United News of Bangladesh

President Donald Trump’s escalating military campaign against Venezuela’s drug cartels is drawing comparisons to the U.S. war on terror, as his administration invokes post-9/11 legal powers to justify strikes on Latin American criminal groups. Since July, the U.S. military has carried out at least five deadly strikes, killing 27 people on vessels Washington claims were smuggling narcotics. Legal experts say the campaign — and Trump’s reported authorization of covert CIA operations inside Venezuela — stretches the limits of international and U.S. law. Trump has argued that the cartels, including the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, constitute an “armed conflict” threatening American lives. But critics say that logic distorts legal frameworks intended for terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, not organized criminals. “You can’t just call something war to give yourself war powers,” said Claire Finkelstein, a national security law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “It makes a mockery of international law to claim we’re in an armed conflict with cartels.” The United Nations Charter allows force only in self-defense, while Congress — not the president — has the constitutional authority to declare war. Still, efforts by Democrats to pass a war powers resolution limiting Trump’s authority were defeated in the Republican-led Senate. Trump confirms CIA conducting covert operations in Venezuela, considers land strikes Despite U.S. intelligence disputes over claims linking Venezuela’s government to drug smuggling and illegal migration, Trump defended the strikes, saying decades of Coast Guard enforcement had “been totally ineffective.” The president also hinted at the possibility of direct strikes inside Venezuela, a move that could sharply escalate tensions. His administration has already doubled the reward for Nicolás Maduro’s capture to $50 million, calling him “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world.” Critics note, however, that most U.S. overdose deaths stem from fentanyl trafficked via Mexico, not cocaine routed through Venezuela. The International Criminal Court could theoretically investigate the killings in international waters, but its capacity has been weakened by internal scandals and U.S. sanctions. Meanwhile, families of Venezuelans killed in the strikes face limited options for justice, as U.S. courts have narrowed the ability of foreign citizens to sue over American military actions. Source: AP 

History is replete with powerful leaders forced to abandon their thrones and flee — driven out by mass protests, uprisings, and military coups. Many once seen as untouchable have gone into exile to escape imprisonment, execution, or political revenge. The latest to join that list is Madagascar’s President Andry Rajoelina, ousted this week following a military coup after weeks of youth-led demonstrations over hardship, unemployment, and power shortages. Here’s a look at other leaders who faced similar fates: Bashar Assad In 2024, former Syrian leader Bashar Assad fled to Russia as rebel forces closed in on Damascus, ending his family’s 51-year rule. Backed for years by Moscow and Tehran during Syria’s 13-year civil war, Assad sought refuge in Russia, where President Vladimir Putin granted him and his family protection, refusing to extradite him. Sheikh Hasina Bangladesh’s longest-serving prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, was forced to resign and flee to India in August 2024 after weeks of massive student-led protests toppled her government. According to the UN human rights office, about 1,400 people were killed in the ensuing crackdown. Hasina, who first became prime minister in 1996 and returned to power in 2008, is the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country’s founding leader who was assassinated in 1975. Gotabaya Rajapaksa Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled to the Maldives in July 2022 following months of protests over the island nation’s economic collapse. Shortages of food, fuel, and foreign reserves triggered mass anger at the Rajapaksa family dynasty. Gotabaya resigned soon after, alongside his brother and former Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and other relatives in the cabinet. Viktor Yanukovych In February 2014, after deadly clashes in Kyiv, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia. The unrest began when he scrapped an EU trade deal in favor of a $15 billion loan from Moscow. Lawmakers later impeached him and issued an arrest warrant as Russian forces reportedly helped him escape through Crimea. Moammar Gadhafi Libya’s longtime ruler Moammar Gadhafi lost control during the 2011 Arab Spring uprising. After rebels captured Tripoli, he fled to his hometown Sirte, hiding for weeks before being found and killed on October 20, 2011, when NATO strikes hit his convoy. His body was displayed publicly before being buried in an undisclosed desert location. Marc Ravalomanana Madagascar’s sixth president, Marc Ravalomanana, was overthrown in 2009 by then-mayor Andry Rajoelina — the same man now deposed. Ravalomanana fled to South Africa as the world condemned the coup. Tried in absentia and sentenced to life imprisonment, he later returned after five years in exile and was freed from house arrest in 2015. Jean-Bertrand Aristide Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, fled his country twice. The first time was in 1991, only six months into office, after angering the military elite. He returned in 1994 with U.S. support. Elected again in 2000, Aristide was ousted in 2004 amid rebellion and left on a U.S.-chartered plane to the Central African Republic before settling in South Africa. He returned to Haiti in 2011. Source: AP 

From South America’s Andes to Asia’s Himalayas, a new generation is rising in protest. Around the world, young people angry at governments and frustrated with inequality, corruption, and economic hardship are leading a wave of demonstrations that share a common identity — “Gen Z.” In Madagascar, President Andry Rajoelina was forced to flee the country this week following a military coup triggered by weeks of youth-led protests under the banner “Gen Z Madagascar.” Their movement mirrors others across Nepal, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kenya, Peru, and Morocco — all driven by a deep sense of disillusionment with political elites. “These protests are united by a belief that traditional politics fails to represent young people’s concerns — from corruption and climate change to inequality,” said Sam Nadel, director of the UK-based Social Change Lab. Despite differing local grievances, many movements began with anger over government neglect or repression. In Morocco, protesters from a group called “Gen Z 212” have demanded better health and education services. In Peru, anger over pension reforms expanded into calls for action on corruption and insecurity. In Indonesia, violent protests erupted over rising costs and lawmakers’ privileges, forcing cabinet changes. One of the most dramatic movements was in Nepal, where mass protests led to the resignation of the prime minister in September. Demonstrators there drew inspiration from earlier uprisings in Sri Lanka (2022) and Bangladesh (2024). Gen Z protests are shaking Morocco over government spending and social inequality A common visual symbol has emerged across borders — a black pirate flag featuring a skull with a straw hat, borrowed from the Japanese anime One Piece. It has been seen in protests from Kathmandu to Jakarta and Lima, symbolizing defiance against corrupt systems. In Peru, 27-year-old protester David Tafur said, “We’re fighting the same battle — against corrupt and abusive officials.” His country’s president, Dina Boluarte, was recently replaced after months of unrest and investigations into corruption and deadly crackdowns. Digital mobilization has also played a critical role. Using TikTok, Instagram, X, and even gaming chat apps like Discord, protesters have coordinated rallies and exposed corruption. In Nepal, after a social media ban, young people used VPNs to organize demonstrations and share information. “The Gen Z protests in Nepal inspired others across borders,” said protester Yujan Rajbhandari. “The digital space has made us global citizens — connected in our fight for justice.” Source: AP 

Pakistan said Wednesday it agreed to a 48-hour ceasefire with Afghanistan following days of violence that have killed dozens of people on both sides of the border. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said the ceasefire was at Afghanistan’s request. Moments later, the Taliban government's chief spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said the truce was at “the insistence” of the Pakistani side. His social media post on X did not mention a 48-hour timeframe. All Afghan forces have been instructed to observe the ceasefire “as long as no one violates it,” Mujahid added. Pakistan accuses Afghanistan of harboring armed groups, a charge rejected by the country's Taliban rulers. Pakistan is grappling with militant attacks that have increased since 2021, when the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan. The escalation of tensions is likely to destabilize a region where groups, including the Islamic State and al-Qaida, are trying to establish a foothold and resurface. Earlier Wednesday, before the ceasefire announcement, Pakistan said its troops killed dozens of Afghan security forces and militants in overnight fighting. The clashes had stopped briefly Sunday following appeals from major regional powers, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Pakistani forces said they had repelled “unprovoked” assaults, but denied targeting civilians after the Taliban government said more than a dozen were killed and over 100 others wounded when Pakistan targeted sites in a border area of Afghanistan's southern Kandahar province. Mujahid, the Taliban government's chief spokesman, said earlier that Pakistan used light and heavy weapons in assaults on Spin Boldak in Kandahar. Afghan forces returned fire and killed several Pakistani soldiers, seized military posts and captured weapons including tanks, Mujahid added. Pakistan's army also targeted militant hideouts in the Afghan capital, two Pakistani security officials said Wednesday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the media. People in the Pakistani border town of Chaman reported mortars falling near villages and some families were seen evacuating early Wednesday. “This fighting has been going on since early (Wednesday) morning, and people who live close to the border are leaving the area,” said Chaman resident Najibullah Khan, who urged the two countries to end the fighting to prevent further shelling. Pakistan’s border regions have experienced violence since 1979 when it became a frontl-ine state in the U.S.-backed war against the Soviet Union. “After the Sept. 11 attacks, Pakistan’s tribal belt descended into chaos as the Afghan Taliban, al-Qaida, and other groups operated from both sides of the border for attacks on NATO forces and Pakistani security forces," said Abdullah Khan, a defense analyst and managing director of the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies. As of Wednesday, key border crossings remain closed.

More than a dozen Afghan civilians have been killed and over 100 injured following fresh clashes between Afghan and Pakistani forces along the shared border, officials reported Wednesday. Hostilities between the two countries reignited over the weekend, with cross-border shelling resulting in dozens of fatalities. Afghanistan claimed its forces had killed 58 Pakistani soldiers in overnight operations, saying the attacks were in retaliation for repeated violations of its airspace and territory. Pakistan, meanwhile, reported losing 23 troops in the skirmishes. Wednesday's fighting began before dawn and was concentrated near the village of Chaman, according to officials on both sides. Later in the day, Pakistan’s state broadcaster reported that Afghanistan had called for a ceasefire in the area. Pakistani security sources and state media accused Afghan troops of initiating “unprovoked fire” in the Kurram district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. In response, Pakistani forces reportedly killed 30 Afghan Taliban fighters and destroyed a major training camp in Afghanistan’s Khost province used by the Pakistani Taliban. Zabihullah Mujahid, spokesperson for Afghanistan’s Taliban government, alleged that Pakistan had used both light and heavy weaponry to strike Spin Boldak in southern Kandahar province, opposite Pakistan’s border town of Chaman. Mujahid claimed Afghan forces retaliated, killing several Pakistani soldiers, capturing military posts, and seizing weapons including tanks. Pakistan's military denied these claims, accusing the Taliban of staging the attack through villages straddling the border, with disregard for civilian safety. It said Pakistani troops repelled the assault and killed between 15 and 20 Afghan Taliban fighters in Spin Boldak. On Tuesday, Pakistan had also accused Afghan Taliban fighters of collaborating with Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in an attack on its border posts in Kurram. The military said it successfully repelled the assault and inflicted significant damage on Afghan positions. At Chaman hospital, Dr. Awais Ahmad confirmed that several injured civilians were being treated. Local residents reported seeing mortar fire near Pakistani villages, prompting many families to evacuate. “This fighting has been going on since early morning,” said Najibullah Khan, a resident of Chaman. “People living near the border are leaving the area. The two sides should end the conflict to prevent more harm to civilians.” Clashes had briefly ceased on Sunday after mediation efforts from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but key border crossings remain closed. The recent violence highlights the growing tension between the neighboring nations. Last Friday, the Taliban government accused Pakistan of launching airstrikes in Kabul and an eastern Afghan marketplace. In turn, Pakistani state media reported targeting TTP hideouts, which it says operate with support from Afghan territory. Pakistan holds the Taliban-led Afghan government responsible for sheltering the TTP, a group responsible for multiple deadly attacks in Pakistan. Kabul has denied this, insisting it does not allow its soil to be used against other countries.

NATO’s newest members, Finland and Sweden, announced Wednesday that they will purchase additional U.S. weapons for Ukraine, following reports of a recent drop in foreign military aid to the country. This summer, NATO began coordinating regular deliveries of large weapons packages to Ukraine, aiming to provide at least one shipment per month valued around $500 million. European arsenals are nearly depleted, and NATO officials say the U.S. has $10–12 billion worth of arms, air defense systems, and ammunition available for Kyiv. Under the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), European allies and Canada are buying U.S. weapons to help Ukraine defend against Russian forces, with $2 billion already allocated. Finland’s Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen said the country joined PURL to ensure Ukraine receives critical U.S. arms and will also send its own military equipment. Swedish Defense Minister Pål Jonson emphasized that Sweden is ready to provide more and welcomed discussions among Nordic and Baltic countries on sending additional support. Concerns over declining Western aid were raised, with Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur noting a significant reduction in U.S. contributions. New data shows Western military aid to Ukraine fell 43% in July and August compared to the first half of the year, according to Germany’s Kiel Institute. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged more countries to step up contributions, while NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said overall support remains roughly in line with last year. Finnish officials called on all NATO members to share the burden, criticizing some European nations, including France, Italy, and Spain, for not doing enough. France insists European funds should support local defense industries rather than U.S. programs and does not plan to participate in PURL.

The United Nations’ food aid agency has warned that severe funding cuts from its major donors are disrupting operations in six countries and could push nearly 14 million people into emergency hunger. The World Food Program (WFP), usually the U.N.’s most-funded agency, said in a new report that its funding this year “has never been more challenged,” mainly due to reduced contributions from the U.S. under the Trump administration and other leading Western donors. The agency said 13.7 million of its food aid recipients could face emergency-level hunger as funding drops. The countries most affected are Afghanistan, Congo, Haiti, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan. “We are watching the lifeline for millions of people disintegrate before our eyes,” WFP Executive Director Cindy McCain said. WFP expects 40% less funding this year, cutting its projected budget to $6.4 billion from about $10 billion last year. “This is not just a funding gap – it’s a reality gap between what we need to do and what we can afford,” McCain added, warning that decades of progress in fighting hunger are at risk. Global hunger is already at record levels, with 319 million people facing acute food insecurity, including 44 million at emergency levels. Famine has emerged in Gaza and Sudan, and in Afghanistan, aid reaches less than 10% of those in need. The agency received roughly $1.5 billion from the U.S. this year, down from nearly $4.5 billion last year, while other top donors have also reduced support. Many U.N. agencies, including those focused on migration, health, and refugees, have announced significant aid and staffing cuts amid reduced funding from traditional donors such as USAID.

Syria’s interim leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, who led a rapid rebel campaign last year that removed former President Bashar Assad, arrived in Russia on Wednesday for his first visit. Al-Sharaa is scheduled to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin to “discuss the current condition and prospects for Russian-Syrian ties in trade, economy, and humanitarian matters, as well as recent Middle East developments,” the Kremlin said. The meeting highlights Moscow’s interest in engaging with Syria’s new leadership and maintaining its military presence in the country. Assad, a longtime Russian ally, was supported by Moscow during the civil war, which allowed him to stay in power until his removal in December. Russia, focused on the Ukraine conflict, did not intervene against the rebel offensive but offered Assad asylum after he fled. According to Syrian state news agency SANA, al-Sharaa and Putin will also explore ways to strengthen cooperation in regional and international matters of mutual interest. In a recent CBS “60 Minutes” interview, al-Sharaa said Syria’s current authorities “will use all available legal means” to seek Assad’s trial. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow granted asylum to Assad on humanitarian grounds, rejecting rumors of poisoning and confirming that Assad has lived safely in Russia. Despite being on opposing sides during the war, Syria’s new rulers are taking a pragmatic approach toward Russia. Moscow continues to maintain air and naval bases on the Syrian coast and has supplied oil to the country. Russian and Syrian officials have met several times this year, reflecting ongoing strategic and economic ties, with al-Sharaa noting Syria’s reliance on Russian energy and food supplies.

Russian forces carried out overnight airstrikes using glide bombs and drones on Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv, hitting a hospital and injuring seven people, local officials said Tuesday. Regional head Oleh Syniehubov said the city’s main hospital was struck, forcing the evacuation of 50 patients. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said energy facilities were also among the main targets of the attack. “Every day and night, Russia strikes power plants, power lines, and gas facilities,” Zelenskyy said on Telegram, calling for more Western air defense systems to shield Ukraine’s vast territory. Zelenskyy urged the U.S., Europe, and G7 nations to “force Moscow to negotiate” and help protect civilians from Moscow’s long-range assaults, which have repeatedly targeted Ukraine’s power grid since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022. However, European military support for Kyiv has dropped sharply. The Kiel Institute in Germany reported that aid in July and August fell 43% from the first half of the year, following the launch of a NATO fund to buy U.S. weapons for Ukraine under the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL). Zelenskyy is set to meet U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington on Friday to discuss the possible supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles—long-range weapons that could hit deep inside Russia and potentially shift the dynamics of the war.

Leading maritime nations are meeting in London this week to consider adopting global regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the shipping industry and accelerating its shift away from fossil fuels. If approved, the plan would introduce the world’s first global levy on carbon emissions from ships. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting, which continues through Friday, faces political challenges as the Trump administration has rejected the proposal and warned of possible retaliation. IMO member states had agreed in April on the framework of the Net-zero Regulations, which seek formal adoption this week. The rules propose a fuel standard that gradually reduces allowable emissions and introduce a carbon pricing system. Ships exceeding emission limits would pay US$380 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to meet baseline compliance and an additional US$100 per ton for stricter compliance. Vessels performing better than required would earn credits, while the fees collected—estimated at US$11–13 billion annually—would support green fuel research, low-emission technologies and assist developing countries. Shipping accounts for nearly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The IMO aims for the sector to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, with the new rules expected to take effect in 2027 and penalties starting in 2028 for large ocean-going ships. Environmental groups have welcomed the move but cautioned against excessive reliance on biofuels derived from food crops, urging investment in scalable alternatives such as green ammonia and methanol. Despite opposition from the United States, Russia and Saudi Arabia, observers said most countries are expected to support the deal. Failure to adopt it could delay efforts to decarbonize the shipping sector and prolong its contribution to global warming.