Category World News

Pope Francis died on Easter Monday at the age of 88.

“Dearest brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow, I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis,” Cardinal Kevin Farrell announced on Monday.

“At 7:35 this morning [05:35 GMT], the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father. His entire life was dedicated to the service of the Lord and of His Church,” he said.

Here is what we know about the death of the Argentinian pontiff, the first in history from Latin America, who led the Catholic Church for more than 12 years.

How did the pope die?

Pope Francis died of a stroke followed by a coma and heart failure on Monday morning, the Vatican’s press office said in a statement.

The pope has also suffered a “previous episode of acute respiratory failure”, arterial hypertension and type II diabetes, the statement said.

Farrell made the announcement at 9:47am (07:47 GMT), about two hours after Francis died. Farrell spoke from Domus Santa Marta, the apartment on Vatican grounds where Francis lived and where he had returned to recover after a hospitalisation for double pneumonia in February.

In the coming weeks, Farrell will play an important role, overseeing the administration of the Holy See until a new pope is chosen.

Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra seal the doors of the papal apartment in the Apostolic Palace and the door to the apartment of the Casa Santa Marta, where the late Pope Francis lived.

The rite of the certification of death and… pic. twitter. com/PP6j4SbqPr

What were Pope Francis’s health problems?

The pope was hospitalised for five weeks in February-March, initially suffering from a severe respiratory insufficiency from viral and bacterial infections. He had often struggled with bronchitis during winter.

He was subsequently diagnosed with a polymicrobial infection, which evolved to pneumonia in both lungs. Francis came close to death during his hospitalisation, according to his medical team.

He was also treated for an asthmatic respiratory episode, early-stage kidney failure, and a bronchial spasm that led him to aspirate vomit following a severe coughing fit.

He received noninvasive mechanical ventilation at night and high-flow oxygen therapy during the day.

His doctors had said the pope was so critically ill that the staff considered stopping his treatment so he could die.

“We had to choose whether to stop [treatment] and let him go, or push forward and try [to save him] with all the drugs and therapies possible, running the very high risk of damaging other organs. In the end, we took this path,” Sergio Alfieri, a general surgeon at Rome’s Gemelli Hospital, said in an interview recently.

According to Alfieri, it was the pope’s personal nurse, Massimiliano Strappetti, who urged the medical team to persist with treatment, saying, “Try everything – don’t give up. ”

His condition stabilised, and the pontiff continued his recovery at his residence. He made several public appearances over the past week, but his weak voice served as a reminder of his frailty.

How did Pope Francis spend his final days?

Doctors at Gemelli Hospital prescribed him a regimen of complete rest.

After 38 days in hospital, the pope was discharged on March 23. He returned to his residence at the Casa Santa Marta.

With Easter just three weeks away, the pope’s schedule grew increasingly demanding.

On April 9, he met King Charles of the United Kingdom and Queen Camilla at the Casa Santa Marta. This meeting coincided with their 20th wedding anniversary during their state visit to Italy.

The audience was arranged at the last minute, following the postponement of a planned formal state visit due to the pope’s health issues.

On April 17, Holy Thursday, a significant day in the Catholic calendar commemorating the Last Supper of Jesus Christ, Francis visited Rome’s Regina Coeli, where he met with some 70 inmates.

In past years, he had washed the feet of prisoners, echoing Jesus’s gesture with his disciples on the eve of his death. This time, however, the Vatican said he apologised for being unable to perform the ritual. Instead, he offered them rosaries and pocket-sized Gospels as gifts.

Four days later, on April 20, Francis received United States Vice President JD Vance at his residence.

“I know you have not been feeling great, but it’s good to see you in better health,” Vance said. “Thank you for seeing me. ”

The meeting came as the pope and Vatican officials have criticised several of President Donald Trump’s policies, particularly his efforts to deport migrants.

Francis has denounced the immigration crackdown as a “disgrace”. Meanwhile, Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, has defended the policy by referencing his interpretation of Catholic teachings from the medieval era.

It was the pope’s last diplomatic meeting.

Later that day, he delivered the traditional Urbi et Orbi blessing, Latin for “to the city and the world”, before thousands of Catholic pilgrims gathered in St Peter’s Square for the Vatican’s open-air Easter Sunday Mass.

During this time, the pope condemned the “deplorable humanitarian situation” caused by Israel’s 18 months of war on the Palestinian territory. He also called for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Then, to everyone’s surprise, he made his way down to Saint Peter’s Square, riding through the crowds in the open-top Popemobile – the iconic white Mercedes-Benz used by popes to greet the faithful.

Near the end of his final tour of the square, several children were lifted towards him.

It would be the last time the world saw him alive. He died the next morning.

American writer and security analyst Paul B Henze, who served in the Carter administration as a deputy to National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, once made a very astute observation about Eritrea’s current president, Isaias Afwerki.

In his 2007 book, Ethiopia in Mengistu’s Final Years: Until the Last Bullet, he noted “Isaias impressed me as remarkably similar in temperament and attitudes to Mengistu [Haile Mariam, Eritrea’s former dictator who has overseen the killings of tens of thousands of opposition figures and civilians]. He has many of the same mannerisms, a rather bulldoggish seriousness, a defensiveness behind a facade of feigned reasonableness that is not really convincing. One senses a stubborn, fundamentally authoritarian personality. ”

The similarities Henze saw between Mengistu and Isaias have proven correct and highly consequential over the last three decades.

After declaring victory against the Mengsitu regime in 1991, Isaias was able to oversee the emergence of an independent, sovereign Eritrea. For a brief moment, Eritreans were full of hope. They assumed independence would bring more freedom and better economic prospects. There was talk of turning Eritrea into Africa’s Singapore.

However, the euphoria of independence was short-lived. The dream of transforming Eritrea into a prosperous liberal democracy did not appeal to Isaias. He wanted his country to resemble not Singapore, but Sparta. He rejected the democratic constitution drafted by the pre-eminent Eritrean jurist Bereket Habte Selassie and ruled Eritrea with an iron fist.

In no time, he turned Eritrea into a garrison state. He transformed Eritrean institutions and society at large into tools to fulfil his geo-political fantasies. Eritreans became unwilling pawns in the president’s many military schemes, with no space left for their personal dreams and aspirations.

Isaias ruthlessly dealt with even his closest colleagues and allies who dared to suggest that Eritreans enjoy some basic liberties that people elsewhere in the world often take for granted.

In May 2001, 15 senior Eritrean officials, many of whom had been on the president’s side throughout the independence war, issued an open letter urging him to reconsider his autocratic mode of governance and hold free and fair elections. At the time, three of the 15 officials were living abroad, and one eventually changed his position and rejoined the Isaias government. The remaining 11, however, were swiftly arrested on unspecified charges. More than 20 years later, the fates of these 11 men are still unknown. No one knows for sure if they are alive or dead. No legal or religious counsel or family member has been granted access to them. There have been no charges, no trials, no conviction and no sentence.

Though these senior officials are among the most prominent in Eritrea to be meted such treatment, their fate is hardly unique. Anyone in Eritrea who dares to question the great wisdom of the infallible President Isaias meets the same fate.

In the nightmarish gulag state that President Isaias created, no one is free to study, work, worship, run a business or engage in any other normal activities. There is a mandatory and indefinite military service which keeps every Eritrean citizen in servitude to the supreme leader for their entire lives.

While everyone in Eritrea suffers from Isaias’s institutionalised tyranny, religious and ethnic minorities suffer the most. Religious persecution in the country is so extreme that in 2004 the US Department of State designated Eritrea as a “country of particular concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. There is also significant ethnic persecution in Isaias’s Eritrea. In a May 2023 report, for example, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker, underlined the harsh conditions faced by the Afar community who inhabit the Dankalia area of the country. Babiker wrote: “The Afar are one of the most disenfranchised communities in Eritrea. For several decades, they have been subjected to discrimination, harassment, arbitrary arrests, disappearance, violence, and widespread persecution. ”

In the end, Paul Henze’s insight about the fundamentally autocratic personality of Isaias proved not only right, but also an understatement. The oppression and violence of Isaias’s rule in the past three decades matched and at times surpassed that of Mengitsu.

Regrettably, the world rarely acknowledges the plight of Eritreans, who are forced to live their lives as unwilling servants and soldiers of their authoritarian president. The toll of Isais’s endless war schemes on Eritreans is still rarely mentioned in discussions about the region.

Eritrea under Isaias is a country always on a war footing. Right now, it is not only agitating against Ethiopia, but also actively involved in the civil war in Sudan. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a period in Eritrea’s post-independence history that it was not at war with one of its neighbours, or involved in some regional conflict or civil war. War is the modus vivendi of President Isaias.

The world is now paying some attention to Eritrea, because of the looming risk of conflict with Ethiopia. But even if conflict between the two neighbours is somehow prevented, the misery of Eritreans stuck in Isaias’s garrison state will continue. Forgotten and left to their own devices, Eritreans will continue to suffer in a brutal dictatorship where the individual is seen just as fodder for the mighty Eritrean Defence Forces. This must not be allowed to continue. The world must not avert its gaze and forget about the plight of Eritreans once their country is no longer mentioned in the news. The world needs to act before more Eritreans lose their lives and dreams fighting in Isaias’s forever wars.

Gaza’s small Christian community is mourning the death of Pope Francis, who had maintained close and consistent video contact with the Palestinian devotees throughout the war that continues to devastate the enclave.

Since the outbreak of fighting between Israel and Hamas in October 2023, Francis had regularly called Gaza’s Christians, often several times a week, offering prayers, encouragement and solidarity.

“I always waited to hear the words of the Holy Father. I would watch him on television, and through the screens. He gave us hope with his messages and prayers,” said Elias al-Sayegh, 49, from Zeitoun.

“We felt we were alive because of his prayers and blessings. Every day, he renewed our hope for an end to the war and the bloodshed. His prayers will remain with us for peace in the land of peace, Palestine. ”

“I wish I could take part in the prayers at the Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre,” he added, referring to ancient churches in Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem.

“With the pope’s passing, we in Gaza feel as though a light of love and peace has been extinguished,” said 67-year-old George Ayad from al-Sahaba.

“Though the Vatican is far away, his voice always reached our hearts – he never ceased calling for peace and justice.

New Delhi, India – The optics were warm: As United States Vice President JD Vance and his family visited Narendra Modi on Monday evening, the Indian prime minister showed them around his residence and gave each of the American leader’s three children a peacock feather.

But behind the smiles and hugs hovered the shadow of US President Donald Trump’s threat to impose major tariffs on Indian goods as a part of the trade war he has unleashed on the world since returning to office in January.

Vance’s four-day tour, which began on Monday, comes as the Modi government desperately tries to duck US tariffs. These “reciprocal” tariffs – including a 26 percent levy on Indian exports to the US – are currently on pause for 90 days, until July 8, for all countries except China. India, like all other countries, however, is currently being tariffed at 10 percent.

The US is India’s largest trading partner and the biggest buyer of its exports. Officials from the two countries have been engaged in intense negotiations to lock down a bilateral trade agreement that would allow them to avoid a tariff battle.

But those negotiations have prompted concerns among Indian farmers: The country has long used tariffs to shield agriculture from being swamped by products from other countries. Now, farmers critical of Modi fear that the Indian government may weaken those protections as part of a trade deal with Trump.

As Vance prepared to vacation with his family at India’s famed Taj Mahal and historic forts, dozens of farmers protesting in several villages across India burned his effigies on Monday and raised slogans: “Go back, Vance. India is not for sale! ”

So, what is at stake on Vance’s maiden visit to India? How much do India and the US need each other economically? How much do they tariff each other? And what are the political challenges Modi faces in negotiating a trade deal?

What did Modi and Vance talk about?

On Monday evening, Modi received Vance along with his wife, Usha Vance, whose parents are from India, and their three children at his residence, where the leaders also separately held talks. They “reviewed and positively assessed the progress in various areas of bilateral cooperation,” Modi’s office said in a statement late at night.

The leaders “welcomed the significant progress in the negotiations for a mutually beneficial” bilateral trade agreement, the statement added, noting “continued efforts towards enhancing cooperation in energy, defence, strategic technologies and other areas”.

However, the statements did not delve into the details of the ongoing closed-door trade negotiations.

Vance’s office said in a statement that a bilateral trade agreement presents an opportunity to negotiate a new and modern one focused on promoting job creation and citizen wellbeing in both countries.

The US vice president’s visit builds on early engagement between the two governments in Trump’s second term. Modi was among the earliest leaders to meet Trump in Washington, DC in February, and Trump is expected to visit India later this year for a summit of the Quad grouping, which consists of the US, India, Japan and Australia, and is widely seen as a counter to China’s influence in the Asia Pacific region.

Randhir Jaiswal, India’s Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson, said Monday that Vance’s visit would “further deepen the India-US comprehensive global strategic partnership”.

What’s Vance’s visit really about?

While India views the US as a critical strategic partner as New Delhi increasingly battles Beijing’s clout in the Indian Ocean region, Washington, too, sees the world’s largest democracy as a counterbalance to China.

But Trump’s tariff threats have perturbed that broader convergence of interests.

During Vance’s visit, India’s efforts will be focused on expediting trade negotiations with the US, said Anil Trigunayat, a former Indian diplomat who has served in the US, “so that there is minimal damage to ongoing trade, as the US is India’s biggest trading partner”.

Yet some critics worry that the Modi government’s bet on the PM’s bonhomie with Trump – they have both described each other as friends – to resolve tariff tensions might be misplaced. Unlike China, the European Union or Canada, India has avoided responding to Trump’s threats with its own countermeasures.

“The Indian side has not shown any strength or resilience. All of the public indications have shown that they have been extremely pliable and trying to please the US government,” said Jayati Ghosh, economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“The US is essentially using bullying tactics to try and extract as many concessions as possible,” Ghosh told Al Jazeera. “It is very bad for India’s security and economy – and it is unacceptable. ”

How much do India and the US trade with each other?

For several years, the US and China have competed for the tag of India’s largest trading partner.

In 2024, the US pipped China to the top slot: India-US bilateral trade was worth $129. 2bn, per US government trade data. India-China trade was worth $127. 7bn.

But trade with China primarily comprises of India importing from its larger neighbour – India imported more than $110bn worth from China and exported less than $15bn in 2024.

By contrast, India’s balance of trade is very favourable with the US, and the countries are eyeing an ambitious target of expanding their bilateral trade to $500bn by 2030.

Last year, US exports to India amounted to $41. 8bn. While oils and fuels maintain a nearly 30 percent share with almost $13bn, they are followed by precious pearls and stones, amounting to $5. 16bn. India also imports parts of nuclear reactors, electrical machinery and equipment, and medical instruments from the US.

The US, meanwhile, is India’s biggest export market. Indian exports to the US totalled $87. 4bn in 2024. Pearls, electrical machinery, and pharmaceutical products lead India’s export products.

India also exports organic chemicals, textile articles, steel and apparel to the US.

The US trade deficit with India stands at $45. 7bn in 2024, in New Delhi’s favour. That is small compared with the US trade deficit with China – $295bn last year. Still, India ranks 10th among countries that the US has the largest trade deficits with.

What has Trump accused India of?

As Trump has engaged in an all-out trade war with China, the US president has also railed repeatedly against India, describing it as a “tariff abuser” and “tariff king”. Trump insists that many countries – including China and India – have cheated the US, gaming globalisation to sell the US much more than they buy from it and using tariffs to achieve this goal.

In a joint news conference during Modi’s Washington visit in February, Trump noted that India has “been very strong on tariffs”. “It’s very hard to sell into India because they have trade barriers, very strong tariffs,” he said.

He repeated that allegation in public, at least three times, in March. “India charges us massive tariffs, massive, you can’t even sell anything into India. It’s almost, it’s almost restrictive. It is restrictive. We do very little business inside,” Trump said.

He did, however, concede that the Indian government was accommodating some of his concerns.

“They’ve agreed, by the way, they want to cut their tariffs way down now because somebody’s finally exposing them for what they’ve done,” Trump said.

How high are India’s tariffs on US goods?

Indeed, as Trump said, India has already offered some concessions to the US in recent weeks, slashing tariffs on luxury goods like bourbon – down from 150 to 100 percent – and high-end motorcycle brands like Harley Davidson – from 50 to 40 percent.

But even with those cuts, current tariff rates remain very high – and much higher than the tariffs that Indian goods face in the US.

While bourbon has received some relief, all other imported alcohol is still tariffed at 150 percent. The duty on premium cars and motorcycles can go up to 125 percent, and agricultural products like walnuts face a 100 percent tariff.

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 (ICRIER).

“The most striking difference is in the agriculture sector, where India’s tariffs are notably higher,” ICRIER said in the February report.

The simple average tariff rate that India imposes on agricultural imports is 39 percent, according to ICRIER – pointing to the country’s protectionist policies. By contrast, the Indian think tank found, “the US maintains relatively low agricultural tariffs. ” The simple average tariff rate that the US charges on agricultural imports is 4 percent.

The gulf is wide in other sectors, too.

US pharmaceutical exports to India face a 10. 9 percent tariff. By contrast, Indian pharma products face a tiny 0. 01 percent tariff while entering the US.

US electronics exports to India are taxed at 7. 64 percent, while Indian electronics exports to the US face a mere 0. 41 percent tariff. ​

How are India-US tariff negotiations shaping up?

So far, the early tariff cuts on bourbon and high-end motorbikes have helped India signal to the US that it is open to negotiations on lifting levies further.

Now, talks are on, and on Monday, Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said a first phase of a trade deal with the US could be ready by the end of the year.

But it is unclear if that timeline will work for Trump, whose 90-day respite ends in July. Trump’s coercive approach, said trade economist Biswajit Dhar, is not conducive to diplomacy.

“Trump doesn’t want rules in trade,” said Dhar, describing the US president’s approach as “laws of the jungle”.

“India has to ensure that it’s a win-win situation. We cannot have Trump have his say,” he said.

Trigunayat, the retired diplomat who has participated in several multi-national trade treaties, said it was important for the Modi government to be transparent, during negotiations, about its political limitations.

“It is very important to put your cards on the table and explain your domestic situation,” he said. “On an international level, we start with a maximalist position. And then they come somewhere in between. ”

“But we always must safeguard our citizens’ needs. ”

And nowhere is that conundrum sharper than in agriculture.

Can India slash agriculture tariffs?

In the last five decades, India has transitioned from a food-deficit nation to a food-surplus one and has become a leading exporter of agricultural products. For instance, India accounts for 40 percent of global rice exports.

But India has kept tariffs high to safeguard its farmers from imports that might otherwise flood domestic markets – nearly half of India’s population is dependent on farming or the agricultural sector.

India also exports shrimp, vegetable extracts, castor oil, and black pepper; in turn, the US sends walnuts, apples, almonds, and pistachios.

Now, the US wants to balance that equation and has pressured India to reduce tariffs so that its farm products can enter the world’s most populous nation more easily.

That prospect has many Indian farmers on edge.

“We are completely kept in the dark about these trade negotiations – there is no transparency; and in a federal setup like India, how can the government function like this? ” said Vijoo Krishnan, general secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), India’s oldest farmers’ union that is leading the protests against Vance’s visit. The AIKS is the farmers’ wing of the Communist Party of India, which is part of the national opposition.

“The Modi government has been sliding in a direction of free trade and slashing import duties – and if it includes the farming sector, then we are doomed,” he said, arguing that an Indian farmer would not be able to compete with Western counterparts, who are “much richer”.

Indian farmers have already once shown their political might to Modi: Huge protests forced the prime minister to withdraw three controversial farm laws in 2021.

“The protests and rolling back the laws were a humiliating defeat for the Modi government – they are taking revenge on the farmers by pushing them under the bus now [through a trade deal with Trump],” claimed Krishnan.

Any tariff waivers on agricultural imports would need to be weighed against the risks they might pose to the livelihood of millions of Indian farmers, cautioned Dhar, the trade economist.

“If we bow to the US demands in negotiations, it is going to create a whole lot of economic,  social and political problems for the government,” Dhar said. “They cannot really afford to risk the lives of millions of Indians. ”