Category World News

Fears of crime

Yet not all Chileans are convinced. Virginia Peredo, a domestic worker, told Al Jazeera she “would never” vote for the left-wing candidate, offering a blunt explanation: “She is a communist.”

Peredo was one of the nearly 200 supporters at a rally for Jara’s right-wing rival Kast in Copiapo, a mining town some 750km (466 miles) north of Villa Alemana.

Many of Kast’s supporters believe that Jara stands for the status quo. Under President Boric, Jara’s former boss, Chile saw a period of slow economic growth.

Boric has also struggled to quell concerns about an increase in organised crime and undocumented immigration. Peredo, for instance, said she is afraid to leave the house at night.

Although she moved to Chile from Bolivia 10 years ago, she supports Kast’s hardline stance, which includes militarising the country’s borders and deporting all irregular immigrants.

“The good ones can stay, but the bad ones have to go,” Peredo said of immigrants to Chile. “They make us all look bad.”

Kast, a 59-year-old Catholic and founder of the far-right Republican Party, has leaned into those fears of immigration and violence to build his base of support.

A report released in April from the University of San Sebastian found that activity linked to organised crime increased by 8.4 percent between 2022 and 2023.

“This is not a crisis. It’s an emergency,” Kast told his supporters in Copiapo.

Christopher Sabatini, senior research fellow for Latin America at the think tank Chatham House, told Al Jazeera that Kast’s “iron-fisted approach to crime” has struck a chord among voters.

“If you look at number-one demands, security, crime and immigration are all up there. Those are not what Jara is running on,” he said.

Sabatini sees parallels between Kast and the rise of other right-wing leaders, like Donald Trump in the United States and Javier Milei in Argentina.

In Milei’s case, his victory in the 2023 presidential race was seen as a sign of discontent with the left-wing Peronist government that was in power at the time.

A deadly conflict between bears and humans is playing out across Japan, where authorities have deployed the military to protect locals who are using drone-based alert and surveillance systems to track the bears.

Since April this year, at least 13 people have been killed and more than 100 have been injured in bear attacks in the country, according to an October report by the Ministry of Environment. The ministry added that the death toll is the highest since Japan began keeping records of bear attacks in 2006.

Japan is home to big brown bears, which can weigh more than 450kg (1,000 pounds) and live in the country’s Hokkaido region, one of Japan’s northernmost islands known for its hot springs and volcanoes. It is also home to Asiatic black bears – also known as Moon bears – which are smaller in size, weighing between 80-200kg (176-440 pounds), and are found on the mainland, which is more densely populated.

Both types of bear have been involved in incidents this year, and both are dangerous to humans to varying degrees. Asiatic bear attacks are more frequent, but brown bear attacks are more dangerous.

Shota Mochizuki, associate professor at Fukushima University, told Al Jazeera: “This is largely because black bears are widely distributed across Honshu and Shikoku, where many people live, while brown bears inhabit only Hokkaido, resulting in fewer opportunities for encounters with humans.”

“However, attacks by brown bears are far more severe. Brown bears are significantly larger and stronger, and their attacks much more often lead to serious injuries or fatalities,” he added.

But why is there an increase in bear attacks this year and how is Japan responding?

Here’s what we know:

Where are the attacks happening?

According to Japan’s public broadcaster, NHK, the country’s northern prefectures – districts under the control of a prefect or governor – have been the worst affected by bear attacks.

Earlier this week, NHK said five people had been killed in Iwate, two in Hokkaido, one each in Nagano and Miyagi, and four in Akita so far this year.

Bear sightings in Akita prefecture have risen sixfold this year, and bears have attacked more than 50 people since May. Most of the attacks in Akita have been by Asiatic black bears and have taken place in residential areas.

According to NHK, on November 9, a bear assaulted a 78-year-old woman in Gojome Town and then attacked a 50-year-old woman who came to help when she heard the older woman screaming. Both were admitted to a hospital in Akita City and are still alive. An elderly woman in Akita city was killed after encountering a bear while working on a farm in late October.

In an Instagram post last month, the Kenta Suzuki, the governor of the mountainous region, said that “the situation has already surpassed what the prefecture and municipalities can handle on their own”.

“Exhaustion on the ground is reaching its limit,” he added.

In an interview last month, Billy Halloran, who is from Auckland, New Zealand, and currently lives in Japan, told CNN about a serious black bear attack he had experienced in the woods of Myoko in northern Japan when he went for a run in early October.

He said he saw two bears staring at him from bushes nearby and, when he tried to back away, one bear started moving towards him. “It was around my size, it was an adult, it was at least 60 or 70 kilos (about 132 to 154 pounds),” he told CNN.

He held up his arm in front of his face, but the bear seized it and pushed him to the ground. “Then in one bite, my arm was done,” he said.

The bear attack has left him with a broken arm and an injured leg, Halloran said. He has required three surgeries, and metal plates have been inserted into his arm.

Attacks have also taken place in central Japan. Last month, a bear entered a supermarket in Numata city and attacked shoppers, according to NHK. While nobody was killed, police officials said some people sustained injuries, although they did not say how serious they were.

The surge in attacks has prompted some countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, to issue travel advisories to citizens living or travelling to Japan.

In a “wildlife alert” issued on Wednesday, the US Department of State said: “Bear sightings and attacks have increased in parts of Japan, especially in municipalities close to or adjacent to populated zones.

“In Sapporo, authorities closed Maruyama Park in Sapporo, which is adjacent to the US Consulate General, for two weeks following a bear sighting in the park.

“Although the Consulate is located outside of the park, we encourage all visitors for routine or other services to be diligent and aware of your surroundings.”

In late October, the UK’s Foreign Office warned British travellers not to venture alone into forest areas and to avoid leaving litter and food waste if they do.

Why are bear attacks on the rise?

Mochizuki said one reason is a food shortage for bears in the mountainous regions of the country. He said bears mainly feed on acorns and beech nuts, which have not been abundant this year.

“In years when natural food is scarce, bears are more likely to venture into human settlements in search of food,” he told Al Jazeera.

According to the Ministry of Environment, there was a surge of attacks in 2023 following poor acorn yields. Some experts say climate change is a reason for the low production.

Mochizuki noted that bear populations have also expanded in the country “due to long-term conservation and reduced hunting pressure” and said that this factor has increased bears’ “contact zones with humans”. According to the government, the overall bear population is currently more than 54,000.

In 2012, the Environment Ministry’s biodiversity centre said the number of black bears was about 15,000, while brown bear numbers have doubled since 1990, although it did not give numbers.

Mochizuki said that another reason bear attacks are rising is rural depopulation, caused by young people leaving their villages and moving to cities for better job opportunities.

“As rural areas age and decline, unmanaged fields and village edges create easy access routes for bears,” he added.

How are the Japanese authorities managing the situation?

Last week, Japan’s military and riot police were deployed to the scenic mountainous region of Akita to try to contain the surge in bear attacks.

But while riot police are authorised to shoot the bears, military personnel are not and must work alongside private hunters.

“The Japan Self-Defense Forces are legally restricted to national defence and disaster relief, and therefore have no legal authority to kill wildlife,” Mochizuki said.

“Hunters, by contrast, hold official hunting licences and firearm permits under Japan’s Wildlife Protection and Management Law. They can be formally authorised by prefectural governments to conduct nuisance control, including the shooting of bears when necessary,” he added.

So the military has been helping the region’s local community by setting up bear traps or removing carcasses of the bears shot by hunters they are working with.

What are local people doing?

Residents of affected areas, especially Akita, have been using AI-surveillance systems and drones to alert them to the presence of bears, according to Akita’s mayor.

NHK reported that people have also been advised not to leave food around when they go on picnics in the forest, and also to cut down any nut-bearing trees that may attract bears.

What other measures can be taken to stop bear attacks?

Mochizuki said three main measures can prove effective.

“Firstly, food sources around human settlements should be eliminated,” he said. “Proper management of garbage, abandoned fruit trees, and garden produce is the most effective preventive measure.”

He added that physical barriers such as electric fencing around farms or village perimeters “can significantly reduce bear entry”.

“Thirdly, early detection through camera traps, sensors and GPS data, rapid communication through mobile alerts can help communities respond quickly to bear presence,” he said.

Mochizuki acknowledged that while the military and police have been deployed to assist bear hunters, the country faces a shortage of hunters and wildlife personnel due to its ageing population.

“Recruiting younger members and increasing municipal staff capacity is essential,” he said.

Last, Mochizuki highlighted the importance of educating residents and tourists about the bears.

In a stunning geopolitical reversal, on October 29, the United States abruptly lifted sanctions on Bosnian Serb leader and genocide denier Milorad Dodik – a known Kremlin ally who has long undermined Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty. The decision, which contradicts years of US policy, intriguingly coincides with the beginning of direct dealings between Russia and Bosnia’s Serb entity, Republika Srpska.

The Russians, who had long treated Belgrade as the only authority representing all Serbs across the region, have seriously undermined Serbia’s authority recently by acknowledging Dodik as the rightful representative of Bosnia’s Serb population.

The Trump administration’s unexpected move to lift sanctions on Dodik at a time when he is building a strategic relationship with Moscow signals a potential grand bargain between world powers, raising alarming questions about what Washington gained in exchange for effectively ceding half of Bosnia to Russia’s sphere of influence.

The unexplained reversal

The US unexpectedly removed sanctions from Dodik and his network. This was a sudden, unexplained reversal of a longstanding policy. For years, the US targeted him for trying to destabilise Bosnia, denying genocide, and pushing for secession. Removing him from the sanctions list appears to give a blessing to the denial of the Bosnian genocide and creates a clear path for Bosnia’s breakup.

This move creates a glaring paradox in US foreign policy.

Dodik is one of the Kremlin’s most overt allies in Europe, openly celebrating his ties with Moscow and advocating for Russian interests. However, the US keeps strong sanctions on many other people and entities for far weaker links to Russia.

The perplexing decision to lift sanctions on him exposes a troubling inconsistency in Washington’s approach to Russia, one that undermines the credibility of its broader sanctions regime.

Citing successful lobbying by Dodik as the reason for this reversal is a weak and unconvincing justification. According to estimates, Dodik’s lobbying efforts in the US have grown to two or three times the $30m figure confirmed for 2017. The scale of his spending, however, is still a pittance compared with the vast sums deployed by other nations and interest groups that consistently fail to achieve such spectacular diplomatic victories.

Another theory for the US policy shift involves Bosnia’s mineral wealth, specifically lithium. This follows a May 21, 2025, statement by Dodik, who publicly offered the mineral resources of the Bosnian Serb entity to the US in exchange for recognition of Republika Srpska’s sovereignty.

This theory, however, contains a logical flaw: if the US’s primary interest were lithium, maintaining sanctions would provide more direct control over the resources without needing to grant Dodik anything. The inadequacy of this explanation strongly suggests that more profound, undisclosed geopolitical calculations are at work, raising alarming questions about the true price of this sudden US retreat.

Moscow dominating Serbia

For a while now, Serbia has been moving away from Russia and towards the West.

On August 29, 2024, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic announced a $3bn deal with France to buy 12 Rafale jets, signalling Belgrade’s shift towards Western security alliances.

At a joint news conference, French President Emmanuel Macron praised the agreement as “historic”, lauding Serbia’s “strategic courage” and reaffirming its European future. This did not go unnoticed in Moscow. In May 2025, Russia accused Serbia of stabbing Moscow in the back for selling weapons to Ukraine. Furthermore, in July, the Kremlin condemned Belgrade for considering joining Western sanctions against Russia.

On the day before the sanctions on him were lifted, rather than courting Washington, Dodik was in Minsk embracing Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. By meeting Dodik a day before US sanctions on him were lifted, Moscow declared a new Balkan strategy that deliberately sidelines Serbia.

Back in September, Russia’s foreign minister described Dodik as the “legitimately elected president” of the Bosnian entity Republika Srpska. But now, the official website of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs describes Dodik as “the leader of Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” This new designation serves multiple strategic purposes and marks a clear geopolitical shift.

First, it undermines the sovereignty of Bosnia by asserting a national rather than a purely regional mandate for Dodik’s authority.

Second, it directly challenges Serbia’s ambition, embodied in the concept of Srpski svet (Serbian World), to act as the central patron of all Serbs, asserting instead Russia’s claim to be the ultimate arbiter of Serb political affairs. Belgrade’s Srpski svet mirrors the Kremlin’s Ruski mir (Russian World) doctrine, with both aiming to unite ethnic and linguistic kin under a transnational cultural identity. Ultimately, these ideologies serve to expand political influence and justify intervention in neighbouring states under the pretext of protecting their diasporas.

The most potent signal of this shift came from Dodik himself. He publicly snubbed Vucic by bluntly declaring that Belgrade would have no say in the Republika Srpska. Vucic responded by citing the affront: “The other night, I saw that in Banja Luka they say that no one from Belgrade will give them orders.”

For years, Serbia has positioned itself as the paternal guardian of all Serbs, with Republika Srpska operating firmly within its political orbit. Dodik’s statement shattered this dynamic, announcing that the Serb-majority entity now answers to a different patron.

Moscow’s move has publicly split Dodik and Vucic, weakening Serbia’s power. It shows Russia will now deal directly with Bosnian separatists, ignoring the Serbian government. For Vucic, who tries to keep ties with both Europe and Russia, this is a worst-case scenario. It proves his influence is no longer needed and that Russia is now working through Banja Luka instead of Belgrade, severely reducing Serbia’s importance.

Moscow’s power play: Annexing Europe’s ailing heart

The US decision to lift sanctions has effectively allowed Moscow to take in Republika Srpska as a new Russian territory. The era of indirect influence is over; the Bosnian entity is now being governed directly from the Kremlin, fundamentally altering the balance of power in Europe.

A Russian military footprint in the Balkans is also expanding. While Russia maintains unofficial bases in Serbia, it is now likely to establish one in Banja Luka, the de facto capital of the Bosnian Serb entity, as well.

Bosnia, located in the heart of Europe, is itself shaped like a heart. For 30 years, the European Union had the chance to heal Europe’s ailing heart. The EU failed because, at its own core, it is afflicted by deep-seated racism: Islamophobia and Russophobia. The price for this hatred is now clear. Half of Europe’s heart — half of Bosnia — has effectively become a new Russian territory, a territory from which launching missiles would be far more efficient than from Kaliningrad.

The global chessboard: A tacit US-Russia understanding?

The sudden lifting of US sanctions on Dodik, followed instantly by his strategic embrace with Lavrov, is best understood not as a US policy failure but as a calculated move on the global chessboard. Lavrov’s masterstroke was to publicly empower Dodik at the direct expense of Belgrade, a clear signal to Serbia that its historical role as the primary patron of Bosnian Serbs is over. In this new alignment, Moscow demonstrates that it holds the key to power in the Bosnian entity Republika Srpska, forcefully reminding Serbia who truly commands the loyalties of its supposed kin.

This power play exploits Serbia’s fundamental and precarious dilemma. The nation is perpetually torn between its economic and political ambitions for EU integration and its deep-seated historical, cultural, and religious ties to Russia. Lavrov’s move tightens the Russian noose, forcing Belgrade into a more subservient position.

This leads to the most unsettling theory: that the US acquiescence is part of a tacit great-power trade-off. The timing and incongruity of the sanctions lift suggest it is not a retreat but a strategic bargain. Washington may have deliberately ceded its influence in Bosnia, accepting an expanded Russian sphere of influence in the Balkans, in exchange for a strategic concession from Moscow elsewhere — perhaps related to Ukraine, the Middle East, or another arena. This fits a cynical historical pattern: big powers often ignore local commitments to serve their own secret deals.

The unanswered question and the fallout

The abrupt US sanction lift, followed immediately by Dodik’s pivot to Moscow, leaves one chilling, unanswered question: what did Washington secure in return for effectively gifting half of Bosnia to Russia’s sphere of influence? This opaque bargain sacrifices decades of principled Balkan policy for an undisclosed geopolitical price, undermining US credibility and the fragile Dayton peace.

The fallout is clear: emboldened secessionists, a destabilised Europe, and a dangerous signal that hard-won democratic norms are merely currency in a new great game, leaving allies betrayed and adversaries triumphant.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has sought to distance himself from an unofficial briefing to the media by unnamed “allies” that he intends to fight off a leadership contest which, they say, could come just 18 months into his premiership.

On Tuesday evening, unnamed sources were cited in The Guardian newspaper saying Health Secretary Wes Streeting has gathered significant backing to supplant Starmer.

But on Wednesday morning, Streeting denied this, telling journalists that he was “not challenging the prime minister”.

“I’m not doing any of the things some silly briefer said overnight,” he stated.

Asked if those responsible for the briefing should be sacked, Streeting said, “Yes. But he’s [Starmer] got to find them first, and I wouldn’t expect him to waste loads of time on this.”

“There are people around the prime minister who do not follow his model and style of leadership,” he said.

In response to the ensuing media storm, Starmer, whose premiership since last year has been marred by poor polling, told reporters in north Wales on Thursday that briefings against ministers are “completely unacceptable”.

“I have been talking to my team today. I have been assured that no briefing against ministers was done from Number 10, but I have made it clear that I find it absolutely unacceptable,” he said.

The current internal party strife has shone a light on the prime minister’s standing as leader of the Labour Party.

In its most recent poll on Tuesday, pollster YouGov said of 4,989 people polled, only 27 percent thought he should continue as Labour Party leader.

Here’s what we know about the rumours of a leadership plot:

What are the rumours about a leadership challenge?

On Tuesday evening, unnamed senior Starmer aides told The Guardian newspaper that any attempt to remove the prime minister would be “reckless” and “dangerous”. According to the aides, deposing Starmer so early in his term as prime minister would undermine financial markets and reverberate on the stock market, the party and its international relationships.

“The party would not recover for a generation,” one of the unnamed sources told The Guardian.

Number 10 sources also told The Guardian they are concerned about rumours that Streeting could be planning a “coup” and is just one of several Labour ministers who are “on manoeuvres” to take the leadership if the opportunity arises. However, none of them were likely to move against the prime minister right now.

They said the most likely moment for a leadership challenge would be after the autumn budget – the government’s tax-and-spending review, due in parliament on November 26 – if higher taxes are announced, or after May elections next year if the Labour party performs poorly.

“Keir will not stand aside at this point, for Wes or anybody else,” one source told The Guardian.

On Friday, the UK’s Financial Times cited an unnamed minister who claimed that support for the health secretary was growing following the news of the unsanctioned “briefing”.

Streeting was not the only name mentioned as a potential leadership contender. Both Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Energy Secretary and a former leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband were named as possible contenders, the sources said.

Politics professor Nicholas Allen, from Royal Holloway University in London, explained that the briefing revealed “genuine concern, at least in some quarters, that Starmer is vulnerable”.

Could a coup against Starmer be successful?

Allen said it would be difficult to achieve a new leadership election because Labour Party rules state that a contender have the support of 20 percent of MPs to be nominated. This would be hard to do with party whips, which enforce a party consensus.

“I don’t know how strong Streeting’s support is,” Allen said. “He probably couldn’t force Starmer out by himself; what would be more likely is a collapse in support within the party, fuelled by low poll ratings and unforced errors (like the briefing), and Starmer deciding to step down or being encouraged to go by a group of senior ministers. At that point, the field would be open. Streeting may or may not be the perceived saviour,” he said.

Who briefed the press?

The British press is speculating that the unofficial briefing may have been organised by Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, as a tactic designed to put off any ministers thinking about challenging him.

McSweeney, who has been widely credited with helping Starmer to win the July 2024 election, is now facing calls to resign from unnamed members of parliament, according to reports.

However, Starmer appeared not to support such a move on Thursday when he reiterated that he “of course” has complete confidence in his chief of staff.

What do opposition parties say?

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch was quick to respond, accusing Starmer of losing control of his party during Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Badenoch called Starmer a “weak prime minister at war with his own cabinet”.

“Two weeks before the budget, isn’t it the case that this prime minister has lost control of government, he’s lost control of his party and lost the trust of the British people,” she said.

Earlier in the debate, Badenoch referred to an interview Streeting gave to the BBC in which he accused Downing Street of having a “toxic culture”, and asked Starmer if his minister was correct.

“Any attack on any member of my cabinet is completely unacceptable,” Starmer said in response.

Meanwhile, the far-right Reform UK party’s head of policy, Zia Yusuf, wrote on X on Thursday that the “terrifying thing about the coup against Starmer is that Labour members will choose his replacement”.

“Their favourite Labour minister is Ed Miliband. Some of the most unhinged people in the country will choose the next Prime Minister,” he added.

Reform’s popularity has risen hugely in the UK since last year’s election.

How does the autumn budget fit into this?

The briefing came just two weeks before Starmer and his chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, announced the autumn budget on November 26.

The budget, which outlines the government’s tax-and-spending plans for the next year, has been the subject of intense speculation in recent weeks, as it was widely expected to break one of Labour’s main election pledges: not to increase income taxes.

However, the Financial Times reported on Friday morning that Reeves is now ruling out any rise in income tax amid concerns that it could seriously anger voters and backbench legislators.

Why else is Starmer losing popularity in the UK?

Since winning the election in 2024, the prime minister has received backlash from across the political spectrum, including from Labour voters, over several issues.

According to a YouGov poll in September, if an election were to be called now, the far-right Reform UK would win, leaving the Labour Party as the second-largest party and the former governing party, the Conservatives, in third place.

Allen said the briefing could damage public perception of the Labour party further as it has revealed “a desire by some to engage in tribal fights with senior ministers” and that Starmer “doesn’t do politics very well, either in terms of surrounding himself with reliable people (if he didn’t know) or in terms of political judgement (if he did authorise it)”.

“It merely confirms what most voters probably already think: that the current Labour government and its prime minister aren’t all that good, or at least not significantly better than the Conservative government they voted out less than 18 months ago,” Allen said.

Here are some of the main areas of domestic policy which are causing the popularity of Starmer’s Labour Party to wane.

Migration

The opposition Reform UK party has risen in popularity largely on the back of its calls for stricter migrant control. The key issue is the rapid rise in the numbers of people arriving in small boats across the English Channel from France, particularly in the past year.

In September, Starmer struck a “one-in-one-out” migrant exchange deal with France in an effort to deter people from attempting the Channel crossing. Under the deal, France will accept the return of asylum seekers who crossed to the UK but cannot prove a family connection to the UK.

For each migrant France takes back, the UK will grant asylum to one person who has arrived from France through official channels and who can prove they have family connections in the UK.

But only a handful of migrants have been deported under the scheme so far. Furthermore, on Monday, the Home Office reported that a second migrant had re-entered the UK after being deported to France.

Rise of the far-right

Starmer has faced criticism for his lukewarm response to the rising number of far-right protests across the country.

In September, at least 11,000 people joined a “Unite the Kingdom” march, displaying the St George flag in London.

While Starmer denounced violence against police officers during the protests and argued that the UK was “built on diversity”, the antifascist group, Hope Not Hate, and several MPs have urged the government to take stronger action against the rise of far-right groups.

Critics also say Starmer has not done enough to appeal to people who support Reform, or to address their concerns about migration.

Accidental prison releases

In a major blunder, HMP Wandsworth prison in London wrongly released two offenders in early November, including an Algerian sex offender.

Both men were eventually returned to prison but, in the case of the Algerian offender, only after the man handed himself in. Conservative Party shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said the mistake revealed “the incompetence of this government”.

Economy

Starmer has been grappling with a low-growth economy since the start of his term in government.

According to new figures from the Office for National Statistics on Thursday, between July and September, the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) increased by just 0.1 percent in comparison with growth of 0.3 percent between April and July.