Category World News

Montreal, Canada – Canada’s governing Liberal Party has chosen Mark Carney to replace outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as its leader.

The former governor of the Bank of Canada won the Liberal leadership vote on Sunday, about two months after Trudeau announced plans to resign amid pressure over an affordability crisis and threats of a trade war with the United States.

Carney is taking the reins of the party as Canada-US tensions are soaring following President Donald Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on Canadian goods.

Canada is also heading into a federal election that must take place by October 20 but could happen sooner.

So what happens now? Here, Al Jazeera breaks down what’s next as Carney takes over from Trudeau as party leader and is set to become Canada’s new prime minister.

Carney wins leadership

Carney overwhelmingly won a leadership race that saw him go up against former Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, MP Karina Gould and businessman Frank Baylis.

The economist and former central banker is not a sitting member of the Canadian parliament — known as the House of Commons — and he has never held federal office before.

Under Canada’s Westminster system of parliamentary government, a person does not need to be elected to serve as prime minister, explained Andrea Lawlor, an associate professor of political science and public policy at McMaster University in Ontario.

Instead, the prime minister must be someone who “can command the confidence of the House”, Lawlor told Al Jazeera.

In practice, this has typically meant the prime minister is the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament or who can form a government. The Liberals currently have a minority government.

But while Sunday’s vote made Carney leader of the Liberal Party, he has not yet formally stepped into his role as prime minister.

Trudeau must formally resign

Trudeau, who has been prime minister since 2015, announced in January that he would step down as Liberal leader and prime minister after his successor was chosen.

Now that Carney has been selected as the new leader, Trudeau must formally resign.

That involves going to the governor general, the official who holds the largely symbolic role of upholding the Canadian governmental system.

“For the transition of power to take place, the prime minister must inform the governor general of their intention to resign and advise them about who they think their successor should be”, explained Daniel Beland, a professor at McGill University in Montreal.

“It’s only after the governor general accepts the resignation of the prime minister that they can appoint a successor, typically by acting upon the advice of that outgoing prime minister”.

It is unclear exactly when Trudeau plans to go to the governor general.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday of last week, the outgoing prime minister said, “I look forward to a transition to my duly elected successor in the coming days or week”.

Carney invited to form gov’t

Once the governor general accepts Trudeau’s resignation and his recommendation, Carney will then be asked to form a government.

CBC News reported last week that preparations for the prime ministerial transition process — from Trudeau to his successor as Liberal leader — were already quietly under way.

One of the top questions will be the size and makeup of Carney’s cabinet.

Several members of Trudeau’s government, including Foreign Minister Melanie Joly and Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc, had endorsed Carney’s bid for the Liberal leadership and are expected to be part of his future cabinet.

Whenever Carney is officially sworn in as prime minister, he would speak on behalf of the Liberal minority government.

Joining the House of Commons

After taking up the top post, Carney would then be looking to quickly get his own seat in Parliament, Lawlor said — both to boost his own political legitimacy and more easily carry out his work.

“Much of what we expect as Canadians is for our prime minister to be a legitimated member of the House through election and to face the opposition across the aisle”, she told Al Jazeera.

Carney can seek to join Parliament either through a so-called by-election — a special election to fill a single seat — or a general election.

“I think it will depend on what’s the internal calculus to the party, to either have him run in a by-election or call a general]election]”, Lawlor said. “I think a lot that would be dictated by how well he’s doing in the polls”.

The federal election must be held by October 20, but as the party in government, the Liberals can effectively call a vote at any time.

Experts say an early election call appears likely, as the party is riding a wave of increased support due to Trump’s tariffs and Trudeau’s decision to step down.

Opposition parties can also trigger an election by passing a no-confidence vote in the House of Commons. Trudeau suspended Parliament in January when he announced his resignation, and lawmakers are set to return on March 24.

Canada’s Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois have said they plan to try to bring down the Liberal government at the soonest opportunity, saying early elections are needed to mount a strong response to US tariffs.

Caretaker government

If an election is launched, Carney and the Liberals will effectively act as a caretaker government.

If the race begins before Carney has a chance to win a parliamentary seat, that opens up new questions and avenues for criticism.

As it stands, because Carney is unelected, he is not yet subjected to rules that govern Canadian lawmakers. That includes requirements to disclose financial holdings and potential conflicts of interest.

Opposition MPs had called on Carney to voluntarily comply with those rules, even before he formally won the leadership.

Conservative legislator Michelle Rempel Garner also raised questions last week when it was reported that Joly, Canada’s foreign minister, had briefed Carney on US tariffs.

“I’m a sitting Parliamentarian. The Liberal government shut down Parliament, but some random nobody gets a briefing and elected MPs don’t”? Rempel Garner said in a post on X.

Lawlor also noted that Carney will “need to obtain certain security clearances in order to access information about border integrity or Canadian defence” when he becomes prime minister.

More than a month into his second term, President Donald Trump has already made good on many of his dreadful campaign promises. He has ordered mass deportation of migrants and asylum seekers, cancelled federal Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) programmes, cut funding to underprivileged Black and Latino communities, and pledged to expel foreigners with legal residency who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests.

It is clear that if we are to survive the next four years, minorities and oppressed people of all stripes must build solidarity networks to stand together and resist. To do so effectively, we must address any outstanding issues that could undermine cross-community solidarity. One cannot say they care about women’s rights, public health, racial equality, education or any number of things that liberals claim to care about and then allow a genocide to go on.

The 2024 election took place in the shadow of Israel’s genocidal campaign against the people of Palestine. Despite the efforts of the Democratic Party to obfuscate and manipulate the issue, they could not simply wish away the horrifying images coming out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

They faced a mass mobilisation of people in the streets, in the primaries and on college campuses calling for urgent action to stop Israel. In a desperate attempt to distract from the rightful criticism they were receiving for facilitating genocide, the Democratic Party took aim at the cross-sectional coalition that formed to support Gaza.

In particular, the Democrats sought to break up Black-Palestinian solidarity. One way they hoped to do so was to frame pro-Palestinian protesters as single-issue voters. They claimed that the Palestinian and Arab communities and their allies were invested only in the Palestinian struggle for freedom and did not care about the struggles of minority groups here in the US.

Democrats emphasised that what was happening in Gaza was an external issue that concerned only that specific group of voters. The idea was to convince Black people – as well as women, LGBTQ and other disadvantaged groups – that their solidarity with Palestine was pointless and that their interests lay with the Democratic Party, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

When confronted with the particularly callus “single issue” talking point, typically I would ask: What “single issue” is genocide? One cannot say they care about women’s rights, public health, racial equality, education or any number of things that liberals claim to care about and then allow a genocide to go on.

If someone is OK with the extermination of one group, why would they not be willing to approve the extermination of others when the time comes?

We got a glimpse of just how unserious the commitment of the Democratic Party and its liberal supporters to the rights of disadvantaged groups can be when they rushed to blame trans people for Harris’s defeat and some prominent members suggested dropping the “trans issue”.

The “single-issue voter” talking point was not the only one weaponised to undermine Black-Palestinian solidarity. The historic mobilisation on college and university campuses across the country was also attacked. Liberal media sought to portray pro-Palestinian activism not only as “anti-Semitic” but also as a pet project of the bourgeoisie, something only rich unaffected kids at Ivy League universities had time to care about.

What the media decided to leave out from this narrative was that mobilisations also took place at public universities and state schools, which Black and brown students overwhelmingly joined. The fact that students of colour faced the brunt of police violence and criminal prosecution was also conveniently omitted from public conversation.

In parallel, the Democratic Party also made some of its members of colour become the face of its unacceptable stance on Gaza. Biden’s UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield was instructed to vote down ceasefire resolution after ceasefire resolution and repeat the mantra about Israel’s “right to self-defence”. &nbsp, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre had to avoid any and all questions about the Palestinians during pressers. Vice President Harris, herself, was tasked with “acknowledging” the humanity and suffering of the Palestinian people, while the Biden administration continued to approve weapons sales to Israel.

The Democratic Party used Blackness as a shield against any criticism and they did it under the guise of diversity. Unsurprisingly, the guise was dropped whenever Black or brown members of the party spoke out. In such cases, Democrats did everything possible to demonise and sideline them. When Member of Congress Cori Bush faced an unprecedented mass spending campaign by AIPAC to oust her in the primaries, none of the Democratic leadership came to her defence.

Nevertheless, the talking points worked and managed to penetrate even otherwise progressive spaces. A good example was an online conversation between content creator Tori Grier and TikToker Maya Abdallah that took place in August.

Tori as a Black woman argued for voting for Harris, outlining her very real fears of a second Trump presidency, while Maya rightfully pointed out the Democratic candidate was refusing to stop facilitating a genocide. The fallout of the heated debate between the two spread online, with some social media users renouncing their solidarity. This is exactly where the political elite wanted us to be.

As the Democratic Party courted the Black community, it made no effort whatsoever to talk to the Arab Americans and other pro-Palestinian groups. And even in “courting” Black people, the Democrats still managed to be as condescending as possible, pulling out the tired and racist trope of “Black men becoming more conservative”.

It is this strategy and the party’s disingenuous framing of genocide and minority rights that I believe led us to the fascistic fever dream that is the Trump presidency.

Many Arab Americans – as well as members of other minority groups – voted for Trump. I, as a Black man, would not have tried to convince these people to vote for the “lesser evil” while their families were being exterminated in Gaza.

Others in the Black community have felt differently. A small but vocal contingent of Black people on the internet has insisted that we should defy the boycott of Israel, “buy Starbucks” and stop supporting the Palestinian cause. While this was mainly a social media phenomenon, the effects in real life are there. When I talk to members of my community who may be less informed on what is happening overseas, the same few talking points arise: “Isn’t this conflict thousands of years old”? and “Israel is defending itself”.

The truth is, it is not the first time the Black community has been split over Palestine-Israel. Recall the clash between iconic Black writer Audre Lorde and fellow Black feminist June Jordan. In the early 1980s, Jordan openly criticised Israel for invading Lebanon and for its “genocidal aims as regards the Palestinian people”. Lorde rejected this stance. She understood the ways that the US entrapped and used Black people here and abroad, but she was unable to connect it to the struggle of the Palestinians the way Jordan did. This fracture caused a deterioration in their relations.

While differences in opinion persist today within the Black community, ultimately, it is my belief that the contradictions present in defending the Democratic Party are increasingly becoming untenable to manage. The ways that Democrats use their platform to manipulate narratives – similar to the way Republicans do with their base – leads to confusion, not greater political participation from Black people.

For those who still embrace the talking points about the pro-Palestinian movement, it may be a good idea to ask what the Democratic Party has done to win their loyalty.

This is the party that in response to the police killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020 decided to send its leadership to do a photoshoot in kneeling in Kente cloth but then spent $17.4bn on funding the police countrywide two years later. This is also the party whose members and affiliated talking heads put a lot of effort into demonising the Black Lives Matter movement and stealing all popular momentum from it.

More recently, the Democratic Party went out of its way to push forward the highly unpopular “Cop City” project in Atlanta. The city, famously run by affluent Black Democrats, has taken draconian measures to ensure that all resistance – including from members of the Black community – to this police training campus project be squashed.

Let us also remember that while Trump is every bit of the monster Democrats claim he is, they themselves seem OK with him. That is because for years, the Democratic elite have relied on a host of rotating villains to keep them from having to fulfil any of their more progressive promises to their base. With this strategy in mind, in 2015-2016, they propped up Trump in the Republican primaries, believing that he would be the easiest candidate to beat.

In this context, the insinuation that the Democratic Party – or the Republican Party, for that matter – has the best interest of the Black population of this country in mind is not only insulting, but dangerous. To both of these parties, Black and Palestinian lives are of little concern, they matter only when or if it is politically and financially expedient.

Many Black Americans like me see the parallel between the historical ways in which our people have been harmed and what is happening in Palestine. The brutal apartheid and genocide of the Palestinian people directly relate to the mass killings and subjugation of Black people here in the US. There is a reason so many of the things we say in our community resonate with the people of Palestine and vice versa. Our mere existence is a threat to the status quo.

I see this realisation spread among my peers, and we all saw it at the Super Bowl, when Zul-Qarnain Nantambu, a Black performer, raised a Sudanese and a Palestinian flag on stage during the half-time show.

The past 16 months of genocide in Gaza have brought to the fore the close connections between the US military-industrial complex and the Israeli one, between the US army and the Israeli occupation forces, between the US police and the Israeli security establishment.

With Trump and his cohort of white nationalist extremists already unleashing police and other security agencies onto vulnerable communities, we – Black and brown people, LGBTQ, and pro-Palestinian activists – face the same threat, the same source of aggression.

Our power lies in united resistance. To buck the established order, we have to stand together.

Balanced calmly on top of what was once a refrigerator door, fisherman Khaled Habib uses a makeshift paddle to propel himself through the waters of Gaza City’s fishing port.

More than 15 months of Israeli bombardment has destroyed most of the boats in the harbour, wrecking the fishermen’s means of making a living.

“We’re in a very difficult situation today, and struggling with the fishing. There are no fishing boats left. They’ve all been destroyed and tossed on the ground”, said Habib.

“I made this boat from refrigerator doors and cork, and thankfully it worked”.

To continue feeding his family, Habib came up with the idea of stuffing cork into old fridge doors to make them buoyant. He covered one side with wood and the other with plastic sheeting to help make the makeshift paddleboard waterproof.

Habib also crafted a fishing cage out of wire because of the lack of nets, but admitted that his resulting catch was “small”.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said in December that the conflict had taken Gaza’s “once thriving fishing sector to the brink of collapse”.

“Gaza’s average daily catch between October 2023 to April 2024 dropped to just 7.3 percent of 2022 levels, causing a $17.5 million production loss”, the FAO said.

Using dough as bait, Habib now fishes mainly inside the small port area.

Nuuk, Greenland – Greenland’s most popular social media influencer announced her political bid just weeks ahead of Tuesday’s elections as she felt the winds of change blowing across the vast Arctic island.

“This is truly a historic moment. I feel like we are finally voting on independence. This has primarily happened because the US is showing greater interest in Greenland”, Qupanuk Olsen, the 39-year-old running with the pro-independence opposition party Naleraq in the parliamentary vote, told Al Jazeera. “It’s a huge wake-up call”.

Usually, she spends her time updating her hundreds of thousands of social media followers about everyday life in Greenland, from revealing how much a pair of Sketchers costs at a mall in Nuuk, the capital, to the type of seafood eaten on festive days.

To Olsen and many other Greenlanders, Tuesday’s vote feels like the most critical election in the territory’s recent history.

Greenland has captured the world’s attention since United States President Donald Trump doubled down on his intentions to absorb the island, an uncomfortable prospect that has renewed a long-running debate over independence from Denmark.

While the level of self-governance has expanded over the years, full sovereignty remains a distant yet powerful aspiration for many Greenlanders – and the issue is at the heart of the snap election that was called after Trump underscored his ambitions.

In the run-up to the vote, Nuuk has been overrun with international journalists taking an unusually keen interest in Greenlandic politics.

Among the questions being continually asked: Will Greenland take concrete steps towards breaking away from Denmark, or will economic realities keep it tethered to Copenhagen?

“I don’t think full independence will happen anytime soon – it has always been a factor in Greenlandic elections. However, I don’t see it happening quickly, even though some political parties are pushing for it. Maybe in 20 to 30 years”, Maria Ackren, a professor of political science at Greenland University, told Al Jazeera.

“Almost every party in Greenland supports independence. However, the timing, conditions, and pace of the process vary”.

An immense Arctic island of just 56, 000 people, Greenland has been a semi-autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark since 1979. Until 1953, it was a Danish colony.

Under a 2009 home-rule agreement, Greenland has full control over its domestic affairs but still relies heavily on Denmark, which maintains authority over foreign policy and defence.

Denmark provides Greenland with an annual subsidy of about $570m, covering nearly a third of the island’s budget.

“It is about time that we take a step forward and shape our own future, including deciding who we collaborate closely with and who our trade connections will be. Our relationships with other countries cannot happen solely through Denmark”, said Mute B Egede, Greenland’s premier and leader of the pro-independence democratic socialist Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA) party, in his New Year’s speech.

Some parties are calling for Greenland to hold a referendum on a specific article in the home-rule law within the next four years. If the result is a yes, negotiations on independence and statehood would begin with Denmark.

Recent polls suggest a large majority of Greenlanders do not want to join the US and most back the idea of independence.

One survey showed that 70 percent of Danes believe that if Greenland leaves the Danish Realm, the annual subsidy – the so-called “block grant” – should be discontinued.

Navigating the snow-covered streets of Nuuk, a Greenlandic Trump supporter admired the red MAGA hat he placed on top of the dashboard of his car.

“It’s the original one – from back in 2016. It has been in my car for nine years”, Jorgen Boassen told Al Jazeera proudly.

He works with a Republican-affiliated organisation called American Daybreak, which aims to increase the US’s influence in Greenland.

Previously, Trump has refused to rule out military or economic coercion to seize Greenland.

In recent days, the US leader has reiterated his wish to snap up the island.

“I think we are going to get it. One way or another”, Trump said in an address to Congress.

The day after, Prime Minister Egede posted on Facebook, “We do not want to be Americans, nor Danes – we are Greenlanders. The Americans and their leader must understand that”.

In 2019, when Trump, then president, suggested that the US should buy Greenland from Denmark, he called it a “strategic real estate deal”, angering both Copenhagen and Nuuk.

Greenland is geographically part of the North American continent but has been culturally connected with Europe for many centuries.

“The Greenlandic parties have yet to present a clear and concrete vision for independence. It remains unclear exactly what they mean by it. However, it is evident that Donald Trump’s interest has given them a sense of momentum, which they are using to put pressure on Danish politicians”, said Ackren, the professor at Greenland University.

Since Christmas, Trump has repeatedly claimed that the US should seek greater control over the island’s resources and expand its Arctic military presence, Greenland is already home to a large US base.

In January, the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr, visited. While officially described as a private trip, the tour appeared to be a well-planned social media stunt aimed at putting pressure on Greenland and Denmark.

Boassen said he helped organise the controversial visit, footage of which showed some Greenlanders wearing MAGA hats. Danish media later claimed some of those donning the red caps were bribed.

“I am not interested in Greenland becoming an American state”, said Boassen. “But I want a larger American military presence here. Denmark has not done what they promised regarding military build-up, and we can’t solely rely on Europe any more”.

Analysts believe Trump’s administration views Greenland, which has immense untapped resources such as rare-earth minerals, oil and gas, as a strategic asset – a key Arctic territory as geopolitical tensions between China, Russia and the US are heating up.

While local politicians have insisted Greenland is open for business, Greenlanders are certainly not interested in a new colonial ruler.