Search this site

George Galloway joined thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators on Cape Town’s Sea Point promenade on October 3, bringing a familiar international anti-war figure into one of South Africa’s largest Palestine solidarity mobilizations of the weekend. Reuters photographed the former British MP at the march, while South African outlets reported that he and journalist Yvonne Ridley were in the country as part of their People Power Tour. Galloway addressed the crowd by connecting the Palestinian struggle to South Africa’s own history of apartheid and resistance. SABC reported that he invoked Robben Island and Nelson Mandela while arguing that Palestinians face a system of confinement and dispossession. His appearance came after a South African tour that included Johannesburg, Pretoria and Durban, with events centered on Gaza, Palestine and opposition to Western support for Israel. The Cape Town march also fits a wider African political pattern that Pamphlets has been following. At the UN General Assembly, fifteen African governments recently used their national addresses to back Palestinian statehood or condemn Israel’s conduct in Gaza, placing the continent’s Palestine solidarity politics inside a broader fight over sovereignty, colonialism and the international system. Galloway’s involvement was not a sudden conversion to the issue. IOL reported that he has long presented himself as an anti-imperialist advocate for Palestine and that he worked with South African anti-apartheid activists during the ANC’s banned years. In Cape Town this week, he again framed Palestine through the language of colonialism and national liberation. That history helps explain why his presence drew attention beyond the march itself. Supporters at Sea Point carried Palestinian flags and placards across the promenade, while Galloway and Ridley used their tour appearances to urge continued political pressure over Gaza. The event was organized with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and took place as South Africa continues its legal case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Galloway’s Cape Town appearance was consistent with a public position he has maintained for years: opposition to Israeli policy toward Palestinians and support for Palestinian national rights. In a city whose own history is inseparable from apartheid and anti-colonial struggle, the march placed that position inside a much wider South African tradition of Palestine solidarity. Sources: Reuters · SABC News · IOL

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from canceling nearly $56 million in federal housing-counseling grants, preserving funding used for homebuyer education, foreclosure prevention and rental assistance while a legal challenge proceeds. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb halted the planned cancellation and suspended a September 30 deadline that would have allowed the grants to lapse. The order keeps the money available while nonprofit housing groups challenge the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s decision to rescind the funds. The grants support counseling programs that help households navigate mortgages, avoid foreclosure, find rental assistance and understand home-purchase options. The plaintiffs argue that Congress appropriated the money for those purposes and that HUD cannot simply erase the program through an executive policy change. The lawsuit was brought by Democracy Defenders Fund and Jacobson Lawyers Group on behalf of 10 nonprofit organizations. The groups argue that the administration acted unlawfully and retaliated against organizations whose work or language it associated with diversity, equity and inclusion. The White House has defended the cuts by saying the grants supported what it calls “DEI-centric discriminatory agendas.” The housing-counseling money is part of a broader package of nearly $1 billion in attempted rescissions across federal programs that the administration has targeted as wasteful or ideologically objectionable. At stake is a basic question about executive power over money Congress has already appropriated. The plaintiffs say the administration cannot use political disagreement with grantees as a basis to nullify funding decisions made through the legislative process. The immediate effect of Cobb’s order is practical: counseling organizations can continue operating while the case moves forward instead of losing funding before a court can decide whether the rescission is lawful. That matters because housing counseling is often used by borrowers already under financial stress, including families facing foreclosure or eviction. The dispute also lands in the middle of a national housing affordability crisis. Mortgage costs, rents and home prices remain far above pre-pandemic levels in many parts of the country, while low-income households are especially vulnerable to losing housing when a financial shock hits. The administration’s response to the lawsuit is due October 19. Until then, the court order prevents HUD from allowing the grants to expire, keeping the money in place while the legal fight over Congress’s spending power and the administration’s anti-DEI agenda continues. Sources: Reuters — U.S. judge blocks housing grant cuts while anti-DEI challenge proceeds

Britain’s Green Party has voted at its 2026 conference to adopt an explicitly anti-Zionist policy, defining Zionism as an ethnonationalist political project and backing a single democratic state across historic Palestine. The motion passed by 1,022 votes to 813. The party said the motion reaffirms support for Palestinian self-determination, the right of return, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and a full British arms embargo on Israel. It also states that anti-Zionism should not be equated with antisemitism. The vote comes amid continuing anger over Israel’s war in Gaza and the humanitarian consequences for Palestinians. Pamphlets recently reported that more than 100,000 Gazans remain unable to return home, one part of the broader displacement crisis that has shaped political debate across Europe. The decision exposed a real split inside the Greens. Reuters reported that many senior figures opposed the motion, while party leader Zack Polanski did not take part in the vote. After the result, the party’s five MPs, leader and co-deputy leaders issued a joint statement saying they would continue to defend both Palestinian rights and the rights of Jewish people and would not tolerate discrimination or harassment. Jewish members of the party are themselves divided. A survey published by Jewish Greens before conference found that a majority of respondents identified as anti-Zionist or non-Zionist, but the group remained split over whether the specific motion should be opposed. Some members feared the policy could make discrimination against Jews more likely, while others argued that criticism of Zionism as a political ideology should not be treated as hostility to Jewish people. External criticism was sharper. The Movement for Progressive Judaism said the policy amounted to antisemitism, while Israel’s foreign ministry called the motion antisemitic under the IHRA definition and said it denied Jewish self-determination. Israel also announced that Polanski would be barred from entering the country. Supporters of the motion reject that framing. The Green Party said the policy is directed at Zionism as it defines the ideology, not at Jewish people, and said its opposition to antisemitism remains unchanged. Deputy leader Mothin Ali has argued that the scale of Palestinian death and displacement is essential context for understanding why party members backed the motion. The vote therefore marks both a major shift in Green Party policy and a test of how Britain’s growing left-wing opposition to Israel will handle disputes over Jewish identity, Zionism and antisemitism. The political argument is unlikely to end with the conference: it will now follow the party into elections, Parliament and its relations with other European Green parties. Sources: Reuters — Britain’s Green Party votes to class Zionism as a form of racism · Green Party — party statement on the adopted anti-Zionist policy · Jewish Greens — conference survey briefing

Tens of thousands of people marched across Spain on October 3 as the country’s housing crisis moved from a dispute over emergency legislation toward a broader confrontation over rents, evictions and political power. About 70,000 people demonstrated in Madrid, according to the Spanish government, while protests were called in roughly 50 cities. Organizers are now discussing a general strike with labor unions after parliament rejected measures aimed at protecting vulnerable tenants. The rejected package would have extended protections against evictions for vulnerable tenants until 2030, prolonged rent freezes and tightened rules around short-term rentals. The vote came after weeks of anger over housing insecurity, including the eviction of 87-year-old Maricarmen Abascal from the Madrid home where she had lived for around seven decades. That defeat marks a sharp turn from the earlier phase of the housing mobilization, when Pamphlets reported that tenant protests had forced an eviction shield into parliament. The issue is no longer simply whether the government proposes emergency protections. It is whether tenants and workers can build enough pressure outside parliament to overcome the coalition of property interests and parties blocking them. The scale of the underlying crisis helps explain the escalation. Reuters has reported that the cost of renting an average home is approaching the average salary of a young person, while Spain faces a housing deficit estimated at roughly 750,000 homes and projected to exceed one million by 2028. Rising rents have turned access to housing into a direct struggle over wages, household security and the share of income transferred to landlords. Saturday’s mobilizations were largely peaceful, but the day also produced confrontations. In Madrid, police arrested three far-right activists after a group displaying Nazi salutes attempted to reach the housing demonstration. In Valencia, police used tear gas and rubber bullets as clashes broke out. Those incidents did not define the nationwide protests, but they showed how a social movement centered on rent and evictions is increasingly becoming a wider political fault line. The most consequential development is the move toward industrial action. Valeria Racu of the Tenants’ Union said organizers would consult labor unions over calling a general strike. If that coordination materializes, the housing movement would move beyond demonstrations and parliamentary lobbying toward the direct leverage of organized labor. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s minority government is also under growing pressure. The rejection of the housing decrees exposed the fragility of a governing bloc that depends on smaller parties, while Spanish media have speculated about a possible snap election. Sánchez’s office has not confirmed such a plan. The immediate political fact is that the government has not secured the parliamentary majority needed for the protections it presented as its answer to the crisis. Spain’s housing revolt is therefore entering a different stage. The central conflict is not only over supply or administrative rules; it is over who absorbs the cost of a housing system in which rent has outrun wages and eviction can become the enforcement mechanism of property power. Whether the threatened general strike becomes real will determine how much leverage tenants can carry from the streets into the next political confrontation. Sources: Reuters — October 3 protests · Reuters — rejected housing decree

Thousands of youth and opposition supporters rallied in New Delhi and Mumbai on October 4 for a third day of protests demanding the resignation of India’s Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The demonstrations have turned a dispute over voter-roll revisions into a broader confrontation over who gets counted, who gets excluded and how much public trust remains in the machinery that administers the world’s largest elections. Protesters and opposition parties say the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls has removed millions of eligible voters and could benefit Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party. Reuters reported that demonstrators marched in Mumbai behind opposition leaders Raj Thackeray and Uddhav Thackeray, while police in New Delhi detained people trying to gather under restrictions on mass assembly. Those allegations remain contested. The Election Commission says the revision is intended to remove duplicate, deceased and otherwise ineligible entries, while the BJP has denied that the process is designed to manipulate the electorate. On Friday, the commission instructed officials to register eligible voters who had been inadvertently omitted, an acknowledgment that mistakes can occur without establishing the opposition’s broader claim of deliberate suppression. The conflict is therefore not only about the number of names on a list. Electoral rolls determine whether a citizen reaches the ballot box as a voter or as someone forced to prove eligibility again. When revisions are sweeping, documentation-heavy and politically disputed, administrative procedure becomes a material question of political power: who carries the burden of proving the right to participate. Police restrictions have sharpened that conflict. Reuters reported that New Delhi authorities detained protesters and registered cases against some participants accused of violating orders banning mass gatherings in the center of the capital. AP reported earlier demonstrations by the youth-led Cockroach Janata Party were also blocked or broken up by police, widening the issue from electoral administration to the right to organize against it. The movement is drawing together forces that do not share a single political program. Opposition parties, youth organizations and civil-society protesters have converged around demands for Kumar’s resignation and greater scrutiny of the voter-roll revision. That coalition matters because it turns what could have remained a technical dispute inside the Election Commission into a public legitimacy crisis. The next phase will test whether the demonstrations can force institutional concessions. Opposition parties are preparing further action at the Election Commission, while the Cockroach Janata Party has announced another major rally for October 10. Kumar has not publicly accepted the protesters’ demands, and the commission continues to defend the revision process. India’s electoral machinery has immense administrative power because inclusion on the roll is the gateway to every other act of voting. That makes transparency, accessible correction procedures and freedom to protest especially important when revisions are challenged. The political question is not whether every opposition allegation is already proven; it is whether an institution with the power to determine voter eligibility can sustain public trust while millions of entries are disputed and demonstrators demanding answers are being detained. Sources: Reuters — protests demanding election chief resign intensify · AP — youth-led protests over voter-list changes · Photo source: Election Commission of India / Wikimedia Commons

The Trump administration is slowing some aircraft-parts exports to China as it looks for leverage in trade negotiations, according to people familiar with the matter cited by Reuters. The reported measures target a sector where Chinese airlines and planemaker COMAC still depend heavily on U.S. suppliers, turning civilian aviation supply chains into another pressure point in the wider U.S.-China economic confrontation. Reuters reported that the Commerce Department has slowed export licensing for airplane parts bound for China and has limited the quantity of some parts licensed for shipment to state-owned COMAC. Officials have also discussed a rule that could make it easier to restrict landing gear and other aircraft components, with one draft including a new licensing requirement for U.S.-supplied aviation hydraulic fluid. The episode exposes the vulnerability that sits alongside China’s rapid push to compress the distance from research to industrial production. China has built domestic capacity across batteries, electric vehicles, telecommunications, rail and other strategic sectors, but commercial aviation remains more dependent on foreign engines, avionics and specialized components. That dependence gives Washington a chokepoint it can use even when tariffs alone are not enough. The Commerce Department and White House did not immediately respond to Reuters requests for comment, and the Chinese embassy in Washington also did not comment on the latest report. The central claim about the current slowdown therefore remains sourced reporting rather than a formal U.S. announcement. Beijing has previously accused Washington of abusing export controls after similar restrictions were imposed during earlier trade disputes. The pressure is unfolding during a temporary easing in the broader trade fight. U.S. and Chinese officials met in September over rare earths, agricultural trade and artificial intelligence, and the two governments recently extended a tariff truce until January 10, 2027. But the truce has not removed the underlying struggle over industrial dependence. Washington wants more reliable access to Chinese rare earth materials, while Beijing remains exposed to U.S.-linked aerospace supply chains. China has also sought several years of spare parts for roughly 200 Boeing aircraft it agreed to purchase, Reuters reported. U.S. officials have been reluctant to provide long-term guarantees because the parts could be retained as bargaining leverage in future negotiations. Boeing said it remains committed to supporting Chinese airlines in line with U.S. export requirements. This is not the first time aviation has been pulled into the trade war. In 2025, the United States temporarily suspended licenses for GE Aerospace engines, Honeywell navigation systems and other products used by COMAC, while also imposing a short-lived licensing requirement on aviation hydraulic fluid. Those restrictions were later eased, but they demonstrated how quickly commercial supply chains can be converted into instruments of state pressure. For China, the strategic answer is obvious even if it is technically difficult: reduce dependence on foreign suppliers across engines, avionics, landing gear and the other complex systems that make a modern airliner possible. For Washington, preserving those dependencies creates bargaining power. The result is a feedback loop in which export controls meant to slow Chinese industrial autonomy also give Beijing another reason to accelerate it. Sources: Reuters — U.S. slows aircraft-part exports to China · Bureau of Industry and Security — Commerce Control List · Photo source: N509FZ / Wikimedia Commons

Brazilian voters went to the polls on Sunday, October 4, in a presidential contest led by incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Senator Flávio Bolsonaro. The ballot also covers governors, all 513 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, two-thirds of the Senate and state legislatures. If no presidential candidate wins more than half of valid votes, a runoff is scheduled for October 25. Reuters reported from the opening of polls that the race remained tight and deeply polarized. The Superior Electoral Court said 158,745,463 people were eligible to vote, including 918,876 abroad. Women make up 52.84 percent of the electorate, while São Paulo alone accounts for more than 34 million voters. Polling runs from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Brasília time, after which official totals may be released. The figures come from the TSE’s election-day statistical bulletin. The contest pits two sharply different political projects against each other. Lula is seeking another term after campaigning on social programs, falling inequality and lower unemployment. But his government has faced anger over prices, household debt, public security and sluggish growth. Flávio Bolsonaro has organized the right around crime, conservative social politics and the rehabilitation of the movement led by his father, former president Jair Bolsonaro. Flávio Bolsonaro has also promised to pursue amnesty for his father, who is imprisoned for attempting a coup, and has presented closer relations with Washington and Israel as a central foreign-policy objective. His campaign has promoted deeper economic ties with the United States, including over critical minerals. Lula, by contrast, has defended a more autonomous Brazilian foreign policy and closer relations across the Global South. The election is taking place under unusual pressure from Washington. Reuters described a campaign marked by accusations of U.S. meddling after the Trump administration clashed with Lula’s government over trade and security. The United States also halted consular services in Brazil immediately before the vote. Those actions do not determine how Brazilians will vote, but they have made the country’s external alignment part of the election itself. The Bolsonaro movement enters the vote carrying the political weight of the former president’s conviction and its international alliances. Pamphlets previously examined the documented record behind the Bolsonaro dynasty, militia-linked networks and ties to Israel. That background matters because Flávio’s candidacy is not a break with Bolsonaro politics; it is its attempted succession. Domestic class questions remain just as important as foreign policy. A separate battle over Brazil’s six-day workweek has moved toward the Senate, placing working time and labor power directly into the country’s political debate. The campaign’s focus on scandal and personalities has often pushed those material disputes to the margins even though they will shape the next government’s room to act. Brazil’s electronic voting system is being used nationwide, with voters choosing candidates for six offices in a fixed sequence. The TSE says ballot-box integrity tests, transmission procedures and official result publication are governed by the 2026 election calendar and accompanying resolutions. The court’s official voting guide explains the order of offices and the national timetable. The result will carry consequences beyond Brazil. A Lula victory would preserve the region’s largest left-led government at a moment when much of Latin America has shifted right and Washington is openly seeking tighter hemispheric alignment. A Flávio Bolsonaro victory would restore the Bolsonaro movement through a new family candidate and give the Trump administration a close ally in South America’s largest economy. The immediate fact is simpler: nearly 159 million eligible Brazilians are deciding the composition of the presidency and Congress today. Until the TSE releases official totals after voting closes, campaign claims, exit speculation and social-media tallies should not be treated as results.

More than 100,000 Palestinians from Gaza remain stranded abroad nearly a year after the ceasefire, with return still blocked by destroyed homes, border restrictions, Israeli military control and the absence of meaningful reconstruction. Reuters reported on October 4 that only around 7,000 Palestinians have managed to return, leaving families dispersed across Egypt, Turkey and other countries with no clear route home. The numbers expose the gap between a ceasefire on paper and actual freedom of movement. Israeli forces still occupy more than 60 percent of the Gaza Strip, according to Reuters, while strikes continue and large areas remain unsafe or inaccessible. Inside Gaza, most residents still live in temporary or damaged shelter with limited aid and little reconstruction. The return crisis is unfolding alongside continued Israeli attacks. Pamphlets reported this week on an Israeli strike that killed Christian mother Maysa Abu Daoud and her daughter Mary in Gaza City, one of a series of incidents that have kept the ceasefire fragile and reinforced the uncertainty facing families considering return. For Palestinians abroad, the problem is not simply whether a crossing is technically open. A family can only return if it can reach Gaza, survive the journey, find shelter, access water and medical care, and live without being pushed again by military operations. That is why return has become a political question about control over territory rather than a narrow humanitarian logistics problem. OCHA has repeatedly described most Palestinians inside Gaza as displaced and confined to shrinking areas with overstretched services. In May, the UN agency said residents were largely unable to access other parts of the occupied Palestinian territory or travel abroad except for a very small number approved for medical evacuation. The same structure works in reverse: the right to leave and the right to come home are both filtered through a system of military and border control. The human consequences are visible in the families Reuters interviewed in Cairo. Omar al-Hassayna, who fled Gaza after losing hundreds of relatives in a 2023 strike, is among those waiting outside the enclave while members of his family remain scattered across several countries. His case is extreme in its scale of loss, but the broader condition is shared by tens of thousands: exile has continued after the bombing campaign that forced people out. Reconstruction is the other half of the return question. Destroyed neighborhoods, damaged infrastructure and restricted access to building materials mean that even Palestinians who can physically re-enter Gaza may be returning to tents, ruins or overcrowded shelters rather than functioning communities. Without large-scale reconstruction, return can become movement back into displacement rather than restoration of ordinary life. More than 100,000 Gazans remain outside the territory while much of the population inside remains displaced. Any post-ceasefire order that leaves Palestinians cut off from homes, land and family networks reproduces one of the war’s central injuries. Movement and return remain under outside control while reconstruction is delayed. Sources: Reuters — Gazans abroad wait to return · OCHA — humanitarian situation, May 1, 2026 · Photo source: Ashraf Amra / UNRWA via Wikimedia Commons

LONDON — Thousands of Palestine solidarity demonstrators marched through central London on October 10, demanding that the British government end arms sales to Israel and take stronger action over Gaza. Organized by the Palestine Coalition, the demonstration gathered on the Victoria Embankment before proceeding toward Whitehall. Palestinian flags and keffiyehs filled the route, and marchers called for an arms embargo and accountability over the destruction and loss of life in Gaza. The coalition brought together established Palestine solidarity organizations, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and other community groups. Their immediate demand focused on arms transfers rather than a change in the wording of diplomatic statements. That makes the question of licenses, actual shipments and enforceable restrictions central to judging whether British policy changes. ARCHIVE — Palestine solidarity march in central London, October 11, 2025. Clarisse Clemes / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0. This archival photograph does not depict the October 2026 march. Organizers described a mass turnout, while police expectations before the march were much smaller. The large demonstration placed renewed pressure on Britain's government over its continuing arms relationship with Israel. ITV reported an organizer estimate of about 250,000 participants, while other coverage described thousands in the streets. Exact crowd figures differed, but the political demand was unmistakable: demonstrators wanted Britain to stop sending arms to Israel and end its complicity in the destruction of Gaza. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other coalition members framed the march as a demand for an end to British complicity in Israeli military operations. The October 10 gathering also marked three years of war and renewed argument in Britain over arms licensing and the country's obligations toward Palestinian civilians. Demonstrators marched in the shadow of three years of war, the killing of Israeli civilians and hostage-taking during the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attacks, and the subsequent extensive destruction and civilian deaths in Gaza. A serious account should not collapse these different events into slogans or erase the distinction between civilians and armed actors. The marchers' criticism was directed at British policy and Israeli military action. The Metropolitan Police placed conditions on the march and on a counter-demonstration, citing concerns about public order. Police reported arrests during the event; a smaller group of counter-protesters also assembled near the route. The police said there had been 20 arrests by early evening, including alleged criminal damage at the Battle of Britain memorial and allegations relating to face coverings and placards. Those were early police figures and allegations, not convictions. ITV reported that a separate counter-demonstration involved roughly 30 people and was kept apart by barriers and officers. The main march was described as largely peaceful. The demonstration reflected continuing public mobilization despite shifts in diplomatic language. Marchers pressed for a concrete change in policy — stopping the transfer of weapons — rather than another expression of concern. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn addressed the rally, according to ITV, and linked campaigning to government decisions on West Bank settlements. His remarks illustrated the organizers' view that public pressure can change policy. The stronger test is documentary: what restrictions have actually been adopted, which licenses remain active and whether the UK government explains the difference between a stated position and arms exports in practice. The British government controls the licensing decisions governing military exports. Public disclosure of approvals, shipment records and end-use assessments would allow Parliament and readers to test ministers’ claims and identify which equipment reached Israel, when it arrived and under what conditions. Protesters are demanding that this trade be halted, not merely explained. Sources: Palestine Solidarity Campaign, October 10, 2026 — https://palestinecampaign.org/events/national-march-for-palestine-save-the-date/ ; ITV News, October 10, 2026 — https://www.itv.com/news/2026-10-10/several-arrests-made-as-thousands-descend-on-london-for-pro-palestine-protest ; The Guardian, October 10, 2026 — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/10/thousands-in-london-express-support-for-palestinians-after-three-years-genocide Image credit: Michael Warren, Palestine march in London, 13 January 2024, licensed CC BY 2.0. This is an archival documentary photo, not the October 2026 march. Adapted with crop, text, and color overlay. Original: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_march_London.jpg | License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Photo credit (archival context): Clarisse Clemes / Wikimedia Commons, October 11, 2025, Creative Commons CC BY 4.0. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:October_11th,_National_march_for_Palestine_in_central_London.jpg

The argument When voters are told that every election is existential, but neither major party offers a convincing break with militarism and corporate power, “lesser evil” politics can become a trap. This is an opinion argument about that trap—not a claim that one election alone will cause the fall of the United States. What happened in 2024 In November 2024, Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris. The Federal Election Commission’s official results record 312 electoral votes for Trump and 226 for Harris. The outcome deserves explanation, not a story that blames voters as a single bloc. For a related discussion of U.S. foreign policy, read The U.S. does not protect human rights—it weaponizes them.. Why voters chose differently Harris’s campaign drew left criticism for maintaining support for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, defending a strong border policy and offering limited economic change. The defeat cannot be reduced to one issue. Pew’s pre-election survey showed voters dividing sharply over the economy, immigration, health care and abortion, while party identity and candidate evaluations also shaped the result. What “lesser evilism” means “Lesser evilism” is more than a judgment about one candidate. It is a recurring strategy: ask voters to treat the opposing party as uniquely dangerous, while giving the preferred party little reason to answer demands from its own coalition. That strategy can produce short-term defensive voting and long-term disillusionment. The record of U.S. policy exposes the stakes. Barack Obama apologized after the 2015 U.S. bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, and the CIA's fake vaccination campaign in Pakistan damaged trust in public-health workers. Electoral rhetoric about protecting rights must be measured against what U.S. governments actually do at home and abroad. Pew Research Center on issues in the 2024 election · Doctors Without Borders on the Kunduz attack · CSIS on the CIA vaccination campaign Elections cannot settle the question of empire Washington has used military intervention, sanctions and financial leverage while presenting itself as guardian of an international order. This contradiction is part of the structural critique of U.S. power, regardless of which party occupies the White House. Pew’s review of the 2024 electorate records mixed motivations rather than a single cause of the Democratic defeat. The political challenge for the left is to reach the people alienated by both governing parties and organize them around demands that outlast an election cycle. Pew’s review of voters’ reflections on the 2024 campaign. U.S. power beyond elections U.S. power also rests on financial institutions and the dollar's global role. The dollar remained the leading international reserve currency in 2024, according to Federal Reserve data, even as its share of disclosed reserves declined. Local-currency trade, BRICS expansion, sanctions workarounds and alternative payment systems are building practical channels outside Washington's control. That transition is underway while U.S. financial dominance remains substantial; the shift in institutions matters precisely because it is material rather than rhetorical.Federal Reserve data on the dollar’s international role. The core critique Lesser-evil voting can shield party leadership from accountability by making fear of the alternative a substitute for delivering popular demands. Many people vote defensively because the consequences of elections are real. The task for an independent left is to organize beyond election day, build durable pressure and offer a program that can win support on its own merits rather than demanding endless patience with the same failures. Sources and further reading Sources and further reading: Federal Election Commission, 2024 presidential results · Federal Reserve, the international role of the U.S. dollar Sources Pew Research Center: voters’ issue priorities in the 2024 election Federal Election Commission: official 2024 presidential election results

Archival photograph of a destroyed tank on Edaga Hamus Street, Tigray, June 5, 2021. Yan Boechat/Voice of America. Public-domain image source Government-allied fighters entered Mekelle, the capital of Ethiopia’s Tigray region, on Sunday after the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) said it had withdrawn from the city. The Associated Press reported that a witness saw allied fighters enter after the TPLF announced its pullback. The group said it wanted to spare Mekelle from destruction as fighting intensified. The entry followed the reported recapture of Alula Aba Nega Airport, which Tigrayan forces seized on September 23. AP reported that flights to Mekelle, Axum and Shire had been suspended; Reuters said several sources confirmed federal troops had retaken the airport. The fall of the airport and entry into the city mark a major shift in territorial control. Fighting elsewhere in Tigray and the struggle over who governs the region remain unresolved. A withdrawal does not settle who controls Tigray The TPLF’s retreat recalls an earlier phase of the 2020–2022 war, when its forces left Mekelle and later returned. On Sunday, AP described government-allied fighters entering the city as TPLF forces withdrew; residents also reported looting as fighters left. Those accounts show a change in who is present, but not a durable political settlement or reliable security for residents. The airport seizure had already cut commercial air links to the region. Renewed fighting and disrupted communications make it harder for residents to travel, reach services or verify what is happening beyond their neighborhoods. For civilians, a change of flag over a building does not restore those connections. The Pretoria Agreement ended the previous war in November 2022, but its implementation has remained fragile. Reuters reported on Sunday that government forces and allied militias had retaken Mekelle after the TPLF acknowledged a withdrawal. Ethiopia has accused Eritrea, Sudan and Egypt of supporting armed opponents; those governments deny the allegations. The military reversals now unfolding risk widening a conflict whose neighbors are already exchanging diplomatic accusations. The immediate test is whether the withdrawal creates room for talks or another front line. The African Union has urged restraint, AP reported. The agreement’s survival will depend on whether the parties return to a political process before military control of the capital is treated as a solution.

Sidi Ould Tah, then director-general of BADEA, at an International Trade Centre meeting in 2019. Photo: International Trade Centre / CC BY 2.0. The African Development Bank is preparing a new initiative to help African governments strengthen the way they engage with sovereign credit-rating agencies, with the goal of reducing the high borrowing costs that constrain public investment across the continent. According to Reuters, AfDB President Sidi Ould Tah said weak economic data, limited market infrastructure and opacity can create an exaggerated perception of risk around African economies. That perception, he argued, feeds directly into higher financing costs for governments that already face tight fiscal space. Debt levels, inflation, reserves and political instability shape sovereign risk. Countries also pay premiums when investors and rating agencies have thin, delayed or incomparable data about their economies. Better information is therefore a matter of financial sovereignty: who defines risk, who sets the price of capital and how much fiscal room governments retain for development policy. The initiative fits into the AfDB’s broader push for a New African Financial Architecture for Development. The bank says the continent faces an annual development-financing gap of roughly $400 billion and has called for African savings, institutions and capital markets to play a larger role in financing infrastructure, industry and social development. Better credit data cannot erase debt burdens or guarantee an immediate rate cut. The AfDB has identified a deeper imbalance: poorly measured economies can be priced as riskier than countries whose liabilities are more visible. Building Africa’s capacity to document and defend its own economic record strengthens its position in negotiations with the institutions that control access to capital. Sources Reuters — AfDB to launch effort to help African countries manage credit ratings African Development Bank — New African Financial Architecture for Development African Development Bank — Annual Development Effectiveness Review 2026