Global hunger hits new high amid conflict, extreme weather: UN

Global hunger hit a new high last year with the outlook for 2025 “bleak,” according to a United Nations-backed report.

Acute food insecurity and child malnutrition rose for a sixth consecutive year in 2024, affecting more than 295 million people across 53 countries and territories, the 2025 Global Report on Food Crises (GFRC), released on Friday, warned.

Conflict, weather extremes and economic shocks were identified as the main drivers.

The report, which provides its analysis through a collaborative effort with United Nations agencies, states that the rise in hunger levels of 5 percent over 2023 was the sixth in a row.

Overall, 22.6 percent of populations in the worst-hit regions experienced crisis-level hunger or worse.

Conflict was the leading cause of hunger, affecting nearly 140 million people across 20 countries in 2024, including areas facing “catastrophic” levels of food insecurity in Gaza, South Sudan, Haiti and Mali. Sudan has confirmed famine conditions.

Economic shocks, such as inflation and currency devaluation, helped push 59.4 million people into food crises in 15 countries, including Syria and Yemen.

Extreme weather, particularly El Nino-induced droughts and floods, shunted 18 countries into crisis, affecting more than 96 million people, especially in Southern Africa, Southern Asia, and the Horn of Africa.

‘Empty stomachs, empty hands, turned backs’

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called the report an “unflinching indictment of a world dangerously off course”.

“From Gaza and Sudan, to Yemen and Mali, catastrophic hunger driven by conflict and other factors is hitting record highs, pushing households to the edge of starvation,” Guterres said.

“This is more than a failure of systems – it is a failure of humanity. Hunger in the 21st century is indefensible. We cannot respond to empty stomachs with empty hands and turned backs,” he added.

Afghanistan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were among the countries with both the highest numbers of people and the highest share of their populations facing acute food insecurity.

The report found that “the number of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity almost tripled” in 2024.

Moreover, 26 countries with high acute food crises were also detected as having a nutrition crisis.

Middle East and North Africa hardest hit

Sudan, Yemen, Mali and Palestine faced the “most severe nutrition crises” last year.

In July 2024, famine was confirmed in the ZamZam camp in Sudan’s North Darfur. It was later identified in four more areas of the country from October to November and “another five [areas] from December 2024 to May 2025”.

In Palestine, while famine was projected in March 2024, it was averted due to a scale-up of humanitarian aid. However, as the war in Gaza continues and the Israeli blockade on aid remains, the report found that “acute food insecurity, malnutrition, and mortality” are likely to pass famine thresholds by September.

Food insecurity eased in 15 countries, including Ukraine, Kenya and Guatemala, last year due to scaled-up humanitarian aid, improved harvests, easing inflation and a decline in conflict.

Has India offered Trump zero tariffs? What we know and why it matters

United States President Donald Trump said on Thursday that India had offered a trade deal that proposed almost “no tariffs” on US goods, as the South Asian nation seeks to avert higher import and export costs.

India disputed Trump’s claim. But New Delhi is looking to clinch a trade deal with the US within the 90-day pause announced by Trump on April 9, on so called reciprocal tariffs for major trading partners. On May 8, the White House secured a trade agreement with the United Kingdom, two days after India inked a similar pact with it.

India’s equity benchmarks jumped about 1.5 percent following Trump’s comments. The Nifty 50 edged up 1.6 percent while the BSE Sensex gained 1.48 percent, reaching their highest levels in seven months.

India was one of the first countries to begin trade negotiations with the US following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the White House in February, with both sides agreeing to finalise a bilateral deal this year.

Last month, meanwhile, US Vice President JD Vance visited India and met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, hailing what he called “very good progress” on a trade agreement between Washington and New Delhi.

What was actually said?

“It is very hard to sell in India, and they are offering us a deal where basically they are willing to literally charge us no tariffs,” Trump said in a meeting with executives in the Qatari capital Doha. “They’re the highest and now they’re saying no tariff.”

In a statement soon after to local news agencies, India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar pushed back against Trump’s claim, saying “nothing is decided till everything is.” He added that “any judgement on it would be premature” until a “mutually beneficial” agreement is reached.

Trump didn’t provide further details of New Delhi’s apparent offer, and the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry didn’t immediately respond to media requests for comment.

What is the state of US-India trade relations?

The US is India’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade totalling some $129bn in 2024. India ran a $45.7bn surplus with the US last year, mainly in the form of pharmaceutical products, electrical machinery and jewellery.

Having long complained that India’s tariffs were too high and hurt US businesses, Trump pledged to impose “reciprocal” tariffs of 27 percent on India. Those tariffs are currently on hold until early July.

A 10 percent base tariff continues to apply to India and many other nations during the pause.

India’s average tariff rate is 17 percent, compared with 3.3 percent by the US, as per a report by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations.

In recent weeks, India has made overtures to placate Trump’s public disapproval, including lowering import duties on US goods like bourbon whiskey – down from 150 to 100 percent – and Harley-Davidson motorcycles – from 50 to 40 percent.

As part of ongoing trade talks, New Delhi has also proposed zero tariffs on car parts, on a reciprocal basis and up to a certain amount, Bloomberg reported earlier this month.

A delegation of Indian officials is set to visit the US later this month to try and move talks forward. The Reuters news agency reported that India’s trade minister, Piyush Goyal, might visit too.

Trump’s recent comments come days after India threatened to impose retaliatory tariffs linked to higher US duties on steel and aluminium, a sign that New Delhi is adopting a more bullish approach in its negotiations with Washington.

For now, though, trade talks are thought to be progressing well.

What are the putative terms of the deal?

Reuters reported that New Delhi has offered to reduce duties to zero on 60 percent of US imports in a first phase deal, while also offering preferential access to nearly 90 percent of the merchandise India imports from the US.

In theory, this would bring the average tariff differential (the variation in tariff rates countries impose on each other) between India and the US down by 9 percentage points, significantly lowering trade barriers in the world’s fifth-largest economy.

Preferential market access – or lower import entry requirements into the US compared with other countries India trades with – is being considered for key goods such as jewellery, textiles and agricultural products like bananas and grapes.

“Preferential market access for India would mean better terms of trade for these goods compared to America’s other trading partners,” an Indian government official who preferred not to be named told Reuters.

To make the deal more attractive for Washington, India has also offered to ease export regulations on several high-value US imports, the first official said. These include aircraft, electric vehicles, medical devices, and hydrocarbons.

Beyond tariffs, India has also asked the US to treat it on par with other top US allies such as the UK and Japan in terms of access to critical technology sectors like artificial intelligence, biotech, and semiconductors.

What are some obstacles to a ‘zero-tariff’ regime?

India’s expectation of being exempt from tariffs is at odds with the deal struck between the US and UK, in which only certain goods, based on mutual interest, had tariffs removed – as opposed to across-the-board withdrawals.

Elsewhere, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week hinted that Washington might be looking to secure “purchase agreements” for specific products with China, as part of ongoing trade negotiations with Beijing.

As such, recent trade deals suggest that Trump’s tariff strategy amounts to carve-outs on particular goods, as opposed to broad free trade agreements. Looking ahead, comments from Indian and US officials hint at a similar arrangement.

Domestic issues also stand in the way of a free trade deal. India has long used tariffs to shield agricultural markets from cheap imports. Farmers have expressed fears that Modi would weaken those protections as part of a deal with Trump.

Then, at the geopolitical level too, India is in a tricky position.  While Washington sees New Delhi as a counterbalance to Beijing’s growing clout, India imported $113.45bn from China last year. By contrast, it imported just $40bn from the US.

What’s more, China recently warned the UK over its trade deal with the US. It accused the UK of aligning with the US in a move that could compel British companies to exclude Chinese products from their supply chains.

China has warned it is ready to hurt countries that fall in line with the US in order to pressure Beijing.

Court rejects Australian soldier’s defamation appeal over Afghan killings

Australia’s most decorated living war veteran has lost an appeal against a civil court ruling that implicated him in war crimes while serving in Afghanistan.

Australia’s Federal Court dismissed the appeal lodged by Ben Roberts-Smith on Friday, in the latest setback for the 46-year-old’s fight to salvage a reputation tattered by reports that he took part in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners.

Three federal court judges unanimously rejected his appeal of a judge’s ruling in 2023, which said Roberts-Smith was not defamed by newspaper articles published in 2018 that accused him of a range of war crimes.

In the earlier ruling, a judge had found that the accusations were substantially true to a civil standard and Roberts-Smith was responsible for four of the six unlawful deaths of noncombatants he had been accused of.

Delivering the appeal court’s verdict, Justice Nye Perram explained that the reasons for the decision are being withheld due to national security implications that the government must consider.

The marathon 110-day trial is estimated to have cost 25 million Australian dollars ($16m) in legal fees that Roberts-Smith will likely be liable to pay.

He has however said he will fight to clear his name in Australia’s High Court, his last avenue of legal appeal.

“I continue to maintain my innocence and deny these egregious spiteful allegations,” Roberts-Smith said in a statement. “We will immediately seek to challenge this judgement in the High Court of Australia.”

Tory Maguire, an executive of Nine Entertainment that published the articles Roberts-Smith claimed were untrue, welcomed the ruling as an “emphatic win”.

“Today is also a great day for investigative journalism and underscores why it remains highly valued by the Australian people,” Maguire said.

Australia deployed 39,000 troops to Afghanistan over two decades as part of United States and NATO-led operations against the Taliban and other armed groups.

Perth-born Roberts-Smith, a former SAS corporal, had won the Victoria Cross – Australia’s highest military honour – for “conspicuous gallantry” in Afghanistan while on the hunt for a senior Taliban commander.

An Australian military report released in 2020 found evidence that Australian troops unlawfully killed 39 Afghan prisoners and civilians. The report recommended 19 current and former soldiers face criminal investigation.

It’s not clear whether Roberts-Smith was one of them.

Police have been working with the Office of the Special Investigator, an Australian investigation agency established in 2021, to build cases against elite SAS and Commando Regiments troops who served in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.

The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times said in a series of reports in 2018 that Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed Afghan civilian off a cliff and ordered subordinates to shoot him.

Was ex-FBI chief Comey’s ’86 47′ post calling for Trump assassination?

A social media post has dragged former FBI director James Comey into a maelstrom of accusations from critics that he called for the assassination of United States President Donald Trump.

Comey, a fierce Trump critic, denied in a statement that the photo he took and shared on Instagram was a call for violence, adding that “I oppose violence of any kind.” He has since taken down the photo in question.

His rebuttal has, however, done little to calm Trump’s supporters, with the country’s Homeland Security Department and the Secret Service announcing on Thursday that they were investigating the incident.

Here’s a breakdown of what happened:

What did Comey Post?

Comey shared an Instagram photo on Thursday showing seashells on a beach arranged in the numbers “86 47”.

“Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” his caption read.

Critics were quick to point out that the number “86” refers to old US slang that refers to “getting rid of” something, or “removing something”. The slang was highly in use in restaurants back in the 1930s, and usually signalled to waiters and customers that an item on a menu was sold out and could not be provided.

The “47”, they claim, refers to Trump’s current term in office as the 47th president of the US.

Comey, on the same day, took the photo down. In a separate Instagram post, the former intelligence boss explained that he took the photo while “on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message”.

“I didn’t realise some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me, but I oppose violence of any kind, so I took the post down,” he said.

The hashtag #8647 has previously, and as early as March, appeared on social media sites like TikTok among posters criticising Trump and calling for his removal. It has come to represent a silent code for opposing the president.

What have Trump’s allies said?

Trump’s supporters on social media channels have denounced Comey’s post, calling it a call for the president’s “assassination”.

President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr on Thursday said in an X post that Comey had “casually called for my dad to be murdered”, adding that the post was “demented”.

Grok, a conversational AI assistant on the Elon Musk-owned social media site, responding to comments from X users asking for clarification on the meaning of the numbers, said it was “basically a sneaky way of saying “get rid of Trump”. However, the assistant also added that the numbers do not “inherently mean assassinate Trump” but rather they imply “political removal”.

Speaking on Fox News, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard said she did not accept that Comey was unaware of the violent interpretation of “86 47”. Gabbard said Comey “should be held accountable and put behind bars for this”.

Republican Congressman Andy Ogles said he sent a letter to US intelligence agencies calling for an investigation into Comey’s “disturbing” post to see if the former intelligence boss had violated two federal laws – threatening the president and interstate sharing of threatening communication.

Ogles also demanded confirmation on whether Comey still has access to classified material because of his previous role as FBI director.

“If Comey broke the law, he shouldn’t get a pass. He should be in handcuffs,” Ogles wrote on X.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in an X post said the matter was already being investigated by US intelligence authorities.

“Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of @POTUS Trump. DHS and Secret Service is investigating this threat and will respond appropriately,” she posted.

FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed on X that his agency will aid the investigation and “provide all necessary support”.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair said Comey’s post was a call to “terrorists & hostile regimes to kill the President of the United States as he travels in the Middle East”.

“Any Democrat or Media Outlet who fails to condemn this clear Incitement of Violence is complicit and must be described as such.”

FBI Director James Comey (L) and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers take their seats at a House Intelligence Committee hearing into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US election, on Capitol Hill in Washington, US, March 20, 2017 [Joshua Roberts/Reuters]

What is Comey and Trump’s past relationship?

Comey was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Before the 2016 election, Comey investigated Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers during her time as secretary of state. Many Democrats argue that this investigation, on the eve of the vote, cost her the election, in which Clinton was the party’s nominee against Trump.

But Comey also led the FBI’s investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections, and was fired in 2017 by Trump early in his first term in office.

Comey had testified to Congress that Russia did interfere in the 2016 elections. The administration’s official reason for firing him was that Comey was “ineffective”, referring to dissatisfaction with the Clinton investigation, which eventually ended without the politician being charged.

The major sticking point between Trump and Comey, according to analysts, was Comey’s focus on the Russia issue and his refusal to state in public that Trump and his Trump Organisation were not personally being investigated.