Powerful tornado wrecks Brazil town, killing six and injuring hundreds
Tornado flattens homes in Rio Bonito do Iguana, with one official describing the destruction as akin to a ‘war zone’. At least six people have been killed and 750 others injured in Brazil after a tornado ripped through the southern state of Parana, with powerful winds of up to 250km/hour (155 mph). Local authorities said on Saturday that the twister, which struck late on Friday, lasted less than a minute, but destroyed about 90 percent of the town of Rio Bonito do Iguacu. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list The town is home to 14,000 people. Aerial photographs show scores of buildings in Rio Bonito do Iguacu without roofs, while parts of the town appear completely flattened. Nearby, green farmland and trees outside of the tornado’s path appear to be largely untouched. The destructive weather pattern hit Brazil as it prepared to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP30 in Belem on Monday. Experts say climate change can contribute to frequent and more intense tornadoes as warmer temperatures and increasing moisture in the air can increase atmospheric instability and wind shear – the factors that give rise to such twisters. An aerial view shows destruction after a tornado hit the city of Rio Bonito do Iguaçu, in Brazil’s Paraná State, on November 8, 2025 [Photo by Daniel Castellano/AFP] ‘War zone’ Fernando Schunig, head of the Parana Civil Defence agency, described the town as a “war zone” in an interview with local news outlet G1. “When these events hit an urban area, the damage is major. It is very lethal,” he said. Gilberto Brecailo, a resident of Rio Bonito do Iguacu, said his mechanic shop was one of the buildings destroyed by the tornado. Advertisement “There’s not much we can do… All we have left are our clothes and our documents. My livelihood, my mechanic shop, is gone, and my son worked with me,” he said, standing near a pile of support beams and building rubble. Marileia Chagas, another resident, said she was thrown against a structure by the high winds but was able to hide under a bench until it passed. “When I came out, everything was destroyed. My daughter and my wheelchair-bound mother were inside. My father was inside too. I was devastated,” she said. “In two minutes, everything was on the ground; some people lost family, but we must thank God everyone is alive.” Authorities say five of the people killed were from Rio Bonito do Iguacu, while another victim was from the nearby town of Guarapuava. At least one person is missing. Towns near Rio Bonito do Iguacu were also hit by winds, storms and hail, but none suffered the same level of damage, according to the local government. Heavy machinery cleans up the debris caused by the tornado, with winds of up to 250km/hour, which hit the city of Rio Bonito do Iguaçu, Paraná State, Brazil on November 8, 2025 [Daniel Castellano/AFP] Mourning State Governor Carlos Massa Ratinho Jr declared three days of mourning to honour the dead. Officials say the casualty rate may rise as search and rescue operations are still under way. At least 750 people were also injured by the tornado, of whom 10 have undergone surgery and nine are in serious condition, according to health authorities. Cinthia Kelly Somariva, the director of a nearby hospital, said they were still evaluating the fallout from the tornado. “It was a very sad and intense night. There were lives lost,” she said. On social media, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed solidarity with the victims. Members of his Cabinet announced the dispatching of emergency assistance to the area. Officials said that food, hygiene products, tarps, mattresses and several other items will be available to victims. Adblock test (Why?)
Djokovic withdraws from ATP Finals after record-setting Athens win
Novak Djokovic has pulled out of ATP Finals after beating Lorenzo Musetti, but not before setting new hardcourt mark. By News Agencies Published On 9 Nov 20259 Nov 2025 Click here to share on social media share2 Share Novak Djokovic has withdrawn from the ATP Finals for the second year in a row, shortly after beating Lorenzo Musetti in a near three-hour final to win the Hellenic Championship on Saturday. Djokovic said a shoulder injury would prevent him from playing in the season-ending event for the top eight men’s players that starts on Sunday in Turin, Italy. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list “I was really looking forward to competing in Turin and giving my best,” Djokovic posted on social media. “But after today’s final in Athens, I’m sad to share that I need to withdraw due to an ongoing injury.” The decision means that Musetti will take his place, even though his loss to Djokovic initially handed the final qualifying spot to Felix Auger-Aliassime. The 24-time Grand Slam champion said he had been dealing with the injury throughout the tournament in Athens. Djokovic, who has won the ATP Finals seven times, also missed the tournament last year because of an injury. “That’s the reason why I decided not to make a call: would I go to Turin or not earlier, because I wanted to see how the matches go, how I react,” he told reporters. “After yesterday’s [Friday] match, I was hoping that it was not going to flare up. But then today, even before the match, it was not great. I had to take all the strong medications to be able to play the match. “I felt there’s no chance for me to go through the entire tournament in Turin with the required level of tennis when you’re playing the best eight in the world.” Djokovic plays a shot against Lorenzo Musetti during the Hellenic Championship final [Yorgos Karahalis/AP] Djokovic passes Federer on key milestone On Saturday, the Serb rallied for a 4-6, 6-3, 7-5 victory over Musetti to clinch his 101st career title. Advertisement “An incredible battle,” Djokovic said after the match. “Three hours of a grueling match, physically… I’m just very proud of myself to get through this one.” The last set featured five breaks before Djokovic clinched the victory with a service winner. Musetti has now lost his last six tour-level finals. Djokovic is one of just three men to have racked up a century of titles. He still needs two to equal Roger Federer’s 103, while Jimmy Connors heads the list with 109. The 38-year-old’s victory against Musetti set a men’s record with his 72nd title on hard courts, one more than Federer. Djokovic, left, poses with the trophy after winning the final match, alongside runner up Lorenzo Musetti [Louiza Vradi/Reuters] Adblock test (Why?)
Tottenham and Manchester United both score stoppage-time goals in 2-2 draw
Matthijs de Ligt equalised in the sixth minute of a dramatic period of stoppage time to earn Manchester United a 2-2 draw at Tottenham Hotspur in the Premier League. Tottenham looked like claiming all three points on Sunday when Richarlison glanced in a header in the first minute of added-on time, completing a Spurs comeback from a goal down. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list There was still time for de Ligt to find space at the back post at a corner to direct a header goalwards and over the line before Tottenham goalkeeper Guglielmo Vicario clawed the ball away. Trailing to Bryan Mbeumo’s 32nd-minute header, Tottenham dominated the second half and grabbed an equaliser in the 84th through substitute Mathys Tel’s shot that deflected in off de Ligt. De Ligt said United deserved more from the game than a point. “I’m proud of the team for how we fought back and got a point in a really difficult stadium,” he said. “You can see that we still have the fire in our belly to get a goal, to get a point – even with 10 men,” he added, as United played the last few minutes a man down as Benjamin Sesko was forced off injured after United had made all their five substitutions. However, Tel said he felt Spurs merited all three points. “We are feeling 50-50, we conceded a goal, but our reaction in the second half was top,” Tel said. “We changed the game, but we are mad because we have to win today. The subs brought energy to change the game, and we showed great mentality; we deserved to win.” United extended their unbeaten run in the league to five games – three wins followed by two draws – while Tottenham have only won one of their six home games so far. Advertisement However, the Red Devils have now failed to beat Spurs in their previous eight meetings, but it was the most recent of these that will live long in the memory of the Tottenham support. Spurs ended their 17-year trophy drought thanks to a scrappy 1-0 win in the Europa League final in May, which also took them into the Champions League while United missed out on European football altogether. Despite the huge blow to United’s finances and prestige, Ruben Amorim is making the most of having more time on the training field to finally build some momentum after a tough first year at Old Trafford. Unlike most of United’s big-money signings in recent years, Bryan Mbeumo has proved his worth since a 65-million-pound ($86m) move from Brentford in July. The Cameroonian was named Premier League player of the month for October and took his tally to four goals in as many games when he headed in from Amad Diallo’s cross on 32 minutes. Mbeumo celebrates scoring United’s opener [Toby Melville/Reuters] Spurs were booed off after a woeful attacking display in losing a London derby 1-0 to Chelsea last weekend. After another dreary first 45 minutes, the hosts came to life early in the second period. Senne Lammens produced a brilliant stop to turn Cristian Romero’s flick behind. The Belgian goalkeeper was quickly called into action again to parry Joao Palhinha’s effort. Brennan Johnston, who scored the winner when the sides last met in Bilbao, was then denied an equaliser by the offside flag. Tottenham’s burst of attacking threat quickly fizzled out, though, and discontent among the home fans with manager Thomas Frank showed when his decision to replace Xavi Simons was roundly booed. However, the Spurs boss can claim his changes turned the game around. Destiny Udogie crossed for fellow substitute Tel to turn and fire into the top corner via a deflection off de Ligt. Tel equalises for Spurs [Toby Melville/Reuters] Wilson Odobert, introduced off the bench at half-time, then curled a shot towards the far corner that Richarlison flicked in to leave Lammens helpless. The Brazilian tore off his shirt and was reduced to tears in his celebration. Yet, it still was not enough to earn Tottenham a first home league win since the opening weekend of the season. De Ligt was offered too much space at the back post from Bruno Fernandes’s corner, and his header was too powerful for Vicario. Later, Arsenal take a six-point lead into a match at Sunderland, while Chelsea host Wolverhampton in one of three other games. Adblock test (Why?)
Irish football body overwhelmingly backs call for Israel’s ban from UEFA
The Football Association of Ireland has called for Israel’s immediate suspension over the Israeli FA’s violation of UEFA’s statutes in occupied Palestinian territory. Published On 8 Nov 20258 Nov 2025 Click here to share on social media share2 Share Members of Irish football’s governing body have approved a resolution instructing its board to submit a formal motion to UEFA requesting the immediate suspension of Israel from European competitions, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) said. The resolution passed by the FAI members on Saturday cites violations by Israel’s Football Association of two provisions of UEFA statutes: its failure to implement and enforce an effective antiracism policy and the playing by Israeli clubs in occupied Palestinian territory without the consent of the Palestinian Football Association. The resolution was backed by 74 votes, with seven opposed and two abstentions, the FAI said in a statement. UEFA considered holding a vote early last month on whether to suspend Israel from European competitions over its genocide in Gaza, but the voting did not take place after a US-brokered ceasefire took effect on October 10. The Irish resolution follows calls in September from the heads of the Turkish and Norwegian football governing bodies for Israel to be suspended from international competition. Those requests came after United Nations experts appealed to FIFA and UEFA to suspend Israel from international football, citing a UN Commission of Inquiry report that said Israel had committed genocide during the war in Gaza. ‘Israel is allowed to operate with total impunity’ In October, more than 30 legal experts called on UEFA to bar Israel and its clubs. The letter highlighted the damage that Israel is inflicting on the sport in Gaza. At least 421 Palestinian footballers have been killed since Israel began its military offensive in October 2023, and the letter explained that Israel’s bombing campaign is “systematically destroying Gaza’s football infrastructure”. Advertisement FIFA President Gianni Infantino brushed aside the calls by indirectly addressing it as a “geopolitical issue” at the FIFA Council on October 2. “We are committed to using the power of football to bring people together in a divided world,” Infantino said. The apparently preferential treatment given to Israel’s football team was an extension of the “total impunity” the country has enjoyed amid the two-year war, according to Abdullah Al-Arian, associate professor of history at Georgetown University in Qatar. “Sporting bodies often mirror the broader power politics that are at play [in the world] and so they’re only doing what we’ve seen happen across all walks of political life, in which Israel has not been held to account,” Al-Arian told Al Jazeera. “It [Israel] has been allowed to operate with total impunity throughout this genocide and has enjoyed this impunity for many decades.” In 2024, the Palestinian Football Association (PFA) presented arguments accusing the Israel Football Association (IFA) of violating FIFA statutes with its war on Gaza and the inclusion of clubs located in illegal settlements on Palestinian territory in its domestic football league. The PFA wanted FIFA to adopt “appropriate sanctions” against Israel’s national side and club teams, including an international ban. It called on FIFA to ban Israel, but the world body postponed its decision by delegating the matter to its disciplinary committee for review. Al-Arian termed that “a move to keep the bureaucratic machinery moving without making any real progress”. “Ultimately, it’s a political decision being made at the highest levels of the organisation,” he said. Adblock test (Why?)
The bipartisan comfort with Islamophobia harms us all
This week, Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani made history by becoming the first Muslim mayor of New York City. His road to victory was anything but smooth. After he secured a historic win in the mayoral primary, he faced a landslide of attacks from across the political spectrum. In the months that followed, the hateful rhetoric from right-wing provocateurs, social media personalities, and even his three opponents mushroomed. Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa claimed that Mamdani supports “global jihad”; independent candidate and former New York governor Andrew Cuomo agreed with a comment that Mamdani would celebrate “another 9/11”; and outgoing NYC mayor, Eric Adams, who dropped out and endorsed Cuomo, suggested that a Mamdani mayorship would turn New York into Europe, where “Islamic extremists … are destroying communities.” Sadly, as researchers of anti-Muslim bias, and Muslim individuals who came of age in a post-9/11 America, we know attacks of this nature – on someone’s character or fitness for a job because of their religious background or national origin – aren’t entirely unexpected. We know that Islamophobia spikes not after a violent act, but rather during election campaigns and political events, when anti-Muslim rhetoric is used as a political tactic to garner support for a specific candidate or policy. Worryingly, these attacks also reflect a general trend of rising Islamophobia, which our research has recently uncovered. The latest edition of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding’s (ISPU) American Muslim Poll, which contains our Islamophobia Index, released on October 21, reveals that in the last three years, Islamophobia has sharply risen in the US, across almost all demographic groups. Advertisement Among the general population in the US, on our 1 to 100 scale, the index increased from a score of 25 in 2022 to a score of 33 in 2025. This jump was most pronounced among white Evangelicals, whose score increased from 30 to 45 between 2022 and 2025, and Catholics, whose score increased from 28 to 40 during the same period. Protestants also saw a rise of 7 points, from 23 in 2022 to 30 in 2025. Jews had an Islamophobia score of 17 in 2022, the lowest of any group that year, which increased only slightly to 19 in 2025, the same score as Muslims in 2025. The only group that did not change since 2022 is the non-affiliated. Undoubtedly, the weaponisation of Islamophobia by high-profile individuals is a major driver of this worrying trend. And it can lead to devastating outcomes for Muslims: From job loss and inability to freely worship, to religious-based bullying of Muslim children in public schools and discrimination in public settings, to even physical violence. Simply put, dangerous rhetoric can have dangerous consequences. Much of this Islamophobic rhetoric relies on five common stereotypes about Muslims, which we used in putting together our index: That they condone violence, discriminate against women, are hostile to the US, are less civilised, and are complicit in acts of violence committed by Muslims elsewhere. We then surveyed a nationally representative sample, including 2,486 Americans, to identify the extent to which they believed in these tropes. More Americans are embracing these stereotypes about Muslims, even though they are easily disproved. For example, despite popular media portrayals of Muslims as more prone to violence or as being complicit in violence perpetrated by Muslims elsewhere in the world, ISPU research shows American Muslims overwhelmingly reject violence. They are more likely than the general public to reject violence carried out by the military against civilians and are as likely to reject individual actors targeting civilians. The popular stereotype that Muslim communities discriminate against their women also does not hold water. The fact is that Muslim women face more racial and religious discrimination than they do gender discrimination, which all women, Muslim or not, report at equal levels in the United States. The vast majority (99 percent) of Muslim women who wear hijab say they do so out of personal devotion and choice – not coercion. And Muslim women report that their faith is a source of pride and happiness. Our research also disproves the belief that most Muslims living in the US are hostile to the country. We have found that Muslims with strong religious identities are more likely than those with weaker ones to hold a strong American identity. It also shows that Muslims participate in public life from the local to the national level through civic engagement, working with neighbours to solve community problems, and contributing during times of national crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Flint water crisis. Advertisement The trope that most Muslims living in the US are less “civilised” than other people has no factual basis, as well. The use of the “civilised/uncivilised” dichotomy strips individuals of their human dignity and separates people into a false, ethnocentric hierarchy on the basis of race or religion. Accusing a group of being less civilised than another is a frequently used dehumanising tactic. Dehumanisation, defined by Genocide Watch as when one group denies the humanity of the other group, is a step on the path to genocide. We have seen all of these tropes activated in the past few weeks to launch Islamophobic attacks on Mamdani. We have also seen too many of our politicians and public figures use them comfortably in their public speech, placing an entire faith community in harm’s way. As Mamdani said in a speech addressing the Islamophobic attacks by his fellow candidates, “In an era of ever-diminishing bipartisanship, it seems that Islamophobia has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement.” But Islamophobia isn’t just bad for Muslims – it undermines our democracy and constitutional freedoms. Research has linked belief in these anti-Muslim tropes to greater tolerance for anti-democratic policies. People who embrace Islamophobic beliefs are more likely to agree to limiting democratic freedoms when the country is under threat (suspending checks and balances, limiting freedom of the press), condone military and individual attacks on civilians (a war crime under the Geneva Convention), and approve of
India is world’s second-largest shrimp producer. That is now under threat
Kolkata, India: Buddhadeb Pradhan, a shrimp farmer in Nandigram in the West Bengal state in eastern India, has taken a major risk by cultivating a second shrimp crop within weeks of harvesting the first cycle. But he needs the money and is willing to risk a diseased crop, a common occurrence when there are two harvesting cycles in a pond in the same year. He was partly pushed into making that decision because of the falling price of the shrimp on account of the tariffs imposed on India by United States President Donald Trump. “The falling prices of the shrimp have me stressing if I can recover my investment of 300,000 rupees [$3,380],” he told Al Jazeera. India is the world’s second-largest producer of shrimp – predominantly for export – after Ecuador. In the financial year ending in March 2025, it sent $5bn of frozen shrimp globally, with the US accounting for about 48 percent of its sales. It produces two commercial varieties of marine and freshwater shrimp, black tiger and Pacific whiteleg, popularly known as vannamei (Litopenaeus vannamei). India’s shrimp production stood at 1.1 million tonnes, predominantly vannamei, but also 5 percent black tiger, in the financial year ending March 2024, as per the latest data available. India has two distinctive shrimp cycles of vannamei, starting from February to June and then from July to October. Farmers are generally reluctant to go for a second cycle, fearing diseases. The black tiger is a single crop from March to August. The shrimp is cultivated in the coastal states of West Bengal, Gujarat, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Goa, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. The industry employs approximately 10 million people, including the shrimp farmers and people at hatcheries, processing units, and others, said Manoj Sharma, a veteran shrimp farmer. Advertisement Since the tariffs were announced in May, farm prices of shrimp dropped from 300 rupees ($3.38) per kilogramme to 230 rupees ($2.59) as farmers tried to offload whatever they had. With production costs at 275 rupees ($3.10) per kilogramme, losses are mounting. Buddhadeb Pradhan has taken a major risk by cultivating a second shrimp crop [Gurvinder Singh/Al Jazeera] Nardu Das, 40, a shrimp farmer in Nandigram, told Al Jazeera that farmers might be forced to consume “poison” if the market doesn’t stabilise and prices do not increase. The 40-year-old said shrimp farming is a costly affair with bills for power, lease on land, feed and other expenses. “The farmers not only risk their savings but also take loans with the hope of massive returns. But diseases and the fall in prices often push them to the brink of poverty,” he said. Farmers are worried that with tariffs at 58.26 percent – including countervailing duties of 5.77 percent and anti-dumping duties of 2.49 percent – they will lose their US market. “The US is a preferred destination for shrimp exporters because of easy market access, higher growth prospects, better profit margins, and repeat customer approvals. The hike in tariffs will discourage farmers from continuing to invest in shrimp culture that also incurs upfront costs of land lease, seed and feed,” said Rahul Guha, senior director of Crisil Ratings. India brings its brood stock – the term for the mother shrimp – in chartered flights from the US to breed to produce seeds for farming. But there have been cases where it is either of poor quality or unfit for the Indian environment, in turn leading to disease among the shrimp produce, which then has to be thrown away. “We have been demanding the government to breed the shrimps using the local brood stock in order to get the high-quality seeds that adjust to our conditions,” said IPR Mohan Raju, president of the Prawn Farmers Federation of India. Another spillover of the tariffs has been on hatcheries. India has about 550 private hatcheries that depend on these shrimp farmers for their livelihood. Several farmers, fearing a further dip in prices of shrimp, have stopped buying seeds, and at least half the hatcheries have already shut down, said Ravid Kumar Yellanki, president of All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association. “Undoubtedly, the US tariffs have begun to have a major impact on the hatcheries, with many halting production,” Yellanki said. These hatcheries produce approximately 80 billion seeds annually and have drained seven to eight billion seeds in the past four months due to no demand from the farmers, as the shelf life of seeds is just three to four days. Advertisement “It would be a major loss to the hatchery owners if the situation doesn’t turn normal soon,” Yellanki added. Nardu Das said farmers might be forced to consume ‘poison’ if the market doesn’t stabilise and if prices do not rise soon [Gurvinder Singh/Al Jazeera] Ecuador, another headache India is already facing stiff competition from Ecuador, which has been expanding its share of the US market due to its geographical proximity to the US. Ecuador produces high-quality vannamei shrimp at a lower price, as that is its domestic species. Plus, tariffs on it are at 15 percent, much lower than India’s, making it a more attractive market for the US to source from. During the first nine months of 2025, Ecuador exported 1,038,208 metric tonnes of shrimp to the US, up 14 percent year-on-year, with a total value of $5.51bn, representing a 23 percent increase compared with the same period last year. Sharma, the aquaculture expert, says the US tariffs will force Indian exporters to compete among themselves to sell to alternate markets. His suggestion is for businesses to cultivate one oft-ignored market – the domestic Indian market. There is “complete ignorance of the domestic market [among exporters] … and that has a lot of potential”, he said. Adblock test (Why?)
US judge rules Trump illegally ordered National Guard troops to Portland
US district judge blocks Donald Trump’s use of military force to tackle protests against immigration officers. Published On 8 Nov 20258 Nov 2025 Click here to share on social media share2 Share United States President Donald Trump unlawfully ordered National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, a federal judge has ruled, marking a legal setback for the president’s use of the military for policing duties in US cities. The ruling on Friday by US District Judge Karin Immergut is the first to permanently block Trump’s use of military forces to quell protests against immigration authorities. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list Immergut, a Trump appointee, rejected the administration’s claim that protesters at an immigration detention facility were waging a rebellion that legally justified sending troops to Portland. Democrats have said Trump is abusing military powers meant for genuine emergencies such as an invasion or an armed rebellion. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield described the ruling as a “huge victory” and the “decision confirms that the President cannot send the Guard into Oregon without a legal basis for doing so”. “The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Rayfield said in a post on social media. BREAKING NEWS: We just secured a final court order blocking National Guard deployment! Today’s ruling is a huge victory for Oregon. The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/ffzgj0zCjM — Attorney General Dan Rayfield (@AGDanRayfield) November 8, 2025 Portland’s Mayor Keith Wilson also applauded the decision, saying it “vindicates Portland’s position while reaffirming the rule of law that protects our community”. Advertisement “As I have said from the beginning, the number of federal troops needed in our city is zero,” Wilson said, according to local media reports. The City of Portland and the Oregon Attorney General’s Office sued in September, alleging that the Trump administration was exaggerating occasional violence to justify sending in troops under a law permitting presidents to do so in cases of rebellion. Echoing Trump’s description of Portland as “war-ravaged”, lawyers from the Department of Justice had described a violent siege overwhelming federal agents in the city. But lawyers for Oregon and Portland said violence has been rare, isolated and contained by local police. “This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” Portland’s lawyer Caroline Turco had said. The Trump administration is likely to appeal Friday’s ruling, and the case could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court. A review by the Reuters news agency of court records found that at least 32 people were charged with federal crimes stemming from the Portland protests since they began in June. Of the 32 charged, 11 pleaded guilty to misdemeanours, and those who have been sentenced received probation. About half the defendants were charged with assaulting federal officers, including 14 felonies and seven misdemeanours. Prosecutors dismissed two cases. Charging documents describe protesters kicking and shoving officers, usually while resisting arrest. Three judges, including Immergut, have now issued preliminary rulings that Trump’s National Guard deployments are not allowed under the emergency legal authority cited by his administration. Adblock test (Why?)
Trump says US to boycott South Africa G20 summit over white ‘genocide’
Trump calls it a ‘disgrace’ that South Africa is hosting the G20, reiterates debunked claims of a ‘genocide’ against white farmers. President Donald Trump has said no United States officials will attend this year’s Group of 20 (G20) summit in South Africa, citing the country’s treatment of white farmers. Writing on his Truth Social platform on Friday, Trump said it was a “total disgrace that the G20 will be held in South Africa”. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list “Afrikaners (People who are descended from Dutch settlers, and also French and German immigrants) are being killed and slaughtered, and their land and farms are being illegally confiscated,” Trump wrote, reiterating claims that have been rejected by authorities in South Africa. “No US Government Official will attend as long as these Human Rights abuses continue. I look forward to hosting the 2026 G20 in Miami, Florida!” he added. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has repeatedly claimed that white South Africans are being persecuted in the Black-majority country, a claim rejected by South Africa’s government and top Afrikaner officials. Trump had already said on Wednesday that he would not attend the summit – which will see the heads of states from the world’s leading and emerging economies gather in Johannesburg on November 22 and 23 – as he also called for South Africa to be thrown out of the G20. US Vice President JD Vance had been expected to attend the meeting in place of the president. But a person familiar with Vance’s plans told The Associated Press news agency that he will no longer travel to South Africa. Tensions first arose between the US and South Africa after President Cyril Ramaphosa introduced a new law in January seeking to address land ownership disparities, which have left three-quarters of privately owned land in the hands of the white minority more than three decades after the end of apartheid. The new legislation makes it easier for the state to expropriate land, which Ramaphosa insists does not amount to confiscation, but creates a framework for fair redistribution by allowing authorities to take land without compensation in exceptional circumstances, such as when a site has been abandoned. Advertisement Shortly after the introduction of the Expropriation Act, Trump accused South Africa of “confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY”. “The United States won’t stand for it, we will act,” he said. In May, Trump granted asylum to 59 white South Africans as part of a resettlement programme that Washington described as giving sanctuary after racial discrimination. The same month, when Trump met with President Ramaphosa in the White House, he ambushed him with the claim that a “genocide” is taking place against white Afrikaners in his country. Ramaphosa denied the allegations, telling Trump “if there was Afrikaner farmer genocide, I can bet you, these three gentlemen would not be here”, pointing to three white South African men present – professional golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, and South Africa’s richest man, Johann Rupert. South African historian Saul Dubow, professor of Commonwealth history at the University of Cambridge, previously told Al Jazeera that there is no merit to “Trump’s fantasy claims of white genocide”. Dubow suggested that Trump may be more angry about South Africa’s genocide case filed against Israel in the International Court of Justice over its war on Gaza. Nonetheless, the Trump administration has maintained its claim of widespread persecution. On October 30, the White House indicated that most new refugees admitted to the US will be white South Africans, as it slashed the number of people it will admit annually to just 7,500. “The admissions numbers shall primarily be allocated among Afrikaners from South Africa pursuant to Executive Order 14204 and other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands,” the White House said. Adblock test (Why?)
US lawmakers call on UK’s ex-prince Andrew to testify over Epstein ties
United States lawmakers have written to Andrew, Britain’s disgraced former prince, requesting that he sit for a formal interview about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a day after King Charles III formally stripped his younger brother of his royal titles. Separately, a secluded desert ranch where Epstein once entertained guests is coming under renewed scrutiny in the US state of New Mexico, with two state legislators proposing a “truth commission” to uncover the full extent of the financier’s crimes there. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list On Thursday, 16 Democratic Party members of Congress signed a letter addressed to “Mr Mountbatten Windsor”, as Andrew is now publicly known, to participate in a “transcribed interview” with the US House of Representatives oversight committee’s investigation into Epstein. “The committee is seeking to uncover the identities of Mr Epstein’s co-conspirators and enablers and to understand the full extent of his criminal operations,” the letter read. “Well-documented allegations against you, along with your longstanding friendship with Mr Epstein, indicate that you may possess knowledge of his activities relevant to our investigation,” it added. The letter asked Andrew to respond by November 20. The US Congress has no power to compel testimony from foreigners, making it unlikely Andrew will give evidence. The letter will be another unwelcome development for the disgraced former prince after a turbulent few weeks. On October 30, Buckingham Palace said King Charles had “initiated a formal process” to revoke Andrew’s royal status after weeks of pressure to act over his relationship with Epstein – who took his own life in prison in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges. Advertisement The rare move to strip a British prince or princess of their title – last taken in 1919 after Prince Ernest Augustus sided with Germany during World War I – also meant that Andrew was evicted from his lavish Royal Lodge mansion in Windsor and moved into “private accommodation”. King Charles formally made the changes with an announcement published on Wednesday in The Gazette – the United Kingdom’s official public record – saying Andrew “shall no longer be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of ‘Royal Highness’ and the titular dignity of ‘Prince’”. Andrew surrendered his use of the title Duke of York earlier in October following new abuse allegations from his accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, in her posthumous memoir, which hit shelves last month. The Democrat lawmakers referenced Giuffre’s memoir in their letter, specifically claims that she feared “retaliation if she made allegations against” Andrew, and that he had asked his personal protection officer to “dig up dirt” on his accuser for a smear campaign in 2011. “This fear of retaliation has been a persistent obstacle to many of those who were victimised in their fight for justice,” the letter said. “In addition to Mr. Epstein’s crimes, we are investigating any such efforts to silence, intimidate, or threaten victims.” Giuffre, who alleges that Epstein trafficked her to have sex with Andrew on three occasions, twice when she was just 17, took her own life in Australia in April. In 2022, Andrew paid Giuffre a multimillion-pound settlement to resolve a civil lawsuit she had levelled against him. Andrew denied the allegations, and he has not been charged with any crime. Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch as seen on July 8, 2019 [KRQE via AP Photo] On Thursday, Democratic lawmakers also turned the spotlight on Zorro Ranch, proposing to the House of Representatives’ Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee that a commission be created to investigate alleged crimes against young girls at the New Mexico property, which Epstein purchased in 1993. State Representative Andrea Romero said several survivors of Epstein’s abuse have signalled that sex trafficking activity extended to the secluded desert ranch with a hilltop mansion and private runway in Stanley, about 56 kilometres (35 miles) south of the state capital, Santa Fe. “This commission will specifically seek the truth about what officials knew, how crimes were unreported or reported, and how the state can ensure that this essentially never happens again,” Romero told a panel of legislators. Advertisement “There’s no complete record of what occurred,” she said. Representative Marianna Anaya, presenting to the committee alongside Romero, said state authorities missed several opportunities over decades to stop Epstein. “Even after all these years, you know, there are still questions of New Mexico’s role as a state, our roles in terms of oversight and accountability for the survivors who are harmed,” she said. New Mexico laws allowed Epstein to avoid registering locally as a sex offender long after he was required to register in Florida, where he was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008. Republican Representative Andrea Reeb said she believed New Mexicans “have a right to know what happened at this ranch” and she didn’t feel the commission was going to be a “big political thing”. To move forward, approval will be needed from the state House when the legislature convenes in January. Adblock test (Why?)
US Senate votes against limiting Trump’s ability to attack Venezuela
Polls find large majorities of people in the US oppose military action against Venezuela, where Trump has ramped up military pressure. Republicans in the United States Senate have voted down legislation that would have required US President Donald Trump to obtain congressional approval for any military attacks on Venezuela. Two Republicans had crossed the political aisle and joined Democrats to vote in favour of the legislation on Thursday, but their support was not enough to secure passage, and the bill failed to pass by 51 to 49 votes. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list “We should not be going to war without a vote of Congress,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said during a speech. The vote comes amid a US military build-up off South America and a series of military strikes targeting vessels in international waters off Venezuela and Colombia that have killed at least 65 people. The US has alleged, without presenting evidence, that the boats it bombed were transporting drugs, but Latin American leaders, some members of Congress, international law experts and family members of the deceased have described the US attacks as extrajudicial killings, claiming most of those killed were fishermen. Fears are now growing that Trump will use the military deployment in the region – which includes thousands of US troops, a nuclear submarine and a group of warships accompanying the USS Gerald R Ford, the US Navy’s most sophisticated aircraft carrier – to launch an attack on Venezuela in a bid to oust President Nicolas Maduro. Washington has accused Maduro of drug trafficking, and Trump has hinted at carrying out attacks on Venezuelan soil. Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, referencing Trump’s military posturing towards Venezuela, said on Thursday: “It’s really an open secret that this is much more about potential regime change.” Advertisement “If that’s where the administration is headed, if that’s what we’re risking – involvement in a war – then Congress needs to be heard on this,” he said. Earlier on Thursday, a pair of US B-52 bombers flew over the Caribbean Sea along the coast of Venezuela, flight tracking data showed. Data from tracking website Flightradar24 showed the two bombers flying parallel to the Venezuelan coast, then circling northeast of Caracas before heading back along the coast and turning north and flying further out to sea. The presence of the US bombers off Venezuela was at least the fourth time that US military aircraft have flown near the country’s borders since mid-October, with B-52s having done so on one previous occasion, and B-1B bombers on two other occasions. Little public support in US for attack on Venezuela A recent poll found that only 18 percent of people in the US support even limited use of military force to overthrow Maduro’s government. Research by YouGov also found that 74 percent of people in the US believe that the president should not be able to carry out military strikes abroad without congressional approval, in line with the requirements of the US Constitution. Republican lawmakers, however, have embraced the recent strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, adopting the Trump administration’s framing of its efforts to cut off the flow of narcotics to the US. Questions of the legality of such attacks, either under US or international law, do not appear to be of great concern to many Republicans. “President Trump has taken decisive action to protect thousands of Americans from lethal narcotics,” Senator Jim Risch, the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in remarks declaring his support for the strikes. While only two Republicans – Senators Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski – defected to join Democrats in supporting the legislation to limit Trump’s ability to wage war unilaterally on Thursday, some conservatives have expressed frustration with a possible war on Venezuela. Trump had campaigned for president on the promise of withdrawing the US from foreign military entanglements. In recent years, Congress has made occasional efforts to reassert itself and impose restraints on foreign military engagements through the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which reaffirmed that Congress alone has the power to declare war. Adblock test (Why?)