Nearly a million evacuees face returning to destroyed homes and flooded streets after Super Typhoon Fung‑Wong hit the northern Philippines. Now residents must begin the task of rebuilding their lives.
Today, the United States marks its 41st day of a federal government shutdown that has seen federal employees unpaid, air travel disrupted and millions of poor Americans losing food assistance.
To be sure, this is not the first time that the government of the reigning global superpower has deliberately ceased to function – although the current shutdown recently bagged the dubious distinction of being the longest in modern US history.
And this time around, the political spectacle is beyond dystopian.
In short, the suspension of government transpired as a result of a budgetary disagreement between Republicans and Democrats over draconian healthcare cuts favoured by President Donald Trump. This is the same Trump, of course, who fancied the US wealthy enough to propose a defence budget for fiscal year 2026 of more than $1 trillion.
Following the shutdown, the Trump administration decided that poor and hungry Americans should pay the price, and on November 1, the nation’s crucial Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) came to a halt for the first time since the programme’s creation in 1964.
Nearly 42 million Americans – or one in eight people – rely on SNAP to eat. According to the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the US Department of Agriculture, children accounted for 39 percent of the programme’s participants in the fiscal year 2023.
When I visited the ERS website on Sunday, I encountered the following very professional alert at the top of the screen: “Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown, this government website will not be updated during the funding lapse.”
The message continued in slightly smaller print: “President Trump has made it clear he wants to keep the government open and support those who feed, fuel and clothe the American people.”
It could be funny, if only it weren’t so macabre.
Last week, the administration was forced to reverse its starvation campaign after a ruling by two federal judges that the freeze in SNAP benefits was unlawful. The resumption of food aid was, however, only partial – and came accompanied by an appeal to the Supreme Court to intervene in favour of mass hunger.
These days, the top US judicial body rarely encounters a sociopathic initiative that it doesn’t endorse. And in this case too, it did not disappoint.
On Friday, The Associated Press news agency reported that the Supreme Court had “granted the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to temporarily block a court order to fully fund SNAP food aid payments amid the government shutdown, even though residents in some states already have received the funds”.
Indeed, it is harder to think of a more pressing “emergency” than having to use the vast resources at one’s disposal to ensure that one’s own citizens do not starve.
Given the Israeli military’s contemporary use of enforced starvation as a key component in its US-backed genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, it may seem like a crass exaggeration to invoke such terminology in a domestic American context. But intentionally depriving people of the sustenance required for survival amounts to starvation plain and simple – whether it’s as a weapon for genocide or simply as the latest iteration of the ongoing US war on the poor.
On October 31, the day before the SNAP freeze, CNN ran an article headlined, “‘I feel guilty eating a meal’: Low-income families prepare to lose access to billions in federal aid,” which quoted an Ohio mother who spoke of preemptively going without food on her children’s behalf.
Describing her family’s suffering on account of the federal shutdown, the mother opined: “It’s no longer a Democrat thing. It’s no longer a Republican thing. It’s our lives.”
And while the Democrats may come out looking like the more polite party against the present backdrop of Trump’s unrepentant derangement, it’s helpful to recall that the war on the poor has long been a bipartisan one. In the 1990s, for example, Democratic President Bill Clinton oversaw “reforms” to the US welfare system that ultimately caused the number of Americans living in extreme poverty to skyrocket.
At the end of the day, both parties are firmly committed to upholding the plutocracy on which the US itself is founded – since you can’t sustain the tyranny of an elite minority if everyone is created equal with equal rights, including the right to adequate food.
Rich Americans like to howl about the existential perils of taxing their wealth. But for the tens of millions of people now set to be deprived of necessary nourishment, the existential peril is real.
Last night, eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans as a first step to temporarily end the shutdown and resuscitate the government until January. Another vote in the House of Representatives is needed and then Trump’s signature, which could take days. If passed, the bill would extend SNAP through September but fundamentally resolve zero issues. The hungry remain in limbo, and healthcare remains up in the air.
Over recent weeks, some observers cast the possibility of mass starvation as “collateral damage” of partisan bickering. And though the war terminology is no doubt apt, the poorest sectors of US society are far from just provisional “collateral” casualties of the federal government shutdown.
They are the intended targets of a capitalist system engineered to keep them down.
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa arrived in the United States on Saturday, ahead of a historic meeting with his US counterpart, Donald Trump.
This marks the first time a Syrian president has visited the White House in at least 80 years.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The meeting is of particular importance considering the US’s power in removing sanctions, something Syria badly needs to kick-start its economy.
What will be on the agenda when the two leaders meet? Read on to find out.
For Syria, it is likely about making moves to finally repeal the Caesar Act, a series of sanctions the US applied to Syria in 2019, during the rule of former President Bashar al-Assad, who was overthrown by a lightning offensive led by al-Sharaa in December last year.
While the Trump administration gave an executive order to lift sanctions on Syria, the US Congress has to vote to repeal the Caesar Act.
US sanctions on Syria date as far back as the late 1970s, though more were applied in 2004 and again in 2011.
Republican Congressman Brian Mast, who has previously compared Palestinian civilians to Nazis, was reportedly an obstacle to the Caesar Act’s repeal.
However, Mast reportedly met with the 43-year-old al-Sharaa in the early hours of Monday morning and had a “positive and constructive” meeting, Syrian journalist Fared al-Mahlool reported on his Instagram account.
Removing all the sanctions on Syria means the country can return to the global financial system, making investments and business smoother.
It will also help it rebuild its devastated healthcare system and infrastructure damaged during the 13-year civil war that broke out after Syria’s 2011 revolution and the al-Assad government’s heavy-handed response to it.
Al-Sharaa is reportedly also seeking funds for Syrian reconstruction after the war.
Many neighbourhoods were turned to dust and continue to sit in piles of rubble. The World Bank estimates the battered country needs at least $216bn to rebuild.
For the US, the trip has a different significance.
Washington has high hopes it will convince Damascus to join its coalition against the armed group ISIL (ISIS).
The coalition is made up of 89 countries from across the world, and includes over a dozen Arab states.
Syria’s joining the coalition will further signal its regional integration under the new administration led by al-Sharaa.
Trump would also like to expand the Abraham Accords, a group of US-brokered normalisation deals between Israel and Arab states, by adding Syria.
Arab media is reporting that Syria is likely to sign on to the fight against ISIL.
As al-Sharaa landed in Washington, Syria’s Ministry of Interior announced the launch of a “large-scale security operation”, carrying out 61 raids that targeted ISIL cells across the country.
The ministry said operations were carried out in Aleppo, Idlib, Hama, Homs and Damascus.
Earlier this month, US envoy to Syria Tom Barrack said al-Sharaa would “hopefully” sign an agreement that would have Syria join the anti-ISIL coalition.
Normalisation, however, may have to wait.
It’s the first time a Syrian president will visit the White House since the country’s independence from French colonial rule in 1946.
Al-Sharaa and Trump met before in Saudi Arabia, with the latter describing the former as an “attractive, tough guy”.
But this is the first time al-Sharaa or any other Syrian president will visit the White House, signalling a warming of relations between the two countries after more than five decades of the al-Assad family’s reign.
The trip comes after al-Sharaa visited United Nations headquarters in New York City in September, his first time visiting the US.
It has been an improbable development, considering that al-Sharaa fought US forces in Iraq and was then captured and spent 2006-2011 in US prison camps.
The meeting also comes as the US is reportedly establishing a military presence at the Mezzeh airbase in Damascus.
Some reports say the US will use this presence to work at brokering a peace pact between Israel and Syria, though Syrian officials have denied this.
At least eight people have been killed after a car exploded near the Red Fort in India’s capital New Delhi, police said.
Local television channels reported on Monday that at least 11 other people were wounded in the blast.
Footage broadcast by Indian television channels and videos circulating online showed flames and several vehicles affected by the explosion.
Local media said the incident took place near the Red Fort metro station.
Police and emergency teams were present at the scene. Police spokesperson Sanjay Tyagi said the case is under investigation and the exact cause was not immediately known.
Local authorities said the Uttar Pradesh region has been put on a red alert in the wake of the blast.
Provincial official Amitabh Yash told local media that all senior officials in Uttar Pradesh were instructed to increase security at religious sites, sensitive districts, and border areas.
Police in all districts of Uttar Pradesh have been put on alert, and patrols and checks are to be increased.
When e-commerce company Jumia wanted to go public in 2019, Africa’s most celebrated start-up didn’t list in Lagos, Nairobi, Kigali or Johannesburg. It went to New York instead. That tells you everything about Africa’s start-up problem: It’s not a money problem; it’s an exit problem.
African entrepreneurs can build world-class businesses, but investors hesitate because they cannot see how or when they will get their money back. Initial public offerings (IPOs) remain extremely rare, and most exits take the form of trade sales – often unpredictable and slow to clear. Our stock exchanges offer little comfort either with liquidity outside the largest firms still limited.
Start-ups here can remain “start-ups” for decades with no clear path to maturity.
By contrast, Silicon Valley hums along because everyone knows the playbook: build fast, scale up and within five to seven years either list on an exchange or get acquired. Investors know they will not be stuck forever. That certainty, not just the capital, drives the flow of billions.
If Africa wants its tech ecosystems to thrive, we need a parallel play alongside any new funds. Yes, let’s mobilise sovereign wealth, pensions, banks and guarantees. But equally, let’s change the rules of the game. Let’s build an exit clarity framework that gives investors confidence.
That means fast-track “growth IPO lanes” on our exchanges with lighter costs and simpler disclosures. It means standardised merger templates that guarantee regulatory reviews within clear time limits.
It means regulated secondary markets where early investors and employees can sell shares before an IPO.
It means modernising employee stock ownership rules so talent can build wealth too.
And it means creating anchor-exit facilities where big domestic players like South Africa’s Public Investments Corporation or IDC commit to buy into IPOs with risk-sharing from development partners.
The evidence shows why these matter. More than 80 percent of startup funding in Africa comes from abroad. African unicorns are overwhelmingly funded by foreign venture capital, with several having foreign co-founders or being incorporated outside the continent. This means exits and wealth creation largely flow offshore. When global shocks hit, whether interest rate hikes in Washington or political turmoil in Europe, our ventures shake.
On the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, small-cap boards make up only a sliver of daily trading activity, underscoring how limited liquidity is outside the blue chips.
In Kenya, the Growth Enterprise Market Segment, set up to serve fast-growing firms, has struggled to gain traction with only five companies currently listed as of 2024 – more than a decade after its 2013 launch.
To be sure, there are those who will argue that exits already exist: Trade sales are happening, holding periods in Africa are shorter than in many markets and capital is trickling in regardless.
That is true, but partial. Trade sales can be an option, but they are often unpredictable. Regulatory approvals take time, and deal terms are not always transparent enough for investors to build them confidently into their models.
This is not a system that inspires confidence from our own pension funds or sovereign wealth managers.
The response, then, is not to simply wait for more money to arrive but to fix the structures that govern its movement. If we could walk into investor meetings and say, “Here’s the pipeline of companies. Here’s the capital vehicle, and here is a clear five-year exit pathway,” we could shift the conversation entirely.
We could make African innovation not only attractive to foreign investors but also bankable for African ones. South Africa is uniquely positioned to lead this change. It has deep capital markets, capable regulators and institutional pools of capital looking for new growth opportunities.
The ask is not just to invest in start-ups but to invest in a new rulebook that makes exits real. If we succeed, we will have built more than another fund. We will have built a system that recycles African savings into African innovation, creating African wealth.
For too long, the debate has been framed around scarcity of money. But the truth is less about scarcity and more about certainty. Investors do not only chase returns. They chase predictable exits. Without exits, funds hesitate. With exits, funds multiply.
So, yes, let us mobilise capital and launch new funds. But let us also do the harder, braver thing: change the rules, not just the money. That is how we ensure our unicorns aren’t built on foreign capital alone. That is how we give our own savers and pensioners a stake in Africa’s growth.
And that is how we finally write a new playbook under which African innovation, African capital and African ownership all run on the same page because, in the end, the real lesson of Jumia is not that Africa cannot produce billion-dollar start-ups. It is that until we change the rules of exit, we risk exporting the wealth that should be owned and grown at home.
Indonesia’s government has bestowed ‘national hero’ status on former president Soeharto. The award caused uproar amongst critics who say Soeharto’s legacy is one of mass murder, even genocide. They accuse the government of whitewashing a violent regime. Soraya Lennie explains.