NEWS

Abstract: Amidst the challenges of digital transformation in developing countries, M-Pesa emerges as a local innovation that successfully empowers communities through mobile phone-based financial services. Launched in Kenya in 2007, M-Pesa expands access to financial services, drives regional economic integration, and opens up new opportunities for small businesses. While offering great potential to expand global financial inclusion, M-Pesa faces challenges such as global fintech competition, digital security risks, and regulatory misalignment between countries. To maintain its relevance, M-Pesa must continue to innovate while remaining rooted in local needs and the principle of inclusivity.

In the midst of global digital transformation, many developing countries face major challenges in accessing and utilizing technology to drive economic growth. Limited infrastructure, low levels of digital literacy, and unequal access to financial services are major obstacles in this process. Despite these challenges, local innovations have emerged that address the specific needs of their communities. One example is M-Pesa, a mobile phone-based financial service introduced in Kenya in 2007. From a simple need for a safe and fast money transfer system in areas with limited access to banks, M-Pesa has grown into a global phenomenon that is changing the face of local and regional economies.

M-Pesa not only offers easy financial transactions for individuals but also opens access to microcredit, insurance, and business payment services (Kagan, 2023). Thus, M-Pesa shows how innovation based on local needs can be a catalyst for inclusive digital transformation. The presence of M-Pesa contributes to economic integration, both at the national level and between countries in the East African region. This service proves that digital solutions designed with local context in mind can address structural challenges, accelerate economic growth, and improve social stability. Through the design of M-Pesa, it can be understood that empowering local innovation is essential in driving sustainable digital transformation for local needs while strengthening economic connectivity in an increasingly digitized world.

M-Pesa: Local Innovation in the Digital Age

In the discourse of digital transformation in developing countries, M-Pesa has become a hot topic of discussion as one of the successful models of innovation based on local needs. Understanding the significance of M-Pesa needs to be seen through the process of formation, development dynamics, and the implications of this innovation on socio-economic structures. M-Pesa emerged in 2007 in Kenya, developed by Safaricom—a subsidiary of Vodafone—as an answer to the lack of access to formal banking services (Wachira & Njuguna, 2023). At the time, the majority of Kenyans, especially in rural areas, did not have bank accounts. This created a need for a simple, cheap, and widely accessible financial system. Herein lies the main strength of M-Pesa, which does not seek to replicate Western banking systems but rather builds solutions that fit local realities. This shows that successful innovation in the digital age is not a mere transplant of global technology but rather a smart contextual adaptation.

The rapid development of M-Pesa brings features from an SMS-based money transfer service to a financial ecosystem that includes bill payments, goods purchases, savings, microloans, and insurance (Schachter, 2018). This transformation not only expands financial services but also disrupts the traditional role of banks, which has been exclusive to the upper middle class. Amidst the praise for M-Pesa’s financial inclusion, there is also criticism about the unequal access to technology. Although based on a relatively simple SMS, the service still requires ownership of a mobile phone and a stable telecommunications network, two things that are unevenly distributed across Kenya and East Africa. This shows that digital innovation, if not accompanied by investment in basic infrastructure, can deepen the gap between those who are connected and those who are left behind. M-Pesa is proof that local innovation can be a lever for structural change. In the current context of globalization, the challenge ahead is to ensure that digital transformation based on local innovation is not just a tool of market integration but also an instrument of sustainable social empowerment.

M-Pesa as an Instrument of Economic Integration

In the era of economic globalization, integration is no longer only determined by the relationship between large countries but also by the ability of lower society groups to connect directly through technology. In this context, M-Pesa emerges as an innovative instrument that accelerates economic integration, especially in the Global South, which has often been marginalized in global finance. M-Pesa accelerates cross-border transactions by providing a simple and fast money transfer solution, even without requiring access to a traditional bank. Services such as Mobile Money Transfer (MMT) enable migrant workers in the East African region to send money to their families at a much lower cost and in a much faster time than conventional financial institutions (Safaricom, 2023).

M-Pesa also opens up opportunities for small businesses to connect with a wider market. With easily accessible digital payment services, micro-merchants can conduct transactions across regions without having to rely on expensive banking infrastructure. This strengthens the position of small businesses as important actors in the global supply chain while encouraging more inclusive, people-based economic growth. Innovations in M-Pesa are able to overcome classic barriers, such as the inability to access credit. With M-Pesa, there is an increase in regional financial connectivity, particularly in East Africa. With widespread adoption in Kenya, Albania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ghana, India, Lesotho, Mozambique, Romania, and Tanzania, M-Pesa creates a kind of digitally connected regional financial ecosystem (Owigar, 2017). This reduces both domestic and cross-border transaction costs and ultimately increases the efficiency of the region’s economy. In the long term, M-Pesa shows potential to accelerate the formation of a more integrated and competitive regional market.

Opportunities and Challenges of M-Pesa in the Future

Given its multiple successes in revolutionizing financial services in East Africa, M-Pesa has a great opportunity to expand its role in the global digital economy. M-Pesa’s success cannot rely solely on the old model. Continuous innovation and adaptation to new technology trends are key to sustaining M-Pesa. Despite its success in Kenya and several other countries, many other regions in the Global South still face similar problems. By adapting its approach to local characteristics, M-Pesa has the potential to become an inclusive financial platform that transcends regional boundaries and becomes a global player in digital financial inclusion.

While M-Pesa offers great opportunities to expand financial inclusion and strengthen economic integration, it is undeniable that the platform also faces serious challenges that could hinder or even reverse its achievements. When M-Pesa is not managed properly, its success today can become a source of vulnerability in the future. One of the main challenges is the increasing competition from global financial technology companies. With the entry of big players like PayPal and various local fintech startups, the digital financial services market has become increasingly competitive. When M-Pesa fails to innovate or expand services according to the needs of the new digital generation, it will be very risky to be abandoned, especially by the younger generation, who are more sensitive to faster and more flexible technology options. In addition, digital security issues are a threat that cannot be ignored. The growing volume of transactions through M-Pesa makes the platform a potential target for cyberattacks, data theft, and digital fraud. In a context where many users do not yet have strong digital literacy, a security breach can destroy the trust that has been built over the years and worsen the stability of the service.

As M-Pesa expands, differences in legal frameworks and consumer protection between countries are a major obstacle. If there is no alignment in terms of policies, users in certain countries may become more vulnerable to data abuse. In facing the future, M-Pesa must stay true to its core principle of addressing the needs of the community through simple, affordable, and inclusive technology. Consideration of digital risk resilience, the courage to compete fairly, and a commitment to maintaining economic justice in the midst of an increasingly complex digital ecosystem need to be improved. Innovation created from local needs is the key for M-Pesa to survive, not only as a transaction tool but also as the foundation for a more equitable and sustainable digital economy.

UN chief Antonio Guterres, in a statement read by spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, warned against escalating the Iran-Israel conflict. He urged restraint and diplomacy, and warned against any ‘additional military interventions.”

President Gustavo Petro has sought to call a referendum, in a move the opposition say violates the constitution.

Colombia’s Council of State has suspended a decree by President Gustavo Petro that sought to call a referendum on a labour reform, citing a lack of Senate authorisation.

The move on Wednesday comes after Petro last week bypassed legislative opposition and signed a decree summoning voters to the polls in August to decide on the labour reform.

The package includes provisions for an eight-hour daytime workday, higher weekend and holiday pay, and mandatory social security contributions from delivery app drivers – key social policies the left-wing leader has pushed for.

A majority of the social and economic reforms promised by Petro – who was elected in 2022 on pledges to right centuries of inequality in the Andean country – have been rejected by lawmakers.

The decree sparked criticism from the opposition, which argued that Petro’s decree violates the Political Constitution of Colombia and destroys the separation of powers of the country’s three branches of government.

Under Colombian law, the Senate must rule on the advisability of referendums. If the referendum were to be held, each measure would need to be approved by the majority of at least 13.5 million voters, a third of Colombia’s electoral roll, to be valid.

Political opponents also said the costly referendum was really aimed at boosting Petro’s party ahead of 2026 elections, when he cannot seek re-election.

Despite the failure to call a referendum, the Senate on Tuesday approved a revised version of the labour reform bill after extensive debate, with 57 votes in favour and 31 against.

The Senate previously rejected the reform bill in April, but it was revived after Petro warned he would declare a referendum to put the measure to a public vote.

The presidency dubbed the bill “a historic step toward decent work” in a post on X shared by Petro.

Protests were recently held in the capital Bogota and other major cities by advocates of Petro, who expressed their support for his proposed labour reform.

Colombia is still reeling from bombing attacks in the southwest of the country that left seven dead and an attempted assassination on conservative opposition senator, and presidential hopeful, Miguel Uribe Turbay, which sparked fears the country could return to its darker days of assassinations and prolonged violence.

Better at attacking than defending has been one of the most common ways to describe Alexander-Arnold’s career to date.

A full-back who bombed forward, and sometimes in a hybrid right-back/midfield role.

For a while, then England boss Gareth Southgate even tried him as a regular midfielder.

He left Anfield with 23 goals and 86 assists as he almost changed what the idea of a full-back can be.

So all eyes were on how he would fare with a new team.

“We know Trent Alexander-Arnold’s quality on the ball,” said former Newcastle and Manchester City goalkeeper Shay Given on Dazn.

“He is a phenomenal player.

“Real Madrid in the Spanish league will have a lot of possession and Trent will play higher up the pitch.

“He will be questioned in this tournament defensively as they come up against stronger opposition. Can he step up?

“He said he wanted to go there and win the Ballon d’Or. That’s a big statement in itself.”

Alonso lined up with a standard back four in Miami – as opposed to the wing-back system he enjoyed great success with at Bayer Leverkusen.

Alexander-Arnold played at right-back and did get involved in midfield too.

But as the graphics above show he did not get as involved as much centrally as he did in his last start for Liverpool, a 3-1 loss at Chelsea on 4 May.

And he got involved in deeper positions too, to the right side of the penalty box, which is a place he was not seen as often in that game at Stamford Bridge.

But he attempted more crossfield balls than he did at Chelsea (as evidenced by the graphics below).

However – and it is something he might have to get used to until he settles in – he did not take any set-pieces for Real.

Newcastle striker Callum Wilson, who has been in England squads with the defender, said: “I have not seen as many people strike a ball as cleanly as him. Free-kicks, corners, set-pieces, he is going to add that to their game.

“He is going to be showing his qualities and won’t be getting challenged defensively as much.”

Between honour and necessity is to address the 2025 Ocean Congress in Nice. It comes at brewing times of fragilities and re-alignments (when the new didn’t come and the old is questioned), when our global maritime community is confronting an unprecedented convergence of environmental vulnerability, geopolitical tension, and urgent developmental needs—particularly in the Global South.

The oceans are not simply blue frontiers. They are connective tissues of human civilization—lifelines for nations whose survival, identity, and continuity are shaped by their intimate proximity to the sea. Nowhere is this more palpable than among the small island developing states (SIDS), and the extensive coastline and archipelagic countries of the Global South.

These nations, despite their cultural wealth and ecological significance, exist today at a precarious confluence of political, socio-economic, culturo-demograpic, geomorphological and ecological fragility. Rising sea levels, eroding coastlines, disappearing freshwater lenses, increasingly frequent storm surges, and tectonic instability are daily realities. Yet, alongside these physical threats, these nations also grapple with communications isolation, limited access to undersea data cables, sparse maritime infrastructure, and digital marginalization—all of which stymie their development and weaken their voice in multilateral fora.

Beyond the waves lies another invisible but equally powerful divide: the digital divide—manifested in limited access to oceanographic data, inadequate satellite coverage, and the absence of meaningful participation in global data governance frameworks. This exclusion undermines data sovereignty – as a part of other exclusive indigenous socio-political, economic and cultural rights spirited by the UN Charter, and risks relegating entire nations to the periphery of the emerging AI-driven world order.

As the international community rapidly integrates artificial intelligence into climate modelling, disaster preparedness, and marine resource management, it becomes vital to ensure that AI technologies are not imposed as top-down instruments of algorithmic hegemony, but rather developed in balance—ethically, equitably, and inclusively.

In this context, we must view data sovereignty not as a luxury, but as a necessity—particularly for nations whose future hinges on their ability to manage maritime resources, assert control over their economic zones, and participate in the digital blue economy.

It is here that we must revisit the foundational principles of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), eloquently articulated by thinkers such as prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, who has long emphasized the need for a truly inclusive multilateralism—anchored in dignity, balance, and the sovereign equality of nations. He reminds us that NAM was never merely a Cold War relic, but a permanent call for structural justice, long-searched gate to the Kantian harmony, a global platform for states striving to avoid entrapment in the rivalries of great powers —now including digital and technological empires.

Today, as we face the climate-ocean-AI emergency, the message of the Non-Aligned Movement is more relevant than ever. It must evolve from a geopolitical posture into a solidarity framework encompassing climate, oceans, data, and AI—enabling the most vulnerable nations to exert agency over both their physical and digital sovereignty.

The International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES), headquartered on the territory of the former Yugoslavia—one of the principal initiators of the Non-Aligned Movement—stands committed to this agenda. Through its forthcoming Global Academy for Geo-politico-Tech Futures (GPTF) and its ongoing flagship program “Understanding AI”, IFIMES and its consortium of international partners (many of which come from Global South) remains at the disposal of the Global South. These initiatives aim to democratize access to technological foresight, strengthen geopolitical literacy, and promote ethical AI development tailored to the needs of developing and emerging economies.

Furthermore, IFIMES fully supports the efforts of the Group of 77, and continues to serve as a true European friend to the Global South—not in word alone, but through concrete programs of engagement, education, and empowerment. Back in Belgrade of 1961, 13 out of 25 founding members were island, archipelagic and costal states, while already in Habana of 1979 – the Movement got 93 members, out of which over ¾ were the island, archipelagic and costal nations (74 of them). No other multilateral system was so prone to these states in history as much as it was NAM. As to keep up this spirit of 1961 Belgrade and NAM,

We call for:

• Decisive and impartial protection of UNCLOS universal regime;
• The protection of marine biota of warm and cold seas, and indigenous way of life of the costal groups, inducing the Arctic circle vulnerable groups;
• Enhanced South-South scientific cooperation on oceanographic, socio-political, and connectivity research;
• The development of inclusive economic – blue, socio-cultural and digital – strategies for all, particularly for the small-island, archipelagic and the extensive costal-line nations;
  • Protection from overtourism and other forms of overexplotations (assistance in politico-diplomatic actions, research, trainings);
• The protection of undersea cables and marine communication routes as critical global commons but also balancing it for the environmental balance;
• The recognition of data sovereignty and algorithmic equity as pillars of ocean governance, including a globally balanced AI ecosystem, reflective of diverse civilizational voices—not just dominant technological blocs;
• Right to (Digital) regret, and the right for analogue dignity.

Let us remember: the oceans bind us in shared destiny, not just in shared danger. For the communities of the littoral world, justice is not an abstraction—it is measured in coastlines, in coral reefs, in connectivity and code, in tides that do not wash homes—or cultures—away.

This 2025 Nice High Level Summit, therefore, must not only map the ocean—it must map a new moral geography of solidarity, rooted in science, sovereignty, and non-aligned cooperation—analogue and digital alike.

As our professors says: “Harmony of the everlasting peace is our destination, but the journey is called NAM”!

The Trump administration says the cartel is responsible for a significant share of fentanyl entering the country.

The United States has imposed sanctions against five leaders of a Mexican drug cartel for killings, including the prime suspect in the murder of Mexican influencer Valeria Marquez, and drug trafficking, the US Department of the Treasury has said.

The sanctions levied on Wednesday target the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which the Trump administration says is responsible for a significant share of fentanyl and other illegal drugs entering the US.

The cartel is said to use murder, including the targeted killing of women, as a weapon of intimidation against its rivals.

“The vicious attack highlights the brutal prevalence of femicide, or the killing of women on account of their gender, in Mexico. Femicide often goes unpunished and affects a significant portion of Mexico’s women,”  the Treasury Department said in a statement.

In February, the Trump administration designated CJNG as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and “Specially Designated Global Terrorist.”

The cartel is led by Nemesio Ruben “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes, who was among the five leaders named on Wednesday. The US authorities have offered a $15m reward for information leading to his capture.

A cartel commander closely linked to him, Ricardo Ruiz Velasco, was also sanctioned.

Ruiz has been identified as the prime suspect in the murder of his purported romantic partner, TikTok influencer Marquez, the Treasury Department said.

Marquez, 23, was killed in May in the beauty salon where she worked in the city of Zapopan by a man who entered and shot her as she livestreamed a video on TikTok, the Jalisco state prosecutor said.

Other leaders sanctioned include Julio Alberto Castillo Rodriguez, Gonzalo Mendoza Gaytan and Audias Flores Silva, according to the Treasury Department statement.

As Israel attacks Iran, its genocide in Gaza has shown no signs of easing.

At least 70 Palestinians were killed in a single day this week at a food distribution site run by a controversial group in Khan Younis that is backed by Israel and the United States.

All other aid channels are blocked – including medical supplies.

So, what’s the impact of this latest Israeli strategy?

Presenter: Nick Clark

Guests: 

Amjad Shawa – Director of the Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations Network in Gaza

Christopher Lockyear – Secretary-general at Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres or MSF)

Mads Gilbert – Medical doctor with extensive experience in Gaza

Getty Images

Funding ‘essential’

Reuters

In the intricate and often contentious geopolitical landscape of South Asia, the counter-terrorism alliance between Pakistan and the United States has been a defining, albeit fraught, feature of the post-9/11 era. While periods of significant friction have punctuated the relationship, recent unequivocal commendations from senior US defence and intelligence officials serve as a stark reminder of Pakistan’s pivotal, costly, and phenomenally consequential contributions to the global fight against terrorism. This recognition, emerging from the crucible of shared threats and sacrifices, underscores a partnership whose strategic importance transcends transient diplomatic disagreements.

The most resonant affirmation came recently from General Michael Kurilla, Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), who explicitly lauded Pakistan as a “phenomenal counter-terrorism partner.” This is not mere diplomatic platitude; it reflects decades of operational collaboration forged in the face of grave mutual threats emanating from the region. The significance of this statement lies in its source, the commander directly responsible for US military operations across the Middle East and Central/South Asia, including the ongoing campaign against the ISIS and Al-Qaeda remnants. His praise signifies a concrete appreciation for actionable intelligence, coordinated operations, and shared strategic objectives on the ground. Further substantiating this, Kash Patel, a former senior US Defence Department official and key figure in counter-terrorism efforts, publicly confirmed Pakistan’s indispensable role in facilitating the extradition of an ISIS facilitator from Canada to the United States, demonstrating critical ongoing cooperation in disrupting transnational terror networks.

The historical depth of this collaboration is profound and irrevocably linked to watershed moments in global security. Pakistan’s intelligence and security agencies played an indispensable role in the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the September 11th attacks, alongside numerous other high-value Al-Qaeda operatives. These operations, often conducted under extreme peril and requiring unparalleled human intelligence penetration, dealt devastating blows to the core leadership of global jihadism. Beyond targeted captures, Pakistan provided critical, non-negotiable ground and air logistics that sustained the massive US and NATO military presence in landlocked Afghanistan for two decades. Pakistani airspace and ground lines of communication (GLOCs) were the vital arteries supplying the coalition war effort, a contribution without which the campaign’s scale would have been logistically untenable. Moreover, the efficacy of the much-debated US drone campaign in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) was fundamentally predicated on logistical access and crucial intelligence support facilitated by Pakistani agencies, enabling precision strikes against high-value targets.

Recognizing that passive cooperation was insufficient against an entrenched insurgency, Pakistan launched decisive, large-scale military offensives with significant regional and global implications. Operations like Zarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad represented massive, internally driven campaigns to dismantle terrorist sanctuaries within Pakistan’s own borders. These were not mere tactical skirmishes but comprehensive, corps-level operations involving tens of thousands of troops, resulting in the clearing of vast territories previously held by groups like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), and various Al-Qaeda affiliates. The disruption caused by these offensives directly degraded the capabilities of groups plotting transnational attacks, thereby enhancing global security. This kinetic action was complemented by relentless joint intelligence operations with US agencies, consistently disrupting imminent ISIS and Al-Qaeda plots targeting Western interests and regional stability.

The partnership extends beyond kinetic action and intelligence sharing into the complex realms of countering terror financing (CTF) and managing cross-border threats. Pakistan continues to coordinate assiduously with US Treasury and intelligence entities to track and disrupt the financial lifelines of proscribed terrorist organizations. This ongoing collaboration addresses the persistent challenge of militants exploiting the porous Pak-Afghan border, a task demanding constant vigilance and real-time intelligence exchange. Reinforcing this multifaceted cooperation are regular military-to-military engagements and structured coordination mechanisms with CENTCOM, ensuring interoperability and strategic alignment for long-term counter-terrorism objectives. Furthermore, Pakistan has undertaken significant, albeit less heralded, efforts in regional de-radicalization and counter-extremism initiatives, aiming to dismantle the ideological underpinnings of terrorism within its society.

Washington consistently, and rightly, acknowledges the staggering human cost borne by Pakistan in this shared struggle. Estimates suggest over 80,000 Pakistani civilians and security personnel have lost their lives to terrorist violence since 2001, a sacrifice unparalleled by any other US partner in this conflict. Thousands more have been wounded, and millions displaced by military operations. This immense toll underscores the existential nature of the threat Pakistan faced and continues to confront, making its counter-terrorism efforts not merely an alliance obligation but a fundamental national survival imperative. The elimination of countless high-value targets along the volatile Pak-Afghan border stands as a testament to Pakistani resolve, achieved often through perilous joint or unilaterally coordinated actions.

The recent US praise is a significant diplomatic marker, reflecting a pragmatic recognition of Pakistan’s indispensable contributions. It signifies a mature understanding that despite differences on other strategic issues, notably Afghanistan’s political trajectory, counterterrorism remains a vital area of convergent interest demanding sustained collaboration. The fight against ISIS-Khorasan and other emerging regional affiliates necessitates this continued partnership. While challenges persist, particularly concerning cross-border militant havens and the evolving regional landscape, the operational history and recent affirmations highlight a resilient, if complex, counter-terrorism axis. Pakistan’s role, forged in sacrifice and sustained through operational necessity, remains phenomenally significant in the enduring global effort to counter transnational terrorism.

Following Recommendations

• Enhance Real-Time Intelligence Fusion: Establish more robust, technologically advanced platforms for instantaneous sharing and joint analysis of HUMINT, SIGINT, and financial intelligence between Pakistani agencies (ISI, FIA, CTD) and US counterparts (CIA, FBI, DIA, NCTC), focusing on ISIS-K, TTP, and emerging threats.
• Deepen Regional Security Coordination: Proactively foster structured intelligence and operational trilateral dialogues involving Pakistan, Afghanistan (de facto authorities), and the US/CENTCOM to address cross-border militant sanctuaries and movement, leveraging existing communication channels but seeking greater operational transparency.
• Augment CTF & Border Security Capacity: Sustain and expand US technical assistance and training programs for Pakistan’s Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU), law enforcement agencies (CTDs), and border security forces (FC, PAK Rangers) to combat sophisticated terror financing networks and improve cross-border surveillance/control.
• Strengthen De-Radicalization & CVE Infrastructure: Increase international support (technical expertise, funding) for Pakistan’s de-radicalization programs and community-based Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiatives, ensuring long-term sustainability and measurable impact assessment frameworks.
• Maintain High-Level Strategic Dialogue: Institutionalize regular, high-level (Ministerial/Command Level) bilateral counter-terrorism consultations separate from broader political dialogues to ensure strategic alignment, swiftly address operational friction points, and adapt to evolving threat landscapes.

“The fight against terrorism is not just Pakistan’s war, it is the world’s war.” General Pervez Musharraf

Elon Musk has emerged as one of the most powerful figures in American politics. After contributing more than $250m to President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, Musk joined his administration as head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency. From that post, he launched an aggressive effort to slash the federal workforce—targeting entire agencies, some of which regulate his own companies. His position also gave him access to vast troves of government data, potentially fuelling the growth of his artificial intelligence ventures.

Fault Lines traces Musk’s transformation from Trump critic to top donor and political ally. Through interviews with historians, insiders and journalists, Citizen Musk investigates whether one billionaire bought his way into power—and whether the United States is sliding into oligarchy.

British sympathy for the Palestinian cause – and criticism of Israel – is surging, according to a new survey.

London, United Kingdom – Most Britons who oppose Israel’s war on Gaza believe the onslaught, which has to date killed more than 55,000 people, amounts to genocide, according to a new poll.

The survey, carried out by YouGov and commissioned by the Action for Humanity charity and the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) advocacy group, found that 55 percent of Britons are against Israel’s aggression. A significant number of those opponents – 82 percent – said Israel’s actions amount to genocide.

“This translates to 45 percent of adults in the UK who view Israel’s actions as genocidal,” said Action for Humanity and ICJP.

Details of the poll, which 2,010 people responded to in early June, were released on Wednesday.

Sixty-five percent said the UK should enforce the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he were to visit Britain.

“It is clear that a majority of the public here are disgusted with Israel’s conduct, and a growing number agree that this is clearly a genocide,” said Othman Moqbel, head of Action for Humanity.

He added that all but a few believe the UK should do “everything in its power to stop Israel and seek justice against those responsible”.

“The government’s failure to recognise the scale of the crimes being inflicted upon Gaza is not just putting them on the wrong side of history, it’s putting them on the wrong side of the present day.”

Tens of thousands of Britons have taken to the streets over the past 20 months to protest against Israel’s war on Gaza.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has in recent weeks adopted harsher tones on Israel and sanctioned top officials. In 2024, the UK suspended 30 arms export licences to Israel for use in Gaza amid concerns Israel was violating international humanitarian laws.

But critics have lamented the pace and power of the UK’s response, calling for tougher sanctions and measures that would prevent Israel from receiving F-35 components made in Britain.

The survey also highlighted the positions of Britons who voted for the Labour Party in the 2024 general election.

Of the 68 percent of Labour voters who are against Israel’s actions in Gaza, 87 percent believe they amount to genocide. Seventy-eight percent of Labour voters said the UK should enforce the ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu.

The UK has suggested it would comply with the ICC warrant.

“The UK government is totally out of touch with the British public they are supposed to represent, and the Labour Party are even more out of touch with their own voters,” said Jonathan Purcell of the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians.

“UK policymaking should be based on complying with international law obligations, regardless, but this poll just goes to show the level of popular support for such policies too. There is absolutely no appetite to drag our national reputation through the mud by continuing to stand with a rogue, pariah state.”

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei says Iran is ‘for the time being’ focused on targeting Israeli sites only as conflict enters sixth day.

Iran has warned that any intervention by the United States in its conflict with Israel would risk an “all-out war”, as the regional rivals traded missile fire for a sixth day.

After President Donald Trump hinted at greater US involvement in the conflict and sent warplanes to the region, Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on Wednesday pledged that Iran would defend itself with “all force”.

Here are some key takeaways from an exclusive interview the Iranian official gave to Al Jazeera.

Will Iran attack US forces?

Baghaei said Iran is “under an attack by a genocidal regime”, adding it will defend itself with “full force” against Israel’s “war of aggression”.

He said Iran is “for the time being” focused on targeting Israeli sites only, and Tehran trusts its neighbours would not allow the US to use their territory for attacks against it.

“Right now, we focus on defending ourselves from attacks from Israel, and that is why we have been very careful, very responsible, very calculated in our response to these attacks. We have targeted military bases, security bases inside the occupied lands, so for the time being, we are focused on that,” he said.

“We have very good relations with Arab countries, and they are very cognisant of the fact that Israel has been trying to drag others into the war … We are sure our Arab countries hosting US bases would not allow their territory to be used against their Muslim neighbours,” he added.

“I trust that the understanding between Iran and our neighbouring countries would not allow any third party to abuse their territory,” he said.

Is Iran willing to engage in diplomacy?

According to Baghaei, “diplomacy never ends”. But he said Tehran no longer trusts Washington.

“We were in the middle of [nuclear] negotiations [with the US], and all of a sudden, Israel started attacking Iran. And no one can imagine in our region, not only in Iran, that Israel started this war without a prior green light from the US,” he said.

“So I think what is at stake is the credibility of a country that is supposed to be a global power. What is at stake is the international law that has been almost annihilated because of all the atrocities committed in occupied Palestine and in Syria and elsewhere,” he noted.

Baghaei said Iran is in contact with other countries, including Russia, because it is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. “We expect everyone that has leeway, that has a mandate under the UN Security Council, to act to help achieve a resolution in condemnation of this attack,” he said.

Will Iran give up its nuclear programme?

Israel has said its attacks on Iran came to stop Tehran from building nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly denied that it seeks nuclear bombs and that its nuclear programme is peaceful.

Baghaei argued: “Where are the IAEA’s violation reports? The true criminals bomb inspected facilities.”

“Our nuclear programme has been part and parcel of our right under the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]. So we have not done anything wrong under international law. Our nuclear programme started in the 1950s and it has continued for the past five decades completely peacefully,” he said.

He accused Israel of attacking a “peaceful installation” in Iran and questioned why members of the NPT allowed the attack to happen.

“This is completely banned under international law. This is completely criminal. And in accordance with Article 573 of [the UN convention on nuclear safety, as adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency] IAEA … the threat of attack against a country’s peaceful installation constitutes a threat to peace and security,” he noted.

“Now, we are witnessing a serious breach of peace … so I think the international community must make Israel and its supporters accountable for what they have done in their aggression against Iran.”

The Princess of Wales has pulled out from a planned attendance at Royal Ascot.

Catherine, who is making a gradual return to public life after her cancer diagnosis last year, is trying to find the right balance as she fully returns to public engagements, according to royal sources.

The princess was said to be disappointed to miss the sporting occasion in Berkshire, where she would have appeared in the carriage procession.

She was due to attend on Wednesday with her husband the Prince of Wales and the King and Queen.

Racegoers had been hoping to see Catherine as William was named as one of the figures awarding race prizes during the second day of the meet.

Kensington Palace confirmed she would not be attending the races.

The princess was last seen smiling and joking with other royals on Monday during the Order of the Garter service in Windsor.

Recently her public appearances have increased with attendances also at Trooping the Colour and a visit to the V&A East Storehouse museum in London.

Catherine revealed in January she is in remission from cancer after making an emotional return to the hospital where she received treatment.

She announced her diagnosis last March before she revealed in September she had completed her chemotherapy, saying: “Doing what I can to stay cancer free is now my focus.”

Catherine did not attend Royal Ascot last year, saying at the time she had been “blown away” by the messages of support she had received since her diagnosis and had been “making good progress” but was “not out of the woods yet”.

The event, one of the highlights of the summer social calendar, is taking place over five days at the Berkshire racecourse and is expected to draw more than 250,000 spectators.

This is 2025 and cryptocurrency is now a full fledge financial force globally. Volatility and regulation have become a thing of the past. Today, crypto market participants are looking for innovative technologies to invest in new concepts and new strategies. One such innovation is the combination of CEX and DEX under one roof, namely the BYDFi. This platform offers the most comprehensive, secure, and user-friendly experience by being your one-stop social trading platform.

How is this possible? BYDFi has launched MoonX, a Web3 trading tool that combines the efficiency of centralized exchanges (CEX) with the freedom of decentralized exchanges (DEX). This innovation is sure to change the course of 2025 crypto trading. Let’s discuss what the dual engine strategy has to offer.

Is BYDFi Your Average Social Trading Platform?

Inside BYDFi’s CEX

The Accessibility of BYDFi’s CEX

The Security and Regulatory Compliance of BYDFi’s CEX

BYDFi’s CEX With MoonX

MoonX’s Security Structure

This collaborates with Safeheron and uses MPC (Multi-Party Computation) & TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) technology to develop the industry’s most advanced decentralized key management solution. In addition, MoonX provides secure trading across devices with GoPlus, a third-party security audit authority, which conducts real-time security audits for on-chain pairs and sends alerts when they may be unsafe, preventing many scams like Rug Pulls and phishing.

Dual-Engine Strategy Of BYDFi Is Shaping 2025 Crypto Trading

The combo of CEX and DEX eliminates the limitations of singular models and offers the capabilities of both to revitalize the concepts in the 2025 Crypto Trading Market.

CEX Efficiency & Deep Liquidity Aggregation

Decentralized Innovation & Permissionless Market Access via MoonX

The Unified Trading Nexus, The Synergy

BYDFi’s Commitment to the Future of Crypto Trading

Conclusion

Security forces and hundreds of men armed with whips and clubs clashed with protesters in Kenya, with a police officer’s shooting of an unarmed bystander triggering widespread anger.

Tensions were already high in the East African country as it marked a year since massive Gen Z-led protests over the state of the economy, and the latest demonstrations were sparked by the death of a man in police custody earlier this month.

In Nairobi’s business district, the epicentre of last year’s demonstrations, small groups of protesters gathered on Tuesday, initially peacefully, to call for an end to police brutality.

But they were quickly attacked by hundreds of men on motorbikes, known in Kenya as “goons”, armed with makeshift weapons.

As shop owners hastily closed their businesses, police actively protected the armed men and fired tear gas at protesters, who responded by throwing stones and burning at least two of their motorbikes.

There was outrage after videos circulated of a police officer shooting a bystander at point-blank range in the head.

The man, who had been selling face masks, was still alive despite the severe injury.

“We handed him over to Kenyatta National Hospital, and he was taken to the ICU. He was very critical. He was still breathing,” said Vincent Ochieng, a disaster recovery officer for the Kenya Red Cross.

While the police did not directly deny any cooperation with the armed “goons”, it said in a statement it “does not condone such unlawful groupings”.

It also said the officer who shot the man in the head “using an anti-riot shotgun” had been arrested.

The government had been eager to avoid unrest this year, with its latest finance bill avoiding the tax rises that led to weeks of protests in June and July 2024.

But people have taken to the streets over the death of 31-year-old teacher Albert Ojwang in police custody earlier this month.

Protesters are demanding the resignation of a senior officer they blame for the death.

Last year’s protests peaked when thousands stormed Parliament on 25 June, where MPs were debating the unpopular finance bill.

Rights groups say at least 60 people were killed during the protests in June and July 2024, and dozens more were illegally detained by security forces in the aftermath.

Tech giant rejects ‘false reports’ after Iranian state media urges citizens to delete messaging app.

US tech giant Meta has expressed concern that Iran may block WhatsApp after state media claimed the messaging service is being used for snooping by Israel.

“We’re concerned these false reports will be an excuse for our services to be blocked at a time when people need them the most,” Meta, the parent company of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, said in a statement on Tuesday.

“All of the messages you send to family and friends on WhatsApp are end-to-end encrypted meaning no-one except the sender and recipient has access to those messages, not even WhatsApp.”

Meta added that it does not track users’ precise location or maintain logs of who is messaging whom.

“We do not provide bulk information to any government,” the California-based tech firm said.

“For over a decade, Meta has provided consistent transparency reports that include the limited circumstances when WhatsApp information has been requested.”

Meta’s statement came after the  Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) urged citizens to deactivate or delete their WhatsApp accounts because the “Zionist regime is using citizens’ information to harm us”.

“This is extremely important because they are using the information on your phone, your location and the content you share, which is likely private but still accessible,” an IRNA host said, according to a subtitled clip shared by Iraqi media outlet Rudaw.

“Many of us have friends and relatives living nearby, and some of them could be nuclear scientists or beloved figures, don’t forget.”

End-to-end encryption makes it technically impossible for third parties, including tech companies, to access the contents of messages while they are en route from a sender to a recipient.

However, Meta and other tech platforms do collect so-called metadata, such as contacts and device information, which they can share with authorities when requested.

Iran added WhatsApp and Instagram to its list of prohibited apps in September 2022 amid protests over the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian Kurd, in custody.

Iranian authorities voted to lift the ban two months later as part of reforms to enhance internet freedom promised by President Masoud Pezeshkian.

A president who built his reputation as a real estate mogul and TV personality, not through political office or military service. A cultural influencer and entrepreneur best known as the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, he also leads companies like Neuralink and The Boring Company, both embroiled in a feud. An intriguing moment in politics, one that could steer the direction of public discourse and holds potential for both factionalism and authoritarian tendencies. Two political outsiders beefing in the political space. Perhaps, if both were real politicians, the first thing to say would be that in politics there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. Since both are businessmen, perhaps the philosophy of supply and demand should take the lead.

One key area of tension is their vision for power and influence. Trump has traditionally sought loyalty and absolute control over his political base. Musk, on the other hand, champions a decentralized, free speech-centric internet and promotes what he calls “rational centrism.” Their feud exposes a broader struggle over who gets to define the conservative movement in the digital age. Is it career politicians like Trump or tech disruptors like Musk?

As the feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump escalates, it signals a seismic shift in where power and influence now reside in America. Musk represents the rise of the tech oligarch—billionaires who command not only wealth but also control over critical digital infrastructure and artificial intelligence. In contrast, Trump embodies the traditional fusion of business interests and political power. This public clash reflects more than a personal rivalry; it marks a defining moment in history when unelected figures with vast digital reach are rivaling, and in some cases eclipsing, the authority of elected officials. At stake is the very foundation of American democracy.

The cultural impact is equally significant. In today’s fragmented media landscape, Musk owns and controls X (formerly Twitter), one of the most influential social media platforms. Trump, meanwhile, promotes his views through Truth Social, his own media venture. Their battles play out in real time across these platforms, often fueling misinformation, deepening tribal divides, and eroding a shared sense of truth. This dynamic contributes to a growing destabilization of democratic norms. The rise of personality-driven politics is not confined to the United States; it is a global trend, reshaping leadership and public discourse worldwide. As Musk and Trump dominate headlines, millions are drawn into a media spectacle that distracts from urgent challenges like climate change, economic inequality, healthcare reform, and global instability. In this new era of digital power, the question remains: who truly holds the reins of influence, and at what cost to democratic society?

Elon Musk’s companies play a pivotal role in the U.S. economy, particularly in the automotive, aerospace, and infrastructure sectors. Should President Donald Trump choose to launch a political or rhetorical campaign against Musk, it could prompt Republican policymakers to reassess their support for clean energy subsidies, government contracts, or regulatory leniency. At the same time, Musk’s significant influence over financial markets—including cryptocurrencies and tech stocks—means that any sustained public clash with Trump could spark market volatility, especially if investors anticipate political retaliation or regulatory changes.

Should this feud be prolonged, the two figures could have far-reaching implications for Silicon Valley and the broader culture of innovation. Elon Musk is widely regarded as a symbol of entrepreneurial ambition and visionary risk-taking. Should former President Trump cast him as a political adversary, it could politicize certain elements of the tech industry, potentially undermining bipartisan support for innovation-driven initiatives. On the other hand, such a clash might encourage other tech leaders to adopt more overt political positions, either aligning with Musk’s views or deliberately distancing themselves from his influence, thereby challenging the traditionally apolitical posture of the tech sector.

The cultural implications of such a feud could be profound. Elon Musk resonates with younger, tech-savvy audiences through memes, livestreams, and direct engagement on social media platforms. In contrast, Donald Trump appeals to an older demographic that emphasizes traditional values and nationalist rhetoric. A prolonged conflict between the two figures could highlight and deepen the generational and ideological divides in American society. As business and politics become increasingly performative and adversarial, the space for collaboration, empathy, and thoughtful public discourse may continue to shrink.

Ultimately, in a nation already grappling with deep polarization, media fragmentation, and widespread institutional mistrust, a public clash between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could intensify existing divisions. While such a feud may appear, at first glance, to be mere spectacle, its ripple effects could extend far beyond headlines, impacting politics, economics, culture, and technology. As highly influential figures, both Musk and Trump bear a responsibility that transcends their personal brands. Their actions and their conflicts resonate throughout American society, making the consequences of their feud not just personal, but profoundly national.