Author: Admin

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy stood before an EU summit on Thursday and made a direct appeal: the fastest way to protect Europe’s future is to put Ukraine on an accelerated path into the European Union.

In remarks posted to X as a video, Zelenskiy told summit leaders that the defense of Ukraine is actively shaping the continent’s direction. He argued that every democratic nation in Europe belongs in the EU, and declared that “Ukraine merits this because it has paid more than any other country for its right to be free, independent and…European.”

“The future of Europe – free, united and of course in peace – is being decided in our defence. That shows how unique our situation is,” Zelenskiy said.

While acknowledging that not every EU member nation would embrace a speeded-up process, he pressed forward with the idea. “The most important such step – I know that not everyone loves this – could be a fast-track path for Ukraine to join the EU,” he said.

The push comes after EU ambassadors agreed last week to move membership talks forward for both Ukraine and the former Soviet republic of Moldova. Those discussions are now underway on the first of six policy “clusters” designed to align each country’s laws and standards with those of the EU bloc.

Following the summit, the European Council released a statement welcoming the start of those accession talks and saying it “looks forward to the opening of the other clusters, in line with the merit-based approach.”

Zelenskiy also tied European security directly to continued financial support for Ukraine’s military. He said the EU and a “coalition of willing” nations backing Ukraine have the ability to build the financial tools needed to keep that support going.

In an audio message released after the summit and a separate gathering of the “Ramstein” group focused on military aid for Ukraine, Zelenskiy reiterated that his country remains open to peace negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, he urged European nations not to ease pressure on Moscow.

“Europe has to be engaged for us to have a strong position, to commit fully on sanctions without loopholes, on confiscation without exceptions and on funding Ukraine,” he said.

ATHENS, Greece — For the first time in approximately 220 years, visitors arriving at the Acropolis in Athens are getting a view of the Parthenon’s western side that appears whole and complete.

The restoration milestone was officially revealed Thursday, as workers had carefully fitted two newly crafted marble blocks into spaces that had sat empty for generations along the upper portion of the temple’s western end — the very face that greets visitors as they enter the ancient site.

The 2,500-year-old structure towers over the Greek capital and drew roughly 4.6 million visitors last year alone. Ongoing restoration work has focused on repairing the toll taken by centuries of war, weather, and looting — including the long-fractured appearance of the western facade.

Greece’s Culture Minister Lina Mendoni offered a glowing assessment of the completed work, calling the result “truly stunning.”

She explained that the two newly placed stones carry significance beyond simply closing a gap in the structure.

“They allow the unique proportions and the geometric perfection of the Parthenon’s western face to be seen once again,” she said.

Funding for this phase of the project came through a European Union program. The work is one piece of a much larger restoration initiative that first launched in 1975.

HAVANA (AP) — Cuba’s Communist Party has given the green light to an emergency economic package that includes free-market measures unlike anything previously seen on the island, as the country faces growing pressure from the United States.

Although the full policy document has yet to be made public, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel and other officials have outlined several key components of the plan.

The reforms are designed to further loosen the grip of Cuba’s centrally controlled economy, where the government has traditionally dictated what gets produced, who produces it, how goods are priced, and how national resources are distributed.

At present, only government agencies and banks are authorized to exchange currencies, though a large portion of the population turns to informal markets to do so.

New legislation has been introduced that would trim the number of government ministries from 27 down to 21 in a bid to improve efficiency.

Local municipalities would gain new powers under the proposed measures, including the ability to approve businesses operating in their areas and to manage relationships with various economic players — from state-run enterprises to cooperatives and private companies. Municipalities would also be permitted to conduct their own imports and exports and handle their own foreign-currency earnings. Cuba is home to 168 municipalities spread across 15 provinces.

Individual companies would gain greater flexibility as well, including the ability to build their own pay structures, use and distribute profits with fewer government restrictions, conduct foreign trade, and form partnerships with private businesses and cooperatives.

The scope of activities that state-owned companies are allowed to pursue would also be expanded. Cuba currently has around 2,000 state-owned enterprises.

Small and medium-sized businesses would be allowed to handle their own imports and exports directly, bypassing the state-run entities that currently manage that process and collect fees.

The package also includes incentives aimed at encouraging the import of raw materials and other inputs needed for production.

Cuba’s long-standing post-revolution rationing system, which has provided access to basic goods at government-controlled low prices, is set to be gradually phased out. Food and other products would eventually shift to market-based pricing.

Recent U.S. sanctions targeting Cuba’s business conglomerate Gaesa have led major hotel chains such as Meliá and Iberostar to suspend agreements with their Cuban partners. The new measures seek to find alternative ways to make use of the island’s largely idle infrastructure.

Díaz-Canel has indicated that both the emergency plan and the policy document drafted by the Communist Party’s Central Committee drew on lessons from China and Vietnam — two communist-governed nations that have introduced market-style economic reforms while keeping one-party political systems in place.

The rollout of these economic measures follows months of escalating U.S. pressure and diplomatic discussions between the two nations, which have involved former President Raúl Castro’s grandson, Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro.

For decades, the United States has imposed trade and travel restrictions on Cuba, pushing for the release of all political prisoners, an end to political and religious repression, and the opening of Cuba’s economy to private American investment.

The Trump administration has intensified that pressure in recent months, enacting a fuel embargo against the island and filing charges against Raúl Castro in connection with the 1996 shooting down of two civilian aircraft flown by Miami-based Cuban exiles.

RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazilian federal police carried out search and seizure operations Thursday targeting a prominent senator and personal friend of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, as investigators dig deeper into a wide-ranging corruption and fraud case that has already swept up multiple politicians ahead of October’s national elections.

Authorities are scrutinizing suspicious financial transactions involving Sen. Jaques Wagner, who serves as the leader of Lula’s Workers’ Party in the Senate. The inquiry is connected to the now-defunct Banco Master and its disgraced former chief executive, Daniel Vorcaro.

Wagner marks the first high-profile ally of President Lula to be drawn into the expanding scandal, which has already caught up with presidential hopeful Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, among others. The controversy is anticipated to be a defining issue in the approaching elections.

Without identifying specific suspects, police announced they were carrying out 18 search and seizure warrants across the states of Bahia and São Paulo, as well as the Federal District, in connection with alleged crimes that could include passive corruption, active corruption, and money laundering.

Court documents signed by Supreme Court Justice André Mendonça on Wednesday — and obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday — named the suspects and authorized the searches to proceed.

According to those court documents, investigators uncovered indications that the senator may have received improper financial benefits, among them the purchase of a high-end apartment in Salvador valued at roughly 2.45 million reais, or about $470,000.

The documents also reveal that investigators are looking into whether Wagner leveraged his congressional position to advance matters favorable to Banco Master, particularly relating to payroll lending and deposit insurance regulations.

During Thursday’s operation, police seized around $50,000 in cash in Brasilia. Brazilian media reported that the money was found at a location or locations connected to Wagner.

When asked about the seized funds during an interview with Brazilian broadcaster Band on Thursday, Wagner maintained he had nothing to conceal and flatly denied ever receiving money from anyone connected to Banco Master.

The senator also pushed back against any meaningful connection to Vorcaro, the former Banco Master head who is currently behind bars. “My relationship with Daniel Vorcaro is practically nonexistent… I met Daniel only twice,” Wagner stated.

Later Thursday, Wagner’s press team issued a statement denying that the senator had ever acted on Banco Master’s behalf, asserting that the confiscated cash was obtained through legitimate means and that the Salvador apartment was never part of the senator’s personal assets.

Brazil’s Central Bank moved to shut down Banco Master — which had assets exceeding $16 billion — back in November.

Vorcaro, who sits at the heart of the investigation, was taken into custody in March and has since been attempting to negotiate a plea agreement with prosecutors.

Brazil’s federal police have estimated the total scope of the bank’s fraudulent activity at approximately 12 billion reais, equivalent to around $2.3 billion. Both the federal police and the Supreme Court continue to investigate the case.

SAO PAULO — Brazilian Senator Flavio Bolsonaro is counting on a tough-on-crime platform to attract undecided voters and strengthen his political base as he works to close the gap with incumbent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva before October’s presidential election.

On Thursday, the senator unveiled a public safety agenda in Sao Paulo built around 12 key proposals. Among the most notable is a push to classify Brazil’s criminal organizations as terrorist groups — an idea that gained traction in Washington just last month.

“They will be hunted down with force and intelligence,” Bolsonaro declared at the Thursday event. “Any armed criminal carrying a rifle will be taken down by our security forces,” he continued.

Flavio Bolsonaro is the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who entered office in 2019 with a similarly hardline stance on crime. Brazil’s homicide rate dropped considerably during the elder Bolsonaro’s time in office, though that downward trend had already been underway before he was elected.

Crime continues to be a major concern for Brazilian voters, many of whom are fed up with widespread street violence across the country’s cities.

The senator’s plan specifically takes aim at Brazil’s two most dominant criminal organizations — Comando Vermelho and Primeiro Comando da Capital — which together hold sway over criminal activity across large portions of the country.

The proposal builds on recent diplomatic efforts in Washington, where Bolsonaro successfully lobbied President Donald Trump last month to designate both organizations as foreign terrorist groups, lending the initiative considerable international credibility.

President Lula pushed back against that Washington designation, describing it as unwanted interference in Brazil’s domestic affairs. Legal analysts have also cautioned that the designation could create complications for companies doing business in Brazil.

Beyond the terrorism classification, Bolsonaro has pledged to lower the minimum age for criminal prosecution from 18 to 16, send elite military units to patrol the nation’s borders, and construct five new maximum-security prisons modeled after a program implemented in El Salvador.

Brazil already has one of the largest prison populations on the planet, with facilities long suffering from severe overcrowding and deteriorating conditions.

“This is about taking fear away from citizens and placing it in the hands of criminals, and these prisons will be called Treva — which in Portuguese means darkness,” the senator said.

Bolsonaro’s standing in public opinion polls has slipped in recent weeks following a controversy in which he acknowledged receiving funds from a now-imprisoned banker to help finance a film about his father, former President Jair Bolsonaro.

He currently lags behind Lula in a potential October runoff matchup, with the incumbent holding a 49.3% to 36.8% lead, according to a CNT/MDA poll published earlier this week.

TEL AVIV, Israel — U.S. Vice President JD Vance took aim at members of Israel’s government Thursday, asserting that the country is deeply isolated on the world stage and that its leaders have not shown adequate appreciation for American diplomatic and military backing.

The sharp remarks widened a growing crack in the relationship between the two allied nations, coming in the wake of an interim agreement reached between the United States and Iran to bring their conflict to a close.

Speaking at a White House news briefing, Vance said, “Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time. The problem for Israel is not Donald J. Trump, and anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the president of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in.”

The United States and Israel launched a joint military campaign against Iran on February 28, working in close coordination throughout the operation, which lasted more than a month.

Tensions began surfacing after a preliminary ceasefire was announced on April 8. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushed to keep the military campaign going, while Trump moved to end a war that had grown unpopular domestically and was unsettling global markets.

Although Netanyahu has avoided openly criticizing the ceasefire deal reached this week, some members of his Cabinet have not held back. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who leads a small ultranationalist political party, declared that Israel is not “bound” by Trump’s agreement and said the country would not yield to international pressure.

Vance acknowledged that Netanyahu himself has not publicly spoken against Trump, but he accused unnamed Cabinet members of showing ingratitude. He pointed out that Israel has very few allies internationally and has relied heavily on large amounts of U.S.-funded weapons for its defense.

Netanyahu’s office did not respond with a comment on Vance’s statements.

In recent days, Trump has voiced frustration with Netanyahu, claimed credit for Israel’s continued existence, and referred to the Israeli leader as “crazy.” Trump kept Israel out of the Iran negotiations entirely and also took issue with Israeli airstrikes carried out in Beirut.

In his first public remarks on the newly signed memorandum of understanding, Netanyahu said Thursday that Israeli forces would remain in a zone of territory they currently occupy in southern Lebanon “as long as Israel’s security needs require it.” Those comments raised concerns that the deal could be undermined, as it calls for all fighting to stop and for Lebanon’s territorial integrity to be respected.

Still, Netanyahu acknowledged the importance of maintaining ties with Washington, saying it was important “to maintain the important relationship with our American friends who fought shoulder to shoulder with us, and we greatly appreciate that.”

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The mother of a teenage girl who passed away after medical professionals in the Dominican Republic postponed her cancer treatment because she was pregnant has taken legal action against the nation’s sweeping abortion prohibition.

The challenge was filed Wednesday in the country’s Constitutional Court and is backed by several civil society groups, including a Christian organization. Together, they argue the ban infringes on the rights to life, health, dignity, and equality — protections they say must also apply to pregnant girls and women.

The Dominican Republic enforces one of the harshest abortion bans in the entire region, making the procedure illegal under all circumstances with no exceptions. Women who undergo an abortion can face up to two years behind bars, while medical professionals or midwives involved could be sentenced to anywhere from five to 20 years in prison.

Rosa Herminia Hernández, the mother at the center of the case, spoke out in a statement: “My daughter died because she was denied the medical care she needed. No other mother should have to go through this.”

Her daughter, Rosaura Almonte, was just 16 years old when she died in 2012 from leukemia. At the time of her death, she was three weeks pregnant, according to the court filing.

The legal challenge is asking the court to permit abortions in cases involving rape or incest, situations where the life or health of a woman or girl is at risk, and pregnancies where the fetus has a condition incompatible with survival.

Attorney Patricia Santana Nina described the goal of the action in a statement: “This action seeks something very simple: that no woman or girl should have to choose between her life, her health and the law.”

Government data shows that at least 67,455 abortions were recorded in the public health sector between 2019 and late 2024, though those figures did not distinguish between spontaneous and induced procedures.

Separately, prosecutors filed 62 criminal cases related to abortion and 16 cases for attempted abortion between June 2017 and October 2022. The Prosecutor General’s Office stopped releasing that data after November 2022.

The court filing directly questioned the current policy, asking: “Is it legitimate to maintain a permanent criminal threat against women in medical emergencies solely to legally express a moral stance?”

The challenge also highlighted a 2023 case involving a woman with three children — one of whom was the result of a rape — who suffered an incomplete spontaneous abortion. Authorities detained her for 10 days in what the filing described as inhumane conditions, and she reportedly did not receive adequate medical attention. “The woman went to a health center seeking care and ended up being deprived of her freedom,” the filing stated.

Human rights advocates say it is frequently health care workers themselves who report women to law enforcement.

There are no dependable statistics available on how many women in the Dominican Republic have died as a result of clandestine abortions.

According to government figures, at least 585 girls between the ages of 11 and 14 gave birth in 2024. Additionally, at least 681 rapes were reported between January and July 2025, with activists pointing out that the true number is likely far higher due to underreporting.

The filing also argued that the ban deepens existing social inequalities. Women with financial means can access private medical care — either within the country or abroad — while those living in poverty face greater health dangers and a higher risk of criminal prosecution. “The women who are persecuted often share conditions of socioeconomic vulnerability, job insecurity, low educational level, or migratory status,” the challenge stated.

A new agreement between the United States and Iran is designed to bring an end to their conflict, reopen a critical global shipping lane, ease economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic, and restart nuclear negotiations — with a 60-day deadline to work out the details.

The document was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, but experts say it leaves a number of major issues unresolved following the three-month regional conflict that rattled the global economy. U.S. officials say those outstanding matters will be addressed during the 60-day window.

Here is a look at the key questions surrounding the deal and the best answers available right now.

Trump has stated that one of the primary goals of the war was to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — something Iran has consistently denied pursuing. The surprise military strike launched jointly by the U.S. and Israel on February 28 came while Iran was already engaged in nuclear discussions. Those talks are now set to resume under the new agreement.

Reaching a comprehensive nuclear agreement before the 60-day deadline — which could potentially be extended — will be an enormous challenge. The 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump walked away from during his first term in office, required more than 18 months of negotiations and involved highly technical discussions among nuclear specialists.

Iran has long maintained its right to enrich uranium. The current agreement does not specify what level of enrichment would be permitted — whether the lower levels used for power generation or the significantly higher levels Iran had reached before the war, which left its uranium just one technical step away from weapons-grade material.

Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium is believed to have been largely destroyed in U.S. airstrikes last year. The agreement states that whatever remains will at minimum be diluted in place under United Nations supervision, though it provides no further detail. Trump has repeatedly called for the stockpile to be removed from Iranian soil entirely.

Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas flowed before the conflict — triggered a massive global fuel crisis, sending prices soaring for everything from gasoline and groceries to fertilizer and airline tickets.

Maritime data firm Lloyd’s List Intelligence reported Thursday that major shipping companies have begun moving vessels through the strait once again.

The agreement calls for the waterway to be fully reopened, with Iran required to clear mines within 30 days. Commercial ships will not face any charges during the 60-day period outlined in the deal.

Prior to the war, passage through the strait was free of charge. Iran began imposing tolls during the fighting and has indicated it intends to keep collecting fees. Legal experts say such charges would violate international maritime law, and the U.S. has firmly rejected the idea. The fees could also conflict with existing sanctions on Iran, creating complications for shipping companies.

Even with the strait reopened, analysts warn it could take weeks or months before oil and gas flows return to normal levels. Ship captains and insurance companies will need to assess whether it is truly safe to transit the waterway. Hundreds of vessels that have been stranded in the Persian Gulf for months will need to pass through the narrow, curved passage. Even a brief exchange of fire — which occurred multiple times following a ceasefire declared in April — could bring traffic to a halt again.

Major energy producers in the Gulf region, including Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, will also need time to repair infrastructure that was damaged by Iranian missile and drone attacks.

The U.S. says it has lifted its naval blockade as part of the agreement. The deal also includes sanctions waivers that will allow Iran to export oil again, which should help stabilize Iran’s damaged economy and likely push global fuel prices lower. The U.S. has also committed to releasing frozen Iranian funds held in accounts abroad.

A broader set of international sanctions tied to Iran’s nuclear activities, its support for militant organizations, and human rights concerns are also slated to be lifted — but only as part of a final nuclear agreement. U.S. Vice President JD Vance indicated that any sanctions relief would be “performance-based.”

The agreement calls for the United States and its regional allies to establish a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, but it does not identify who would actually provide the money. Trump has said the U.S. will not contribute, and Vance has suggested wealthy Gulf nations should foot the bill. However, those countries are unlikely to be enthusiastic about funding Iran when their own economies are struggling from the war’s impact and their own infrastructure has been damaged in Iranian attacks.

The deal calls for an immediate end to military operations “on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” where Israel has been engaged in fighting against the Iran-backed Hezbollah militant group. It also calls for protecting Lebanon’s “territorial integrity and sovereignty.”

What the agreement does not address is whether Israel would pull back from the large portions of southern Lebanon it has occupied since Hezbollah entered the conflict early on by firing rockets and drones at northern Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is facing elections later this year, has refused to withdraw, insisting Israeli forces will stay until the threat from Hezbollah is eliminated. Hezbollah has said it will not stop its own attacks while Israeli forces remain on Lebanese soil, and Iran has demanded that Lebanon be included in any ceasefire arrangement. Ongoing fighting in Lebanon could potentially collapse the entire deal if either Iran or the U.S. concludes the other side has broken it.

The agreement is silent on both Iran’s missile arsenal and its network of militant allies. Trump suggested this week that Iran should be permitted to maintain some ballistic missiles in proportion to what its neighboring countries possess. Iran still holds missiles capable of striking Israel and has long provided support to groups including Hezbollah, Hamas in Gaza, Houthi rebels in Yemen, and militias operating in Iraq. Dismantling Iran’s missile capabilities and weakening its network of allied militant groups had been stated objectives of the U.S. war effort. Any sanctions relief Iran receives could potentially free up money to continue funding those groups, though Iran will need to weigh that against its urgent economic and reconstruction needs.

It took weeks of late-night phone calls, competing document drafts, and a critical last-minute push from Qatar to produce this week’s preliminary agreement between the United States and Iran — and sources familiar with the talks say the toughest negotiations are still ahead.

Pakistani mediators were central to brokering the interim deal, but four Pakistani sources familiar with the process said the path was filled with obstacles that sometimes shifted within days. Sticking points ranged from proposed fees in the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas travels — to the ongoing conflict in Lebanon.

In the early morning hours of Monday, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced a 14-point memorandum designed to end the war and competing blockades of the strait. Speaking to parliament later that day, Sharif acknowledged just how close things came to breaking down. “There were many moments during the negotiations when it looked as if the process would grind to a halt,” he said.

Five Pakistani sources, who spoke anonymously due to the sensitivity of the discussions, said the announcement came only after talks nearly collapsed on multiple occasions — including during the final night of negotiations. Two of those sources, along with a diplomat briefed on the process, said Qatar’s intervention was essential to securing the framework agreement.

At one point, disagreements came down to a single word choice. A diplomat described a 45-minute debate in late May over whether the text should use the word “including” or the abbreviation “etc.” — though the diplomat did not specify which part of the document was being discussed.

Analysts warn that achieving a final settlement will be even more difficult, given the need to address sanctions relief, management of the strait, and limits on Iran’s nuclear activities — all against a backdrop of deep mutual suspicion between Washington and Tehran.

“Washington and Tehran appear to have different interpretations of the same text,” said Alex Vatanka of the Middle East Institute in Washington. “Iran will try to turn ambiguity into leverage, while the U.S. will try to preserve pressure until nuclear concessions are secured. Mediation will therefore remain central, but difficult.”

Pakistan and Qatar’s foreign ministries, Iran’s permanent mission to the United Nations, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Qatar’s role grew significantly after talks stalled for roughly 10 days in mid-May and the risk of military escalation appeared to be rising. According to the diplomat, Doha had initially been reluctant to formally join the process but agreed to become more directly involved on the condition that a ceasefire held and Qatar itself was not targeted. A Qatari team then made five quiet trips to Tehran — often traveling through Turkey — to work through gaps in the Pakistani draft documents.

On May 19, after leaving Tehran with what they believed was a promising opening, the Qatari team traveled to Washington, met with senior U.S. officials, and made edits to the text while simultaneously calling Iranian counterparts from inside the White House, according to one source.

One Pakistani source who was directly involved in the negotiations described how precarious the final night truly was. By around 11 p.m. Sunday in Pakistan, with officials gathered at the prime minister’s residence and in a situation room, the talks were again unraveling after Israel launched strikes on Lebanon. “Things were very fluid,” the source said, adding that army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir relayed messages between the two sides throughout the night. Hours later, the agreement was finalized.

Four Pakistani sources said that U.S. President Donald Trump’s changing public statements repeatedly complicated the effort, as did Iran’s slow responses to time-sensitive proposals. Those delays were partly attributed to Iran’s decision-making becoming unusually fragmented after U.S. strikes weakened its leadership structure.

An international source familiar with the negotiations noted that Iranian officials were extremely cautious about information security. “Messages get passed through many hands, and then come back days later,” the source said.

The Pakistani source involved in the talks said communication improved after a representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei traveled to Islamabad, enabling army chief Munir and his team to “get more direct communications running.”

The international source described the frustration of dealing with both parties. “With the Americans, you never really knew what their position was, and it could change. And with the Iranians, you often didn’t get a clear answer for days and days,” the source said.

Both countries have now signed the interim agreement, but the diplomat cautioned that the situation remains fragile — particularly because Israeli strikes in Lebanon and retaliatory action by Hezbollah could still unravel the deal. “I don’t think I’ve ever been close to a process which involves less trust than this one,” the international source said.

Guyana’s contender for the top post at the United Nations told a candidacy hearing Thursday that the world shares a duty to ensure the global body remains a positive force, while also pushing for reforms to make it more nimble and efficient.

Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, who once worked as a schoolteacher and now serves as Guyana’s ambassador to the UN — a role she took on after previously serving as the country’s foreign minister — is one of six people vying to take over from Antonio Guterres when his term concludes at the end of this year.

Whoever succeeds Guterres will inherit a massive challenge: reviving an institution that has lost standing on the world stage and faces mounting calls to overhaul its large and expensive bureaucracy while eliminating redundancy across its numerous agencies.

“I believe in the United Nations. It is indispensable, it is incomparable, and it is a force for global good,” Rodrigues-Birkett said during her hearing.

“While it is important to highlight the U.N.’s shortcomings, we must also recognize the profound difference it has made in the lives of all of our peoples. Our collective responsibility is to make sure it continues to do so,” she added.

Echoing other candidates in the race, she called for ongoing reform efforts aimed at building “a more agile and effective organization.”

The remaining five candidates include Maria Fernanda Espinosa, who previously served as both foreign affairs minister and defense minister of Ecuador; Rebeca Grynspan, a former vice president of Costa Rica; Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile; Macky Sall, a former president of Senegal; and Rafael Grossi of Argentina, who currently heads the International Atomic Energy Agency.

A vote is expected later this year. Notably, no woman has ever held the position of UN secretary-general.

By tradition, the secretary-general is not drawn from any of the five permanent members of the Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States — though the support of those major powers remains essential in what is a complex and lengthy selection process.

Slovakia’s three-party coalition government cleared a confidence vote in parliament on Thursday, a vote that was required after the nation’s debt surpassed its legally established limits — though the outcome did little to quiet growing concerns about the country’s fiscal direction.

Prime Minister Robert Fico’s governing coalition secured 78 votes in favor in the 150-seat legislature.

Under Slovak law, a constitutional measure on budget responsibility requires increasingly strict actions as national debt climbs. Those steps range from freezing ministerial salaries and cutting spending to, at the most severe level, holding a confidence vote in parliament.

The debt threshold that triggers a confidence vote has been gradually lowered over time, dropping from 60% of gross domestic product down to 52% for 2025, the most recent year for which data is available.

However, exemptions built into the law for newly formed or caretaker governments have repeatedly allowed administrations to sidestep the harshest consequences even as debt continued to grow.

The final exemption lapsed in late 2025, but the government put off holding the vote until Slovakia’s Constitutional Court issued a ruling on Wednesday demanding immediate action.

Following the court’s order, Prime Minister Fico called the vote right away, characterizing it as little more than a routine procedural step.

Official figures show Slovakia’s debt was at 57.9% of GDP in 2024 before climbing to 61.4% in 2025. Opposition lawmakers argued that the higher debt level should have prompted a confidence vote as early as last year.

The country’s current budget is targeting a deficit of 4.3% of GDP this year, with only a modest improvement to 4.2% projected by 2027. Meanwhile, national debt is expected to climb further, potentially reaching 65.1% of GDP next year.

Slovakia’s independent fiscal watchdog pushed back against the government’s low-key handling of the vote, issuing a statement ahead of the vote that read: “Before the confidence vote, fundamental questions should be heard: Do we know when and how the growth in debt should stop? Are proposed measures sufficient to lower debt?”

The country’s Finance Ministry did not respond when asked for comment.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei announced Thursday that he authorized a memorandum of understanding jointly signed by the Iranian and U.S. presidents — a decision he made despite holding personal reservations about the agreement.

In a written statement addressed to the Iranian people, Khamenei explained that he moved forward after President Masoud Pezeshkian and other high-ranking Iranian officials gave him assurances that the deal would protect Iran’s rights and the interests of what he referred to as the “Resistance Front.”

Khamenei noted that Pezeshkian, serving in his role as head of the Supreme National Security Council, personally accepted responsibility for making sure the agreement safeguards Iran’s interests. The president also pledged to stand firm if the United States put forward what Khamenei characterized as excessive demands.

The Supreme Leader further emphasized that any future in-person negotiations with the United States should not be interpreted as Iran giving in to what he called “the enemy’s position.”

JOHANNESBURG — South Africa broke ground Thursday on a second temporary facility designed to process the return of Malawian nationals to their home country. The move comes after thousands of people took to the streets earlier this year in Johannesburg and other South African cities to protest illegal immigration — unrest that has stoked tensions between South African residents and foreign nationals living in the country.

At the same time, thousands more Malawian citizens continued arriving at the first deportation processing site, located in the Sherwood area of the city of Durban. Roughly 10,000 people have been camped at that location for more than a week, waiting for transportation back to Malawi.

On Wednesday, the situation at the Sherwood site turned violent. Police deployed rubber bullets and stun grenades against migrants who were throwing rocks, sticks, and logs at officers. Local media in South Africa attributed the clashes to growing frustration over how long the deportation process was taking.

The second facility is intended to ease conditions at the overcrowded Sherwood site, where women and young children have been packed in alongside thousands of men. South African officials reported that at least 12 women had given birth at the site since Malawians began gathering there.

Authorities from both South Africa and Malawi have spent recent weeks working together to organize the large-scale return of Malawian citizens who say they left due to fears of anti-migrant hostility and potential violence.

South African officials explained that the deportation process requires Malawians to appear before a court, since they were in the country without legal status. The pace of returns has also been slowed by a shortage of buses provided by the Malawian government, which has also appealed for donations to help cover the cost of transporting people home.

PARIS (AP) — It could stand as one of Emmanuel Macron’s final major foreign policy achievements as France’s leader: drawing U.S. President Donald Trump to a historic evening at the Palace of Versailles, where Trump signed an initial agreement to bring the Iran war to an end.

But that dramatic moment was just one highlight from a G7 summit where Macron’s nearly decade-long experience on the world stage and the relationships he has cultivated paid off in significant ways.

Among the most notable accomplishments was persuading Trump to take a stronger stance in support of Ukraine’s fight against Russia — a significant victory for European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, coming after a diplomatic stumble at the White House back in March 2025.

“Bravo,” Macron said following Trump’s signing of the Iran agreement. The signing caught most of the officials and guests at the Versailles Palace dinner off guard, and the room responded with applause.

Macron had framed the dinner as a celebration of the friendship between France and the United States. The unplanned signing ceremony turned it into a symbolic capstone to Macron’s week-long effort to bring Trump into greater alignment with European positions — potentially among his last significant achievements before his term concludes next spring.

Macron had described Versailles as an “instrument of influence” and suggested the exclusive invitation could help keep Trump engaged through the close of the G7 summit held in Evian. Trump had departed last year’s summit in Canada before it wrapped up.

The Palace of Versailles — which Trump praised as “not gold leaf” — has served as a venue for French leaders to welcome distinguished guests for more than three centuries.

Following the signing, Macron praised the Iran agreement as one that “allows for putting an end to the conflict, that allows peace, that allows the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz” and said it would likely lead to lower oil prices.

Macron was not part of the Iran war negotiations and cannot take credit for Trump’s decision to sign the deal. However, he secured the historic setting, helping to place Europe back into the spotlight of a conflict that the U.S. and Israel launched together without consulting their Western allies.

French Economy Minister Roland Lescure, who was present at the dinner, said the signing was largely unplanned and improvised.

Lescure said Trump announced during his remarks that he intended to sign the agreement. When asked whether Macron had prior knowledge, Lescure said he believed Trump had told the French president shortly before the moment arrived.

“But for us, ministers in the French government, it was a surprise,” Lescure told French radio RTL.

Trump arrived in France under domestic pressure over Iran, including criticism from some of his own allies about how he had handled the conflict and the deal taking shape. Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s closest supporters and a longtime hardliner on Iran, had voiced skepticism about the agreement.

As negotiations with Iran moved forward, Trump sought support from G7 leaders, according to a European diplomat familiar with the discussions who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to comment publicly. The G7 includes the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, Canada, and Japan.

“We certainly gave him some reassurance on the Middle East,” the European diplomat said. “And President Trump, for his part, delivered for us on Ukraine.”

The G7’s statement on geopolitical matters described a “breakthrough” in the Middle East and mentioned Trump by name three times, praising what it called his “strong leadership.”

Trump has had tensions with Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni over his failure to consult them before deciding to go to war. He has also pushed back on those four NATO members for not supporting the U.S. in the conflict.

Macron, whose relationship with Trump has been bumpy since an unusually prolonged handshake nearly a decade ago, spent months preparing for the G7 summit through regular phone calls centered on both Iran and Ukraine.

On the sidelines of the summit, Trump met with Zelenskyy, who showed him photographs documenting the destruction caused by Russian bombing of the Dormition Cathedral in Kyiv.

Macron has at times expressed wariness about Trump’s shifting stances, particularly when it comes to Russia and President Vladimir Putin. But European officials argued that the written commitments made this week carry more lasting weight because Trump himself approved the language.

“America is with us on Ukraine. That is very important,” Macron said after Trump joined a three-way phone call with Zelenskyy from Versailles.

G7 leaders agreed in a joint statement to step up deliveries of air-defense systems and long-range weapons to Ukraine. They also committed to ramping up pressure on Russia through tougher sanctions, including measures aimed at the country’s oil and gas industries.

Macron also used the summit as an opportunity to raise the issue of Lebanon’s future with Trump. France has deep historical ties to Lebanon and has worked to keep international attention focused on Lebanese sovereignty. During discussions in Evian, Trump repeatedly expressed sympathy toward Lebanon while criticizing Israel and describing friction with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

HAVANA (AP) — Cuba’s Communist Party, known as the PCC, gave its approval Thursday to an emergency economic package that includes unprecedented free-market measures designed to breathe new life into the country’s struggling economy at a time of intensifying pressure from the United States.

The plan, which has not yet been released to the public, is set to be submitted Thursday to Cuba’s National Assembly. Among its key elements are expanded opportunities for private businesses, greater independence for local municipalities and state-run companies, and steps to draw in more foreign investment — including money from Cubans living overseas.

The announcement follows a wave of unrest on the island, where residents in multiple Havana neighborhoods took to the streets in recent days, banging pots and pans in protest as electricity blackouts continued to spread across Cuba.

In the closing address of the Communist Party session late Wednesday — a speech that was released publicly on Thursday — President Miguel Díaz-Canel defended the island’s resilience while condemning outside pressure. “Cuba resists heroically and creatively, but has endured for too long a barbaric, undeserved and unbearable punishment, to which is now added the threat of military aggression,” he said.

Díaz-Canel noted that the emergency plan and the accompanying policy document, drafted by the Communist Party’s Central Committee, were modeled in part on the economic experiences of China and Vietnam — two communist-led nations that have introduced market-style reforms while keeping one-party political control intact.

The policy document will head to the National Assembly for debate during a special session. Like the recent party meeting itself, that session was called without any advance public announcement.

The move comes after months of escalating tensions with the U.S. and high-level conversations between the two countries that have included Raúl Castro’s grandson, Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro. Washington has imposed numerous sanctions on Cuba and has indicted Raúl Castro in connection with the 1996 shooting down of two civilian aircraft operated by Cuban exiles based in Miami.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance addressed the situation at a White House press briefing, saying the administration is closely monitoring Cuba’s next moves. “We’re going to see what they do. And obviously, if they do one thing, we’re going to do something,” Vance said. “If they make smart decisions, we’re going to have a much better relationship with that island.”

Major shipping companies have started moving their vessels through the Strait of Hormuz following a U.S.-Iran interim agreement to end hostilities, according to maritime data firm Lloyd’s List Intelligence, which announced the development Thursday.

During a media briefing, Lloyd’s List editor in chief Richard Meade noted that for the first time in 110 days, ships belonging to major companies were crossing the strait. The vessels had essentially been stranded there since February.

The strait serves as one of the world’s most vital shipping corridors for oil and natural gas. Prior to the war, the waterway — located off Iran’s coast — carried roughly one-fifth of the globe’s crude oil supply. Its closure during the conflict triggered a historic energy crisis.

Lloyd’s List did not disclose exactly how many ships had made the crossing as of Thursday, but confirmed that tankers operated by major shipowners Grimaldi Group, Cosco, Knutsen, and NYK had successfully passed through. Additionally, two sanctioned crude oil tankers flying the Iranian flag and owned by the National Iranian Tanker Company also entered the strait, according to the firm.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance announced Thursday that the U.S. Navy had lifted its blockade of the strait, allowing certain vessels access to Iranian ports.

Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani posted on X that an Italian merchant vessel belonging to the Grimaldi Group was among the first ships to make the transit following the signing of the agreement.

Separate maritime tracking company Kpler reported observing six confirmed ship crossings on Wednesday, followed by 11 more on Thursday.

Phillip Belcher, marine director of Intertanko — a trade organization representing independent tanker owners worldwide — explained that the strait’s main central route remains closed and contains an estimated 80 mines awaiting clearance. Ships have instead been using a smaller northern route through Iranian waters and a southern route through Omani waters.

“Those two routes now seem to be fully open,” Belcher said.

Still, a complete reopening of the strait could take weeks or even months, and the two alternate routes lack the capacity of the main central passage.

“This is like a highway where the road in the middle is closed and you’re using that hard shoulder,” Belcher said. “That’s now being used as the main route. We need to get back to having the highway open.”

Lloyd’s List estimates that approximately 550 merchant ships will need to prepare to exit the Persian Gulf, a group that includes around 160 tankers, 200 bulk carriers, 60 container ships, and 10 vehicle carriers.

A historic agreement between the United States and Iran — the first deal signed by leaders of both nations since Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979 — is drawing sharply divided reactions across the Middle East.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed the interim accord on Wednesday, bringing a formal end to a three-month war. Trump chose the Palace of Versailles, on the sidelines of the G7 summit, as the location to formalize the agreement — a venue widely interpreted as symbolizing a reshaping of the international order following the conflict.

The 14-point deal extends an existing ceasefire by 60 days, including in Lebanon, to allow time for negotiations toward a permanent settlement and to address unresolved issues including Iran’s nuclear program.

Supporters are calling it a transformational moment. Lebanese commentator Sarkis Naoum described it as nothing short of a grand bargain. “For Washington and Tehran, this is a grand bargain — the deal of the century, with no turning back,” he said. “The probability of success outweighs the risk of failure. Iran cannot endure further economic pain under sanctions, and Trump has no incentive to start a new war.”

But for Iran’s adversaries — including Israel, Gulf states, and factions in Lebanon — the agreement looks far more troubling. Israeli analyst Danny Citrinowicz called it a strategic “catastrophe,” arguing that what had been framed as a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to weaken or even bring down the Islamic Republic has instead resulted in American recognition of Iran’s government.

“We went to topple the regime with U.S. backing and ended with Washington effectively giving legitimacy and strengthening the same regime we wanted to bring down,” said Citrinowicz, a senior Iran researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.

He contends the deal delivers none of Israel’s core demands: there are no restrictions placed on Iran’s missile program or its regional proxy forces, and no clear roadmap for dismantling its nuclear facilities. Even Israel’s military operations in Lebanon have been constrained by the ceasefire framework, which was included at Iran’s insistence.

Citrinowicz warned that Iran has gained significant room to maneuver, and that the deal risks cementing its regional position while leaving Israel increasingly isolated. “Everything is bad,” he said bluntly. “And it’s only going to get worse.”

If the agreement holds, Iran appears to come out ahead: the war ends, sanctions relief is phased in, oil exports resume, and massive reconstruction funding becomes possible — all alongside an implicit acceptance of Iran’s political system by the West.

The United States and Israel launched the war on February 28, beginning with the assassination of 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian figures in the opening days of the conflict. The war escalated rapidly, killing more than 7,000 people — mostly in Iran and Lebanon — while driving up global energy prices and raising fears of a food crisis in developing nations.

In Lebanon, the deal is seen as tilting the balance toward Iran, reinforcing the role of Tehran-backed Hezbollah and drawing the country into a broader U.S.-Iran diplomatic framework while sidelining direct talks between Beirut and Israel.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun cautioned last week that Iran does not have the authority to negotiate on Lebanon’s behalf on matters such as the ceasefire terms and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanese territory.

However, sources close to Hezbollah argue the opposite — that the U.S.-Iran track actually strengthens Lebanon’s standing by elevating its situation into a higher-level negotiation, with both Washington and Tehran able to pressure their respective allies toward a settlement.

Concern is running highest in the Gulf, where Iranian attacks during the conflict rattled confidence in long-standing security arrangements. Gulf states have emerged as the war’s biggest losers — left on the sidelines as decisions reshaped their security environment, and now facing the consequences.

Gulf sources say the deal is already changing strategic calculations in the region: eroding trust in U.S. security guarantees, entrenching Iran as a permanent regional force, and pushing countries toward accommodation rather than confrontation with Tehran.

Iran expert Alex Vatanka offered a different perspective, arguing the deal represents the least damaging outcome available after years of failed attempts to pressure Iran through force. “They tried to take Iran down militarily. They couldn’t. The alternative would have been catastrophic — a wider war could have devastated the Gulf for decades,” said Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

He cautioned that the real challenges are still ahead — in carrying out the terms of the deal, resolving the nuclear question, and managing the regional fallout. “It’s big, but it’s not the end of it. It’s just the beginning,” he said.

Some analysts point to Israel as the most unpredictable factor going forward. While few believe Israel would directly derail a process backed by Trump, risks remain — particularly in Lebanon. “Israel has been isolated, after this war, both in the region and in the world,” said one Iranian official, who asked not to be identified.

A second Iranian official added: “Iran got what it wanted… We did not abandon our friends, such as Hezbollah, rather, we were even prepared to go to the extent of walking away from the table and returning to war because of them.”

An interim deal to end the conflict with Iran includes a waiver allowing some sanctioned oil sales to proceed, but the country continues to operate under an extensive and complicated set of international restrictions on its trade and activities.

For decades, Iran has faced sanctions, trade embargoes, and asset freezes imposed by the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and other nations. These measures were put in place over concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, its human rights record, and its backing of various groups throughout the region.

Iran is now looking to secure additional relief from those restrictions through ongoing negotiations over its nuclear program, as the next stage of the interim agreement takes shape.

Here is a breakdown of the key sanctions currently in place against Iran, which range from sweeping trade prohibitions to targeted measures against specific individuals and organizations.

UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS

The U.N.’s sanctions against Iran are directly connected to its nuclear program and alleged failures to meet its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The U.N. Security Council passed resolutions imposing sanctions in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2010. Those measures included an arms embargo, restrictions on the supply of certain nuclear-related materials and technology, and asset freezes targeting specific companies and individuals.

The resolutions also prohibited Iran from conducting any activities related to developing ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

While the funds and assets of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s state-owned shipping company were frozen, the resolutions did not block Iranian oil exports.

Following the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — commonly known as the JCPOA — the Security Council established a timeline for lifting its sanctions against Iran. However, U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018, and Iran subsequently stopped honoring some of its commitments under the deal. The U.N. sanctions were then reinstated through what is known as a “snapback” mechanism last year.

UNITED STATES SANCTIONS

The United States first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979, after revolutionary students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took diplomats hostage. Many additional layers of sanctions have been added over the years, targeting Iran’s support for groups the U.S. considers terrorist organizations, as well as its nuclear activities.

A major complicating factor is that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — the most powerful single entity in Iran and deeply intertwined with its economy — has been designated by Washington as a terrorist organization.

The U.S. Treasury Department administers the sanctions, but because they were enacted through different legal authorities and mechanisms, there is no simple or swift way to remove all of them at once.

The legal authority to impose sanctions stems from two laws passed in the 1970s that give presidents emergency powers requiring annual renewal, as well as from legislation passed in 1996 and 2017 that specifically targets Iran and certain other countries.

Sanctions that the president put in place through executive orders can be reversed by Trump with a single signature. Those include freezes on billions of dollars in Iranian assets, an arms embargo, a prohibition on all trade with or investment in Iran, and a ban on purchasing Iranian oil.

More difficult to undo are the sanctions enacted by Congress, which did not include exceptions or waivers tied to Iran’s behavior regarding human rights or its support for groups Washington considers terrorist organizations.

Numerous companies, individuals, and government entities have been specifically designated under these sanctions, and removing each designation could be a lengthy process.

EUROPEAN UNION SANCTIONS

In 2012, the EU imposed embargoes on Iranian oil exports, froze assets held by Iran’s Central Bank, and halted trade in precious metals and petrochemicals with Iran.

The bloc also placed restrictions on foreign trade, financial services, and the energy and technology sectors.

That same year, some Iranian banks were cut off from the SWIFT international payments system under EU directives, effectively severing large portions of Iran’s financial network from the rest of the world.

While certain sanctions were lifted under the JCPOA, they were later reinstated. Additional sanctions have since been aimed at specific individuals and particular components used in missiles and drones.

The EU has also sanctioned the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and imposed new measures this year in response to Iran’s blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.

WHERE ARE IRAN’S FROZEN ASSETS?

Iran has tens of billions of dollars sitting in foreign banks — money earned primarily from oil and gas exports — that it is unable to access due to the various sanctions targeting its banking and energy sectors.

Countries where Iran has had billions of dollars from oil sales locked in inaccessible bank accounts include South Korea, China, Japan, Luxembourg, and Iraq.

HARARE, Zimbabwe — Zimbabwe’s lawmakers cast votes Thursday in favor of constitutional changes that would delay upcoming elections and stretch the current president’s time in office from five years to seven.

The move shines a light on a striking reality across Africa: some of the planet’s oldest leaders govern a continent whose population is among the youngest in the world.

The country’s National Assembly passed the constitutional amendments by a wide margin. The changes would push elections originally scheduled for 2028 back to 2030, adding two years to President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term. The bill must still clear the Senate, where passage is also widely anticipated.

Should the legislation become law, Mnangagwa would join the ranks of some of Africa’s oldest and longest-serving heads of state. He first took power in 2017 following a military-led removal of the late Robert Mugabe, who was 93 at the time and held the distinction of being the world’s oldest sitting head of state. The bill also proposes changing how the president is chosen — moving from a direct public vote to selection by members of parliament.

A recent analysis from the Pew Research Center found that 16 of the world’s 186 national leaders are older than U.S. President Donald Trump, who celebrated his 80th birthday last week. Seven of the ten oldest leaders on the global stage are from Africa — a continent where the median age is roughly 20 and more than 60% of residents are under 30, according to United Nations data.

Blessing Vava, a researcher focused on democracy and governance, put it plainly: “The population in Africa is getting younger, but the average age of presidents is rising, and tenures are getting longer.”

Vava, who also serves as director of the Johannesburg-based Southern Africa Coalition for Democracy and Accountability, added that Zimbabwe’s situation is far from unique. “Zimbabwe is not an exception. It’s the continental norm. Zimbabwe is just one data point in a much broader story of constitutional erosion for political survival.”

Cameroon’s Paul Biya, 93, holds the title of the world’s oldest sitting head of state. He has governed since 1982 — a year after Ronald Reagan took office in the United States — in a country where roughly 70% of the population is under 35. The U.S. has cycled through seven presidents in the time Biya has held power.

In neighboring Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo has ruled for 47 years. At 84, he is Africa’s longest-serving leader and has gone so far as to name his own son as vice president.

Ivory Coast’s Alassane Ouattara, also 84, was sworn in for a fourth presidential term in December 2025 following an election that saw low voter participation and civil unrest.

Malawi returned Peter Mutharika, now 85, to the presidency last year. He previously served as the country’s leader from 2014 to 2020.

In Uganda, 81-year-old Yoweri Museveni — an American ally on regional security matters who has drawn criticism from opponents for authoritarian governance — took the oath of office for a seventh straight term in May, pushing his total time in power to four decades.

Mnangagwa, Museveni, Ouattara, Biya, and Obiang have each altered or done away with constitutional limits that were designed to restrict how long a leader could remain in office.

The Africa Center for Strategic Studies notes that leadership patterns across the continent’s 54 nations vary widely. Around 20 African countries actively maintain term limits, while others have eliminated or worked around them. Some nations are under military rule, with constitutional protections suspended entirely, allowing entrenched leaders to stay in power indefinitely.

That said, a younger generation of leaders has emerged in parts of the continent in recent years. Bassirou Diomaye Faye became one of Africa’s youngest elected leaders when he won Senegal’s 2024 presidential election at 44. Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, 49, has held office since 2018. Some younger figures have come to power through military action — Mahamat Idriss Deby, 42, took control of Chad after his father was killed fighting rebels in 2021, then won a democratic election in 2024. In Burkina Faso, army captain Ibrahim Traoré seized power in a 2022 coup and, at 38, is currently Africa’s youngest ruler. Military takeovers have also brought younger leaders to power in Mali and Guinea.

Despite these examples, analysts warn that much of the continent’s political landscape is still dominated by older elites, leaving younger generations with few pathways to democratic leadership.

Vava summed up the imbalance: “So you get 25-year-olds making up the majority of a country’s population, but 75-year-olds decide the candidate or rule. Youth are mobilized for votes and not for power.”

PARIS — What started as a lavish dinner hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron at the Palace of Versailles turned into an unexpected diplomatic moment, as President Donald Trump chose the historic setting to sign an initial agreement with Iran.

Trump made the announcement in a casual, offhand manner Wednesday as he was wrapping up three days of high-level diplomatic talks at a G7 summit in France. As he climbed into his vehicle to depart the country, he told reporters simply: “We signed in Versailles.”

Video footage shared on X by both Macron and a White House aide captured the moment — Trump seated at the dinner table, signing a printed copy of the agreement. He then passed the document and pen to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Macron, seated beside Trump, offered his congratulations: “Good job. Bravo.” Those in attendance responded with applause.

French Finance Minister Roland Lescure, who was among the dinner guests, said Thursday that the signing caught him completely off guard. The original plan had called for a formal signing ceremony to take place Friday in Switzerland.

Lescure recalled watching Rubio slip away from the table — apparently to retrieve or print the memorandum of agreement — and then return to complete the signing. “We cleared the plates,” Lescure said, describing how the dinner setting was quickly adapted for the occasion.

When asked whether Macron had prior knowledge of the signing, Lescure suggested the French president may have been told shortly before it happened, noting that Trump and Macron arrived at the dinner together. “In any case, for us, ministers of the French government, it was a surprise,” he said.

A French official, speaking anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said Rubio and French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noël Barrot reviewed the memorandum of understanding together before presenting it to Trump for his signature.

WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance announced Thursday that the U.S. Navy has cleared a path for more than a dozen ships to reach Iranian ports, effectively ending a naval blockade as part of a newly reached agreement to bring the war to a close.

Speaking at a White House press briefing, Vance said oil is once again flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. He noted that more than 12.5 million barrels passed through that critical shipping channel on Wednesday night alone.

“So we’re also honoring our end of the early part of the agreement on the military side,” Vance said, calling it an early and tangible benefit of the deal. He pushed back against critics who argue the agreement favors Iran.

Vance also revealed plans to travel to Switzerland for follow-up discussions on the Iran deal, though he was uncertain about the exact timing. He had previously been expected to lead negotiations focused on reducing Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium and restoring oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Earlier in the week, on Tuesday, two oil tankers departed Iran and crossed through the U.S. military blockade without being intercepted. A merchant shipping tracking service reported the vessels were carrying a combined 3.8 million barrels of Iranian crude oil.

Iranian state media described shipping at the country’s southern ports as having returned to normal, though officials noted the Strait of Hormuz remains under the supervision and control of the Iranian military, with transit through the waterway still requiring coordination.

Maritime data firm Lloyd’s List Intelligence reported that major shipowners have begun routing vessels through the strait since the agreement was signed. Richard Meade, editor in chief of Lloyd’s List, said during a media briefing that for the first time in 110 days, ships belonging to major companies are moving through the strait after being effectively stranded there since February.

Among the companies with vessels now transiting the strait are Grimaldi Group, Cosco, Knutsen, and NYK. Lloyd’s List also reported that two crude oil tankers flagged under Iran and owned by the National Iranian Tanker Company — both under sanctions — have entered the strait.

However, Phillip Belcher, marine director of Intertanko, a trade organization representing independent tanker owners worldwide, cautioned that the main central route through the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, with an estimated 80 mines still needing to be cleared. Ships have instead been using a smaller Northern route through Iranian waters and a Southern route through Omani waters.

The agreement calls for a permanent halt to hostilities and opens a 60-day negotiating period to finalize a deal on Iran’s nuclear future, though the door has been left open to resume military action. Critics say the deal appears to hand Iran several early concessions while requiring little in return at this stage.

Under the terms, Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile — believed to be buried under rubble — must at minimum be diluted under international oversight. Iran also commits to not acquiring or developing nuclear weapons, a pledge it has made before. Beyond those points, the specifics of the nuclear program’s future remain to be negotiated.

Much of the agreement is aimed at restoring conditions that existed before the war, including a ceasefire, renewed diplomatic talks over Iran’s nuclear activities, and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — a vital passage for global oil and natural gas supplies whose closure triggered a significant worldwide energy crisis.