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.