Category World News

On July 9, United States President Donald Trump opened a three-day mini summit at the White House with the leaders of Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal – by subjecting his distinguished guests to a carefully staged public humiliation.

This was not the plan – or at least, not the part the public was meant to see.

A White House official claimed on July 3 that “President Trump believes that African countries offer incredible commercial opportunities which benefit both the American people and our African partners.”

Whether by coincidence or calculated design, the meeting took place on the same day the Trump administration escalated its trade war, slapping new tariffs on eight countries, including the North African nations of Libya and Algeria. It was a telling contrast: Even as Trump claimed to be “strengthening ties with Africa”, his administration was penalising African nations. The optics revealed the incoherence – or perhaps the honesty – of Trump’s Africa policy, where partnership is conditional and often indistinguishable from punishment.

Trump opened the summit with a four-minute speech in which he claimed the five invited leaders were representing the entire African continent. Never mind that their countries barely register in US-Africa trade figures; what mattered was the gold, oil, and minerals buried beneath their soil. He thanked “these great leaders… all from very vibrant places with very valuable land, great minerals, great oil deposits, and wonderful people”.

He then announced that the US was “shifting from AID to trade” because “this will be far more effective and sustainable and beneficial than anything else that we could be doing together.”

At that moment, the illusion of diplomacy collapsed, and the true nature of the meeting was revealed. Trump shifted from statesman to showman, no longer merely hosting but asserting control. The summit quickly descended into a cringe-inducing display, where Africa was presented not as a continent of sovereign nations but as a rich expanse of resources, fronted by compliant leaders performing for the cameras. This was not a dialogue but a display of domination: A stage-managed production in which Trump scripted the scene and African heads of state were cast in subordinate roles.

Trump was in his element, orchestrating the event like a puppet master, directing each African guest to play his part and respond favourably. He “invited” (in effect, instructed) them to make “a few comments to the media” in what became a choreographed show of deference.

President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani of Mauritania led the way, both physically and symbolically, by praising Trump’s “commitment” to Africa. The claim was as misleading as it was surreal, given Washington’s recent aid cuts, punitive tariffs, and tightened visa restrictions on African nations.

In one especially embarrassing moment, Ghazouani described Trump as the world’s top peacemaker – crediting him, among other things, with stopping “the war between Iran and Israel”. This praise came with no mention of the US’s continued military and diplomatic support for Israel’s war on Gaza, which the African Union has firmly condemned. The silence amounted to complicity, a calculated erasure of Palestinian suffering for the sake of American favour.

Perhaps mindful of the tariffs looming over his own country, Ghazouani, who served as AU Chair in 2024, slipped into the role of a willing supplicant. He all but invited Trump to exploit Mauritania’s rare minerals, praised him and declared him a peacemaker while ignoring the massacres of tens of thousands of innocents in Gaza made possible by the very weapons Trump provides.

This tone would define the entire sit-down. One by one, the African leaders offered Trump glowing praise and access to their countries’ natural resources – a disturbing reminder of how easily power can script compliance.

Senegal’s President Bassirou Diomaye Faye even asked Trump to build a golf course in his country. Trump declined, opting instead to compliment Faye’s youthful appearance. Gabon’s President Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema talked of “win-win partnerships” with the US, but received only a lukewarm response.

What did capture Trump’s attention was the English fluency of Liberia’s President Joseph Boakai. Ignoring the content of Boakai’s remarks, Trump marvelled at his “beautiful” English and asked, “Where did you learn to speak so beautifully? Where were you educated? Where? In Liberia?”

That Trump seemed unaware English is Liberia’s official language, and has been since its founding in 1822 as a haven for freed American slaves, was perhaps less shocking than the colonial tone of his question. His astonishment that an African president could speak English well betrayed a deeply racist, imperial mindset.

It was not an isolated slip. At a White House peace ceremony on June 29 involving the DRC and Rwanda, Trump publicly commented on the appearance of Angolan journalist and White House correspondent Hariana Veras, telling her, “You are beautiful – and you are beautiful inside.”

Whether or not Veras is “beautiful” is entirely beside the point. Trump’s behaviour was inappropriate and unprofessional, reducing a respected journalist to her looks in the middle of a diplomatic milestone. The sexualisation of Black women – treating them as vessels of white male desire rather than intellectual equals – was central to both the transatlantic slave trade and European colonisation. Trump’s comment extended that legacy into the present.

Likewise, his surprise at Boakai’s English fits a long imperial pattern. Africans who “master” the coloniser’s language are often seen not as complex, multilingual intellectuals, but as subordinates who’ve absorbed the dominant culture. They are rewarded for proximity to whiteness, not for intellect or independence.

Trump’s remarks revealed his belief that articulate and visually appealing Africans are an anomaly, a novelty deserving momentary admiration. By reducing both Boakai and Veras to aesthetic curiosities, he erased their agency, dismissed their achievements, and gratified his colonial ego.

More than anything, Trump’s comments on Boakai reflected his deeper indifference to Africa. They stripped away any illusion that this summit was about genuine partnership.

Contrast this with the US-Africa Leaders Summit held by President Joe Biden in December 2022. That event welcomed more than 40 African heads of state, as well as the African Union, civil society, and private sector leaders. It prioritised peer-to-peer dialogue and the AU’s Agenda 2063 – a far cry from Trump’s choreographed spectacle.

How the Trump administration concluded that five men could represent the entire continent remains baffling, unless, of course, this wasn’t about representation at all, but control. Trump didn’t want engagement; he wanted performance. And sadly, his guests obliged.

In contrast to the tightly managed meeting Trump held with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on July 8, the lunch with African leaders resembled a chaotic, tone-deaf sideshow.

Faye was especially disappointing. He came to power on the back of an anti-imperialist platform, pledging to break with neocolonial politics and restore African dignity. Yet at the White House, he bent the knee to the most brazen imperialist of them all. Like the others, he failed to challenge Trump, to assert equality, or to defend the sovereignty he so publicly champions at home.

In a moment when African leaders had the chance to push back against a resurgent colonial mindset, they instead bowed – giving Trump space to revive a 16th-century fantasy of Western mastery.

For this, he offered a reward: He might not impose new tariffs on their countries, he said, “because they are friends of mine now”.

Trump, the “master”, triumphed.

All the Africans had to do was bow at his feet.

In a provocative move that fuses foreign policy with ideological allegiance, United States President Donald Trump has threatened to impose a 50 percent tariff on all Brazilian exports, effective August 1, 2025. The announcement came in a letter posted on social media, in which Trump explicitly linked the proposed tariffs to two ongoing domestic issues in Brazil: the judicial proceedings against far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro – whom Trump described as the victim of a political “witch-hunt” – and recent rulings by the Brazilian Supreme Court against US-based social media companies, including former Trump ally Elon Musk’s X. By doing so, Trump has escalated a trade dispute into a direct attempt to influence Brazil’s internal affairs – using economic pressure to serve political ends and undermining the country’s sovereignty in the process.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva responded swiftly and unequivocally: “Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions and will not accept any form of tutelage,” he declared, adding that Brazil’s judiciary is autonomous and not subject to interference or threat. Under Brazilian law, digital platforms are obligated to monitor and remove content that incites violence or undermines democratic institutions, and they may be held legally accountable when they fail to do so.

While a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian exports might appear economically devastating, it could in fact become a strategic turning point – and even a blessing in disguise. Brazil has both the resilience and the diplomatic tools to weather this storm and emerge stronger.

The United States is one of Brazil’s largest trading partners, typically ranking second after China – or third if the European Union is considered as a single bloc. Brazilian exports to the US include industrial goods such as Embraer aircraft, iron and steel, crude oil, coffee and semiprecious stones, alongside agricultural products like beef, orange juice, eggs and tobacco. In return, Brazil imports large quantities of US-manufactured goods, including machinery, electronics, medical equipment, chemicals and refined petroleum. Notably, the US has maintained a trade surplus with Brazil for the past five years.

Should Washington proceed with the 50 percent tariffs, Brasília has several retaliatory options under its Economic Reciprocity Law. These include raising import tariffs on US goods, suspending clauses in bilateral trade agreements, and – in exceptional cases such as this – withholding recognition of US patents or suspending royalty payments to American companies. The impact on US consumers could be immediate and tangible, with breakfast staples like coffee, eggs and orange juice spiking in price.

Brazil is not without friends or alternatives. The country has already been deepening ties with fellow BRICS members (China, India, Russia, South Africa) and newer partners in the bloc. This dispute only strengthens the case for accelerating such integration. Diversifying export markets and embracing South-South cooperation isn’t just ideological; it’s economically pragmatic.

Closer to home, the tension presents an opportunity to reinvigorate South American integration. The long-held regional dream of enhanced collaboration – from trade to infrastructure – could gain new momentum as Brazil reassesses its global alignments. This realignment could breathe life into stalled Mercosur bloc initiatives and reduce dependence on an increasingly erratic relationship with the US.

Ironically, Trump’s aggressive move may weaken his ideological allies in Brazil. While Bolsonaro supporters (including members of his family) have praised the US president’s intervention, they may be missing its broader political consequences. Trump’s past influence abroad has often backfired, with right-wing candidates in countries like Canada and Australia paying the price. A similar outcome in Brazil is not unthinkable. Lula, who has consistently positioned himself as a pragmatic, diplomatic and stabilising global figure, may gain political ground from this latest episode. His defence of sovereignty, democratic institutions and balanced international relations could resonate more deeply with Brazilian voters ahead of next year’s elections.

This moment need not be seen as a crisis. Rather, it presents a pivotal opportunity for Brazil to assert itself as a sovereign economic power – less reliant on Washington and more engaged with an emerging multipolar global order. If Lula navigates it wisely, Trump’s latest provocation may deliver not only a diplomatic win but a significant boost to his re-election prospects. In attempting to punish Brazil, Trump may well have undercut both his foreign policy ambitions and his ideological allies abroad.

Qastal Maaf, Latakia, Syria – Abu Jameel Muhammed’s weathered hands, blackened by soot and ash, trembled as he patted the scorched earth around what remained of his beloved olive tree. At 80, the Syrian elder had survived a brutal civil war, economic collapse, and international sanctions – but the sight of his charred courtyard companion reduced him to tears.

“Villagers rescued me as flames approached my home … I survived, but my only daughter on this land was consumed by fire. It was the last thing left for me here,” Abu Jameel said haltingly, his voice breaking as he referred to the cherished tree that had graced his small home in the Qastal Maaf area of Syria’s coastal Latakia province for decades.

The elderly man lives alone in what has become the epicentre of wildfires that have ravaged Latakia for more than a week, surviving on money sent by daughters who married and moved abroad – a common story in a country where economic devastation has forced millions to seek opportunities elsewhere.

“My home was the smallest but sweetest in the village… I surrounded it with rose bushes and had one precious olive tree in the courtyard. Now all is gone,” he told Al Jazeera, after the blaze consumed much of his village and forced thousands into displacement.

The scene around Abu Jameel’s destroyed home reflects a broader catastrophe unfolding across Syria’s Mediterranean coast. Wildfires have consumed more than 14,000 hectares (34,600 acres) of land over the past week, according to Syria’s Minister of Emergency and Disaster Management, Raed al-Saleh, who spoke to Al Jazeera by phone from the front lines.

A landscape transformed by fire

The steep, narrow roads leading to villages in Latakia’s highlands are covered in layers of black mud and ash, making access treacherous for emergency vehicles fighting the wildfires, which have continued despite the best efforts of the Syrian Civil Defense.

The air is thick with acrid smoke that burns the throat and stings the eyes, while the once-green mountainsides have been transformed into a moonscape of charred earth and skeletal tree remains.

Civil Defense volunteer Muhammed Baradei, 32, emerged from a cordoned-off area in Qastal Maaf during a rare break from battling the flames.

His uniform was stained black by ash and humidity, and beads of sweat mixed with the soot covering his forehead and forearms.

“I cancelled my leave when fires started near Latakia. I came from Idlib province to help,” Baradei said, describing a roughly 100km (62-mile) journey that would have been unthinkable during Syria’s civil war, as it meant crossing the line between the regime of former President Bashar al-Assad and the opposition.

“We faced unexploded ordnance from past conflicts, steep terrain and shifting winds. Crews from multiple provinces contained many hot spots, but new fires kept igniting.”

The inferno, which broke out on July 2, has been fuelled by high temperatures reaching about 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit) and strong, dry winds characteristic of Mediterranean summers.

But this year’s fires carry particular significance for Syria, marking the first major natural disaster response since the fall of longtime dictator al-Assad, and the regime his father established more than 50 years ago, in December.

Landmines ignite fires

Beyond the immediate challenges posed by steep terrain and unpredictable winds, firefighting teams face a uniquely Syrian hazard: the deadly legacy of more than a decade of conflict.

“One of our greatest challenges was encountering unexploded ordnance and remnants of war,” said Wesam Zeidan, 29, a Civil Defense volunteer who drove from Hama province, far to the southeast of Latakia, to join the firefighting efforts. “These posed grave risks, forcing us to work with extreme caution and delaying access to affected zones.”

According to the United Nations, Syria remains one of the world’s most contaminated countries in terms of explosive remnants of war, with an estimated 11.5 million people living in areas affected by explosive hazards.

The UN also estimates that there are 300,000 landmines still spread across Syria, ready to be ignited by people unknowingly setting them off. Just between December and June, 369 people were killed as a result of what the UN terms “explosive ordnance-related accidents”, including landmines and other explosive devices left behind by the war.

These explosives can also be set off by fires raging in their vicinity. The hidden dangers, scattered across the landscape during years of fighting, now complicate every aspect of the firefighting response.

Minister al-Saleh, who joined teams on the front lines, described the scale of damage to Syria’s forests as “heart-wrenching”. According to a statement from the Ministry of Emergency and Disaster Management, at least 12 people have been injured in the firefighting efforts: 10 volunteers suffered severe exhaustion, respiratory distress, fractures or contusions, while two civilians sustained minor burns.

“During my field visits, I saw tremendous efforts to save Syria’s forests. Yet challenges grow with intense winds and buried landmines,” al-Saleh stated, highlighting the intersection of natural disaster and conflict legacy that defines much of Syria’s contemporary challenges.

Years of mounting fire risk

Syria has grappled with increasingly severe annual wildfires that have stretched the country’s sanctions-hit resources thin even as they were already strained by more than a decade of conflict.

The 2020 fires were the worst ever recorded in Syria’s history, consuming tens of thousands of hectares across multiple provinces.

This past experience, Baradei noted, drove villagers to evacuate promptly as flames approached their homes. “This significantly lowered the possibility of casualties,” he said. However, the dispersed nature of small, sometimes unofficial settlements scattered throughout the highlands has hampered firefighting efforts, he explained.

Zeidan said dense forests and a lack of firebreaks have worsened the spread. The absence of firebreaks – vegetation-free zones intentionally created within forests to block wildfire spread and provide safety areas for ground crews – has been attributed to years of governmental neglect.

“No sooner do we extinguish one fire than another ignites. Due to the dry season, unprecedented heatwaves and intense wind speeds, new hot spots keep erupting,” Zeidan said, his exhaustion evident after days of round-the-clock firefighting.

Wind speeds increased dramatically on the second day of the fires, prompting multiple Syria Civil Defense centres and firefighting units from several provinces to mobilise. While they initially controlled numerous hot spots, flames had spread to new areas by the following morning, creating a cycle of containment and reignition that has defined the past week.

‘Now the situation is different’

The change in Syria’s political landscape has fundamentally altered the firefighting response, according to volunteers and officials. During the 2011-2024 civil war, residents from opposition-controlled areas couldn’t enter government-held provinces due to security concerns and military checkpoints.

“Before the Assad regime was toppled, we couldn’t visit these forests. We didn’t care that much when we saw similar news of fires in past summers,” Baradei explained. “But now the situation is different. We are here and we have to do something.”

This newfound unity has mobilised firefighting teams from across Syria’s Civil Defense and Forestry Department. Syrian, Turkish, Jordanian and Lebanese aircraft hover above the blazes, providing aerial support for containment operations – a level of cooperation that would have been impossible under the previous government’s international isolation.

Despite the threats posed by buried landmines and unexploded ordnance scattered across the landscape from years of conflict, Baradei said morale among Civil Defense teams remains high. “We are acutely aware of how dangerous these wildfires are for Syria,” he said. “These forests are part of our shared heritage. This is precisely what drives us … because we all belong to this land.”

Lawyers for victims of human rights abuses committed during Peru’s decades-long armed conflict have pledged to appeal to international bodies to overturn a law passed by the country’s Congress, which would grant amnesty to prosecuted military and police members, as well as other forces.

“We’re not only going to the domestic arena to seek its invalidation, but we’ve already taken some action at the international level,” lawyer Gloria Cano, director of the Pro Human Rights Association, said during a news conference on Thursday.

A congressional commission on Wednesday approved the bill granting amnesty to members of the armed forces, national police and local self-defence committees, said legislator Alejandro Cavero, third vice president of the country’s Congress.

Cano also said her association had already alerted the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and planned to go to the United Nations, as well.

After the Peruvian Congress passed the bill, Volker Turk, the UN’s national human rights coordinator, said on X that “impunity does not hide the crime, it magnifies it.”

Amnesty International earlier urged the legislature to side with victims and reject the bill. “The right to justice of thousands of victims of extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, torture, and sexual violence would be violated,” the rights group said on X.

A coalition of human rights organisations in Peru said the new law could wipe out 156 convictions and another 600 cases that are being prosecuted.

The law, which awaits President Dina Boluarte’s approval, benefits uniformed personnel who were accused, are still being investigated or are being tried for crimes stemming from their participation in the country’s armed conflict from 1980 to 2000 against left-wing rebels. Boluarte has not made any comment on the amnesty, even before its passage.

The bill was presented by Congressman Fernando Rospigliosi, from the right-wing Popular Force party of Keiko Fujimori, daughter of the late former leader Alberto Fujimori.

Fujimori’s decade as president from 1990 was marked by ruthless governance.

He was jailed for atrocities – including the massacre of civilians by the army – but released from prison in 2023 on humanitarian grounds.

The new law specifies that a humanitarian amnesty will be granted to people more than 70 years old who have been sentenced or served a prison sentence.

Critics have warned that the legislation would hinder the search for truth about the period of violent conflict, which pitted state forces against Shining Path and Tupac Amaru rebels, and killed about 70,000 people.

“Granting amnesty to military and police officers cannot be a reason for impunity,” Congressman Alex Flores of the Socialist Party said during debate on the bill.

There have been numerous attempts in recent years to shield the military and police from prosecution in Peru for crimes committed during the conflict – but opponents of amnesty have found success before at international bodies.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has at least twice previously declared amnesty laws in Peru invalid for violating the right to justice and breaching international human rights standards.

Human rights advocates believe that Peru’s membership of the Inter-American System of Human Rights and the obligations this entails make the amnesty law unconstitutional.

Amnesty laws passed in 1995 in Peru shielded military and police personnel from prosecution for human rights abuses committed during the conflict, including massacres, torture, and forced disappearances.

Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that the majority of the conflict’s victims were Indigenous Peruvians caught between security forces and the Shining Path. It also found that there are more than 4,000 clandestine graves across the country as a result of the two decades of political violence.

In August 2024, Peru adopted a statute of limitations for crimes against humanity committed before 2002, shutting down hundreds of investigations into alleged crimes committed during the conflict.