Cap-sized boat highlights the perilous journey migrants face on the Atlantic route

Nearly 90 migrants bound for Europe died when their boat capsized earlier this week off the coast of Mauritania, the state news agency and a local official said Thursday. Dozens more remain missing.

“The Mauritanian coast guard recovered the bodies of 89 people aboard a large traditional fishing boat that capsized on Monday, July 1, on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean” about 4 kilometers from the country’s southwest city of Ndiago, the state news agency said. The coast guard rescued nine people, including a 5-year-old girl, it said.

The agency quoted survivors saying that the boat had set sail from the border of Senegal and Gambia with 170 passengers on board, bringing the number of missing to 72. A senior local government official gave AFP similar information, on condition of anonymity.

The Atlantic route is particularly dangerous because of strong currents, with migrants often traveling in overloaded, often unseaworthy, boats without enough drinking water. But it has grown in popularity because of the increased vigilance in the Mediterranean.

The number of migrants landing at Spain’s Canary Islands in 2023 more than doubled in one year to a record 39,910, according to the Spanish government. Off the coast of North Africa, Spain’s Canary Islands lie 100 kilometers away at their closest point. But many boats, often long wooden vessels known as pirogues, leave from much farther away, setting sail from Morocco, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Gambia, and Senegal.

More than 5,000 migrants died while trying to reach Spain by sea in the first five months of this year, or the equivalent of 33 deaths per day, according to Caminando Fronteras, a Spanish charity. That is the highest daily number of deaths since it began collating figures in 2007, and the vast majority were on the Atlantic route.

After Interviewing Putin, Carlson Pursues Conversation with Ukraine’s President

In a surprising move, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson hinted on Wednesday at a potential interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This revelation comes on the heels of Carlson’s February trip to Moscow, where he conducted a notable interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, marking him as the first Western journalist to do so since the conflict began in February 2022.

“Looks like we’ve got the Zelensky interview. We’ve been trying for two years, and with particular intensity after interviewing Putin in February,” Carlson announced on X, formerly known as Twitter. This potential sit-down with Zelensky follows Carlson’s departure from Fox News last year, where he was known for his controversial takes, including his criticism of Zelensky and the Ukraine war, views that had garnered approval from Kremlin propagandists.

Carlson, who hosted “Tucker Carlson Tonight” from 2016 to 2023 before his sudden firing last April with no official explanation, stated his goal is to “bring Americans much-needed information about the conflict that’s completely reshaping their country’s position in the world.” The announcement of the possible interview with Zelensky has yet to elicit a response from Ukraine, and Newsweek has reached out to Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry and the Tucker Carlson Network for comment.

Following Carlson’s two-hour interview with Putin, the Russian president expressed his surprise over the lack of aggressive questioning. “To be honest, I thought that he would behave aggressively and ask so-called sharp questions. I was not just prepared for this, I wanted it, because it would give me the opportunity to respond in the same way,” Putin remarked to Russian journalist Pavel Aleksandrovich Zarubin on state television channel Russia-1. He added that he did not “feel full satisfaction from this interview.” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later stated that Putin agreed to the interview because Carlson’s perspective “differs” from other Western media.

Carlson’s announcement about the Zelensky interview received mixed reactions on social media. Ukrainian journalist Illia Ponomarenko endorsed the idea, saying on X, “I think Zelensky sitting down for an interview with Tucker is a good idea because there is no question Ukraine can’t give a fair answer to.” Ponomarenko further distinguished Zelensky’s candidacy for the interview by noting that, unlike Putin, Zelensky “has no need to crack freakishly weird mumbo-jumbo pseudo-historical freak Viking era theories to explain why Ukraine fights for survival in the largest European war of aggression since Hitler and why it is so important to help Ukraine win.”

However, skepticism abounds, with many voicing concerns about potential manipulation of the interview’s content. “Zelensky needs someone to video the whole interview because you can bet it will be a trap… they’ll change it and use for propaganda purposes,” one X user warned. Another echoed this sentiment, writing, “I’m more concerned about how they will doctor his answers in the final edit.”

Despite the buzz, Carlson has not provided a specific timeline for when this interview might occur, leaving followers in suspense with a tantalizing “Coming soon we hope.”

As the world watches and waits, Carlson’s potential interview with Zelensky promises to be another controversial chapter in the ongoing narrative of the Ukraine conflict. Whether it will bring new insights or further polarize opinions remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the anticipation is building, and the stakes are high.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has unveiled a new Cabinet for his government of national unity. This comes after weeks of intense political deal-making, as Ramaphosa strives to bridge the gap between a fractured electorate and a parliament now teeming with a colorful mix of characters — from a former armed robber to a white Afrikaner nationalist.

The need for this unprecedented coalition arose after the African National Congress (ANC), which has ruled South Africa since the end of apartheid, suffered a stunning blow in the May elections, losing its majority. Ramaphosa’s solution was to form an inclusive government, bringing together 10 opposition parties, each with its own agenda and history of animosity towards the others.

To appease these factions, Ramaphosa has created a somewhat unwieldy Cabinet, now bloated to 32 ministers and 43 deputy ministers. “The establishment of the government of national unity in its current form is unprecedented in the history of our democracy,” Ramaphosa declared, emphasizing the necessity of this approach to advance national interests and reflect the election results.

Despite the noble rhetoric, this government must confront serious internal contradictions. The ANC secured 20 of the 32 Cabinet posts, while the Democratic Alliance (DA), long a thorn in the ANC’s side, took six. The remaining posts went to smaller parties, resulting in a diverse yet potentially discordant mix.

John Steenhuisen, DA leader and the new agriculture minister, acknowledged the challenges ahead. “The road ahead will be difficult,” he conceded, yet he pledged to work towards making this coalition successful. “It is now up to all of us — including the voters who created this multi-party government — to ensure that it delivers on its promise.”

This coalition is born from necessity. The ANC’s plummeting popularity, down to 40% of the vote, reflects widespread dissatisfaction with economic mismanagement, soaring unemployment, and rampant corruption. Conversely, the DA, which garnered 22% of the vote, is tasked with revitalizing key economic sectors, including agriculture and public works and infrastructure.

However, not everyone is on board with this unity government. The uMkhonto weSizwe party, led by the corruption-tainted former President Jacob Zuma, and the radical Marxist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), both refused to join, citing objections to the DA’s involvement. These parties, now relegated to the opposition benches, will undoubtedly continue to challenge the coalition’s initiatives.

Other smaller parties, however, have joined the government, bringing their own controversies. The anti-immigrant Patriotic Alliance, led by ex-gangster Gayton McKenzie, has seen its leader appointed as minister for sports, arts, and culture. Meanwhile, the right-wing, white nationalist Freedom Front Plus has its leader, Pieter Groenewald, taking the helm at correctional services.

The irony of the DA, a party that has long criticized the ANC for bloated governance and cronyism, now participating in a government with 75 ministers and deputies, is not lost on observers. David Everatt, a politics professor at the University of the Witwatersrand, highlighted this paradox, noting that the DA now finds itself in the very position it once lambasted.

This government of national unity faces a monumental task. It must not only navigate its own internal contradictions but also address the critical issues that led to the ANC’s electoral decline. High unemployment, economic instability, and systemic corruption are just the tip of the iceberg.

Moreover, Ramaphosa must balance the demands of his coalition partners while delivering tangible results to a skeptical and impatient public. The success or failure of this bold political experiment will shape South Africa’s future and possibly redefine its political landscape.

As South Africa watches this diverse coalition attempt to govern, one can’t help but wonder: Can such a disparate group set aside their differences for the common good? Or will the internal strife prove too great, leading to another chapter of political turmoil in a country already weary from decades of struggle?

This bloated Cabinet may be South Africa’s best hope for stability and progress, or it could be a recipe for disaster. Either way, it’s a political gamble with high stakes for all involved.

How Clan Loyalties and Traditional Leaders Threaten the November 2024 Elections –

In a shocking turn of events, Somaliland is witnessing a disturbing regression into tribal politics as it gears up for the November 2024 elections. What was once a beacon of hope for democracy in the Horn of Africa is now at risk of being overshadowed by the sinister influence of clan loyalties and traditional leaders. The upcoming elections, rather than being a celebration of democratic progress, are turning into a tribal showdown that threatens the very fabric of Somaliland’s hard-won peace and stability.

The recent clash between KAAH chairman Mahmoud Hashi and Wadani party candidate Abdirahman Cirro over the Habarjeclo votes has laid bare the ugly reality of Somaliland’s political landscape. This isn’t just a political disagreement; it’s a struggle for tribal dominance that is eroding the democratic principles Somaliland has strived to uphold.

Imagine this: after decades of fighting for independence and building a semblance of democratic governance, the people of Somaliland now find their fate being decided not by the ballot box, but by traditional clan elders. These elders, particularly from the Habarjeclo tribe, have blatantly disregarded Somaliland’s electoral laws, crafting new rules that serve their interests and sidelining the nation’s constitution. This brazen power grab is nothing short of a betrayal of the people’s trust and a mockery of their democratic aspirations.

The complicity of legislative councils and the senate, dominated by Habarjeclo figures, in this travesty is particularly egregious. They have not only sanctioned this illegal takeover but actively participated in it. This scandalous subversion of democracy is a stark reminder of how fragile Somaliland’s political system remains. The upcoming elections, instead of being a beacon of democratic progress, risk becoming a farce dominated by tribal allegiance.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about political maneuvering. It’s about the future of a nation and its people. The orchestrated push by traditional Habarjeclo leaders to monopolize political power and exclude other parties from the presidential race on November 13, 2024, is a direct assault on the multi-party system. This system, which allows for political plurality, is being systematically dismantled in favor of tribal hegemony. The exclusion of the Horseed and Hilaac organizations and the aggressive stance of the Wadani party only exacerbate the situation, creating an atmosphere of tension and instability.

What is perhaps most alarming is the silence of Somaliland’s educated elite and those in top positions. Their acquiescence—or worse, their complicity—in this regression into tribalism is a betrayal of their responsibilities. How can these leaders, who should be the vanguards of democracy, remain silent as the nation teeters on the brink of tribal anarchy?

The spectacle of three politicians from the Habarjeclo tribe—Mohamed Kahin of Kulmiye, Hirsi Haji Ali of Wadani, and Mahmoud Hashi of KAAH—competing for their tribe’s votes is a damning indictment of Somaliland’s political landscape. This internal feud, framed as a struggle for tribal dominance, is a disgrace to the democratic ideals that Somaliland purportedly upholds.

The people of Somaliland deserve better. They deserve leaders who prioritize national unity and democratic governance over narrow tribal interests. The November 2024 elections should be an opportunity to reaffirm Somaliland’s commitment to democracy, not a descent into tribal chaos.

Mahmoud Hashi’s attempt to leverage Abdirahman Irro’s power for the benefit of KAAH, and Irro’s refusal to relinquish Wadani’s presidential ambitions, only highlights the extent to which tribal politics has corrupted the electoral process. This sordid saga of backroom deals and tribal horse-trading is a travesty of democracy.

The people of Somaliland have not endured decades of conflict and instability only to see their democratic dreams dashed by the whims of tribal leaders. The silent majority—the ordinary men and women who want nothing more than peace, stability, and a voice in their own governance—must stand up and demand better. They must hold their leaders accountable and insist on a return to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

As the elections approach, it is imperative that the international community and the people of Somaliland hold their leaders accountable. The time has come to reject the pernicious influence of tribal politics and demand a return to democratic principles. Only by doing so can Somaliland hope to achieve the peace and stability that its people so desperately crave.

The future of Somaliland hangs in the balance. Will it be a future defined by democratic progress and national unity, or will it be marred by tribalism and division? The choice lies in the hands of the Somaliland people and their leaders. The world is watching, and the stakes could not be higher.

Exposing the Conspiracy: Mohamed Abdullahi Omar’s Hidden Agenda Against Somaliland

At a historic U.N.-led conference in Qatar, the Taliban calls for an end to financial sanctions and greater international cooperation, while dismissing concerns over women’s rights as policy differences.

In a historic two-day United Nations-led conference, special envoys for Afghanistan from nearly two dozen countries gathered to discuss international engagement with the Taliban. The militant group, participating in such a forum for the first time since taking control of Afghanistan in August 2021, called for an end to financial sanctions and urged greater cooperation with the West, while dismissing restrictions on women’s freedoms as mere policy differences.

The conference, presided over by U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo, marked a significant step in the “Doha process” initiated by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres a year ago. Despite facing intense criticism for excluding women’s rights activists, the U.N. ensured the Taliban’s attendance by not inviting these activists to the official event.

Leading the Taliban delegation, Zabihullah Mujahid, chief spokesperson of the Taliban’s interim government, implored the international community to unfreeze Afghan funds and lift banking sanctions. He argued that these financial restrictions were impeding Afghanistan’s economic progress. The U.S. froze $7 billion of Afghan central bank funds following the Taliban’s takeover, with half placed in a Switzerland-based trust account managed by a board, and the remaining locked in the U.S.

Mujahid did not address the Taliban’s controversial bans on girls’ education and women’s employment directly. Instead, he framed these issues as cultural and religious differences, calling for a separation of Afghanistan’s internal matters from foreign relations. He emphasized the Taliban’s desire for engagement with Western countries, similar to their growing bilateral ties with Russia, China, and others.

The conference, attended by representatives from the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and delegates from countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, and Uzbekistan, saw the Taliban engaging in bilateral meetings prior to the formal talks. Despite no country recognizing the Taliban government, 16 countries maintain diplomatic missions in Afghanistan, with Beijing having exchanged ambassadors with Kabul.

Pakistan’s special representative for Afghanistan, Asif Durrani, noted the Taliban’s attendance as a positive sign, showing the U.N.’s ability to facilitate dialogue. However, global rights groups criticized the U.N. for excluding Afghan women from the event. Delegates from Western countries, while raising concerns about women’s rights and the presence of terrorist groups in Afghanistan, also acknowledged the necessity of engaging with the Taliban in a structured manner.

The conference is set to continue with discussions on improving Afghanistan’s private business sector, exploring entrepreneurship, job creation, Islamic finance, and market access. Talks will also address the impact of the Taliban’s ban on opium poppy cultivation, focusing on alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers.

Despite the criticisms, the Taliban appeared optimistic about the outcome. “The views of all countries seem positive about Afghanistan,” Mujahid stated, expressing hope for strengthened international relations.

Post-conference, U.N. representatives and delegates plan to meet with Afghan civil society activists, although the Taliban clarified that this would not equate to sharing the conference’s spotlight.

Olympics: A Billion-Dollar Business with Political Overtones

The Olympic Games, an iconic global sporting event, are much more than a gathering of elite athletes competing for glory. They are a massive business enterprise generating billions in revenue and a stage for geopolitical maneuvering. Here’s an in-depth look at how the International Olympic Committee (IOC) operates and the broader implications of the Games.

The IOC, headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, is a not-for-profit organization that generates substantial income primarily from broadcasting rights and sponsorships. In the latest four-year cycle ending with the Tokyo Olympics in 2021, the IOC earned $7.6 billion. Broadcast rights accounted for 61% of this revenue, while sponsorships contributed 30% . Despite its not-for-profit status, the IOC operates like a business, reinvesting 90% of its income back into sports, although athletes receive only a small portion directly .

Hosting the Olympics is a costly endeavor, often burdening host nations with significant expenses. The official cost for the Tokyo 2021 Games was listed at $13 billion, with over half funded by Japanese government entities. However, audits suggest the actual cost could be twice as much . The financial strain can overshadow local priorities, raising concerns about the value of hosting such a large-scale event.

The IOC is composed of about 100 members, including several royals and influential figures. The longest-serving member is Princess Nora of Liechtenstein. Despite being labeled as volunteers, IOC members, particularly the president, enjoy significant perks. In 2022, President Thomas Bach’s expenses, including an annual indemnity and tax liabilities, amounted to $370,000 .

The Games rely heavily on unpaid volunteers, who are essential for smooth operations but often face economic exploitation. Paris, for instance, is seeking 45,000 volunteers for the upcoming Olympics, while Tokyo initially sought 80,000. The reliance on volunteers can be problematic, especially in economically challenged regions where locals cannot afford to work for free .

Despite the IOC’s claim that the Olympics transcend politics, the Games are inherently political. They serve as a platform for nations to showcase their prowess and influence. The presence of world leaders at opening ceremonies and the nationalistic fervor surrounding medal counts underline the political dimensions of the event. The IOC’s observer status at the United Nations further cements its political significance .

The bidding process for hosting the Olympics has evolved due to high costs and political considerations. The 2024 Summer Games saw only Paris and Los Angeles as contenders, with Paris winning the bid and Los Angeles securing the 2028 Games. The 2032 Games were awarded to Brisbane, Australia, significantly ahead of time, partly due to influential lobbying by IOC member John Coates . Studies have shown that hosting the Olympics can be a financial loss for cities, displacing essential public services and infrastructure investments .

The Olympics have frequently been marred by scandals and corruption. The Tokyo 2021 Games were tainted by bribery allegations, and the 2016 Rio Games faced severe financial mismanagement. The 2014 Sochi Winter Games were overshadowed by a state-run doping scandal. Historical examples, like the corruption in the bidding process for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games, highlight the ethical challenges facing the IOC .

The Olympics, while celebrated for their sporting excellence, are deeply entwined with significant financial interests and political agendas. Understanding these dimensions provides a clearer picture of the complexities behind this global event, emphasizing the need for transparency and reform to ensure the Games’ integrity and sustainability.

As Iran negotiates a significant uranium deal with Niger’s junta, the U.S. and French interests face new challenges, spotlighting the geopolitical implications in West Africa.

The United States is closely monitoring the ongoing negotiations between Iran and Niger’s military junta for the delivery of 300 tonnes of uranium. This development has significant geopolitical implications, particularly for France’s nuclear fuel firm Orano, which operates in the region, and raises concerns within the Biden administration​​.

Niger, a country with substantial uranium reserves, has become a critical focus of international attention due to its pivotal role in the global uranium market. The West African nation has been under military rule since the 2021 coup that ousted President Mohamed Bazoum. The political instability in Niger has led to shifting alliances and new economic agreements, such as the one currently under negotiation with Iran.

The potential deal between Iran and Niger represents a significant shift in the region’s political landscape. For Iran, securing a stable supply of uranium is crucial for its nuclear program, which continues to be a contentious issue on the international stage. The Biden administration’s vigilance reflects broader concerns about Iran’s expanding influence in Africa and the implications for global nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

France, through its company Orano, has long been a dominant player in Niger’s uranium sector. The negotiations between Tehran and Niamey put Orano in a delicate position, potentially undermining French economic interests and highlighting the diminishing Western influence in Niger post-coup.

The deal underscores the complex security environment in West Africa. Iran’s involvement in Niger can be seen as part of a broader strategy to extend its geopolitical reach. This move is likely to provoke reactions not only from the U.S. but also from regional players who are wary of increased Iranian presence in their backyard.

In conclusions, the uranium negotiations between Iran and Niger’s junta are a critical issue that could reshape regional alliances and economic partnerships. The U.S. and France are particularly concerned about the potential repercussions on their strategic interests in West Africa. As this situation unfolds, it will be essential to monitor the responses from major global and regional powers and the impact on the already volatile security landscape in West Africa.

By keeping a close watch on these developments, Washington aims to navigate the intricate geopolitical chessboard that is increasingly influenced by Iran’s strategic maneuvers in Africa.

Traditional Power Challenging Modern Governance

The political landscape of Somaliland is being reshaped by the unchecked influence of traditional clan leaders and their alignment with political factions, presenting a dire threat to the region’s stability. The recent arrest of Osman Omar Dool, a vocal critic of the Somaliland National Army and an influential member of the Waddani party, has ignited fierce protests and bold demands from Sultan Daoud Sultan Mohamed Sultan Abdikadir. The Sultan’s ultimatum for Dool’s release within 24 hours, coupled with threats of unspecified consequences, has thrown Somaliland’s capital, Hargeisa, into turmoil.

The Grand Sultan of the Isaaq clan, Sultan Daoud, wielding significant influence inherited from his father, has taken a provocative stance against the government. His involvement in political affairs signals a troubling trend where traditional leaders, often lacking formal education and modern political acumen, are leveraging their inherited power to challenge state authority. Sultan Daoud’s public demand for Dool’s release underscores this growing clash between clannism and governance.

Dozens of Waddani party youths, mobilized by the Sultan’s call, protested vehemently against Dool’s arrest. Dool, known for his relentless criticism of the Somaliland Army and his incendiary social media posts, including personal attacks on the President’s family, was detained upon his arrival in Somaliland. The government’s hesitation to firmly address the defiance of traditional leaders like Sultan Daoud raises alarming questions about its capacity to maintain order and uphold the rule of law.

Historically, Somaliland’s second president, Mohamed Ibrahim Egal, took a hardline stance against the interference of traditional leaders in politics. Egal’s policies aimed to confine Sultans to their traditional roles within their tribes, recognizing the chaos that uneducated and politically naive leaders could unleash. His approach ensured that clan leaders did not overstep their boundaries, preserving the integrity of the political system.

In stark contrast, the current administration appears paralyzed in the face of tribal defiance. Sultan Daoud’s audacious demands and threats go unchecked, emboldening other traditional leaders and setting a dangerous precedent. This lack of decisive action risks enabling a resurgence of clannism that could erode the foundations of Somaliland’s governance.

The involvement of traditional leaders in political affairs is inherently destabilizing. These leaders, who inherit their positions without meritocratic qualifications, often pursue narrow tribal interests at the expense of national unity. Sultan Daoud’s backing of the Waddani party exemplifies this peril, as his support is driven by tribal loyalty rather than political ideology or national interest.

The threat extends beyond Sultan Daoud. The broader issue of clannism and the unchecked power of Sultans who manipulate tribal sentiments for political gain poses a severe risk to Somaliland’s stability. The government’s reluctance to confront these leaders head-on could result in a situation where tribal politics overrides state authority, plunging the region into chaos.

To prevent a descent into tribal anarchy, Somaliland’s government must take decisive action. First, it should reassert the primacy of state authority by enforcing laws uniformly, regardless of tribal affiliations. Traditional leaders who overstep their bounds must be held accountable, mirroring the approach of former President Egal.

Second, the government should embark on a robust educational campaign to enlighten the populace about the dangers of clannism and the importance of national unity. Empowering citizens with knowledge can weaken the grip of traditional leaders who exploit tribal loyalties.

Lastly, engaging in dialogue with moderate traditional leaders to find a balance between respecting cultural heritage and maintaining political stability is crucial. This approach can help integrate traditional structures into the modern state framework without compromising governance.

In conclusion, Somaliland stands at a critical juncture. The rising influence of traditional clan leaders threatens to undermine the government’s authority and destabilize the region. Sultan Daoud’s provocative actions and the government’s inadequate response highlight the urgent need for a strategic shift. By reaffirming the rule of law and addressing the roots of clannism, Somaliland can navigate this turbulent period and emerge stronger, ensuring that tribal politics do not eclipse the nation’s progress.