that Tunis’s Court of Appeal will hear on November 17 the appeal of more than 30 people “unjustly sentenced to heavy prison terms in a politically motivated ‘Conspiracy Case’” mass trial in April.

“Four of those detained are on hunger strike, including one who, according to his lawyers, was subjected to physical violence in prison on November 11.”

The defendants were charged with plotting to destabilise the country under various articles of Tunisia’s Penal Code and the 2015 Counterterrorism Law. Human Rights Watch, which reviewed the judicial documents, said the charges are unfounded and lack credible evidence. The NGO has called on the court to immediately overturn the convictions and ensure the release of all those detained.

“This entire case has been a masquerade, from the baseless accusations to a judicial process devoid of fair trial guarantees,” said Bassam Khawaja, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should end this judicial farce, which is part of a wider crackdown on any form of criticism or dissent.”

The 37 people detained include opponents of Saied, lawyers, activists and researchers. Their prison terms range from four to 66 years for “conspiracy against state security” and terrorism offences.

Jawhar Ben Mbarek – cofounder of Tunisia’s main opposition alliance, the National Salvation Front – began a hunger strike on October 29 to protest his arbitrary detention.

Ben Mbarek was sentenced to 18 years behind bars on charges of “conspiracy against state security” and “belonging to a terrorist group”.

The leaders of Tunisia’s major opposition parties have gone on hunger strikes in solidarity with Ben Mbarek.

Among them is Issam Chebbi, leader of the centrist Republican Party, who is also being detained after being convicted in the April mass trial.

Rached Ghannouchi, the 84-year-old leader of the Ennahdha party, who is also serving a hefty prison sentence, announced he was joining the hunger protest.

Ghannouchi was convicted in July of “conspiring against state security”, adding to previous convictions, including money laundering, for which he has been sentenced to more than 20 years in prison and for which he claims innocence.

“Tunisia’s international partners should speak up against this flagrant injustice and assault on the rule of law,” Khawaja said. “They should urge Tunisian authorities to cease their crackdown, overturn these convictions, and guarantee fair trials.”

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is heading for a sweep in the legislative assembly elections in the eastern state of Bihar.

The election in India’s third-most populous state, with 74 million registered voters across 243 assembly constituencies, has been viewed as a key test of Modi’s popularity, especially among Gen Z: Bihar is India’s youngest state.

Vote counting concluded on Friday after two phases of voting on November 6 and November 11.

Here is more about the election results and what they mean.

What was the result of the Bihar election?

As of 5:30pm (1200 GMT) on Friday, the NDA had won two seats and was leading in 204 out of 243, while the opposition Mahagathabandhan, or the Grand Alliance, with the Indian National Congress and the regional Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) as the main parties, was leading in just 33 seats, according to the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which is currently not part of either alliance, was leading in one seat. The All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), another party that does not belong in either major alliance, had won or was leading in the remaining five seats.

BJP and allies

• Within the NDA, the BJP had won or was leading in 93 seats with a 20.5 percent overall vote share. 
• The regional Janata Dal (United) or JD(U), a key NDA constituent, had won or was leading  in 83 seats, with 19 percent votes overall.
• Another local NDA ally, the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) or LJPRV, had won or was ahead in 19 seats.
• The Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RSHTLKM) was leading in four seats.
• The Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular), or HAMS, had won or was leading in five seats.

Opposition alliance

• The Congress, India’s main opposition party, had won or was leading in five seats with 8.7 percent of the overall vote.
• The Grand Alliance’s biggest party, RJD, had or was leading in 26 seats with 22.8 percent of the vote.
• The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation), or CPI(ML)(L), was leading in one seat.
• The Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI(M), was ahead in one seat.

How are Tejashwi Yadav and Maithili Thakur doing?

As votes were being counted, two of the most watched constituencies were Raghopur and Alinagar.

Raghopur has long been an RJD stronghold. But for some time during counting, Tejashwi Yadav, the son of RJD leader Lalu Prasad Yadav and the party’s de facto chief now, was trailing behind BJP candidate Satish Kumar in the Yadav family bastion. This had switched to a 13,000 vote lead for Yadav by 1200 GMT, with most votes counted. If Yadav were to still lose, it will be a historic defeat for what was, many years, the first family of Bihar. He previously won the seat in 2015 and 2020. His father has also won from Raghopur twice in the past, while his mother, Rabri Devi, has won it three times.

Popular folk singer, Maithili Thakur, representing the BJP, was leading in the Alinagar seat, with the RJD’s Binod Mishra trailing by 8,588 votes — another close contest.

What is driving the results?

Female voters

Political analysts attribute the gains for the key governing party in this election to the appeals Modi’s party has made to female voters.

In September, the BJP transferred about $880m to 7.5 million women – with 10,000 rupees ($112.70) paid directly into their bank accounts – under a seed investment programme called the Chief Minister’s Women Employment Scheme. Modi’s office said: “The assistance can be utilised in areas of the choice of the beneficiary, including agriculture, animal husbandry, handicrafts, tailoring, weaving, and other small-scale enterprises.”

Women make up nearly half of all eligible voters in Bihar, where women’s political participation is on the rise. Female representation in the state has historically been low. But in 2006, Bihar reserved 50 percent of seats on local bodies for women, which has boosted their political representation.

Female voter turnout in the state has often surpassed that of men since 2010. The turnout among women this time was 71.6 percent, compared with 62.8 percent for men.

Voter ID checks

The opposition has also accused the ECI of deliberately revising the official voter list to benefit the BJP via a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls over the past few months. Registered voters were required to present documents proving they were Indian nationals and legal residents of the constituency in which they voted.

As Al Jazeera reported in July, however, many of the poorest people in Bihar do not hold any of the several documents that the ECI listed as proof of identity.

The opposition argues, therefore, that this new requirement could disenfranchise poor and vulnerable groups, including disadvantaged castes and Muslims, who typically vote for the RJD-Congress alliance.

In September, the ECI removed 4.7 million names from Bihar’s rolls, leaving 74.2 million voters. In Seemanchal, a Muslim-majority area, voter removals exceeded the state average.

What is the significance of these results?

Bihar is India’s third most populous state, home to 130 million people. It sends the fifth-highest number of legislators to parliament.

The latest vote has been viewed as a key popularity test for Modi, who was sworn in for his third premiership after he won the national elections in June 2024.

But the BJP failed to secure a majority in the national election on its own, forcing it to rely on regional allies such as the JD(U) to form the government.

Russian forces pressed into Ukraine’s eastern towns of Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad during the past week as Kyiv’s military mounted a stout defence.

On Tuesday, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskii said almost half of the battles on a 1,200km (745-mile) front were happening in the two towns, claiming Russia has committed 150,000 troops – almost a quarter of its strength in Ukraine – to capturing them.

Russia sees Pokrovsk as a gateway to the remaining unoccupied parts of Donetsk, the region it has already claimed as its own in September 2022.

As Ukrainians were gripped by a corruption scandal involving President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s allies, the battlefront was in a fluid state in which no side seemed to gain a decisive advantage.

Both Russia and Ukraine often captured and recaptured neighbourhoods and individual buildings from each other.

Hus, a drone squad commander from the 68th Jaeger brigade on the outskirts of Pokrovsk, told the Reuters news agency, “Here, one building is held by our side, the next occupied by the enemy, and in a few hours it swaps.”

It did appear, however, that the Russians were slowly gaining ground.

Ukrainian troops told Reuters the defence of Pokrovsk was “steadily deteriorating”, despite the army’s efforts to reinforce it.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence said its troops were advancing through Pokrovsk in house-to-house battles.

A Ukrainian unit commander said Russia was leading its assault with Spetsnaz special forces who were looking for Ukrainian mortar firing crews and drone units, aiming to neutralise them and ease the passage of reinforcements.

These tactics had enabled the Russians to capture the centre of Pokrovsk by early November, and in the past week, they were attempting to work their way east and west. Ukrainian defenders appeared to be maintaining a stronghold in the north of Pokrovsk.

In Myrnohrad, to the east of Pokrovsk, Russian troops were infiltrating the eastern reaches of the town, and this week made a marginal advance into its northern edge, while Ukrainian defenders firmly held the bulk of it.

Both towns are precariously situated in a Russian encirclement from the north, south and east, in which supply and escape routes are only available towards the west.

The operational significance of the towns’ seizure by Russia depended on “whether Ukrainian forces conduct an orderly withdrawal or disorderly retreat” and on “Russian forces’ ability to exploit the collapse of the pocket and conduct a successful pursuit”, wrote the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank.

Russia’s Defence Ministry has repeatedly claimed that the towns’ complete envelopment and surrender with forces still inside was imminent.

Yet Ukraine has defied Russian expectations and fought on, engaging in what Syrskii called an “active defence”, using drones for “search and strike operations” that took a toll.

“Every metre of our land costs Russia hundreds of military lives,” Syrskii wrote on the Telegram messaging platform.

In October alone, Syrskii said, short-range drones had struck 77,000 targets, a 16 percent increase on the 66,500 targets he said had been struck in September, which in turn represented an 11 percent increase on August.

These figures suggested that Russian infiltrators’ efforts in smoking out drone units and cutting off Ukrainian resupply were meeting with less success than the Russian command might have hoped.

At the beginning of the week, Russia also stiffened its offensive near Huliaipole, about 60km (37 miles) southwest of Pokrovsk, on the border of the Donetsk and Zaporizhia regions.

Syrskii said the situation had “significantly worsened” there, and that “exhausting battles” were taking place for Rivnopillia and Yablukove. Geolocated footage showed Ukraine was forced to abandon Rivnopillia on Tuesday.

On Saturday, Axios reported that the United States government shutdown may have delayed delivery of $5bn of weapons systems to NATO allies and Ukraine, though it did not draw a direct connection between this and the defence of Pokrovsk.

Russia kept up pressure on other parts of the front.

Its Defence Ministry claimed to have seized Uspenovka, Novoye and Sladkoye in Zaporizhia, Volchye in Dnipropetrovsk, and Gnatovke in Donetsk.

Ukraine’s deep strikes

Far from the ground war, Ukraine continued to pummel Russian refineries in a bid to cut off its fuel supply to the front.

Lukoil’s Volgograd refinery stopped operations on November 6 after being hit by Ukrainian drones, according to unnamed sources who spoke to Reuters. They said that the primary processing unit, representing a fifth of the plant’s total capability and other equipment was damaged.

On Saturday, Ukraine struck substations near Belgorod, causing a blackout in the city.

On Sunday, Ukraine caused a fire at the port and oil terminal of Tuapse, on the Black Sea. Russia said it destroyed four Ukrainian surface drones heading for the Tuapse oil terminal, which Ukraine has struck repeatedly in recent weeks, but others must have got through.

Ukraine also struck a power plant in Voronezh.

On Tuesday, the Saratov refinery caught fire after being attacked by drones. Explosions were also heard coming from the nearby refinery in Orsk.

“Russia has an air defence deficit, with losses including S-300, S-400, and many Pantsir [air defence] systems that protected facilities,” wrote the head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation, Andriy Kovalenko.

“Most of the enemy’s air defence is near the front and Moscow, creating significant gaps in Russia’s airspace. To understand, most Russians in the country are not protected by [President Vladimir] Putin at all, although he constantly promised security to everyone.”

Rescuers in Indonesia have been searching for survivors of a landslide that inundated three villages in Java, after days of heavy rainfall. Several people have been reported killed.

Venezuela on Tuesday announced what it called a major nationwide military deployment in response to the presence of growing United States naval forces off its coast.

On Thursday, the US also unveiled an operation, called Southern Spear, which it said was intended to target “narco-terrorists” in the Western Hemisphere.

The escalation has raised alarm in Caracas, where officials worry the US may be using these operations as a pretext to force President Nicolas Maduro out of power.

“We tell the American empire not to dare: We are prepared,” Foreign Minister Yvan Gil said on Thursday at an event in Caracas.

But is Venezuela really prepared for a US attack or invasion? What are its military capabilities? And what might be the calculus driving the decisions of US President Donald Trump and Maduro, respectively?

What has happened over the past few weeks?

Tensions between Washington and Caracas have been spiralling for weeks, as the Trump administration has hit a series of boats in the Caribbean Sea and, more recently, the Pacific Ocean, claiming they were carrying individuals smuggling narcotics into the US.

The 20th strike took place this week, US officials have said. In all, about 80 people have been killed. The Trump administration has not presented any evidence to back its assertion that the bombed boats had narcotics or drug smugglers on them, or that the vessels were even headed to the US. It has also not offered any legal justification for its actions, which many experts believe violate international law.

At the centre of Washington’s allegations is an unsubstantiated claim that Venezuela’s Maduro is driving the narcotics smuggling to the US in cahoots with cartels.

Meanwhile, the US has dispatched the USS Gerald R Ford carrier strike group into Caribbean and Latin American waters, a powerful naval formation built around the world’s most advanced and largest aircraft carrier.

An aircraft carrier is a floating airbase – a warship that can launch, land, refuel, and arm military aircraft at sea.

The Ford is a nuclear-powered supercarrier equipped with advanced technology, sailing alongside guided-missile destroyers and support ships, with more than 4,000 personnel and dozens of tactical aircraft ready for rapid deployment.

#Venezuela: I’ve often described the USS Gerald R. Ford in the media as a “floating fortress of American power.” Some facts and figures showing why: pic.twitter.com/f53PeACIOB

As Washington expands its military presence in the region, analysts say the stated goals of the mission have broadened and may not fully align with the capabilities of the forces being deployed.

“The administration has said that the deployment is to stop the flow of illegal drugs to the US, and also to degrade the cartels, but over time the US goal has expanded to include anti-Maduro regime activities,” said Mark Cancian, senior adviser in the defence and security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), in an analysis posted on X early on Friday.

Cancian noted that the carrier may not be fully optimised for the mission as described. “The Ford is not well suited for counter-drug operations… It’s well suited to attack adversaries either at sea or on land.”

He also pointed out that the deployment of the Ford cannot be indefinite.

“There are demands around the world for its presence because it’s such a powerful military asset, and eventually it’ll have to go home – so Southern Command will need to either use it or stand down,” he said, referring to the US military command under which the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean fall.

Is Venezuela prepared for an attack?

On Tuesday, Venezuela’s government announced a “massive” mobilisation of troops and civilians to prepare for any potential US action.

Venezuelan Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez announced a “higher phase” of the Independence Plan 200, a military response mechanism ordered in September to strengthen defence measures against the US presence in the Caribbean.

“Nearly 200,000 troops have been deployed throughout the national territory for this exercise,” Padrino Lopez added.

The exercise was scheduled to start Tuesday and end on Wednesday.

Padrino Lopez also stressed that the country’s military forces were united. He said “more than 90 percent of the people reject any aggression against Venezuela,” dismissing opposition groups he described as “minority, subversive, [and] fascist”, and claiming they “no longer exist” in the national political landscape.

He framed the mobilisation as part of a broader stand against “imperialist aggression” and Washington’s attempts to act as “the world’s hegemon” and “the world’s police”, insisting that Venezuela remains committed to its independence, liberty and sovereignty.

According to analysts, Venezuela’s armed forces indeed are – for the most part – closely tied, politically, economically, and institutionally to the movement known as Chavismo that has shaped the Venezuelan state for more than 20 years.

The military doctrine is based on policies laid out by the late Hugo Chavez, and it is based on members being “patriotic, popular and anti-imperialist”. Maduro took over as president after Chavez died in 2013.

“I don’t think that the Venezuelan government and the military are going to fracture only because of threats,” Elias Ferrer, founder of Orinoco Research and the lead editor of Venezuelan media organisation Guacamaya, told Al Jazeera.

“Because of the way they think in front of threats, they’ve always stuck together and strengthened their position,” he added.

What is Venezuela’s current military capability?

According to Global Firepower’s 2025 Military Strength Ranking, Venezuela places 50th worldwide out of 160 countries assessed in terms of military capabilities.

Within Latin America, it ranks seventh.

It falls behind regional militaries such as those of Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, and sits in a similar range to Colombia, Chile, and Peru.

According to a report released by CSIS this week, Venezuela’s air force is small and only partially functional.

Roughly 30 of its 49 aircraft are believed to be operational, and only three F-16s can still fly, due to a lack of spare parts caused by US sanctions.

According to Military.com, a platform focused on the US military and veteran community, Venezuela has invested billions in Russian-made weapons systems, including missiles and fighter jets, intended to deter or challenge US ships and aircraft.

Venezuela has at least 21 operational Su-30s, a Russian fighter aircraft developed in the 1980s.

The Su-30s can be armed with supersonic antiship missiles, such as the Kh-31A, which are a significant threat to naval warships operating near Venezuela.

The CSIS report notes that in the event of a conflict, Venezuelan airfields and aircraft would likely be among the first US targets. The US has deployed F-35 stealth fighters to the region, and they are likely intended to counter both Venezuelan fighter-jet manoeuvres and the country’s air-defence systems.

On the ground, however, the analysis suggests that Venezuela maintains a significantly larger troop presence and greater firepower than the limited US forces currently positioned offshore.

According to Global Firepower, from a total population of 31 million, the Venezuelan military has an active military personnel of 337,000. Of them, 109,000 are active members, 220,000 belong to paramilitary forces, and the remaining 8,000 are reserve personnel.

But experts say these numbers mask a more troublesome reality for Venezuela: Its military forces have been hampered by years of limited warfighting training and a focus on internal security.

Its navy, meanwhile, is no match for the US and its uncontested control at sea.

Ultimately, analysts agree that the US is militarily far superior to Venezuela.

“No one can match the power of the United States military in conventional warfare,” Ferrer, the Orinoco Research founder, told Al Jazeera.

“What we need to think about in Venezuela is the capacity of the local armed forces to resist or to make the country ungovernable.

“They can make it so costly that it’s not worth it; that’s how you win in asymmetric warfare,” Ferrer added.

Is the US preparing to attack Venezuela?

Trump has justified the recent military buildup by arguing it is necessary to curb the flow of drugs into the US. But many analysts believe this is an effort to increase pressure on Nicolas Maduro.

The US president has said he does not plan to invade Venezuela, and Carlos Pina, a Venezuelan political scientist, believes Washington’s preferred strategy is indeed still political rather than military.

“I still believe that the main option for the US is not to carry out any armed attack, but to apply enough pressure for Nicolas Maduro to resign and hand over power peacefully,” he said. “In my opinion, that remains the most desirable option for the US.”

Pina argued that Maduro is fully aware of this strategy and is responding accordingly. “Maduro knows this, and because he knows it, he tries to raise the cost of any potential intervention,” Pina said. “He also counts on the fact that, both in the region and even within the country, a military invasion would likely not be well regarded or well received.”

However, Pina warned that the scale of the US deployment creates political pressure of its own in Washington.

“After sending so much military equipment to the Caribbean, it would be a political and diplomatic defeat for Trump to do nothing, to pull back and leave things as they were before the mobilisation,” he said.

Because of this, Pina said he expects the US to continue escalating rather than retreating. “Trump will probably do something to avoid that defeat,” he said. “He will likely keep increasing military pressure to force a political change, to initiate a transition. And as the days go by, he will continue building up more force-equipment, ships, planes, even troops in the Caribbean.”