Rights groups, lawyers, and politicians demand action as 82 disappearances since June spark allegations of a secret security unit targeting dissenters.

Kenya is facing a rising wave of public anger over a spate of abductions targeting government critics, with rights groups, lawyers, and politicians accusing security forces of involvement in the disappearances. Since youth-led protests against President William Ruto’s administration erupted earlier this year, the reported abductions have highlighted the government’s alleged crackdown on dissent.

The Disappearances

The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) has documented 82 abductions since June, with 29 individuals still missing. Among the recent cases are Billy Mwangi and Peter Muteti, both taken after sharing controversial AI-generated images of President Ruto. These incidents have intensified accusations that the government is targeting critics, particularly young people, who voice opposition online.

Security agencies have denied involvement, but their lack of visible action has drawn sharp criticism. Activists and legal bodies, including the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), argue that police inaction raises serious concerns about complicity or negligence. The LSK has called on the inspector-general of police to investigate and prosecute those responsible or resign.

Allegations of a Secret Unit

Reports from Human Rights Watch and statements from former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua point to the existence of a clandestine security unit allegedly responsible for these abductions. Gachagua, who has become an outspoken critic of Ruto’s administration, described the disappearances as unprecedented and condemned the targeting of young people as “repression.”

Human Rights Watch has previously implicated a multi-agency security unit in such operations, raising questions about accountability within Kenya’s security forces.

Judiciary and Civil Society Response

The Kenyan judiciary has weighed in, denouncing the abductions as a violation of fundamental rights. In a statement posted on X, it urged security agencies to uphold the rule of law and safeguard citizens’ freedoms. Civil society organizations and protestors have echoed these calls, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability.

Political and Social Backdrop

The disappearances come amid a broader climate of dissatisfaction with Ruto’s administration. Protests earlier this year over proposed tax hikes highlighted widespread frustration with rising living costs and allegations of police brutality. While large-scale demonstrations have subsided, simmering discontent continues to fuel public anger against the government.

The administration’s alleged targeting of youth, who have been vocal in their criticism, risks exacerbating tensions. Actions perceived as silencing dissent could undermine public trust and escalate unrest.

Conclusion

The surge in abductions has cast a shadow over Kenya’s democratic credentials, with critics accusing the government of using fear and repression to stifle opposition. As pressure mounts from rights groups, the judiciary, and international observers, the government must address these allegations transparently to restore public confidence.

Without swift and decisive action, the crisis risks deepening, eroding Kenya’s stability and international standing. The coming weeks will be pivotal in determining whether the government can navigate these challenges while safeguarding citizens’ rights and freedoms.

Senior Taliban leader confirms refuge for TTP militants, escalating cross-border tensions with Pakistan after deadly airstrikes in Afghanistan.

The Taliban’s acknowledgment of hosting Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants on Afghan soil marks a significant shift in the group’s public stance and escalates tensions with neighboring Pakistan. The admission came after reported Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province, which targeted TTP hideouts and allegedly killed both militants and dozens of civilians.

This development highlights the growing challenge of cross-border militancy in the region and underscores the complexity of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations under Taliban rule.

Taliban Information Minister Khairullah Khairkhwa’s remarks described the TTP as “guests” in Afghanistan, citing traditional Afghan values of hospitality. While the Taliban leadership had previously denied harboring foreign militants, this public acknowledgment signals a shift in rhetoric and reinforces suspicions about the group’s complicity in providing safe havens for anti-Pakistan militants.

Khairkhwa’s fiery statements also warned Pakistan against military actions on Afghan soil, invoking the historical failures of foreign powers in Afghanistan, including Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States.

The TTP has intensified its insurgency in Pakistan since the Taliban regained power in Kabul in 2021. Designated as a global terrorist organization by the United Nations, the TTP has carried out numerous attacks in Pakistan, killing hundreds of civilians and security personnel.

Pakistan’s recent airstrikes in Paktika province, while unacknowledged officially, were reportedly aimed at dismantling TTP hideouts. However, allegations of civilian casualties have drawn condemnation from the Taliban and international organizations, further straining relations between the two countries.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has called the TTP’s presence in Afghanistan a “red line” for Pakistan, urging the Taliban government to curtail the group’s operations. While Sharif expressed readiness to engage in dialogue with Afghanistan, he emphasized that progress hinges on Taliban action against TTP militants.

The Taliban’s justification for sheltering the TTP echoes its past defense of hosting Osama bin Laden, citing traditional hospitality norms. This pattern of shielding transnational militants has long complicated Afghanistan’s relationships with neighboring and global powers.

The TTP, like the Taliban during their insurgency, has leveraged cross-border sanctuaries to sustain its operations, exploiting the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This dynamic mirrors the challenges faced by the U.S. and its allies during their two-decade military campaign in Afghanistan.

The Taliban’s tacit support for the TTP undermines their pledge to combat transnational militant networks. It also raises questions about their commitment to preventing Afghanistan from becoming a launchpad for regional and global terrorism.

A recent U.S. terrorism report highlighted the resurgence of militant networks in Afghanistan, emphasizing the risks posed by the TTP and other groups operating from Afghan territory. This resurgence not only threatens regional stability but also undermines international confidence in the Taliban’s counterterrorism efforts.

The Taliban’s acknowledgment of harboring anti-Pakistan militants reflects a deepening crisis in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. While the Taliban invoke cultural traditions to justify their actions, the implications for regional security are severe.

As cross-border tensions escalate, the international community faces the challenge of addressing Afghanistan’s role as a sanctuary for militant groups while balancing humanitarian and geopolitical concerns. For Pakistan, the TTP’s continued presence in Afghanistan is not just a diplomatic concern but an existential threat that demands immediate and coordinated action.

As Beijing escalates military activities, Taipei seeks clarity on U.S. policy under Trump while bolstering defenses against mounting threats.

Taiwan finds itself at a critical juncture as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House. Amid Beijing’s increasing military aggression and gray zone tactics, Taipei faces uncertainty about how Trump’s administration will handle U.S.-Taiwan relations, a cornerstone of stability in the region.

Donald Trump’s rhetoric on Taiwan during his campaign offered mixed signals, leaving policymakers in Taipei cautiously optimistic but concerned. While Trump praised Taiwan’s economic prowess, he controversially suggested that the island “pay for defense” and emphasized prioritizing U.S. interests. His pledge to impose heavy tariffs on China if it “goes into Taiwan” reflects a transactional approach to U.S.-Taiwan relations.

Trump’s return comes as Taiwan grows accustomed to more explicit support under Joe Biden, who repeatedly affirmed the U.S. commitment to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. Trump’s vague post-election remarks about his “good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping add to Taipei’s unease.

In recent weeks, Taiwan has ramped up diplomatic efforts with U.S. officials and Trump’s transition team to secure continuity in relations. President Lai Ching-te’s outreach to Republican congressional leaders and stopovers in Hawaii and Guam signal proactive engagement to build bipartisan support for Taiwan in Washington.

On the home front, Taiwan is strengthening its defenses against Beijing’s escalating military pressure. The island’s defense budget is set to reach a record $19.74 billion in 2025, funding initiatives like real-combat drills and a civil defense committee to counter China’s gray zone tactics.

Beijing has intensified its military pressure campaign on Taiwan, conducting two blockade-style exercises in 2024 and deploying the largest number of naval and coast guard vessels near Taiwan in decades. Gray zone operations, such as sending oversized coast guard ships to intimidate Taiwan’s outlying Kinmen and Matsu islands, complicate Taipei’s defense strategy.

These tactics aim to exhaust Taiwan’s resources and test its response capabilities while avoiding direct conflict. China’s Foreign Ministry has reiterated its resolve to “safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity,” signaling that Beijing’s pressure will persist regardless of Trump’s policies.

Taiwan’s future hinges on its ability to navigate the dual challenges of managing ties with the U.S. under Trump’s unpredictable leadership and countering Beijing’s aggression. While bipartisan support in Congress provides some reassurance, Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy could introduce uncertainties.

Taipei’s bolstered defense measures and diplomatic efforts reflect a pragmatic approach to mitigating risks. However, as China assesses Trump’s stance, its actions may escalate further, necessitating careful coordination between Taiwan and its international allies to preserve stability in the Indo-Pacific.

Taiwan stands at a pivotal moment as it balances rising threats from China with the uncertainties of U.S. policy under Trump. While proactive measures strengthen its defense and diplomatic ties, the island must remain vigilant and adaptive to maintain its security and sovereignty in an increasingly volatile region.

Moscow cautions Trump administration over possible resumption of nuclear tests, signaling heightened risks to global stability.

As arms control agreements between global powers erode, Russia has issued a stark warning to the United States about the potential resumption of nuclear testing under Donald Trump’s upcoming administration. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, Moscow’s lead on arms control, cautioned that such a move could usher in a perilous new chapter in nuclear weapons development, nearly eight decades after the first nuclear bomb test.

Resurgence of Nuclear Testing?

Ryabkov’s remarks reflect growing tensions between the U.S. and Russia, with both nations modernizing their nuclear arsenals amid the collapse of Cold War-era treaties. Trump’s previous stance on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) — which the U.S. has signed but not ratified — suggests a potential pivot toward renewed testing, a step that would mark a significant departure from global norms.

“The international situation is extremely difficult at the moment,” Ryabkov told Kommersant newspaper, emphasizing that U.S. policies are perceived as “extremely hostile.” Russia’s warning underscores its readiness to respond in kind, should the U.S. resume testing.

The resumption of nuclear testing by the U.S. or Russia could destabilize decades of arms control efforts. Such actions would not only intensify the arms race but could also embolden other nuclear powers like China to follow suit, further destabilizing global security.

With Russia, the U.S., and China already engaged in significant upgrades to their nuclear capabilities, renewed testing could exacerbate tensions and undermine fragile agreements aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation.

The Crumbling Arms Control Framework

The decline of Cold War-era treaties has left the global arms control framework in tatters:

The INF Treaty, which eliminated intermediate-range missiles, dissolved in 2019.

The New START Treaty, limiting strategic nuclear arsenals, faces an uncertain future as its 2026 expiration approaches.

Trump’s potential return to office could signal a further unraveling of these agreements, with a more unilateral approach to U.S. nuclear policy likely to provoke adversaries.

China’s rapid modernization of its nuclear arsenal complicates the global arms control landscape. While Beijing remains a far smaller nuclear power than the U.S. or Russia, its refusal to participate in multilateral arms control discussions adds another layer of uncertainty to an already volatile situation.

Ryabkov’s warning highlights the precarious state of global arms control as geopolitical tensions rise. A resumption of nuclear testing by the U.S. or Russia would represent a dangerous escalation, with implications far beyond bilateral relations.

As Trump’s administration considers its next steps, the world faces the prospect of a destabilized nuclear order, with heightened risks of proliferation, regional conflicts, and an accelerated arms race. The decisions made in Washington and Moscow in the coming months will determine whether the world moves closer to renewed nuclear brinkmanship or toward a renewed commitment to arms control.

IDF targets Houthi-controlled sites in Sanaa, Hodeidah, and other locations in its most extensive operation, with U.S. intelligence backing.

In its most expansive operation yet in Yemen, Israel’s Air Force carried out a series of precision airstrikes targeting Houthi-controlled infrastructure in Sanaa, Hodeidah, and surrounding areas. The strikes come amid rising tensions following multiple Houthi ballistic missile launches that recently targeted central Israel, intensifying the regional conflict.

The Operation: Scope and Impact

The operation involved 25 Israeli aircraft, including fighter jets, reconnaissance planes, and tankers. Key targets included:

Sanaa International Airport: Control towers, landing aids, and runways were destroyed to disrupt Iranian supply chains. Civilian aircraft used by Houthi leaders were also damaged.

Hodeidah Port: Strikes targeted oil facilities and critical infrastructure, likely to hinder the Houthis’ logistical capabilities.

Power Stations: The Haziz power station, critical to the Sanaa region, was severely damaged.

These strikes highlight Israel’s strategic intent to degrade the Houthis’ operational capacity and disrupt Iran’s influence in the region.

Israeli Leadership’s Message

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz, and top military officials observed the operation from the Air Force command center. Katz declared, “No Houthi leader will escape Israel’s reach,” emphasizing Israel’s resolve to counter threats. IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi added, “Our long-range strike capabilities ensure precision and power against any threat to Israel’s citizens.”

Casualties and Global Repercussions

Houthi-affiliated media reported three deaths and 16 injuries from the strikes. Notably, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was at Sanaa Airport during the attack. Ghebreyesus described the damage and confirmed injuries among his team.

While some criticized the strikes for affecting civilian infrastructure, Israeli officials defended the action as necessary. “If the Houthis don’t understand force, they’ll understand more force,” one senior official said, hinting at potential escalations.

U.S.-Israel Coordination

The operation underscores deepening U.S.-Israel military collaboration. Intelligence sharing played a pivotal role, with sources dubbing the strike a “Hanu-Christmas collaboration.” This coordination aligns with shared goals of curbing Iran’s influence and addressing the Houthi threat.

Context and Strategic Implications

The airstrikes follow a series of Houthi missile attacks on Israel, which caused damage in Tel Aviv and surrounding areas. The IDF’s decisive response demonstrates Israel’s capability to project power far beyond its borders, targeting Iranian-backed groups in the region.

Israel’s actions also send a message to Tehran: its proxy forces will face direct consequences. The strikes highlight Israel’s broader strategy of targeting Iranian supply lines and diminishing the operational capabilities of Tehran’s allies, including the Houthis.

Conclusion

Israel’s largest airstrike in Yemen marks a significant escalation in its campaign to counter Iran’s regional influence. The coordinated operation with U.S. intelligence underscores a united front against the growing threat posed by Houthi missile attacks and Iranian-backed forces.

As tensions rise, this operation signals Israel’s readiness to take decisive action while strengthening its strategic partnerships. The message is clear: any threat to Israel’s security will be met with unparalleled force.

Regional tensions and Houthi attacks in the Red Sea cause an $8 billion revenue loss for Egypt, compounding economic challenges.

Egypt’s economy faces mounting pressure as geopolitical instability in the Middle East continues to weigh on one of its most critical revenue sources—the Suez Canal. Pro-Iranian Houthi militias have launched repeated attacks on merchant vessels in the Red Sea, deterring maritime traffic and prompting some shippers to reroute via the Cape of Good Hope. This shift has caused Egypt to lose $8 billion in canal revenue over the past year, a substantial blow to its GDP.

The reduction in Suez Canal transits has had ripple effects across Egypt’s economy. Fitch Solutions recently revised Egypt’s GDP growth forecast for the 2024/2025 fiscal year down to 3.7%, citing disruptions to canal traffic and subdued economic performance in the previous fiscal year. While Fitch anticipates a rebound in non-oil exports and investments, the projected recovery remains slower than initially expected.

Similarly, the IMF’s latest review of Egypt’s Extended Fund Facility program highlights the canal revenue drop as a significant obstacle to economic stabilization. Regional instability, compounded by the rising number of refugees, has strained public services and amplified fiscal pressures, particularly in health and education.

Amid these challenges, Egypt is turning to privatization as a potential remedy for its economic stagnation. Prime Minister Mustafa Madbouly recently announced plans to list three to four military-owned companies, including Wataniya and Safi, on the stock exchange. Wataniya operates a network of gas stations, while Safi focuses on bottled water, olive oil, and related products.

This privatization initiative is part of a broader economic reform plan tied to Egypt’s agreement with the IMF. By reducing military dominance in the economy and encouraging private sector growth, the government hopes to unlock economic potential, create jobs, and stabilize macroeconomic conditions.

Egypt has seen some relief on the inflation front, with urban consumer price inflation falling to 25.5% in November, down from a peak of 38% in September 2023. However, inflation remains elevated, driven by external shocks such as the Russia-Ukraine war and domestic factors, including the Suez Canal revenue decline.

The Central Bank of Egypt has implemented measures to stabilize the exchange rate and tighten monetary policy to curb inflation. While these reforms have slowed inflationary pressures, continued vigilance is necessary to sustain progress.

The Suez Canal is not only an economic lifeline but also a geopolitical asset. The ongoing instability in the Red Sea underscores the vulnerability of this critical waterway to regional conflicts. Egypt’s ability to safeguard the canal and restore confidence in its security will be pivotal in reversing the economic damage caused by declining transits.

Egypt’s economic recovery remains fragile, with falling Suez Canal revenues adding to a litany of challenges, including inflation and fiscal pressures. While privatization and economic reforms offer hope, the success of these initiatives will depend on Egypt’s ability to navigate geopolitical uncertainties and implement sustainable policies.

The canal’s significance extends beyond Egypt’s borders, making regional stability a priority not just for Cairo but for the global economy as well. As Egypt works to stabilize its finances, its resilience in the face of these challenges will determine its ability to reclaim economic momentum.

Tokyo balances cautious dialogue with Beijing while reaffirming its strategic alliance with the U.S. amid heightened regional tensions.

As the global stage braces for the return of Donald Trump to the White House, Japan and China are recalibrating their bilateral relationship in a climate of uncertainty. While both nations have expressed interest in improving ties, longstanding disputes and regional security challenges underscore the difficulty of achieving any meaningful reset.

Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya’s recent meetings with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Premier Li Qiang in Beijing highlighted both nations’ cautious attempts to foster dialogue. Japan emphasized concerns over Chinese military activities in the East China Sea and the safety of Japanese citizens in China, while Beijing sought to promote people-to-people exchanges and economic cooperation.

China’s Wang Yi urged Tokyo to “calibrate its strategic perception” and pursue a “positive policy toward China,” yet such rhetoric is unlikely to assuage Japan’s concerns over issues like the Senkaku Islands and Beijing’s aggressive posturing in the Indo-Pacific. The two nations agreed to hold high-level economic and security dialogues, signaling a willingness to maintain communication despite tensions.

Japan’s motivations are deeply intertwined with its strategic alignment with the United States. With Trump’s anticipated hardline approach toward China, Tokyo views this transitional period as an opportunity to extract concessions from Beijing while preparing for intensified U.S.-China competition.

Stephen Nagy, a Tokyo-based political analyst, notes that Japan seeks “short-term gains” from China, such as enhanced economic exchanges and reduced tensions, without compromising its strategic priorities. Simultaneously, Japan aims to influence U.S. policy, ensuring Washington adopts a nuanced approach to its rivalry with Beijing.

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba underscored the importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance during a recent press conference, reaffirming that Tokyo’s ultimate priority remains strengthening ties with Washington.

Disputes over Japan’s discharge of treated radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear plant have further strained relations. Despite efforts to allow independent testing by stakeholders, Beijing continues its seafood import ban, leveraging the issue to pressure Tokyo diplomatically.

While China’s economic incentives historically aimed to create rifts between Japan and the U.S., analysts like Nagy argue that Beijing’s declining economy limits its ability to achieve sustainable influence over Tokyo.

Japan’s approach to China reflects a delicate balancing act: maintaining essential economic and regional ties while safeguarding its strategic partnership with the United States. Tokyo’s strategy of leveraging the current geopolitical climate to secure concessions from Beijing demonstrates pragmatism, but the enduring security challenges posed by China’s military ambitions remain significant obstacles to a genuine rapprochement.

As Trump’s return to the White House looms, Japan’s focus will likely shift to managing U.S.-China competition, advocating for a balanced approach that protects its interests without further destabilizing the Indo-Pacific region. Whether Tokyo can successfully navigate this intricate geopolitical landscape remains to be seen.

Raila Odinga and Mahamoud Ali Youssouf emerge as frontrunners in a high-stakes contest for leadership of the African Union Commission.

The race to succeed Chad’s Moussa Faki Mahamat as president of the African Union Commission (AUC) has entered its decisive phase, with East Africa positioned to take the helm. Among the three contenders—Djiboutian Foreign Minister Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, former Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, and Madagascar’s former Foreign Minister Richard Randriamandrato—Odinga and Youssouf have emerged as the primary competitors in a contest shaped by regional alliances, pan-African ambitions, and global power dynamics.

Djibouti’s Mahamoud Ali Youssouf: The Diplomatic Strategist

At 58, Youssouf is leveraging his multilingual abilities and extensive diplomatic experience to position himself as a unifying figure capable of bridging Africa’s linguistic and regional divides. In a recent debate, Youssouf emphasized his vision for reducing reliance on foreign partnerships to address security challenges and advocated for economic independence through a clearing payment system and a potential single African currency.

Youssouf’s campaign centers on a promise to “silence the guns” across the continent, presenting himself as a pragmatic leader focused on reducing conflict and fostering regional integration. His performance in the December debate reportedly shifted momentum in his favor, making him a serious contender against the initially favored Odinga.

Kenya’s Raila Odinga: A Visionary Leader with Western Backing

Raila Odinga, a veteran politician and five-time presidential candidate in Kenya, has focused his campaign on economic transformation, intra-African trade, and agricultural development. His ties to the United States, including Kenya’s designation as a major non-NATO ally, provide him with significant geopolitical leverage.

Odinga’s candidacy benefits from Kenya’s strategic alignment with the U.S., exemplified by its role in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group and its prominence in countering Chinese and Russian influence in Africa. President William Ruto has actively championed Odinga’s bid, seeing it as an opportunity to elevate Kenya’s international stature while potentially sidelining a key political rival ahead of Kenya’s 2027 elections.

Madagascar’s Richard Randriamandrato: The Underdog with Pan-African Aspirations

While less prominent than his counterparts, Randriamandrato brings experience in finance and diplomacy to the table. His platform emphasizes tackling global challenges such as climate change, food security, and advocating for Africa’s inclusion on the United Nations Security Council. Despite his credentials, his campaign has been overshadowed by the high-profile rivalry between Odinga and Youssouf.

The outcome of the AUC presidency race carries significant implications for Africa’s role on the global stage. If Odinga secures the position, Kenya’s strong Western ties could reinforce U.S. and European influence in the region. Conversely, Youssouf’s pragmatic approach and focus on reducing external dependencies could resonate with countries wary of over-reliance on foreign powers.

However, the election also underscores deeper geopolitical tensions. The Biden administration’s support for Kenya highlights its growing concern over China’s expanding footprint in Africa and Russia’s influence through military partnerships. A Kenyan-led AUC could bolster U.S. efforts to counter these influences while reinforcing Africa’s integration into Western-led global initiatives.

The February vote will determine more than the next leader of the African Union Commission; it will shape Africa’s political trajectory, regional integration, and alignment with global powers. As the candidates work to secure the critical two-thirds majority, the contest reflects not only the aspirations of East Africa but also the broader stakes of international competition for influence on the continent.