foreign

The UK has suspended trade talks, while France and Canada have threatened action if Israel continues to starve and bomb Palestinians in Gaza. So, is the tide turning on foreign support for Israel, or is this all just PR? Soraya Lennie takes a look.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Democratic senators sparred Tuesday over the Trump administration’s foreign policies, including on Ukraine and Russia, the Middle East and Latin America, as well as the slashing of the U.S. foreign assistance budget and refugee admissions.

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, his first since being confirmed on the first day of President Trump’s inauguration, former Florida Sen. Rubio defended the administration’s decisions to his onetime colleagues.

He said “America is back” and claimed four months of foreign policy achievements, even as many of them remain frustratingly inconclusive. Among them are the resumption of nuclear talks with Iran, efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine into peace talks, and efforts to end the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.

He praised agreements with El Salvador and other Latin American countries to accept migrant deportees, saying “secure borders, safe communities and zero tolerance for criminal cartels are once again the guiding principles of our foreign policy.” He also rejected assertions that massive cuts to his department’s budget would hurt America’s standing abroad. Instead, he said the cuts would actually improve American status and the United States’ reputation internationally.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the committee’s chair, opened the hearing with praise for Trump’s changes and spending cuts and welcomed what he called the administration’s promising nuclear talks with Iran. Risch also noted what he jokingly called “modest disagreement” with Democratic lawmakers, who used Tuesday’s hearing to confront Rubio about Trump administration moves that they say are weakening the United States’ influence globally.

Yet Democrats on the Senate committee, including ranking member Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, took sharp issue with Rubio’s presentation.

Shaheen argued that the Trump administration has “eviscerated six decades of foreign policy investments” and given China openings around the world.

“I urge you to stand up to the extremists of the administration,” Shaheen said. Other Democrats excoriated the administration for its suspension of the refugee admissions program, particularly while allowing white Afrikaners from South Africa to enter the country.

In two particularly contentious exchanges, Kaine and Van Hollen demanded answers on the decision to suspend overall refugee admissions but to exempt Afrikaners based on what they called “specious” claims that they have been subjected to massive discrimination by the South African government. Rubio gave no ground.

“The United States has a right to pick and choose who we allow into the United States,” he said. “If there is a subset of people that are easier to vet, who we have a better understanding of who they are and what they’re going to do when they come here, they’re going to receive preference.”

He added: “There are a lot of sad stories around the world, millions and millions of people around the world. It’s heartbreaking, but we cannot assume millions and millions of people around the world. No country can.”

On the Middle East, Rubio said the administration has continued to push ahead with attempts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza and to promote stability in Syria.

He stressed the importance of U.S. engagement with Syria, saying that otherwise, he fears the interim government there could be weeks or months away from a “potential collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions.”

Rubio’s comments addressed Trump’s pledge to lift sanctions on Syria’s new transitional government, which is led by a former militant chief who led the overthrow of the country’s longtime oppressive leader, Bashar Assad, late last year.

Lee and Knickmeyer write for the Associated Press.

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy slammed the Israeli government for expanding its war on Gaza, calling comments made by its government as ‘repellent’ and ‘monstrous’. The UK also said it was pausing free trade negotiations with Israel.

The Netherlands’ relationship with the Islamic world has developed over the centuries, starting from the era of colonialism when the Dutch controlled the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), where the majority of the population is Muslim. This colonial legacy not only left a historical trace but also influenced the political and economic dynamics of the Netherlands in relation to Islamic countries. In addition, after World War II, the Netherlands received waves of migration from Muslim countries such as Turkey and Morocco, as well as from its former colonies, including Indonesia and Suriname. This led to a significant growth of the Muslim community in the Netherlands, which in turn created complex domestic social and political dynamics.

As a country that upholds the principles of liberal democracy and human rights, the Netherlands actively promotes these values in its foreign policy. This attitude often creates tensions in relations with Islamic countries, especially in issues related to religious freedom, women’s rights, and freedom of expression. For example, the debate over the ban on the burqa and criticism of sharia law in some Islamic countries show a clash between the principles of Dutch liberal democracy and the social norms of Islamic countries. However, on the other hand, the Netherlands also has great economic interests with Islamic countries, particularly in the field of trade and energy investment. Many Islamic countries, especially in the Middle East, are the Netherlands’ main trading partners, both in exports of agricultural products and in energy imports such as oil and gas.

The dilemma arose when the Netherlands had to balance between liberal democratic idealism and economic pragmatism. Criticism of human rights abuses in Islamic countries can risk disrupting trade and investment relations. For example, the diplomatic crisis with Turkey in 2017, in which the Netherlands banned Turkish ministers from campaigning in Rotterdam, reflected the tension between liberal democratic principles and political and economic interests. In addition, the Netherlands’ relations with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are often colored by contradictions, where on the one hand the Netherlands denounces their authoritarian policies, but on the other hand maintains close economic cooperation.

This research becomes relevant in understanding how the Netherlands navigates its foreign relations with Islamic countries in the midst of the dilemma between liberal democratic values and economic interests. This study not only contributes to the study of international relations but also provides insight for policymakers in formulating a balanced strategy between the promotion of democratic values and national interests in the context of relations with the Islamic world. Thus, this study aims to examine the dynamics of Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world, identify the factors that influence its political decisions, and analyze the impact of the approach used by the Netherlands in maintaining a balance between liberal democracy and economic interests.

The relationship between the Netherlands and the Islamic world has a long history that has been shaped through various political, economic, and social dynamics. Since the 17th century, when the Netherlands became one of the largest maritime and colonial powers, interaction with the Islamic world has occurred, especially through trade and colonial activities in Muslim regions, such as Indonesia. In the 16th century, the Netherlands (which at that time was still part of the Spanish Empire) began to engage in the spice trade with the Islamic world, mainly by sea. Dutch traders explored trade routes controlled by Muslim traders and began to establish relationships with various kingdoms and sultanates in Southeast Asia, such as Aceh, Banten, and Makassar. There were conflicts and rivalries between the Dutch and the Muslim powers, despite favorable trade relations. One example is the Aceh War, which lasted ten years, in which the Dutch sought to control the Muslim sultanate of Aceh, which was very powerful in Sumatra. The history of relations between the Netherlands and the Islamic world is very complicated and full of conflicts. This relationship shows how two different societies interact with each other and shape each other. In addition to conflicts and difficulties, there is cooperation and mutual understanding. To build a better and more peaceful relationship in the future, it is important to understand our history.

The history of relations between the Netherlands and the Islamic world, particularly in Indonesia, reflects complex dynamics involving political, social, and cultural interactions. This relationship began with the arrival of the Dutch at the end of the 16th century and continued until the colonial period, which lasted more than three centuries. The arrival of the Dutch in Indonesia in 1596 was marked by the main goal of controlling the spice trade. Over time, they began to realize the growing power of Islam in the archipelago, especially through the influence of clerics and a strong social network among the Muslim community. The Dutch’s fear of potential resistance from Muslims, especially those connected to the Ottoman Caliphate, prompted them to develop a more strategic policy in dealing with Islam (Amalsyah, 2013).

During the colonial period, the Dutch controlled the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), where the majority of the population was Muslim. The Dutch colonial policy towards Islam was ambivalent—on the one hand, the colonial government sought to control and limit the influence of Islam in the nationalist movement, but on the other hand, they also worked closely with the local Muslim elite to maintain the stability of the colonial government. This colonial experience still has an impact on Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world to this day. In the modern era, the Netherlands’ relations with the Islamic world are growing, especially in economic and diplomatic aspects. The Netherlands has established trade relations with Islamic countries, especially in the energy and infrastructure sectors. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey are major trading partners, while relations with Iran remain complex due to geopolitical factors and international sanctions. 

In many cases, Dutch foreign policy faces a dilemma between economic interests and liberal democratic values. This is especially true in relations with developing countries such as Indonesia. The interaction between past and modern practices demonstrates this dynamic. The Round Table Conference (KMB) in 1949 was an attempt by the Netherlands to strengthen its economic dominance in Indonesia. It regulates Dutch company ownership in strategic areas such as banking and transportation. However, Indonesia’s nationalization policies in 1958, such as the State Commercial Bank and Garuda Indonesia, made the Dutch reconsider their strategy; they shifted from colonial control to economic diplomacy based on equality. Dutch policies combine development aid and trade promotion. For example, the development assistance budget was reduced from 0.7% of GDP to below the international threshold, and the budget was allocated to subsidize SME exports and military operations. This method has been criticized for undermining principles (Bieckmann, 2013).

The Netherlands implemented various policies to supervise and control the lives of Muslims. One of the first steps was the establishment of institutions such as the Priesterraden in 1882 to supervise the religious activities of Muslims. In 1905, strict regulations were enacted requiring permission from the colonial government to teach Islam. Snouck Hurgronje, a Dutch orientalist, played a key role in formulating this policy. He suggested that the government be neutral on the religious aspects of Islam but wary of its political potential. Snouck classifies Islam into two categories: religious and political, with a focus on controlling political aspects that are considered to have the potential to cause rebellion (Effendi, 2013).

In addition to bilateral relations with Muslim countries, domestic dynamics also play an important role. The Netherlands has a significant Muslim population, mainly of Turkish and Moroccan immigrant descent. The presence of this Muslim community is often a domestic political issue, especially in debates about integration, multiculturalism, and immigration policy. Political parties’ attitudes towards Islam at home often influence Dutch foreign policy towards Islamic countries. Against this historical background and contemporary dynamics, Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world continues to develop within the framework of a balance between economic interests, liberal democratic values, and domestic and global political dynamics.

The Netherlands faces a dilemma in carrying out its foreign policy towards Islamic countries, where the values of liberal democracy that are upheld often conflict with economic interests. As a country that actively promotes human rights, freedom of opinion, and democracy, the Netherlands has consistently criticized human rights violations in Islamic countries, especially regarding political freedom, women’s rights, and religious freedom. However, on the other hand, economic relations with Islamic countries, especially in the trade, investment, and energy sectors, remain a top priority. The Netherlands is a liberal democracy that strongly defends values such as democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. However, as a country with an open economy that relies heavily on foreign investment and international trade, liberal democratic values often conflict with economic interests in foreign policy.

This tension is evident in various diplomatic situations. One prime example is the Netherlands’ relationship with Turkey, which has experienced ups and downs due to differences in political views. When the Netherlands criticized President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s authoritarian policies and restricted Turkey’s political campaigns in Europe, bilateral relations between the two countries briefly deteriorated. However, economic cooperation continues due to the great trade interests between the two countries. Another case that reflects this dilemma is the relationship between the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia. The Netherlands has often criticized Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, especially regarding freedom of opinion and its treatment of political opposition. However, because Saudi Arabia is one of the Netherlands’ main trading partners in the energy and infrastructure sectors, the Dutch government maintains close economic ties. Even as the Dutch Parliament passed a resolution condemning Saudi Arabia’s involvement in human rights abuses, the government continued to look for ways to maintain a balance between political criticism and economic interests. 

This dilemma is also seen in the Dutch policy towards Iran. International sanctions against Iran, backed by the Netherlands, often collide with the desire of Dutch businessmen to expand trade with the country. The Netherlands must play a cautious diplomatic role in order to remain compliant with the norms of liberal democracy without harming its economic interests. Overall, Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world shows the tension between idealism and pragmatism. Although the Netherlands wants to maintain its image as a democratic country that defends human rights, economic interests remain a dominant factor in foreign policy decisions. Therefore, the Netherlands continues to seek balance in its approach by implementing a flexible diplomacy strategy so as not to lose both political influence and economic advantages in the Islamic world. In its foreign policy, the Netherlands has always faced a dilemma between economic interests and liberal democracy. There are no easy solutions, and the Dutch government must continue to strive to find ways to balance the country’s economic interests and its values. The Netherlands can maintain its economic advantages while supporting democracy, human rights, and sustainable development around the world by using innovative and responsible approaches.

The dilemma between liberal democracy and economic interests in Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world has various implications, both in bilateral relations, domestic dynamics, and the Netherlands’ position in the international arena. Dutch foreign policy has major consequences at the regional (European) and global levels. These affected areas include the economy, security, environment, and human rights. It is essential to understand these consequences in order to assess how effective the policies are and to plan a better plan for future use. The Netherlands’ free trade policy abroad has increased Dutch exports and investment around the world. This has boosted Dutch economic growth and created more jobs. However, there are risks associated with these policies, such as dependence on certain markets and the possible exploitation of workers in developing countries.

The Netherlands’ foreign policy, which often criticizes democratic and human rights issues in Islamic countries, has the potential to strain diplomatic relations. The case of tensions with Turkey and Saudi Arabia shows that Dutch criticism of political policies in Islamic countries can trigger a harsh response, such as ambassadorial withdrawals or trade restrictions. However, on the other hand, economic pragmatism encourages the Netherlands to maintain trade relations, especially in the energy and infrastructure sectors. 

The Netherlands’ foreign policy towards the Islamic world is also closely related to domestic political dynamics. The growing Muslim population in the Netherlands, especially of Turkish and Moroccan descent, has sparked debates about integration and national identity. The Netherlands is a NATO member that supports global climate action and is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Netherlands also actively participates in NATO military operations and supports the improvement of European defense capabilities. The Netherlands also invests in renewable energy and supports international agreements on climate change. The Netherlands strongly supports human rights. This includes development assistance, diplomacy, and support for civil society institutions that fight for human rights. Political parties with a hardline stance towards Islam often exploit this issue in their political campaigns, which can then influence Dutch foreign policy towards Islamic countries. This attitude also has an effect on immigration policy, where the Netherlands is increasingly selective in accepting immigrants from Islamic countries, especially regarding security issues and social values.

As a member of the European Union, the Netherlands often follows European foreign policy as a whole in dealing with Islamic countries. However, in some cases, the Netherlands has taken a firmer stance than other European countries in criticizing human rights violations. This attitude could strengthen the Netherlands’ position as a country that upholds democratic values but also risks reducing economic access to the markets of Islamic countries. In addition, in international organizations such as the United Nations and the WTO, the Netherlands must maintain a balance between national interests and its commitment to multilateral policies. 

In the future, the Netherlands needs to develop a more flexible foreign policy strategy to manage relations with the Islamic world. Economic diplomacy that maintains democratic principles but with a more pragmatic and dialogical approach can be a solution in avoiding unnecessary diplomatic conflicts. In addition, increased cooperation in the fields of education, culture, and technology can be an alternative way to strengthen relations with Islamic countries without getting too caught up in political conflicts. Taking into account these various aspects, Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world will continue to be a challenge that requires a balance between political idealism and economic reality. Economic, security, environmental, and human rights are heavily influenced by Dutch international policies. The Netherlands must adapt its foreign policy to global trends and emerging problems if it wants to meet challenges and seize future opportunities. The Netherlands has the ability to contribute to the development of a safer, more prosperous, and more sustainable world by enhancing partnerships with like-minded countries, increasing investment in diplomacy, supporting international organizations, and protecting human rights.

Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world is in tension between liberal democracy and economic interests. As a country that upholds human rights and democratic freedoms, the Netherlands often criticizes political policies in Islamic countries, especially regarding freedom of opinion, women’s rights, and the system of government. However, on the other hand, economic relations with Islamic countries, especially in the trade and energy sectors, remain a top priority. This dilemma is reflected in various dynamics of bilateral relations, such as tensions with Turkey and Saudi Arabia due to differences in political views, but the establishment of close economic cooperation. In addition, domestic dynamics, including immigration issues and the integration of the Muslim community in the Netherlands, also play a role in shaping the country’s foreign policy. As part of the European Union, the Netherlands must balance its stance between the broader European foreign policy and its own national interests. In the future, the Netherlands needs to adopt a more flexible approach to establishing relations with Islamic countries, prioritizing economic diplomacy that remains based on democratic values but with a more pragmatic strategy to avoid unnecessary conflicts. With this balance, the Netherlands can maintain its position as a strong democratic country while maintaining the stability of economic relations with the Islamic world.

On summer break from a PhD program, an international student at UC San Diego was planning a trip with a few friends to Hawaii. But after seeing international students across the United States stripped of their legal status, the student decided against it.

Any travel, even within the U.S., just didn’t seem worth the risk.

“I probably am going to skip that to … have as few interactions with governments as possible,” said the student, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being targeted.

International students considering travel to see family, take a vacation or conduct research are thinking twice because of the Trump administration’s crackdown, which has added to a sense of vulnerability.

Even before students suddenly began losing permission to study in the U.S., some colleges were encouraging international students and faculty to postpone travel, citing government efforts to deport students involved in pro-Palestinian activism. As the scale of the status terminations emerged in recent weeks, more schools have cautioned against nonessential travel abroad for international students.

UC Berkeley, for one, issued an advisory last week saying upcoming international travel was risky due to “strict vetting and enforcement.”

At least 1,220 students at 187 colleges, universities and university systems have seen their visas revoked or legal status terminated since late March, according to an Associated Press review of university statements, correspondence with school officials and court records. That includes more than 120 in California, among them at least 20 at UCLA and dozens at other University of California and California State University campuses as of late April.

The number of affected students appears far higher, though. At least 4,736 international students’ visa records were terminated in a government database that maintains their legal status, according to an April 10 Immigration and Customs Enforcement response to inquiries from Congress.

Suddenly at risk for deportation, some students went into hiding while others left the country on their own. Many of the students said they had only minor infractions on their records or didn’t know why their records were removed.

After federal judges raised due process concerns in several students’ cases, the U.S. government reversed the terminations but then issued new guidance expanding the reasons international students can lose their legal status in the future.

Under the new policy, valid reasons for status termination include the revocation of the visas students used to enter the U.S. In the past, if a student’s visa was revoked, they generally could stay in the country to finish school, but they would not be able to reenter if they left.

The fast-evolving situation has left colleges struggling to advise students.

A Michigan college employee who helps international students navigate the visa process said they are inquiring more than ever about summer travel. The employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said he often has been unable to give sufficient answers.

Last year, the U.S. hosted about 1.1 million international students, a source of essential tuition revenue at many schools. Advocates say that number is likely to shrink as the crackdown hurts America’s image abroad.

Over the last few weeks, Rishi Oza’s immigration law firm in North Carolina has received calls about travel risks almost daily from people of varied immigration status, including international students.

“You kind of shake your head and say, ‘Is this the character of the country we want?’” Oza said. “It just seems that it’s a bit out of whack that people are fearful of leaving and whether they’ll be able to come back.”

Students in the U.S. with a visa need to decide whether their travels are crucial, he said.

When attempting reentry after leaving the country, they should bring immigration documents, school transcripts and even court documents if they were charged with a crime and the court dismissed the case. Ultimately, lawyers can’t foretell what will happen at the airport, Oza said.

The unpredictability has put one international student at the University of Illinois in distress. The student, who requested anonymity to avoid being targeted, has laid low since one of his classmates left the country after their legal status was terminated.

The student’s plan to travel to his home country in Asia in the summer causes feelings of panic, but he has nowhere else to stay. He bought his plane ticket and is committed to the trip. His anxiety over what could happen when he returns, however, remains.

“Right now,” he said, “I’m afraid I might not be able to come back.”

Seminera writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher L. Keller in Albuquerque contributed to this report.

US president claims that Hollywood is undergoing a ‘very fast death’ despite raking in $30bn in revenues in 2024.

United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to impose a 100 percent tariff on foreign films, claiming that Hollywood is undergoing a “very fast death” due to overseas competition.

In a social media post on Sunday, Trump said he had directed the US Department of Commerce and the US Trade Representative to immediately begin the process of imposing the tariff on “any and all” films produced in “foreign lands”.

“Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform.

“This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!”

Asked by reporters about the tariff later on Sunday, Trump claimed that the US was making “very few movies now.”

“Other nations, a lot of them, have stolen our movie industry,” he said. “If they are not willing to make a movie inside the United States, we should have a tariff on movies that come in.”

Trump did not elaborate on how such a tariff would work in practical terms, including whether it would be applied to Hollywood features that involve shooting and production across multiple countries.

Trump’s announcement follows his appointment in January of actors Sylvester Stallone, Mel Gibson and Jon Voight as “special ambassadors” tasked with bringing back business that Hollywood has lost to other countries.

At the time, Trump said the actors would be “my eyes and ears” as he set about instituting a “Golden Age of Hollywood”.

Hollywood has faced tough business conditions in recent years amid the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2023 actors’ and writers’ strike.

Hollywood studios grossed about $30bn worldwide last year, down about 7 percent from 2023, according to Gower Street Analytics.

While last year’s performance was an improvement on revenues in 2020, 2021 and 2022, it was still about 20 below the pre-pandemic average, according to Gower Street Analytics.

Syria promises to ‘protect all components’ of society, including Druze, after Israel launches air raids near Damascus.

Syrian authorities have decried “foreign intervention” in Syrian affairs after Israel launched air attacks on a town near Damascus where government forces and several other groups had taken part in deadly clashes.

A Syrian Ministry of Interior source told Al Jazeera Arabic that at least four Israeli air strikes targeted security personnel in the mainly Druze town of Ashrafieh Sahnaya on Wednesday.

The Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, in a statement, rejected “all forms of foreign intervention”, but did not explicitly accuse Israel of carrying out the attacks. Syria “affirms its unwavering commitment to protect all components of the Syrian people … including the children of the honourable Druze community,” the Foreign Ministry added in its statement.

Israel said it had carried out a strike in Syria against so-called “extremists” who attacked members of the Druze community, following through on what it said was a promise to protect the minority group.

The military said that three Syrian Druze citizens had been evacuated from Syria to receive medical treatment in Israel.

The strikes came following confrontations between Syrian government loyalists and members of the Druze military council that killed dozens of people in two days.

The director of security for the Damascus countryside, Hussam al-Tahhan, told Syria’s state-run SANA news agency that a security operation was launched there and that reinforcements were sent to ensure the return of “security and stability” to the area’s neighbourhoods.

At least 16 security forces and six fighters were killed on Wednesday, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based war monitor. At least 17 people, including 10 security forces, were killed on Tuesday.

‘Extreme panic’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the strike on the town of Ashrafieh Sahnaya sent a “stern message” to Syria’s new government, led by interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

“Israel expects them to act to prevent harm to the Druze community”, he said.

Israel’s armed forces chief later ordered the military to prepare to strike Syrian government targets if the Druze community faces more violence.

Syrian Druze leaders have repeatedly rejected Israeli intervention and declared their loyalty to a united Syria.

The latest violence erupted on Tuesday with clashes between Druze and Sunni groups in the predominantly Druze area of Jaramana, ignited by an audio clip attacking the Prophet Muhammad that was circulated on social media.

The recording was attributed to a Druze leader. The spiritual authority for the Druze community in Jaramana condemned the recording, insisting it was fabricated “to incite sedition and sow division among the people of the same nation”.

Syria’s new rulers, former opposition fighters who led the rebellion that overthrew longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad in December, have struggled to maintain security for the country’s minorities, despite urging national unity and inclusivity.

Since al-Assad was overthrown in December, Israel has launched hundreds of strikes into Syria, stepping up attacks that it also carried out routinely in previous years, and has deployed troops to a United Nations-patrolled buffer zone on the occupied Golan Heights.

The latest incidents only serve to increase the sectarian tension in Syria, with minorities already on edge following horrifying bloodshed last month.

After al-Assad loyalists from the Alawite community clashed with security forces in March, hundreds of people were killed in a wave of vigilante attacks in the northern areas of Tartous and Latakia governorates.

‘Extreme panic’

Residents of Sahnaya reported intense street fighting throughout Wednesday.

“We’re in extreme panic and fear because of the indiscriminate shelling, which is forcing most of us to stay totally shuttered inside our homes,” said Elias Hanna, who lives on the edge of Sahnaya.

“We’re worried that the massacres of the coast will repeat themselves near Sahnaya against the Druze,” he said.

Geir Pedersen, UN special envoy to Syria, is “deeply concerned” by violence in the country, especially in the suburbs of the capital Damascus and in Homs,” the United Nations said.

He called for immediate measures to ensure the protection of civilians and prevent incitement of communal tensions.

Turkiye’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs demanded that Israel “cease its aerial strikes” on Syria.

“At this sensitive time for Syria, the duty of the international community is to contribute to the establishment of security and stability in Syria,” ministry spokesperson Oncu Keceli said in a statement. “Given this context, Israel must put an end to its air strikes, which are damaging the country’s efforts to achieve unity and integrity.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has told Congress that it intends to designate Haitian gangs as foreign terrorist organizations, sources familiar with the notification said.

The State Department similarly labeled eight Latin American crime organizations in February as it ratcheted up pressure on cartels operating in the U.S. and anyone assisting them. The new move indicates that the administration plans to put similar pressure on gangs from Haiti. The designation carries with it sanctions and penalties for anyone providing “material support” for the group.

It comes after a series of steps against the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which was designated a foreign terrorist organization and then dubbed an invading force under an 18th century wartime law to justify the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to a notorious El Salvador prison under President Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown.

That invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is significant because it gives the president wide powers to imprison and deport noncitizens who otherwise would have the right to ask for asylum in the U.S. or have their cases heard in immigration courts.

Trump, at a rally in Michigan on Tuesday, touted his designation of the six Latin American crime groups as foreign terrorist organizations, including MS-13 and Tren de Aragua.

“They’ve been designated the highest level of terrorist, and that lets us do a lot of things that you wouldn’t be able to do,” Trump said.

Notifying Congress about plan for Haitian gangs

According to the notification sent to congressional committees on April 23, the Trump administration said it intends to designate the Haitian gangs Viv Ansanm and Gran Grif as foreign terrorist organizations, according to two people familiar with the message who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details that have not yet been made public.

A third person confirmed that the foreign relations committees in the House and Senate received the notification. The State Department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The designation follows a Trump administration move in February to nix protections that shielded half a million Haitians from deportation.

Tens of thousands of Haitians came to the United States under a Biden-era program permitting people from four countries including Haiti to stay for two years provided they had a financial sponsor and bought their own plane ticket. The Trump administration terminated that program and is seeking to revoke the status of those admitted under the Biden administration.

The foreign terrorist organization label has typically been reserved for groups like Al Qaeda or Islamic State, but applying it to Haitian gangs means that the Trump White House is expanding the long-standing U.S. definition of foreign terrorism.

The gangs are behind attacks in Haiti

Viv Ansanm, which means “Living Together,” is a powerful gang coalition that formed in September 2023 and is best known for launching a series of attacks starting in February 2024 across Port-au-Prince and beyond that shuttered Haiti’s main international airport for nearly three months, freed hundreds of inmates from the country’s two biggest prisons and eventually forced former Prime Minister Ariel Henry to resign.

The coalition united more than a dozen gangs, including two of Haiti’s biggest ones: G-9 and G-Pèp, which were fierce rivals.

Gangs control at least 85% of Haiti’s capital, with Viv Ansanm attacking once- peaceful communities in recent weeks in a bid to control even more territory.

Gran Grif, also known as the Savien gang, forms part of the Viv Ansanm coalition and is led by Luckson Elan, best known as “General Luckson.” It is the biggest gang operating in Haiti’s central Artibonite region with some 100 members.

It was blamed for an attack in the town of Pont-Sonde in October 2024 in which more than 70 people were killed in one of the biggest massacres in Haiti’s recent history.

Gran Grif also was blamed for a recent attack in the Petite Riviere community in which several people were killed, including an 11-year-old child.

Gran Grif was formed after Prophane Victor, an ex-member of Haiti’s Parliament who represented the Petite Riviere community in Artibonite, began arming young men in the region, according to a U.N. report. Victor was arrested in January.

Canada sanctioned him in June 2023, as did the U.S. in September 2024, accusing him of supporting gangs “that have committed serious human rights abuse.”

Gangs’ impact on Haiti

More than 5,600 people were killed across Haiti last year, with gang violence leaving more than 1 million homeless in the country of nearly 12 million people, according to the U.N.

While much of the violence has occurred in Port-au-Prince, gangs recently struck the city of Mirebalais in Haiti’s central region and freed more than 500 inmates from a local prison. They also attacked the nearby town of Saut d’Eau, considered sacred by the thousands of Haitians who travel there yearly for a pilgrimage.

Gangs also have seized more control in Port-au-Prince, killing more than 260 people in Kenscoff and Carrefour earlier this year. The U.N. political mission in Haiti noted that it took the country’s military, police and a U.N.-backed mission led by Kenyan police roughly five hours to respond to those attacks.

Hunger also has surged to record levels as a result of the persistent gang violence, with more than half of Haiti’s population expected to experience severe hunger through June, and 8,400 people living in makeshift shelters projected to starve.

Price and Amiri write for the Associated Press. Amiri reported from the United Nations. AP writers Danica Coto in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Rebecca Santana in Washington contributed to this report.

Washington, DC – Donald Trump’s world view can be difficult to pin down.

During the first 100 days of his second term, the United States president started a global trade war, targeting allies and foes alike. He also issued decrees to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on climate and the World Health Organization, amongst other international forums.

Trump continued to double down on a series of unconventional foreign policy proposals: taking over the Panama Canal, annexing Greenland, making Canada the 51st US state and “owning” Gaza.

And despite promising to be a “peace” president, Trump has said he intends to take the US annual Pentagon budget to a record $1 trillion.

He has distanced himself from neo-conservative foreign policy and does not position himself as a promoter of human rights or democracy abroad. His “America First” stance and scepticism of NATO align with realist principles, but his impulsiveness and highly personalised diplomacy diverge from traditional realism.

At the same time, he has not called for a full military or diplomatic retreat from global affairs, setting him apart from isolationists.

So what exactly drives Trump’s foreign policy?

Experts say it is primarily fuelled by a dissatisfaction with the current global system, which he sees as unfairly disadvantaging the US with its rules and restrictions. Instead, Trump appears to want Washington to leverage its enormous military and economic power to set the rules to assert global dominance while reducing US contributions and commitments to others.

“The Trump doctrine is ‘smash and grab’, take what you want from others and let your allies do the same,” said Josh Ruebner, a lecturer at Georgetown University’s Program on Justice and Peace.

‘Just tearing down’

Mathew Burrows, programme lead of the Strategic Foresight Hub at the Stimson Center think tank, said Trump wants US primacy without paying the costs that come with that.

“He’s withdrawing the US from the rest of the world, particularly economically,” Burrows, a veteran of the US Department of State and CIA, told Al Jazeera.

“But at the same time, he somehow believes that the US … will be able to tell other countries to stop fighting, to do whatever the US wants,” he said. “Hegemony just doesn’t work that way.”

Trump appears to believe that threatening and imposing tariffs – and occasionally violence – is a way of employing US leverage to get world leaders to acquiesce to his demands.

But critics say the US president discounts the power of nationalism in other countries, which prompts them to eventually fight back. Such was the case for Canada.

After Trump imposed tariffs and called for Canada to become the 51st state, this led to a wave of nationalist pride in the northern neighbour and an abrupt shift from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party.

From Canada to China, foreign governments have accused Trump of “bullying” and blackmail.

Some of Trump’s Democratic rivals have rushed to accuse him of abandoning the US global role, but at the same time, the US president has been projecting American strength to pressure other countries.

While not entirely isolationist, his approach marks a significant turn from that of his predecessor.

The late Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously said in 1998: “We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.”

That purported power and wisdom, as Albright envisioned, put the US in a position to implement Pax Americana – the concept of a peaceful global order led by Washington.

Trump does see the US as proverbially taller than other nations, but perhaps not in the way Albright meant.

“America does not need other countries as much as other countries need us,” White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters earlier this month.

Her statement, however, was to stress that other nations must negotiate with the US to avoid Trump’s tariffs.

In this context, Trump is seeking revenues and jobs – not an international system governed by liberal values in the way that Washington defines them.

However, Burrows said the chief aim of Trump’s foreign policy is to dismantle the existing global order.

“A big part of his world view is really his negative feelings towards the current order, where others appear to be rising,” Burrows said. “And so, a lot of this is just tearing down.”

The global order

Much of the system that manages relations between different countries was put in place after World War II, with the US leading the way.

The United Nations and its agencies, the articles of international law, various treaties on the environment, nuclear proliferation and trade, and formal alliances have governed global affairs for decades.

Critics of Washington point out that the US violated and opted out of the system where it saw fit.

For example, the US never joined the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court in 1998. It invaded Iraq in 2003 without United Nations Security Council authorisation in an apparent breach of the UN Charter. And it has been providing unconditional support to Israel despite the US ally’s well-documented abuses against Palestinians.

“The United States has done a lot to stand up sort of multilateral institutions – the UN and others – that are based around these ideas,” said Matthew Duss, the executive vice president at the Center for International Policy.

“But the United States has always found ways to violate that violate these norms and laws when it when it serves our purposes,” he added, pointing to former US President Joe Biden’s support for Israel’s war on Gaza and President George W Bush’s policies after the 9/11 attacks, which included extraordinary rendition, torture, invasion and prolonged occupation.

But for Trump and his administration, there are indications that the global order is not just to be worked around; it needs to go.

“The post-war global order is not just obsolete, it is now a weapon being used against us,” Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio told senators during his confirmation hearing in January.

Politics of grievance

Trump recently told Time Magazine that the US has been “ripped off” by “almost every country in the world”.

His rhetoric on foreign policy appears to echo his statements about promising to look after “America’s forgotten men and women” who have been mistreated by the “elites” domestically.

While the modern world order has empowered US companies and left the country with immense wealth and military and diplomatic might, Americans do have major issues to complain about.

Globalisation saw the outsourcing of US jobs to countries with less expensive labour. Past interventionist policies – particularly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – are largely seen as strategic blunders that produced a generation of veterans with physical and mental injuries.

Geoffrey Kabaservice, vice president of political studies at the Niskanen Center, a centre-right think tank in Washington, DC, noted that wages have stagnated for many Americans for decades.

“The fact is that the benefits of globalisation were very maldistributed, and some people up at the top made enormous plutocratic sums of money, and very little of that flowed down to the mass of the working class,” Kabaservice told Al Jazeera.

For people who saw their factories closed and felt like they were living in “left-behind areas”, electing Trump was “retribution” against the system, Kabaservice said, adding that Trump’s “America First” approach has pitted the US against the rest of the world.

“America is turning its back on the world,” Kabaservice said. “Trump believes that America can be self-sufficient in all things, but already the falsity of this doctrine is proving true.”

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a think tank that promotes diplomacy, said Trump’s foreign policy, including his approach to allies, comes from “the politics of grievance”.

“He does believe that the United States – because of its role as world policeman, which he’s not necessarily in love with – has been shouldering a lot of the security burden of the world without getting proper compensation,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

The US president has been calling on NATO allies to increase their defence spending, while suggesting that Washington should be paid more for stationing troops in allied countries like Germany and South Korea.

Nostalgia

So how does Trump view the world?

“He’s an aggressive unilateralist, and in many ways, he’s just an old-school imperialist,” Duss said of Trump. “He wants to expand American territory. He wants to extract wealth from other parts of the world … This is a kind of foreign policy approach from an earlier era.”

He noted that Trump’s foreign policy is to act aggressively and unilaterally to achieve what he sees as US interests.

Kabaservice said Trump wants the US to return to an age when it was a manufacturing powerhouse and not too involved in the affairs of the world.

“He likes the idea that maybe the United States is a great power, sort of in a 19th-century model, and it lets the other great powers have their own sphere of influence,” he said.

Kabaservice added that Trump wants the US to have “its own sphere of influence” and to be “expanding in the way that optimistic forward-moving powers are”.

This notion of an America with its own “sphere of influence” appeared to be supported by Rubio when he spoke earlier this year of the inevitability of “multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet”.

Parsi said that Trump is seeking hemispheric hegemony above all, despite his aversion for regime change – hence his emphasis on acquiring Greenland and the Panama Canal.

“You’re shifting not from the politics of domination towards restraint; you’re shifting from the politics of global domination to a more limited form of domination,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

“Focus only on your own hemisphere.”

The US may have already experienced what happens when these views of nostalgia and grievance see real-world implications. Trump’s erratic trade policy rocked the US stock market and sparked threats of counter-levies from Canada to the European Union to China.

Eventually, Trump postponed many of his tariffs, keeping a baseline of 10 percent levies and additional importing fees on Chinese goods. Asked why he suspended the measures, the US president acknowledged that it was due to how the tariffs were received. “People were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy,” he said.

Ultimately, Trump’s unilateralism and unpredictability have “broken the world’s trust in significant ways” that will outlast his presidency, Kabaservice told Al Jazeera.

“In the broad span of history, Trump will be seen as the person who committed terrible unforced errors that led to the end of the American century and the beginning of the Chinese century,” he said.

During his inauguration speech earlier this year, the US president said his legacy “will be that of a peacemaker and unifier”.

“His actual legacy will be that he has torn down the global system that the US created,” said Burrows, of the Stimson Center.

United States President Donald Trump is marking his first 100 days back in office with a rally in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit, a city renowned for its automotive industry.

In the space of just more than three months, he has signed more executive orders than any other president, sent markets spiralling with tariffs and for the most part stuck to his America First policy, except when it comes to Israel.

Al Jazeera looks at some of his biggest decisions in numbers:

How did he use his executive powers?

Trump has signed at least 142 executive orders so far, which, according to the American Presidency Project, is more than any other US president in their first 100 days in office.

An executive order is a directive issued by the president to federal agencies that has the force of law but does not require congressional approval.

On January 20, his first day in office, Trump signed 26 orders, which included pardoning more than 1,500 people convicted on January 6, 2021, Capitol riot charges; withdrawing from the World Health Organization; and renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

The majority of Trump’s executive orders have focused on immigration and border security as well as energy and trade.

How many people were pardoned?

Since returning to office, Trump has pardoned more than 1,500 people, including his supporters convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021, US Capitol riot after he lost the 2020 presidential election. Other notable pardons include Ross Ulbricht, founder of the Silk Road dark web marketplace, who was serving a sentence for drug trafficking and money laundering.

DOGE cuts and layoffs

Tech billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was created by Trump through an executive order on January 20, in which he gave DOGE a mandate to slash government spending.

According to figures published on DOGE’s website, the organisation is estimating that it has cut $160bn from the federal budget, representing about 8 percent of the $2 trillion Musk had initially pledged to save.

DOGE said the biggest cuts have been made to the Department of Health and Human Services ($47.4bn), Agency for International Development ($45.2bn) and Department of State ($2.6bn). These figures have, however, been criticised for lacking sufficient evidence to back them up.

According to data collated by CNN, at least 121,000 workers have been fired from federal agencies with about 10,000 employees fired from the Agency for International Development (USAID), where 100 percent of the jobs were culled. USAID was the first agency Trump went after, and it has now been almost dissolved.

Tariffs and the economy

Trump’s administration has implemented a flurry of tariffs to, in his words, reduce the US trade deficit, remedy unfair trade policies against the US, bring manufacturing jobs back to the country and generate income for the US government.

Starting on February 1, Trump imposed 25 percent tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods, including a 10 percent levy on Canadian energy, and hit Chinese goods with a 10 percent tariff.

In the weeks that followed, Trump targeted steel and aluminium as well as auto imports with tariffs of 25 percent. By April, Trump had placed a baseline 10 percent tariff on goods imported from the rest of the world.

China received the highest tariff rate at 145 percent. However, some exemptions have been applied to technology-related items, such as smartphones.

Canada and Mexico are facing tariffs of 25 percent on goods that are noncompliant with the trilateral USMCA trade deal they have with the US, affecting $63.8bn worth of trade, according to Bloomberg News.

The European Union is facing what is for now a suspended 20 percent tariff rate.

How have the markets reacted?

Since coming into office, Trump has sent shockwaves through the markets, largely due to his flip-flopping tariff announcements, which have caused uncertainty and volatility.

Since the November election, despite an initial spike, all major indices have fallen:

• S&P 500 – down about 3.3 percent
• Nasdaq – down about 4.5 percent
• Dow Jones – down 5.3 percent

Since inauguration day, the markets have fallen even further:

• S&P 500 – down about 7.9 percent
• Nasdaq – down about 12.1 percent
• Dow Jones – down 8.9 percent

Which world leaders have visited Trump?

In his first 100 days in office, Trump has hosted at least 11 world leaders.

Unsurprisingly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the first leader to arrive at the White House on February 4. It was during this visit that Trump said he would turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East”.

World leaders who have visited Trump include:

• Netanyahu on February 4
• Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on February 7
• Jordanian King Abdullah II on February 11
• Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on February 13
• French President Emmanuel Macron on February 24
• British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on February 27
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on February 28. This meeting was notable for its war of words between Trump and US Vice President JD Vance on one side and Zelenskyy on the other, which led to the US withdrawing military aid from Ukraine
• Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin on March 12
• Netanyahu for the second time on April 7
• Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele on April 14
• Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on April 17
• Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store on April 24

Foreign policy: Stance on Ukraine, Gaza and Yemen

Since entering office, Trump has said he maintains an America First policy.

On Ukraine, Trump has criticised the scale of US spending under former President Joe Biden, arguing that European countries should shoulder a greater share of the burden. On March 3, Trump ceased all military aid to Ukraine, a move that drew sharp criticism from European allies. The Trump administration has held several meetings with Ukrainian and Russian officials to try to end the fighting.

In the Middle East, Trump has brandished proposals to take control of Gaza and redevelop it, an idea widely condemned for implying the ethnic cleansing of 2.3 million Palestinians. At the same time, his administration has continued sending US bombs to Israel, including 900kg (2,000lb) bombs, reinforcing unwavering US support for Israel.

Since Trump’s inauguration on January 20, Israeli forces have killed at least 2,392 people in Gaza and 105 in the occupied West Bank. Additionally, about 3,000 people have either died from wounds sustained in Israeli attacks or were pulled dead from beneath the rubble.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, the US has significantly increased its military actions in Yemen with attacks on Iran-backed Houthi rebels. Operation Rough Rider began on March 15, whose stated aim is stemming Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping.

From March 15 to April 18, at least 207 US attacks were recorded in Yemen, resulting in at least 209 deaths, according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED).

Has Trump kept his promises?

During his 2024 election campaign, Trump made at least 75 promises, which included everything from mass deportations to releasing the 2021 Capitol Hill rioters.

PolitiFact, an American nonprofit project operated by the Poynter Institute that fact-checks news statements, has been tracking Trump’s promises with its MAGA-Meter. According to its scorecard, Trump has kept six of his promises, broken one, stalled on four and is working on fulfilling 23. The remaining 41 promises have not yet been rated.

The Foreign Office’s red list covers more than 21% of the world’s landmass – and Brits ignoring its ‘do not travel’ advice can expect little support in the event of an emergency

As recently as 2019, thrill-seeking travellers could take in the stunning sights of Russia‘s St Petersburg, and enjoy the breathtaking Persian architecture of Isfahan or gorgeous gardens of Shiraz, both of which can be found in Iran.

For adventurers looking for less-trodden paths, the pyramids of Meroe and Mozambique’s beaches were exciting destinations, while Beirut and Minsk offered unconventional city breaks. Even Chernobyl was an offbeat weekend getaway for enterprising explorers.

But the global landscape for travel has changed dramatically in the last six years. Many of these destinations are now either completely inaccessible, or are strongly advised against visiting, due to ever-escalating dangers.

READ MORE: UK Foreign Office warns ‘don’t travel’ to these 69 countries – full list

Iran, Sudan, Lebanon and Mozambique, as well as the French overseas territories of Mayotte and New Caledonia, are among the latest countries added to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) travel red list, which now comprises 25 nations covering more than 21% of the world’s landmass.

The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have been especially significant, with Ukraine, Russia and Belarus added to the red list in early 2022, with Israel, Lebanon and Palestine following in late 2023.

This reflects a broader trend, as 47 further nations have regions that are partially off-limits, making it difficult to recall a time when so much of the globe was closed to tourism.

There are a few positive developments, however. Burundi and Mauritania, once entirely off-limits, now have areas that are deemed safe. And while some areas of Israel and Palestine are now considered safer, the risks remain high.

World’s most dangerous countries 2025

Based on multiple global risk assessments, the following 25 countries, in alphabetical order, are currently considered the most dangerous in the world: Afghanistan, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mayotte, Mozambique, New Caledonia, Niger, North Korea, Russia, Somalia, Somaliland, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and Yemen.

These countries are consistently ranked as extreme or high risk, with travel strongly discouraged by international authorities including FCO.

What happens if Brits ignore FCO advice?

Traveling against FCO advice carries significant consequences for British nationals. Most notably, nearly all travel insurance policies become invalid if you visit a country or region against official guidance, leaving visitors without financial protection for medical emergencies, cancellations or evacuations.

In the event of an emergency such as arrest, detention or serious injury, British embassies and consulates may be limited in the assistance they can provide. While the FCO does not abandon citizens outright, support may be constrained, especially in countries where diplomatic relations are strained or where the host government is hostile to the UK.

Furthermore, visitors may face additional legal risks, including fines or prosecution upon return to the UK if they breach specific regulations, such as quarantine rules. The FCO stresses that while their advice is not legally binding in most cases, departing from it means accepting increased personal responsibility and risk.

FCO warns: “Your travel insurance could be invalidated if you travel against advice from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.”