1
1

By Caitlin Johnstone – Sep 22, 2026

The most obvious and imminent threat right now is not that artificial intelligence will outsmart us and escape our control, it’s that it is being fully controlled by humans who are stupid and evil.

Video reading by Tim Foley:

The biggest AI threat isn’t artificial superintelligence wiping out humanity in a fit of mechanical vengeance like some digital Old Testament God, it’s the same oligarchs and empire managers as usual inflicting the same evils and abuses as usual upon their fellow man.

We’re already presently watching the empire building AI into its killing machines and causing all kinds of horrifying problems while these technologies become more and more complex and unpredictable.

CNN reports that US military AI “almost started a war” with China when it hallucinated intelligence showing a Chinese ship transporting nuclear weapon components to Iran; US military planes were apparently already in the air preparing to attack the small boat before human intelligence picked up on the error.

A recent Pentagon report has officially concluded that an over-reliance on Palantir’s AI-powered command-and-control system Maven contributed to the bombing of a school in Minab which killed 120 children attending classes on the first day of the US-Israeli war with Iran.

We learned early on in the Gaza holocaust that the IDF was using AI to help it bomb suspected Hamas members when they are at home with their families rather than when they are out in the battlefield using a program called “Where’s Daddy?” — a bit of Israeli humor about the fact that they would be killing the children of Palestinian resistance fighters when their fathers came home.

We’re seeing politicians like Bernie Sanders voice concerns that “AI could soon be smarter than humans and function outside of our control,” but the most obvious and imminent threat right now is not that artificial intelligence will outsmart us and escape our control, it’s that it is being fully controlled by humans who are stupid and evil.

Wikipedia Co-Founder Says Encyclopedia ‘Compromised’ by CIA

Again, we know for a fact that powerful nuclear-armed military forces are knitting AI into all their systems. We’re watching them do it, right in front of our faces. An increasingly complex and confusing element has been added to an environment of already tense and dangerous military standoffs around the world as the US and its allies work to absorb the few remaining nations who have managed to retain sovereignty into the imperial power umbrella. And yet recent weeks have seen the mass media flooded with punditry speculating about possible scenarios under which AI might perhaps wind up leading to human extinction.

We already know the most likely scenario under which AI will get us all killed. If it happens, it will be because rich and powerful sociopaths knit these technologies into war machinery that is designed for killing humans at mass scale. Duh.

These developments are unfolding in the context of a frenetic new arms race with China in which nobody’s willing to tap the brake pedal for fear of falling behind. Any talk of regulation or slowing things down before they get out of control is dismissed because the competition-based systems which currently govern human behavior have thrust us into a nightmare of constant military expansionism and brinkmanship instead of collaboration and harmony, all fueled by the fact that this paradigm makes tech plutocrats and war profiteers obscenely wealthy.

That’s clearly the most immediate existential threat that AI poses to our species right now. There’s also the only slightly less frightening threat of artificial intelligence enabling our rulers to use mass surveillance and autonomous weapons systems to stifle any revolutionary political movement before it gets off the ground, locking us into this freakish capitalist dystopia until the planet is an uninhabitable wasteland.

In any case, this isn’t a new threat. It’s the same old threat with new toys. Capitalism must end, and the empire must fall. Our very existence depends on it.

(Caitlin Johnstone)


From Orinoco Tribune via This RSS Feed.

2
4

Colombia’s government, led by far-right President Abelardo de la Espriella, announced Thursday that it has broken diplomatic relations with Iran, a measure that has been in effect since September 19.

The Colombian government declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization on Thursday, just hours after formalizing the severance of its diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, through a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In the statement, the Colombian Foreign Ministry said the designation responds to the fact that the IRGC “represents a serious danger to international peace and security.”

The break in diplomatic relations formally took effect on September 19, though the Foreign Ministry publicly announced it three hours after Vice President José Manuel Restrepo addressed the UN General Assembly in New York, a speech in which he made no mention of the matter. To support its decision on the IRGC, Colombia’s government noted that the organization “is classified as an international terrorist organization by the European Union, North America, several countries in the Middle East, Latin America and Oceania, among others,” according to the official statement.

Regarding the diplomatic rupture itself, the Ministry said in a separate statement that Colombia “formally broke diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran” as of September 19, 2026, citing “the pillars guiding the government’s foreign policy on national and hemispheric security, and the fight against transnational crime.”

Despite the diplomatic break, the Foreign Ministry clarified that it does not extend to consular relations, citing Article 45 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and paragraph 3 of Article 2 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Consular services will continue operating normally, with Colombia’s embassy in New Delhi, India, assuming concurrent responsibility for diplomatic and consular affairs with Iran going forward.

The decision brings to an end more than five decades of diplomatic relations between Bogotá and Tehran and aligns President Abelardo de la Espriella’s government with the position held by the United States and the European Union toward the Iranian government.

Colombia Deploys Military to Santa Marta After Violence

Diplomatic relations between Colombia and Iran date back to April 28, 1975, and though there have been interruptions in the level of representation, both countries have maintained diplomatic ties and signed cooperation agreements in areas such as culture and consular affairs. Iran has an embassy in Bogotá, while Colombia manages its relations with Tehran through its embassy in Türkiye, which has concurrent accreditation for that country.

Under the presidency of Gustavo Petro (2022-2026), bilateral contacts were maintained. In February 2023, Petro received the credentials of the then-Iranian ambassador, Ahmad Reza Kheirmand, and that same month, the Colombian Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs met with his Iranian counterpart, Ali Bagheri.

Text reads:

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the government of Colombia, reports that, as of September 19, 2026, it formally severed diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Foreign policy new alignment
The break with Iran comes amid a broader realignment of Colombia’s foreign policy under De la Espriella, who has deepened ties with the United States and restored diplomatic relations with Israel, reversing the rupture Petro imposed on that relationship in May 2024 over Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. The new Colombian government agreed in July, even before formally taking office, to restore relations with Israel and announced plans to strengthen bilateral cooperation, including the opening of a Colombian embassy in Jerusalem.

That broader diplomatic pivot has also been reflected in Colombia’s relationship with Washington. De la Espriella has signed agreements with the administration of US President Donald Trump and hosted US Secretary of State Marco Rubio during an official visit to Colombia.

The decision to sever ties with Iran marks one of the clearest early signals of De la Espriella’s foreign policy direction since taking office, positioning Colombia firmly within a bloc of regional governments aligned with Washington’s approach to Tehran and the broader Middle East, in pursuit of US security and economic interests.

The move comes on the same day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended his country’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities before the UN General Assembly, calling the strikes “a necessary decision to prevent what he described as an existential threat.”

The current scenario contrasts with the position established during the administration of former President Gustavo Petro, who had severed relations with Israel in May 2024.

(Telesur)


From Orinoco Tribune via This RSS Feed.

3
2

This article by Alonso Urrutia originally appeared in the September 26, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.

Once again, organizations of right-wing Latin American groups gathered in the so-called Foro América Libre will meet in Mexico next September 30 in the nation’s capital, at a gathering sponsored by, among others, former president Felipe Calderón and the National Action Party.

According to the call, it will promote what, from the perspective of this ideological spectrum, is the strengthening of the democratic governments of the region.

In a video of the former PAN president circulated on the Foro América Libre’s social media, he calls for the participation of those he considers “the wills committed to freedom, to the defense and strengthening of democratic regimes with the leadership of them. With the freedom of our countries, in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and in Mexico, in our Latin America.”

Besides the former Mexican president, another of the figures who will take part in this gathering is the former secretary general of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro.

The Foro América Libre is a space in which activists from 70 conservative organizations and political foundations from 25 countries in the region take part. The meeting in Mexico will follow up on a recent gathering held last August in Montevideo, Uruguay.

According to its own statement of objectives, “The Foro América Libre aspires to be a meeting point and reference for the liberal-democratic center in the Americas. It constitutes an umbrella under which initiatives, parties, organizations, and individuals come together and coordinate their democratic commitment.”

The Foro América Libre creates a clearly visible media counterweight to the authoritarian left-wing alliance of the São Paulo Forum, the Puebla Group, and the authoritarian regimes associated with them, inside and outside America.

Foro América Libre, statement of objectives

This organization, according to the conservative Konrad Adenauer Foundation (which backs the project), is “a space for action with a long-term perspective supported by more than 70 organizations, NGOs, think tanks, and political foundations from more than 25 countries. Its foundation is a clear joint commitment to freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and the market economy.”

Mexico has hosted the gathering on several occasions since the first international forum was held, three years ago, in October 2023. Among the activities this body claims in its documents is “organizing joint activities, such as, for example, the call by more than 500 parliamentarians for solidarity with the democratic opposition in Venezuela in August 2024, or the publication of the book La galaxia rosa on the activities of the authoritarian left in Latin America.”

The post Promoted by the PAN, International Right-Wing Forum to Be Held in Mexico City appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.


From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

4
5

Cuba energy blockade: Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez denounces U.S. fuel restrictions and sanctions at the United Nations General Assembly.

Cuba energy blockade: Bruno Rodríguez condemns U.S. fuel restrictions as an act of war, while UN experts warn sanctions are worsening shortages and blackouts.

Related: Mexico Reaffirms Support For Cuba at UN, Condemns Embargo


Cuba Energy Blockade Denounced as an “Act of War” at UN

The Cuba energy blockade became the focus of a forceful denunciation at the United Nations after Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla accused the United States of preventing fuel shipments to the island and described the measures as a de facto naval blockade.

Speaking during the 81st session of the UN General Assembly in New York on September 24, Rodríguez said the intensified restrictions on fuel tankers and essential resources were harming the Cuban population and threatening the country’s basic services.

He argued that the pressure campaign goes beyond economic sanctions because it seeks to prevent commercial and humanitarian fuel supplies from reaching Cuba.

“What defines the current state of Cuba-U.S. relations is the brutal tightening of the economic and financial blockade and the total oil siege imposed on our country, which is equivalent to a naval blockade,” Rodríguez said.

The Cuban foreign minister described the policy as “economic warfare directed against the lives of the Cuban people.”

According to Havana, the restrictions include the retention or intimidation of fuel carriers, pressure on governments and companies that trade with Cuba, and secondary sanctions against entities that help supply the island.

The measures have reportedly affected Cuba’s ability to import fuel for electricity generation, transport, irrigation, hospitals, and other essential services.

Rodríguez said the U.S. policy aims to produce extraordinary humanitarian damage and obstructs Cuba’s commercial relations with the international community.

He also accused Washington of using sanctions and threats to force political change in a sovereign country.

The Cuban government has described the energy restrictions as collective punishment and a violation of the United Nations Charter, international human-rights law, and international humanitarian principles.

The United States maintains that its sanctions are intended to pressure the Cuban government over human rights and democratic freedoms. Washington has not accepted Havana’s characterization of the restrictions as a naval blockade.

The dispute has intensified during the administration of President Donald Trump, which has increased pressure on the island and considered additional restrictions on Cuban officials traveling to the United Nations.

The administration is also weighing stricter controls on Cuban diplomats expected to return to New York for the annual UN General Assembly vote on the U.S. embargo.

The confrontation has made the 2026 UN session a major diplomatic arena for both countries. Cuba is seeking international support against the energy restrictions, while Washington continues to defend its policy as a tool for political pressure.[bastillepost][abcnews]

Cuba Energy Blockade Deepens Fuel Shortages and Blackouts

Read the UN experts’ warning about new U.S. sanctions on Cuba.

The Cuba energy blockade follows a broader expansion of U.S. sanctions that began in June 2026 and intensified with measures announced on July 23.

The new restrictions target energy companies and have made it more difficult to purchase fuel, including fuel intended for humanitarian purposes.

Independent UN human-rights experts condemned the sanctions, saying they appeared designed to force political change in a sovereign state through threats and coercion.

The experts warned that the measures were worsening an already serious humanitarian situation. They cited shortages of fuel, food, medicine, electricity, and transportation.

Cuba’s electrical system has suffered repeated national blackouts. Millions of people were left without power after the grid collapsed earlier this month.

The country’s energy infrastructure was already under severe pressure because of aging power plants, limited maintenance, fuel shortages, and restricted access to spare parts.

The Cuba energy blockade has made those problems more acute by limiting the country’s ability to import crude oil, refined fuel, and equipment needed to maintain thermoelectric plants.

Electricity shortages affect nearly every part of daily life. Households struggle to cook, preserve food, pump water, and access communications.

Hospitals and clinics need fuel for emergency generators and transportation. Farmers rely on diesel for irrigation, agricultural machinery, and the movement of food.

Public transportation has also been affected by shortages, while businesses face interruptions that reduce production and employment.

UN experts said the consequences disproportionately affect women, children, older people, persons with disabilities, and rural communities.

The experts called for the immediate revocation of measures they considered inconsistent with international law. They also urged the Security Council and the General Assembly to examine the situation as an issue related to international peace and security.

The Cuban government says the effects of the blockade cannot be separated from the wider U.S. embargo, which has been in place for decades.

The United States says Cuba’s economic problems are caused primarily by internal mismanagement and the structure of its political system.

The two positions remain sharply opposed. Cuba argues that external restrictions are deliberately targeting the population. Washington argues that sanctions are a response to the Cuban government’s policies.

Independent analysts have noted that both factors may influence the crisis: Cuba faces significant domestic economic and infrastructure problems, while the sanctions restrict its access to fuel, credit, technology, and international markets.

The energy blockade has increased the urgency of the debate because electricity is a basic condition for health, food security, water distribution, communications, and economic activity.

Cuba’s foreign ministry has called on countries and companies to resist pressure from Washington and continue trade with the island.

However, secondary sanctions create significant risks for international businesses, banks, insurers, and shipping companies. Many firms avoid transactions with Cuba even when those transactions are not directly prohibited because they fear losing access to the U.S. market.

This is one of the central features of the Cuba energy blockade: its effects extend beyond the direct restrictions imposed on Cuban entities.

The policy also affects third-country governments and companies that must choose between trading with Havana or avoiding conflict with Washington.

Havana Responds to Trump’s UN Statements

Read about China’s call at the UN to lift the blockade and sanctions against Cuba.

The Cuban denunciation followed a speech by President Donald Trump at the UN General Assembly on September 22.

Trump said Cuba was “failing like never before” and would eventually fall. His comments were interpreted in Havana as a threat and an attempt to justify additional pressure on the island.

Rodríguez responded through social media, saying the U.S. government was incapable of accepting that Cuba is an independent and sovereign country.

“Cuba is and has the right to be a fully independent and sovereign country,” the foreign minister said.

The Cuban delegation left the General Assembly chamber during Trump’s remarks, protesting what it described as slanderous statements.

The delegation reiterated that Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States or any other country.

It argued that the Cuba energy blockade, not Cuba, threatens the island’s population and creates instability across the region.

The confrontation also unfolded during a ministerial meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, or CELAC.

Rodríguez described the U.S. policy as an unprecedented reinforcement of the blockade involving secondary sanctions, a media offensive, and threats of military aggression.

He warned that Washington was pursuing a broader campaign against Latin America and the Caribbean based on what he called an outdated version of the Monroe Doctrine.

The Cuban foreign minister said the current policy includes new and unacceptable extensions of that doctrine, which seeks to impose U.S. control over the political and economic choices of countries in the region.

Cuba has used CELAC and the Non-Aligned Movement to seek support from countries that oppose unilateral coercive measures.

Rodríguez said Cuba would continue defending a world in which development is a universal right rather than a privilege available only to a few powerful states.

He made the statement at a high-level UN meeting marking the 40th anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development.

The Cuban position links the energy blockade to a larger debate over sovereignty, development, and the right of states to determine their economic systems without external coercion.

The issue has also received support from China. Vice President Han Zheng, speaking at the General Assembly on September 26, called on the United States—without naming it directly—to end threats against Cuba and lift the blockade and sanctions.

“China urges the relevant country to immediately stop using the threat of force against Cuba and immediately and completely lift the blockade and sanctions against Cuba,” Han said.

He also defended the sovereignty and security of countries in the Gulf and rejected unilateral military action that violates the UN Charter.

China’s statement places the Cuba energy blockade within a wider critique of unilateral sanctions, military threats, and pressure against countries in the Global South.

Beijing has presented itself as a defender of state sovereignty and multilateralism. Washington has accused China of supporting governments that oppose U.S. interests.

The dispute over Cuba is therefore connected to broader competition between the United States and China over international rules, trade, energy, and political influence.

Geopolitical Context: Cuba, the Global South, and U.S. Pressure

The Cuba energy blockade has become a symbol of the wider conflict between Washington and governments that reject U.S. dominance in Latin America and the Caribbean.

For Cuba, the restrictions represent an attempt to impose regime change through economic pressure rather than direct military intervention.

For the United States, sanctions are intended to pressure the Cuban government while avoiding the costs of military action.

The difference between those interpretations has made diplomatic compromise difficult. Havana demands an end to sanctions and the restoration of normal commercial relations. Washington seeks political changes before relaxing pressure.

The energy blockade adds a particularly dangerous dimension because it affects basic services rather than only government institutions.

When fuel imports are interrupted, the impact spreads through power generation, transport, agriculture, hospitals, food distribution, and communications.

The crisis also affects neighboring countries. Large-scale shortages can produce migration, public-health emergencies, and instability across the Caribbean.

The Cuban government has warned that the restrictions threaten the lives of approximately 10 million people. UN experts have similarly said the humanitarian consequences could become a full-scale crisis.

The blockade has also become a test of the international system. The UN General Assembly has repeatedly voted by overwhelming margins against the U.S. embargo.

However, General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding in the same way as Security Council decisions. Washington has therefore continued the policy despite broad international opposition.

The 2026 situation may produce another major diplomatic confrontation when the annual embargo resolution is considered. Cuba is expected to argue that the new energy measures violate international law and deepen collective punishment.

The United States is likely to defend its sanctions as a national-policy decision and continue claiming that responsibility for Cuba’s economic difficulties lies primarily with Havana.

Latin American and Caribbean governments face pressure from both sides. Some support Cuba’s demand to lift the blockade, while others avoid direct confrontation with Washington.

The dispute also reveals the limits of regional autonomy. CELAC has called for greater independence in foreign policy, but its member states remain economically and politically connected to the United States.

China’s support for Cuba could provide diplomatic backing and opportunities for alternative energy supplies. However, Chinese companies may also face pressure from Washington if they help transport fuel or provide financing to Havana.

Russia and Venezuela are also potential partners for Cuba, but both face their own sanctions, economic constraints, and geopolitical conflicts.

The Cuba energy blockade therefore has consequences beyond the island’s borders. It forms part of a broader struggle over sanctions, sovereignty, international law, and the right of developing countries to determine their own path.

For Cuban authorities, the immediate priority is securing fuel and preventing further grid collapses. For international organizations, the key issue is protecting the population from humanitarian harm.

The UN experts’ warnings and China’s call to lift the blockade have increased diplomatic pressure on Washington, but no immediate policy change has been announced.

The confrontation is likely to continue through the next UN vote on the embargo and amid further debates over diplomatic travel restrictions.

Cuba’s message remains consistent: it is willing to defend its sovereignty and seek international solidarity, but it will not accept economic pressure aimed at forcing political change.



From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

5
1

Nicaragua UN multipolar order: Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke calls for peace, poverty reduction, BRICS cooperation, and sovereign development at the UN.

Nicaragua UN multipolar order: Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke calls for peace, poverty reduction, BRICS cooperation and stronger Global South representation.

Related: Lavrov UN Multilateralism Speech: 7 Strong Warnings Against Western Escalation


Nicaragua UN Multipolar Order Agenda Takes Center Stage

The Nicaragua UN multipolar order message was presented at the 81st United Nations General Assembly as Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke called for a world based on peace, solidarity, sovereignty, and complementary development.

Speaking in New York on Saturday, September 26, Jaentschke said the right of peoples to live in peace should be treated as a fundamental principle of international relations.

He argued that external interference and foreign intervention are among the main causes of instability in Latin America and the Caribbean.

According to the Nicaraguan minister, outside interests have contributed to insecurity, organized crime, drug trafficking, and social instability across the region.

Jaentschke said those problems cannot be addressed only through military operations or security measures. He urged governments to confront the social causes of violence by strengthening education, healthcare, food security, housing, employment, and economic opportunity.

“We cry out, with our Rubén Darío, for peace, peace, peace,” Jaentschke said, invoking the Nicaraguan poet to call for an end to armed conflicts and a renewed international effort to eliminate extreme poverty and misery.

He said the international community must pursue a better world based on dignity, freedom, fraternity, and harmony.

Nicaragua’s intervention took place during the UN General Assembly’s general debate, held under the theme “Restoring trust, managing transformation: A United Nations that delivers for all.”

The debate brought together representatives of governments from across the world amid wars, economic instability, widening inequality, humanitarian emergencies, and growing disagreements over the role of international institutions.

Jaentschke said the UN must help create conditions for peace and development rather than reproduce divisions between powerful blocs.

He emphasized that peace is not merely the absence of war. It also requires social conditions that allow people to live with dignity and exercise their rights.

The Nicaraguan government has repeatedly criticized sanctions, military intervention, and foreign pressure against developing countries.

The minister’s speech reflected Managua’s broader foreign-policy position, which emphasizes national sovereignty, non-interference, international cooperation, and the right of each country to select its own development model.

Nicaragua UN multipolar order diplomacy is increasingly linked to its relations with Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and the BRICS group.

Nicaragua UN Multipolar Order Supports BRICS and Global South

Read the official UN record of Nicaragua’s 81st General Assembly debate.

The Nicaragua UN multipolar order proposal places BRICS at the center of efforts to reform the international system.

Jaentschke said BRICS countries are becoming increasingly important in the global geopolitical landscape and praised their role in promoting solidarity, security, and development.

“We want to highlight the strength being acquired by the most populous and perhaps most solidarity-oriented countries of the world in BRICS,” he said.

He argued that these countries are seeking better living conditions and the right to development through cooperation, peace, and complementary economic relations.

BRICS originally included Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The group has since expanded to include countries from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

For Nicaragua, the importance of BRICS lies not only in its economic weight but also in its potential to create alternatives to Western-dominated financial and political institutions.

The group includes major energy producers, industrial powers, food exporters, and countries with significant populations and natural resources.

Nicaragua’s position is that a more balanced global system would allow developing countries to play a larger role in decisions affecting trade, finance, technology, energy, and security.

The government has supported the use of national currencies in trade, greater representation for developing countries in international institutions, and stronger South-South cooperation.

The issue of poverty was central to Jaentschke’s argument. He said resources devoted to wars, military interventions, and sanctions should instead be directed toward eliminating hunger, improving public health, expanding education, and promoting sustainable development.

The minister described poverty and inequality as security issues because they can create conditions exploited by organized crime and drug-trafficking networks.

He said criminal groups frequently take advantage of unemployment, exclusion, weak institutions, and the absence of social services.

Nicaragua urged the international community to coordinate its response to organized crime while protecting fundamental rights.

Jaentschke called for policies that combine security measures with investment in education, healthcare, food, housing, and community development.

His position rejects approaches that treat poverty primarily as a policing problem.

Nicaragua also expressed solidarity with Cuba, which is facing intensified U.S. sanctions and what Havana describes as an energy blockade.

Jaentschke defended the “heroic Cuban people” in their struggle for peace, sovereignty, and national independence.

Cuba has accused Washington of blocking fuel imports and imposing pressure on companies and governments that trade with the island. The United States maintains that its sanctions are intended to pressure the Cuban government over human-rights and democratic issues.

Nicaragua’s support for Cuba reflects a wider position among governments and movements that oppose unilateral coercive measures.

Jaentschke also reaffirmed Managua’s support for the One China principle. Nicaragua recognizes the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government representing China.

The principle rejects formal diplomatic recognition of Taiwan as a separate state. China has made support for the One China principle a central condition of its diplomatic relations.

Nicaragua restored diplomatic ties with Beijing in 2021 after ending its recognition of Taiwan.

The minister also expressed support for Russia’s opposition to fascism and defended what he called Russia’s right to peace.

He said Nicaragua supports efforts to confront fascist ideology and respects Russia’s right to defend its security interests.

Western governments reject Moscow’s justification for its military operation in Ukraine and accuse Russia of violating Ukrainian sovereignty.

Nicaragua’s position places it among the Latin American governments that have maintained close political and diplomatic ties with Moscow despite Western sanctions and pressure.

Peace, Development, and Nicaragua’s Foreign Policy

See the UN’s schedule and documents for the 81st General Assembly.

The Nicaragua UN multipolar order message also emphasized the need to strengthen the UN as a representative institution.

Jaentschke said the international system must be based on equality among states and respect for sovereignty.

He argued that international organizations should not be used to impose the foreign-policy priorities of a small group of powerful countries.

Nicaragua has called for reforms to improve the representation of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean in global decision-making.

The country has also expressed interest in having a Latin American representative elected as the next UN secretary-general.

According to Nicaraguan officials, the next secretary-general should be committed to peace, development, cooperation, and the interests of the Global South.

The demand comes as governments debate the future of the UN amid wars and increasingly polarized international relations.

The organization faces criticism over its inability to stop conflicts, enforce international law, or prevent humanitarian crises.

Nicaragua argues that the answer is not to weaken multilateral institutions but to democratize them.

The government says a more balanced UN would strengthen international cooperation and make it more difficult for powerful countries to impose unilateral decisions.

Jaentschke’s speech also addressed the role of dignity and goodwill in international relations.

He urged delegations to preserve those principles while confronting global challenges including poverty, crime, war, climate change, food insecurity, and economic inequality.

Nicaragua’s foreign policy frames sovereignty and development as interconnected. A country cannot pursue independent social policies, Managua argues, if it remains vulnerable to sanctions, foreign intervention, or external political pressure.

The government has therefore sought closer relations with countries that support non-interference and multipolarity.

This includes Russia and China, as well as Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and other countries involved in South-South cooperation.

The policy has given Nicaragua diplomatic allies but has also increased tensions with the United States and European governments.

Washington has criticized Nicaragua’s political system and imposed sanctions on government officials and institutions.

Nicaragua argues that those measures represent interference designed to force political change.

The country’s participation in BRICS-related forums and its support for China and Russia have strengthened its diplomatic alignment with non-Western powers.

At the same time, Nicaragua remains economically connected to the United States through trade, remittances, and regional commerce.

That creates a complex situation in which Managua seeks political independence while navigating economic realities.

The call to combat organized crime also reflects Nicaragua’s security priorities. Jaentschke described drug trafficking and organized crime as forms of terrorism that threaten communities and strip societies of their wealth.

He urged governments to cooperate against criminal networks while addressing the social conditions that allow them to operate.

That approach combines regional security coordination with investment in social services.

Nicaragua says communities are safer when people have access to schools, hospitals, food, jobs, and public infrastructure.

Geopolitical Context: Latin America and the Multipolar World

The Nicaragua UN multipolar order appeal reflects a wider transformation in international relations.

Latin American and Caribbean governments are increasingly seeking greater autonomy from Washington and stronger relations with China, Russia, India, Iran, and other emerging powers.

The region is divided over how to respond to U.S. sanctions, military pressure, trade disputes, and diplomatic demands.

Some governments favor closer cooperation with the United States, while others support a more independent regional policy through CELAC, BRICS partnerships, and South-South institutions.

Nicaragua’s position is among the most openly critical of U.S. interventionism.

Managua argues that the Monroe Doctrine continues to shape Washington’s policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean.

It says sanctions and political pressure are modern forms of intervention that limit national sovereignty.

The United States rejects that interpretation and says its policies respond to concerns over governance, human rights, security, and democratic institutions.

The debate over multipolarity also involves economic alternatives. BRICS countries are working to expand trade, financing, payment systems, and investment outside traditional Western structures.

Nicaragua sees those initiatives as potential tools for reducing dependency on the dollar and increasing the bargaining power of developing countries.

However, BRICS members do not share identical political interests. India maintains strong ties with the United States, China has competing interests with several countries, and Brazil seeks to balance relations among major powers.

The group’s future influence will depend on whether it can convert political statements into practical institutions.

Nicaragua’s appeal for peace and poverty reduction also highlights the relationship between security and development.

The region’s organized-crime crisis cannot be separated from unemployment, inequality, weak public institutions, and the movement of illicit financial resources.

Governments that rely only on military force may reduce violence temporarily without addressing the conditions that sustain criminal networks.

Jaentschke’s call for education, healthcare, food, and security therefore reflects a broader development-centered approach.

The speech also demonstrates that the UN remains an important space for countries with limited military and economic power to express their political positions.

Nicaragua cannot determine the direction of the international system alone, but it can use the General Assembly to build alliances, defend sovereignty, and support reforms.

The Nicaragua UN multipolar order agenda is likely to continue through its diplomatic cooperation with Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and BRICS countries.

For Managua, peace, social development, and multipolarity are part of a single political vision.

The government argues that a more balanced world would create the conditions necessary to eliminate poverty and allow all peoples to pursue their own path of development.

🚨 Ante la Asamblea General de la ONU, el cocanciller nicaragüense Valdrack Ludwing Jaentschke ratificó el compromiso de su país con la paz mundial, la erradicación de la pobreza y la cooperación solidaria. 🇳🇮🕊️ #teleSUR #Nicaragua #26Sep pic.twitter.com/F9WwdIrm1L

— teleSUR TV (@teleSURtv) September 26, 2026



From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

6
17

By Vanessa Beeley – Sep 24, 2026

An investigation by AP has revealed that the notorious ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has stopped publicly “revealing where it is holding thousands of detainees who are subject to final deportation orders, an unannounced move that has made it far more difficult for lawyers and relatives to find them, according to current and former officials familiar with the practice.”

ICE removed those detainees from its online detainee locator system on Sept. 15, according to three current and former ICE officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the change. Several lawyers contacted by The Associated Press confirmed their clients vanished from the system this week, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association warned its members about the situation Friday.

The move, according to AP, represents a stark departure from previous practice and highlights the hardline nature of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, leaving thousands of detainees exceedingly hard to trace and potentially unable to exercise all of their legal options.

The policy of ghosting applies to detainees who have received final orders of deportation from an immigration court. This will enable the fast-tracking of deportations or ethnic cleansing of Trump’s ‘undesirables’ because last-minute legal challenges will be nothing more than cries in the void.

Nearly 16,000 people who were arrested and booked into ICE detention in July were subject to final removal orders, more than a third of the overall bookings, according to ICE data obtained by the Deportation Data Project based at U.C. Berkeley and UCLA.

Relatives and lawyers were kept in the dark. ICE made no public statement to announce the controversial move. A statement issued to AP said “detainees with final removal orders were being prioritized for deportation.” This while ICE faces a “historic number of injunctions” from courts stopping individual removals.

Lawyers and relatives have lost all contact with their clients and family members. This is terrifying because detainees can be arbitrarily moved from one facility to another prior to deportation. This leaves family and loved ones in an information limbo where they have no idea if their person has been deported or is still languishing in a detention center with no access to legal aid or the outside world.

ICE detention facilities held more than 65,000 people as of early July, the most recent available data. Around 30% of them likely have final removal orders, said Michelle Mendez, legal director at the National Immigration Project.

“To me, it’s just another iteration of disappearing people,” she said. “Why would we do that in the United States of America? It’s something we’d hear about in another country and be concerned about individual rights and due process.”

Lawyers also said some with final removal orders also have legal protection against deportation to their country of origin based on the likelihood they would be tortured or persecuted. These bewildered individuals face deportation to third-party countries where they have no family, may not speak the language and no access to support. The ICE disappearance campaign will make it impossible to either legally challenge their deportation or to track where they are being sent.

But the exclusion of detainees with final removal orders has no apparent parallel, several immigration lawyers said. Atenas Burrola Estrada, a deputy program director with the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said that “every single one of our clients who has a final order has disappeared from the locator,” including 17 in all as of Monday. Among those disappeared from the locator system are eight Somali men being detained at the US military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to one of their attorneys, My Khanh Ngo, of the American Civil Liberties Union. She said the change could make it “nearly impossible” for people to challenge their removals in some cases. “If you can’t find your client, don’t know what’s happening to your client, you can’t get that information to the court to stop their removal,” she said.

This sinister development has similarities in the practices used by the Zionists for 100 years, to disappear Palestinians and Palestinian history and culture from historical records.

“Israel” has confiscated, classified and physically destroyed historical and archival documentation of the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestinians — the Nakba. Palestinian cultural heritage has been incrementally removed from view. 2019 investigations by Haaretz and the NGO Akevot exposed the Zionist Ministry of ‘Defence’ secret security unit, Malmab, campaign to remove declassified documents from public archives and to relocate them in locked vaults. This is done under the pretext of national security to prevent historians gaining access to irrefutable evidence of ethnic cleansing, torture, abuse, land-theft and endless war crimes against the Palestinians.

Minnesota 15 Hearing Exposes Political Police Operation Against Labor

The following citation is from the Institute of Palestine Studies that has been trying to collate the lost archives and to make them accessible again:

Settler-colonial movements such as Zionism are informed by what Patrick Wolfe defined as “the elimination of the Native.”6 Implicit in Israel’s existence as a settler-colonial state is the expectation that it would want to hide evidence of its acts of elimination, particularly in an era that looks unfavorably on colonialism and in the context of a country that purports to be “the only democracy in the Middle East” and a “Jewish and democratic state.” The 1948 Nakba is thus not only an act of elimination, but its erasure from the archives is also part of that act. As Wolfe points out, not all acts of elimination are genocidal, as they were in North America or Australia. In Algeria and South Africa, for example, the removal of the indigenous population was achieved by a combination of land expropriation, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid. In Palestine, too, an incremental ethnic cleansing, which began in the mid-1920s, has been the principal means pursued to bring about “the elimination of the Native.”

The erosion of Palestinian cultural history and identity is also well documented, this from Electronic Intifada:

…materials include photographs, films, exhibitions, books, manuscripts, embroidered garments, graphic arts, music and more. The seized Palestinian archives, collections and materials — cultural and otherwise — were typically surveyed and studied by Israeli intelligence and transferred to the pre-state and state’s colonial archives, both military and civilian. In many cases, Palestinian cultural property looted by individuals was also put in Israel’s official archives. An archive serving to preserve historical memory would catalog the context, origin, purpose and authors of the materials, all of which would be easy to glean in the case of these materials seized by Israel. Israel’s purpose, however, is not to preserve Palestinian historical memory but to erase it from the public sphere. Therefore, Palestinian materials are not catalogued and treated according to archival standards and conventions but are instead subjected to colonial ones.

Perhaps the most akin to the ICE disappearance of detainees in the US is the mass disappearance of Gazans during the escalated genocide that began on October 7, 2023. Palestinians have disappeared into the shadowy chasm of the Zionist secret prison and detention system. Relatives are stonewalled and left in the dark, not knowing where their loved ones are or even if they are alive.

“In Gaza, everyone is considered a target for enforced disappearance,” said Budour Hassan, a Palestinian writer and researcher at Amnesty International. “The abductions are random, meant to instil fear and intimidate the population. Even those who disappear and then reemerge carry stories of terror and scars from the ordeal.”

In 2024, Reem Ajour recounts how Zionist forces raided their family home in northern Gaza. She was ordered to leave and forced to abandon her husband and 4-year-old daughter Masaa, both wounded.

Months later Reem still had no news of her husband and child. The house was leveled after she left and the Zionist military claimed they did not have her family. “I am living and dead at the same time,” she said.

In July 2026, far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir reportedly first raised the idea of an ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ modeled on Trump’s version of inhumane and state-sponsored cruelty at the US Alligator Alcatraz in Florida. Senior prison officials subsequently toured the crocodile farm at Hamat Gader in northern Israel as part of a preliminary assessment. The project has currently been shelved but not fully eradicated.

2025:

Following President Trump’s visit to the “Alligator Alcatraz” detention facility in Miami-Dade County, Bacardi Jackson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida, shared the following statement:

“As President Trump doubled down on his agenda of fear and division, we’re reminded that this cruel and inhumane stunt is part of a broader strategy to expand the abusive mass detention machine, and in turn, criminalise and disappear members of our communities. Building a prison-like facility on sacred indigenous land in the middle of the Everglades is a direct assault on humanity, dignity, indigenous sovereignty, and the constitutional protections we all share.”

An article in The Conversation:

The United States government recently announced the opening of a massive immigrant detention facility built deep within the Florida Everglades that’s been dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a media briefing that “there is only one road leading in … and the only way out is a one-way flight.”

Now, those same detainees are being disappeared, their fate unknown, their families in a state of psychological limbo. This is abject cruelty targeting some of the most vulnerable members of society whether in the US or in Palestine.

There is much denial online of the Zionist security forces training of ICE. However, Peter Edge who was promoted to Acting Deputy Director of ICE did attend training in “Israel” under the pretext of the Anti-Defamation League’s 2015 National Counter Terrorism Institute Seminar. Palantir, staunch Zionist promoters and genocide apologists, are the primary contractor for ICE, providing the data infrastructure and AI systems that facilitate the agency’s identification of victims and their deportation under increasingly questionable conditions.

The US and Zionist military, intelligence and security apparatus is merging into one complex of human rights abuses, torture, ethnic cleansing and exploitation of indigenous peoples and those seeking asylum from the despots and barbaric regimes that are supported by the US and the Zionist movement globally. The genocidal model of Gaza has come home to roost in the US, just as many of us argued it would and just as it will elsewhere in the “West.”

(Substack)


From Orinoco Tribune via This RSS Feed.

7
8

By Luigino Bracci Roa  –  Sep 25, 2026

I have been thinking a lot these days, and I am no longer going to fight with @ElNecio_Cuba, @_TereFelipe_, or anyone on the left who says that we are traitors, cowards, etc. They are revolutionary comrades; I respect them; I have differences with them, as well as with the current government of Venezuela. I want to believe that none of them are our enemies. The enemy—for me—continues to be imperialism.

The truth is, I do not know what happened on January 3. I do not know why the defenses were not activated; I do not know why the people were told not to fight. I do not know whether everything was planned in advance or whether it was a response to threats that day. Neither the government nor anyone else has wanted to provide further details. I was not there on January 3, and no one has wanted to share the details, nor publish videos, audios, recordings, or testimonies, which surely do exist.

Many comrades say that the current government has betrayed the revolution. I DO NOT KNOW. Many other comrades say no, that it is a plan, a strategy, that all this is temporary, that surprises will come. I DO NOT KNOW EITHER. I am not going to argue with anyone over things none of us know for sure.

The only thing I regret is that the brotherly peoples of the world, except for Cuba, left us alone that day. The powers that claimed to be our allies, that would defend their interests in Venezuela and all that, only limited themselves to issuing statements. Latin American countries also looked the other way. Mario Silva has a theory that Putin and Trump met a few weeks earlier and made decisions there. I do not know, but I would not be surprised either.

I have no reason to support entering a war for which we were not prepared and were going to lose. Still, I also do not agree with the path of total submission, of forgetting what happened that day, of not demanding justice, of bowing to the United States, of handing over our resources, of accepting a gigantic debt, of renouncing our solidarity with the brother peoples of the world.

If the government believes that this is the best, it is fine. But they cannot force me to stop being a leftist, to stop being an anti-imperialist, to stop demanding a better world, to stop demanding justice for the comrades who died on January 3, or for the Palestinians, or for the Cubans. If the acting president believes that the best thing for the country is to meet with Trump and take a smiling photo with him, I am not going to contradict her. I am a hothead who knows nothing about international diplomacy. Maybe what she does is indeed the best. Or maybe not.

Susana Khalil: Zionist Imperialism Dominates the World, but Chavismo Must Remain United

FOR ME, Mr. Trump is a murderer, a genocider, a despicable being who bombed my country and killed 100 people, who has killed thousands in Iran, who supports Israel in its genocide, who is stealing our oil, who is making our Cuban brothers and sisters suffer. I have no reason to smile at him or support him. Trump should be in prison; he should be tried for all his crimes.

I hope that one day someone who thinks the same returns to the Presidency of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

(X)

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/SC/SF


From Orinoco Tribune via This RSS Feed.

8
3

Former congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro, one of former president Jair Bolsonaro’s sons, who moved to the United States last year claiming to suffer political and judicial persecution in Brazil, was sentenced to one year in prison by the Supreme Court in a defamation trial against a parliamentarian.

[Brazil Finance Minister Links Bolsonaro Film Funding to Organized Crime: Bolsonaro’s Son Eduardo Condemned Again After Left Brazil](https://www.telesurenglish.net/bolsonaros-son-eduardo-condemned-again-after-left-brazil/)

In a virtual trial whose final votes were known on Friday night, the Supreme Federal Court (STF), by seven votes to three, found the former legislator guilty of defaming congresswoman Tabata Amaral, the court reported this Saturday.

This is the second conviction suffered by Eduardo Bolsonaro since he left Brazil, as last June the same Supreme Court imposed a sentence of four years and two months in prison after finding him responsible for the crime of coercion against justice.

GRAVE — STF CONDENA Eduardo Bolsonaro por difamação contra Tabata Amaral por 7 a 3.

Pena: 1 ano de detenção e multa de mais de R$ 80 mil. Relator: Alexandre de Moraes. Absolveram (imunidade parlamentar): Mendonça, Fux e Kassio.

O caso: post de 2021 em que Eduardo LIGOU o PL dos… pic.twitter.com/iJHhvGyTmr

— Isenta News (@IsentaNews) September 26, 2026

In addition to one year in prison, the Court imposed a fine of about 80,000 reais (about 15,420 dollars) on the politician from the far-right Liberal Party (PL) for his defamatory statements against the congresswoman from the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSL).

The offended legislator filed a criminal complaint in 2021 after Eduardo Bolsonaro made a false accusation when referring to a bill that Amaral presented for consideration to Congress to force the Government to distribute sanitary pads.

Bolsonaro’s son then assured that the congresswoman was serving the interests of a hygiene products company whose owner would have sponsored her political campaigns.Judge Alexandre de Moraes, the instructor of the process in Congress, concluded that the statements did not correspond to the facts and that they affected Tabata Amaral’s honor.

In his sentence, De Moraes clarified that the one-year prison sentence cannot be replaced by restrictive measures of rights, which is provided for in crimes such as defamation, because the convicted person is “in an indeterminate place.

“The conviction represents a new setback for Eduardo Bolsonaro, who last Monday was dismissed from his position as a clerk of the Federal Police for abandonment of office.

Although Bolsonaro was on leave from the position and had obtained it through public competition in 2010, the Ministry of Justice considered that, by residing in the United States since the beginning of last year, he abandoned his position after having accumulated more than 30 consecutive days of unjustified absences.


From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

9
1

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met this Saturday with his German counterpart, Johann Wadephul, at the first meeting between the heads of diplomacy of both countries since the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine four and a half years ago.

[Moscow to Respond if EU Seizes Russian Assets: Russian PM Lavrov Meets With His German Counterpart](https://www.telesurenglish.net/russian-pm-lavrov-meets-with-his-german-counterpart/)

“The meeting was requested by the German side,” Maria Zakharova, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, told the Russian press on the sidelines of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Lavrov, who has accused Germany of being involved in the conflict, and Wadephul shook hands before the press, after which the closed-door meeting began.

“Bilateral relations and the situation around Ukraine were addressed,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement posted on its website.

💬 #Zakharova: Germany’s FM @JoWadephul requested a meeting with FM #Lavrov.

Yet his staff demanded restricted media access, no questions, no audio of opening remarks & an embargo on materials.

👉 The “Western democracy of the beautiful garden”…https://t.co/8tRgoBHETS pic.twitter.com/XkddZ21USa

— MFA Russia 🇷🇺 (@mfa_russia) September 26, 2026

She added that, in this regard, “Wadephul corroborated the public position already expressed on more than one occasion by the German Government.”

The meeting, the last held by the Russian minister in New York, lasted for a little over 20 minutes, after which there were no statements to the press.

The Russian minister’s last meeting with a German counterpart, Anna Lena Baerbock, took place on January 18, 2022, in Moscow, more than a month before the start of what Moscow calls the special military operation.

According to Zakharova, the German side demanded to limit the presence of media, that there be no questions from the press and that the press could not record the beginning of the meeting.

This past Wednesday, Wadephul had urged to increase pressure on Russia to force the country to engage in “serious” talks to achieve peace in Ukraine.


From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

10
1

Lavrov UN multilateralism speech: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov condemns Western interventionism and calls for BRICS-led multipolar global governance.

Lavrov UN multilateralism speech condemns Western interventionism, backs BRICS and Global South representation, and calls for a more balanced world order.

Related: Cuba energy blockade: Bruno Rodríguez condemns U.S. fuel restrictions


Lavrov UN Multilateralism Speech Condemns Western Interventionism

The Lavrov UN multilateralism speech became one of the most confrontational addresses of the 81st United Nations General Assembly after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western powers of weakening international law, expanding military influence, and undermining the UN-centered system.

Speaking in New York on Saturday, September 26, Lavrov described the U.S. military operation in Venezuela on January 3 and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro as among the recent actions that have damaged global peace and security.

He demanded the immediate return of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, to Venezuela. Moscow has described their detention in the United States as unacceptable and called for guarantees that similar actions will not happen again.

Lavrov also criticized the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, the situation in Palestine, and the continued economic pressure against Cuba.

He urged the parties involved in the Middle East conflicts to reduce tensions and avoid what he called a broader global crisis.

The Russian foreign minister presented Moscow’s position as a defense of international law, sovereignty, and multipolarity.

He argued that Western governments claim to support a rules-based order while using force, sanctions, and military pressure outside the framework of the United Nations.

“It is unacceptable to forget historical responsibility and allow dangerous ideologies to re-emerge,” Lavrov said, according to the Russian account of his speech.

The address came amid growing tensions between Russia and European governments, including Germany. Lavrov accused Western countries of rewriting the history of the Second World War and minimizing the resurgence of what he described as neo-Nazi ideology in Ukraine.

He recalled postwar documents signed by former Axis states and argued that Europe must not abandon the lessons of the conflict that devastated the continent.

The Russian minister directly challenged German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over his stated goal of turning Germany into Europe’s leading military power.

“A new remilitarization process in Berlin would have serious historical consequences,” Lavrov warned.

He said the word “again” carried particular importance because Germany’s past military expansion had contributed to catastrophic wars.

Germany has rejected Moscow’s accusations and says its defense policy is responding to the security environment created by Russia’s military operation in Ukraine.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul met Lavrov on the sidelines of the General Assembly, in what was described as one of the first direct meetings between the two countries’ foreign ministers since the 2022 escalation.

The meeting did not produce a breakthrough. Wadephul urged Russia to abandon what he called a dangerous course toward Germany, Europe, and NATO. Lavrov later said nothing new had emerged from the conversation.[usnews][aa.com]

Lavrov also criticized European governments over policies affecting the use of the Russian language and the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

He accused the European Union of remaining silent in the face of what he described as violations of freedom of expression, religion, and fundamental rights protected by the UN Charter.

Russia says language and cultural restrictions in Ukraine discriminate against Russian-speaking communities. Ukraine and its allies reject Moscow’s characterization, saying language and church policies are connected to national security and the consequences of Russian aggression.

The dispute over language rights forms part of Russia’s broader justification for its military policy in Ukraine. Kyiv argues that Moscow uses the issue to legitimize territorial claims and military intervention.

Lavrov UN Multilateralism Speech Defends BRICS and Global South

Watch the UN webcast of Sergey Lavrov’s press conference.

The Lavrov UN multilateralism speech strongly defended BRICS and other platforms associated with the Global South.

Lavrov said Russia would continue what it calls a mission to protect the population of Donbas and Novorossiya until threats to Russian national security are eliminated and peace is restored.

“Our mission is clear: to protect our citizens and guarantee peace and stability in the region,” he said.

Ukraine and Western governments reject Russia’s claim that its military operation is intended primarily to protect civilians. They describe it as an unlawful invasion and demand the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory.

Lavrov used the UN platform to present a different interpretation of the international order. He said BRICS offers a framework for cooperation based on mutual benefit, equality, and respect for national sovereignty.

He argued that emerging powers should have a greater role in shaping global rules and rejected what he described as Western attempts to preserve political privileges.

The Russian minister also addressed the expected selection of a new UN secretary-general at the end of the year.

He called for the next UN leadership to uphold strict neutrality, impartiality, and intergovernmentalism.

“The UN must be a platform for dialogue and cooperation, not an instrument of the foreign policy of certain countries,” Lavrov said.

His comments reflect Moscow’s long-standing criticism of the UN Secretariat and Western governments. Russia says the organization must serve all member states rather than reflect the priorities of the United States and its allies.

Western governments, by contrast, accuse Russia of using the language of sovereignty and multipolarity to defend violations of the UN Charter, particularly in Ukraine.

Lavrov rejected the possible creation of permanent Security Council seats for Germany and Japan, saying both countries were following militaristic and revanchist paths.

He explicitly backed permanent seats for India and Brazil and supported greater representation for Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Russia has consistently supported India’s bid for a permanent seat. Moscow says any reform must reflect present-day geopolitical and economic realities rather than preserve Western dominance.

“Security Council reform cannot involve allocating additional seats to Western countries, especially Germany and Japan,” Lavrov said.[news18][timesofindia.indiatimes][aninews]

He also invoked the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, which call for greater African representation in the Security Council.

The demand is shared by many African governments, which argue that the current structure reflects the world of 1945 rather than the political and demographic realities of the 21st century.

The debate over Security Council reform remains blocked by disagreements among the permanent members. Any amendment to the UN Charter would require the approval of the existing permanent members and a significant number of UN member states.

Lavrov also highlighted Moscow’s role in advancing the UN Convention against Cybercrime.

He called for the creation of an equitable and inclusive system of global governance for artificial intelligence.

“Cybercrime and AI governance are global challenges that require a coordinated and equitable response,” he said.

Russia’s support for the UN cybercrime convention reflects its effort to promote international rules for digital activity through a UN framework.

The United States and several civil-society groups have raised concerns about the convention’s potential effect on privacy, human rights, and cross-border investigations.

The issue reflects a broader disagreement over who should set the rules for cyberspace and artificial intelligence. Western governments often favor partnerships involving technology companies and democratic states, while Russia and other countries seek a stronger role for intergovernmental institutions.

Lavrov also referred to the International Day against Colonialism and announced that Russia would host a World Assembly of an international interparty movement for the freedom of nations.

He said colonialism remains an open wound in human history and that all peoples should have the right to freedom and self-determination.

Russia Calls for a Eurasian Security Architecture

Read the Russian Foreign Ministry’s statements and speeches by Sergey Lavrov.

The Lavrov UN multilateralism speech concluded with a call to end what Russia describes as NATO’s unilateral dominance and expansion into the Asia-Pacific region.

Lavrov said NATO’s activities were no longer limited to the North Atlantic and represented an attempt to extend Western military influence across Eurasia.

He promoted an initiative associated with President Vladimir Putin to create a continental security system based on a Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity for the 21st Century.

The proposed framework would seek to establish what Moscow calls an indivisible and balanced security architecture across Europe and Asia.

Russia argues that security cannot be built by one military alliance at the expense of others. It says every country’s security must be considered and that NATO expansion creates instability.

NATO members argue that countries have the sovereign right to choose their alliances and that the organization’s expansion has been driven by requests from states seeking protection from Russian pressure.

The dispute over security architecture is central to the conflict in Ukraine. Moscow demands limits on NATO expansion and military infrastructure near its borders, while Ukraine and its supporters reject any arrangement that would restrict sovereign choices.

Lavrov’s call for a Eurasian system also reflects Russia’s growing emphasis on relations with China, India, Iran, Central Asia, and other non-Western partners.

The Kremlin has promoted the idea of a broader continental network involving BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and other regional institutions.

Such a system would not necessarily replace the United Nations, but Moscow wants it to reduce Western influence and offer alternatives to NATO-centered security structures.

The proposal also has an economic dimension. Russia wants stronger transport, energy, financial, and technological links across Eurasia.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the International North-South Transport Corridor, and regional energy projects could become part of a wider network connecting Russia with Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

However, the countries involved do not share identical interests. China maintains a cautious relationship with Russia, India preserves strategic ties with the United States, and Central Asian governments seek to avoid becoming dependent on any single power.

The future of the proposed architecture will therefore depend on whether Moscow can transform its diplomatic language into practical agreements.

The Lavrov UN multilateralism speech also echoed demands made by other countries of the Global South. Cuba has denounced U.S. sanctions as an act of war, Iran has criticized Western military intervention, and China has called for greater respect for sovereignty and an end to unilateral coercive measures.

Russia’s diplomatic message is part of this broader challenge to a U.S.-dominated international system.

Geopolitical Context: Russia, BRICS, and a Divided UN

The Lavrov UN multilateralism speech illustrates the widening divide over the future of global governance.

Russia is seeking to use the UN, BRICS, and other international platforms to challenge Western sanctions, military alliances, and interpretations of international law.

The United States and European governments argue that Russia’s position is weakened by its military actions in Ukraine and its rejection of accountability for violations of sovereignty.

The dispute has created competing visions of multilateralism. Western governments emphasize rules, democratic institutions, and territorial integrity. Russia and several BRICS members emphasize sovereignty, non-interference, and opposition to unilateral sanctions.

Both sides use the language of international law, but they interpret its principles differently.

The issue of Venezuela illustrates the conflict. Lavrov described the January operation and the detention of Maduro as a violation of sovereignty and demanded his return.

The United States says Maduro faces criminal charges and that the operation was connected to allegations involving drug trafficking. Venezuela and Russia reject that justification.

The dispute over Maduro could become another point of confrontation at the UN, particularly if Caracas seeks international action or compensation.

The speech also had implications for the Middle East. Lavrov supported calls to end the war in Gaza, opposed the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, and urged de-escalation.

Russia is attempting to position itself as a diplomatic actor capable of challenging U.S. policy in several regions at once.

The approach may appeal to governments that oppose sanctions and foreign intervention, but it also risks deepening polarization between Moscow and Western capitals.

The debate over UN reform will remain central. India and Brazil have strong support from Russia and many developing countries, while Germany and Japan retain support from the United States and other allies.

Africa’s demand for permanent representation is increasingly difficult to ignore, but agreement on which countries should receive seats remains unresolved.

The future of the international system may depend on whether these competing positions can be reconciled through institutional reform or continue to produce parallel blocs.

Lavrov’s final message was clear: Moscow rejects unilateral Western dominance and sees multipolarity as the future of international politics.

“Multipolarity is the future, and we must work together to build a fairer and more balanced world,” he said.

Whether that vision gains broader support will depend on Russia’s ability to persuade countries that its model represents genuine equality rather than a new contest among great powers.



From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

11
2

By William Serafino  –  Sep 24, 2026

In a few days, the future of Brazil will be decided in a context marked by open interference by the Trump administration. On October 4, in Latin America’s largest economy, Brazilians will vote in the first round of the presidential elections. They will elect governors, senators, and deputies at the federal, state, and district levels.

Recent opinion polls show a virtual tie between Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro, setting up a highly politically charged battle for the presidential seat at the Palácio do Planalto.

A national election turns international due to resource geopolitics
Washington’s various pressure maneuvers aimed at benefiting the son of the convicted former president Jair Bolsonaro have turned the Brazilian election into a geopolitical battleground. Combining sanctions, tariffs, and a manufactured tone of conciliation, Trump seeks to tip the scales in favor of Flávio Bolsonaro with the aim of materializing strategic objectives of the Monroe Doctrine.

Although Trump’s ideological preference for Bolsonaro Jr. and his attempt to boost him in the presidential race have been evident for a long time, a document revealed a few days ago highlighted the strategic nature of Trump’s gamble, shaped by a long-term vision with continental dimensions and focused on undermining China.

On September 12, journalists Guilherme Amado and João Pedroso de Campos from the media outlet Amado Mundo published an explosive text written by André Marinho, an ally of Flávio Bolsonaro. Marinho is running as a candidate for Rio de Janeiro state governor and is the son of Bolsonaro’s substitute senator.

Under the title “Alliance for Prosperity,” Marinho presented the Trumpist donor group Red Rockbridge, founded by JD Vance in 2019, with a “strategic memorandum” outlining the main lines of a potential Washington-Brasília partnership in the highly contested rare earth sector if Bolsonaro Jr. wins the elections.

In the English PowerPoint presentation, Marinho labels Lula as “pro-China” and proposes that the US position “Brazil as the main supplier and processing center for critical minerals aligned with the West in the Western Hemisphere.”

This offer is highly appealing to Trump, who is desperately seeking alternative supplies to break China’s significant geopolitical advantage in terms of rare earth reserves and processing—a set of exceptional magnetic minerals central to manufacturing technological products and military inputs.

China not only holds 48% of the world’s total rare earth reserves but also controls nearly 90% of global refining.

China has leveraged this point of superiority against the US, imposing general and selective export controls on the US as the contentious bilateral dynamic has evolved.

Since the very possibility of competing with Beijing in the technological and military spheres depends on a stable supply of these resources, Washington has launched a hemispheric hunt in an attempt to secure independent, preferential access.

This is where Brazil comes in, a country that holds the second-largest reserve on the planet, with 23% of the world’s total available today.

Lobbying for the spoils
Marinho’s initiative, validated by Bolsonaro—the presented text bears his name and clearly indicates it is part of his 2026 electoral campaign—represents an offer marked by the plundering of Brazilian sovereignty.

In exchange for putting Brazil’s immense rare earth potential at the exclusive service of the US, the right-wing candidate hopes the White House will intensify pressure against Lula to prevent his re-election.

For Trump, the proposed business is unbeatable in terms of investment and return.

With the mere act of influencing the contest—without assuming significant political costs—to satisfy the Bolsonaro clan’s anti-national spirit, Trump would hypothetically secure a loyal vassal willing to unleash US corporate spurs and who, ultimately, would owe his rise to Planalto to the White House until the last day.

Under this calculation, the promised access would become a safety valve for the challenge posed by China’s rare earth export controls. A high-value geopolitical gain when considering that it materialize without the need to resort to a conventional war or an exhausting maximum pressure campaign, which could even be counterproductive in the medium term for US interests.

On the other hand, the lobbying dates are important, as well as the network of contacts that made it possible to present Marinho’s document to the Trumpist donors close to US Vice President Vance.

In March, the document was drafted, and nine days later, on March 28 to be exact, Flávio participated in the CPAC in Dallas, where he declared, “Brazil will be the battleground where the future of the hemisphere will be decided, because Brazil is the United States’ solution to break its dependence on China for critical minerals, especially rare earth elements.”

Nearly a month later, the US company USA Rare Earth announced the acquisition of Serra Verde, located in Goiás state, the only Brazilian company dedicated to the production of rare earth minerals. The minerals are extracted from the rich Pela Ema deposit, where significant deposits of ionic clays, terbium, yttrium, and dysprosium are concentrated.

In February, Serra Verde had already received a loan of over $500 million from the US International Development Finance Corporation to expand its mining operation in Goiás. In this context, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio led an international conference on critical minerals in Washington with more than 50 foreign delegations. There, the Vault Project was announced, a $10 billion initiative designed to accelerate rare earth production and establish supply lines independent of China.

It is evident that Marinho and Flávio understood the strategic importance Trump was giving the issue. That is where Bolsonaro’s ally, whose singer sister Giulia Be is married to Conor Kennedy, the son of US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., made his move.

Kennedy Jr. was the bridge between Marinho and Vance when making an anti-national offer that involves the promise of regulatory changes favorable to US companies, the granting of mining licenses (closing off space to China), and the construction of a critical minerals club with the US when Flávio is elected president with the help of US interference.

What is at stake
The timeline of events helps us understand the magnitude of various issues of cardinal importance. Among them, the Pentagon’s decision last month.

The Department of War, led by Pete Hegseth, announced a $750 million investment aimed at securing “mixed rare earth carbonates” from the Pela Ema mine. The elements are considered “fundamental for national defense and economic security.”

The announcement also clarified that the White House’s increasing attacks against Lula are part of a geopolitical investment, framed within the Monroe Doctrine, in exchange for a lucrative geoeconomic return and the containment of China’s influence in South America. Marinho’s text is the guarantee for the gamble, linked in turn to Peter Thiel and Rebecca Mercer through their close ties to the Rockbridge Network.

Throughout 2026, the White House has been playing ahead to build the framework for access to Brazilian minerals, revealing the internal plot—now visible—of pressure against Lula’s government.

Consequently, something far more significant is at stake than replacing a progressive government with one aligned with the US, adding a new ally to the Shield of the Americas and claiming the region’s ideological shift as a strategic turn.

US Meddling in Brazilian Elections, Preparing for Possible Military Intervention

This is an existential choice for Washington. Trump is risking US military supremacy in the region and the ability to compete with Beijing in crucial areas such as technology, from semiconductors to AI development.

In April of this year, I published an article titled “Shield of the Americas and Rare Earths,” in which I warned that the Serra Verde operation held supporting the military capacity of this alliance as the armed wing of the “Donroe Doctrine” as a main objective.

This hypothesis is now at the center of the geopolitical dispute over Brazil, marked by US extractive voracity structurally anchored to the sustainability of its still-significant technological and military capacity.

What is at stake in Brazil is not an ideological position, but the very materiality of the US empire, under an offer by irresponsible politicians who would happily exchange Brazil’s sovereignty for crumbs from Washington.

(Diario Red)

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/SC/SF


From Orinoco Tribune via This RSS Feed.

12
3

Palestinians say drones were used to chase herders off their land, spy on families, and guide deadly settler raids

Israeli settler gangs are using drones to terrorize Palestinians across the occupied West Bank, harassing families and guiding armed raids that have killed Palestinians, The New Arab (TNA) reported on 25 September.

“When herders left their homes in the morning, the drones would pursue and shadow them; if they approached certain areas, settlers would gather to attack and drive them away. Eventually, the drones began monitoring residents inside their homes around the clock, and there was nothing anyone could do to stop them,” Rabie Abu Naim, a displaced resident of Al-Khalayel, east of Ramallah, told TNA.

Settlers later rigged the drones with speakers blaring abuse and orders to leave, and drones were also used to drop tear gas on targeted communities, as violent assaults wounded many until terrified families fled, the report said.

Abu Naim also pointed to the killing of a boy and a young man in Al-Mughayyir days ago, saying drones “played a major role” in a raid that began with a drone tracking a flock of sheep, after which settlers moved in to steal the animals while shielded by the Israeli army, which “killed the two victims in cold blood during the incident.”

In Mikhmas, shepherd Mohammed Abu Siyam told TNA that settlers sent a drone after his 19-year-old son, Nasrallah, and other young men searching for livestock stolen from the village in February.

With the drone watching their every move, armed illegal settlers lay in wait for the young men, then opened fire, killing Nasrallah and wounding others.

Another Palestinian living in Hajjah, near Qalqilya, told TNA that settler drones fly so close to village homes that families fear the machines will crash through their windows, leaving residents under constant watch and feeling that “privacy is non-existent, and everyone feels constantly threatened.”

Iran Launches Surprise Attacks on US Bases as Trump Covers Up Soldier Casualties

Illegal Israeli settlement councils have recently begun arming settlers with drones to film, scout, and watch the areas around outposts, building on earlier Israeli funding that equipped outposts with drones as part of a so-called security package.

Palestinians, meanwhile, are barred from owning drones even for their work, and the Israeli army has arrested numerous Palestinian photojournalists over the past three years for having them, citing a military order that has banned Palestinians from possessing the devices since 2017.

Israeli occupation forces have also raided toy shops across West Bank cities dozens of times, confiscating every drone on the shelves, including those made for children, and threatening shop owners with arrest if they sell them.

In May, OCHA documented settlers using drones to chase residents of Arab al-Mleihat, a community since emptied. 

Salah al-Khawaja of the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission told TNA that the constant surveillance of Palestinian homes can become “an additional factor driving families to leave the areas where they live.” 

(The Cradle)


From Orinoco Tribune via This RSS Feed.

13
3

At least 11 police and customs officers were killed and more than 30 injured this Saturday in a suicide car bomb attack against a joint checkpoint in northwestern Pakistan.

[Pakistan Hospital Fire Kills At Least 14 Newborn Babies: Eleven Policemen Killed in Suicide Car Bombing in Northwest Pakistan](https://www.telesurenglish.net/eleven-policemen-killed-in-suicide-car-bombing-in-northwest-pakistan/)

The attack occurred in the Dera Ismail Khan district, in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, when an attacker detonated a vehicle loaded with explosives against the Aman Mela post. The Pakistani Taliban, known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement.

Pakistan has experienced an increase in insurgent attacks in recent years, many of them claimed by the TTP and by the outlawed Balochistan Liberation Army, or BLA, a separatist group that operates mainly in the neighboring province of Balochistan.

BREAKING: Another VBIED attack in Terror-Sponsor state Pakistan resulting in massive casualties

At least 11 soilders killed and 30 injured as a suicide bomber attacked a Police Check post in Dera İsmail Khan in KPK pic.twitter.com/owI4pb95w2

— Megh Updates 🚨™ (@MeghUpdates) September 26, 2026

The TTP, an independent group allied with the Afghan Taliban, operates from Afghan soil, which has led to recurrent accusations from Pakistani authorities.

Pakistan demands that Afghanistan prevent cross-border attacks, while Afghanistan denies that its territory is used to attack other countries.

Pakistani authorities accuse Kabul of allowing the TTP to operate from Afghanistan, while Afghan authorities deny that their territory is used to attack other countries.

The most recent attack comes after border clashes between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which Islamabad claims killed 13 Afghan Taliban. These hostilities threaten mediation efforts by China, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Dera Ismail Khan, the location of the latest attack, is near South Waziristan, a former insurgent stronghold.


From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

14
3

Anthropic Pentagon AI ban: U.S. appeals court upholds the Defense Department’s designation of Anthropic as a national-security supply-chain risk.

Anthropic Pentagon AI ban upheld 2–1 as a U.S. appeals court backs military restrictions on Claude over safeguards against autonomous weapons and surveillance.

Related: Anthropic’s AI Hacks the Systems of Three Organizations


Anthropic Pentagon AI Ban Upheld by Divided Appeals Court

The Anthropic Pentagon AI ban was upheld Friday after a divided federal appeals court ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense could restrict the military use of Anthropic’s Claude artificial-intelligence models.

The 2–1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allows the Pentagon to maintain Anthropic’s designation as a national-security supply-chain risk.

The ruling is a major victory for President Donald Trump’s administration and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in a dispute over who controls the use of advanced AI systems in military and intelligence operations.

The case began after Anthropic refused to remove safety restrictions that prohibit the use of Claude for autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of civilians.

The Pentagon had demanded that Anthropic make its technology available for “all lawful uses.” The company argued that the demand was too broad because it could require Claude to be used in operations that violate the company’s safety principles.

Anthropic’s safeguards limit certain applications of Claude, including systems that could independently select and attack targets or conduct mass surveillance without meaningful human oversight.

The company also opposed allowing its models to be used for civilian espionage. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said the company would not remove those safeguards.

The dispute intensified after negotiations over a framework agreement worth approximately $200 million collapsed. The Pentagon then designated Anthropic as a supply-chain risk and restricted the company’s participation in Defense Department contracts.

The government argued that Claude’s built-in limitations could unexpectedly interrupt legitimate military operations. It said the Pentagon must be able to rely on systems used in national-security missions without a private company changing or blocking their functions.

Writing for the majority, Judge Gregory Katsas, joined by Judge Neomi Rao, said the Defense Department had ample legal grounds to act.

The judges accepted the Pentagon’s argument that Anthropic’s restrictions could prevent Claude from performing functions the department considered lawful and necessary.

The majority also rejected Anthropic’s claim that the government retaliated against the company because of its views on AI safety and military ethics.

The court concluded that the Pentagon acted because Anthropic would not accept essential contract terms, not because the company had publicly criticized military applications of artificial intelligence.[reuters][reuters][cnbc]

The decision does not prohibit all commercial use of Claude. It allows the Pentagon to exclude Anthropic from Defense Department contracts and military systems, while other government agencies and private companies may continue to work with the company under existing legal conditions.

Anthropic Pentagon AI Ban Raises Questions About AI Safety

Read Reuters’ timeline of the Anthropic-Pentagon dispute.

The Anthropic Pentagon AI ban has become a major test of whether AI companies can maintain ethical limits after their models are integrated into military systems.

Anthropic argues that advanced AI developers have a responsibility to prevent their products from being used in autonomous warfare or indiscriminate surveillance.

The company’s position is based on the principle that certain applications pose unacceptable risks even if the government describes them as legal.

The Pentagon takes a different position. Defense officials say military agencies must have access to tools needed for national security and cannot accept technical restrictions that may interfere with lawful operations.

The disagreement involves more than a single contract. It concerns whether companies can decide how their systems are used after selling or licensing them to the government.

If the Pentagon prevails broadly, defense agencies could demand unrestricted access to AI models as a condition of procurement.

If technology companies retain the right to block certain military uses, they could preserve ethical safeguards but risk losing access to the defense market.

The D.C. Circuit majority interpreted the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018, known as FASCSA, broadly.

The law was originally designed to protect federal procurement systems against infiltration, sabotage, or manipulation by foreign adversaries.

Anthropic argued that the law was not designed to punish a domestic company for honestly enforcing publicly disclosed safety restrictions.

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, the dissenting judge, agreed with Anthropic’s position. She said the administration had applied FASCSA excessively and improperly.

Henderson argued that the statute should not be used to classify a company as a supply-chain risk simply because it enforces contractual or ethical limits on the operation of its own technology.

Her dissent warned that the government’s interpretation could give federal agencies broad power to exclude technology companies that refuse to accept expansive contract demands.

The case therefore raises questions about administrative power, government procurement, corporate speech, and the constitutional limits of national-security authority.

Anthropic also argued that the Pentagon’s designation violated the company’s First Amendment rights and deprived it of due process.

The appeals court rejected those claims. The majority said the government was making a procurement decision rather than punishing Anthropic’s public statements.

The court’s reasoning creates a distinction between a company’s right to express opinions about AI safety and the government’s authority to decide which suppliers it will use.

Critics of the ruling say the distinction is not clear-cut. They argue that the government’s action came directly after Anthropic rejected a demand to remove safeguards based on ethical principles.

The case also raises concerns for other technology companies. If companies know that refusing military applications could result in blacklisting, they may become less willing to impose safety restrictions.

That could encourage a race among AI developers to offer fewer limitations in order to win defense contracts.

Supporters of the Pentagon’s position say national-security systems cannot depend on models that may refuse tasks or interrupt operations unexpectedly.

They argue that the government must be able to assess whether an AI system is reliable and available for lawful missions.

Anthropic says reliability should include safety and predictable limits, not merely unrestricted compliance.

Court Ruling Splits Anthropic’s Legal Strategy

See ABC News’ report on the 2–1 D.C. Circuit ruling.

The Anthropic Pentagon AI ban now stands in tension with a separate ruling from a federal court in San Francisco.

That court previously found that a broader executive-branch attempt to blacklist Anthropic was unlawful. The California decision blocked a general ban imposed by the White House but did not eliminate the Pentagon’s authority to exclude Claude from military contracts.

The two rulings address different government actions and are based on different legal questions. The D.C. Circuit ruling concerns the Defense Department’s use of federal procurement law.

The California decision examined the broader executive action and found that the administration had exceeded its authority.

The split creates uncertainty about the future of Anthropic’s relationship with the federal government.

Anthropic’s lawyers said the company is evaluating additional appeals. Its options include asking the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case, a process known as an en banc review, or petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the dispute.

An en banc review would ask all active judges on the circuit to reconsider the decision rather than leaving the case with the original three-judge panel.

The Supreme Court could decline to hear the case, accept it, or wait for additional litigation before intervening.

The appeals process may also determine whether the Pentagon’s designation affects existing contracts, future bids, subcontractors, and private companies working on Defense Department projects.

The ruling could have financial consequences for Anthropic. Reuters reported that the company says the designation has already cost it billions of dollars in lost business and damaged its reputation ahead of a planned initial public offering.

The legal conflict may also affect Anthropic’s relationships with investors and commercial partners. Some customers may view the company’s safeguards as evidence of responsible AI development, while others may see them as a limitation that creates operational uncertainty.

The Pentagon’s decision could benefit competitors willing to provide fewer restrictions. OpenAI, xAI, Google, and other companies are competing for government contracts involving cybersecurity, intelligence, logistics, military planning, and autonomous systems.

The dispute is particularly significant because AI models are increasingly capable of writing code, analyzing intelligence, operating digital tools, and coordinating complex tasks.

Defense agencies want to integrate these capabilities quickly. Safety researchers warn that rapid deployment without effective controls could create new risks.

The case also comes shortly after Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called for the AI industry to slow the pace of frontier-model development.

Amodei warned that recursive self-improvement, autonomous agent swarms, cyberattacks, and biological misuse could produce serious threats if systems become more capable faster than institutions can evaluate them.

His call for stronger safeguards contrasts sharply with the Pentagon’s demand for access to all lawful applications.

That contrast has made the court case a symbol of a broader conflict over AI governance. The government emphasizes national security and operational control. Anthropic emphasizes safety, accountability, and limits on harmful use.

Geopolitical Context: AI, Military Power, and State Control

The Anthropic Pentagon AI ban has implications beyond the United States because artificial intelligence is becoming central to global military competition.

The United States, China, Russia, and other powers are investing heavily in AI for surveillance, cybersecurity, battlefield analysis, autonomous systems, logistics, and intelligence.

The dispute demonstrates the tension between private technology companies and governments that want unrestricted access to advanced systems.

For Washington, dependence on private AI companies creates a strategic vulnerability. If a company can block military applications, the government may fear losing control over critical infrastructure and defense operations.

For technology companies, unrestricted military use can create ethical, legal, and reputational risks. They may be held responsible if their systems contribute to unlawful surveillance, civilian casualties, or autonomous attacks.

The court’s interpretation of FASCSA could become important for governments seeking to regulate domestic technology firms under national-security laws.

If the ruling stands, governments may have greater power to classify companies as supply-chain risks based on the operational limits built into their products.

Other countries may adopt similar policies, requiring AI companies to remove safeguards or risk losing access to public-sector contracts.

That could produce a global race toward less restricted AI systems, particularly in countries where military competition is intense.

The case also affects international efforts to establish rules for autonomous weapons. Many governments, researchers, and civil-society organizations support meaningful human control over systems capable of using lethal force.

Anthropic’s restrictions align with those concerns. The Pentagon’s position emphasizes that any lawful military use should remain available to authorized agencies.

The legal dispute may influence future debates at the United Nations and other international forums. The question is whether AI companies should be allowed to impose independent limits on military use or whether governments should control the full operational scope of national-security technology.

The case could also affect public trust in AI. Citizens may question whether companies, courts, or defense departments are capable of controlling systems that can monitor populations, generate intelligence, and support military decisions.

The decision does not resolve those issues. It confirms only that, under the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation, the Pentagon had sufficient authority to designate Anthropic as a supply-chain risk.

Anthropic may continue its legal challenge, and the Supreme Court could eventually be asked to clarify the limits of federal procurement law.

Until then, the ruling gives the Pentagon leverage over AI companies and signals that ethical restrictions may carry commercial consequences in the defense market.

The central unresolved question is whether an AI company can refuse military uses it considers dangerous without being treated as a national-security threat.



From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

15
1

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez assessed the current state of the country’s electrical service and addressed the Venezuelan people regarding the situation.

After returning from the 81st session of the UN General Assembly on Thursday, September 24, Rodríguez established high-level working groups to improve Venezuela’s dire electricity supply situation. The groups include the vice president for Administrative and Digital Government, Anabel Pereira; the president of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez; and the vice president for Policy, Citizen Security, and Peace and minister of Interior Relations, Justice, and Peace, Diosdado Cabello.

Rodríguez noted that upon her arrival, she went directly to the National Center for Electricity Dispatch to assess the state of the National Electrical System amid the heatwave affecting the country.

During her inspection, she noted that electricity demand reached “16,400 megawatts, a figure not recorded since 2017,” which she attributed to intensive use of air conditioning systems in homes due to high temperatures.

The Venezuela Flex: Electricityless – Again!

In this regard, she made a direct appeal to citizens’ awareness to implement energy-saving measures, emphasizing that collective collaboration is the key tool to mitigate the effects of the Super Niño phenomenon and ensure the stability of the service throughout the country.

To conclude, Rodríguez reaffirmed her commitment to the well-being of the Venezuelan people, urging the population to stay consistent and united in the face of climate challenges, “to work together and never give up.” She asserted that the Venezuelan government will continue to work tirelessly for “the happiness and well-being” of all citizens.

(Diario VEA)

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/SC/SF


From Orinoco Tribune via This RSS Feed.

16
3

Argentina country risk rises to 610 points after reaching 628 as sovereign bonds fall and analysts debate peso depreciation and foreign reserves.

Argentina country risk rose to 610 points after reaching 628, as bonds fell and analysts debated peso depreciation, reserves and exchange controls before 2027.

Related: Marcha de la Bronca Argentina: 5 Powerful Demands Against Milei’s Harsh Cuts


Argentina Country Risk Surpasses 600 Points Amid Currency Debate

Argentina country risk climbed above 600 basis points on Friday, reaching 610 points after hitting an intraday high of 628, as investors sold Argentine sovereign bonds and renewed debate over President Javier Milei’s exchange-rate strategy.

The increase marked the indicator’s highest level in approximately five months and reflected growing concern over Argentina’s ability to regain stable access to international credit markets.

The country-risk index measures the additional interest rate investors demand to hold Argentine dollar-denominated debt compared with U.S. Treasury bonds.

When the indicator rises, it becomes more expensive for the government and private companies to borrow abroad. It also signals that investors perceive a greater possibility of financial stress, debt restructuring, currency instability, or political disruption.

The latest deterioration occurred alongside a new decline in Argentine sovereign bonds. The fall in bond prices pushed yields higher and weakened the government’s effort to present the country as a successful example of fiscal adjustment and market stabilization.

Argentina’s S&P Merval index also recorded its fifth consecutive session of losses when measured in international currency.

The market downturn came during a difficult international environment. The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond rose to approximately 5.15 percent, increasing the cost of capital for emerging markets.

When U.S. Treasury yields rise, investors often move money away from riskier assets and toward dollar-denominated instruments considered safer. That shift places additional pressure on countries such as Argentina, which remain dependent on foreign financing and investor confidence.

The increase in Argentina country risk therefore reflects both domestic uncertainty and global financial conditions.

The Milei administration has based its economic strategy on fiscal surplus, the restoration of investor confidence, and an eventual return to international credit markets.

However, the recent behavior of sovereign bonds demonstrates that balanced public accounts alone may not be enough to guarantee financial stability.

Investors are also evaluating the exchange-rate regime, the level of central-bank reserves, inflation expectations, external debt repayments, political tensions, and the government’s ability to maintain support ahead of the 2027 presidential election.[riotimesonline][riotimesonline]

The rise in Argentina country risk shows that markets remain unconvinced that the current stabilization strategy has resolved the country’s structural vulnerabilities.

Argentina Country Risk and the Peso Exchange-Rate Debate

Read about Gita Gopinath’s recommendations on Argentina’s peso and foreign reserves.

The rise in Argentina country risk has intensified disagreement over how the government should manage the peso.

Some economists and financial institutions argue that the national currency is overvalued and should be allowed to depreciate further. They say a more flexible exchange rate would improve competitiveness, reduce pressure on imports, and help rebuild foreign-exchange reserves.

Others warn that a sharp depreciation could reignite inflation, reduce household purchasing power, and weaken the credibility gained through fiscal discipline.

The debate is particularly sensitive because Argentina has experienced repeated currency crises, devaluations, capital controls, and inflationary episodes.

Former International Monetary Fund deputy managing director Gita Gopinath said Argentina should allow the peso to adjust more and accelerate the accumulation of foreign-exchange reserves.

“The Argentine peso needs to adjust more and should be allowed to depreciate more than it is currently,” Gopinath said in an interview with economist Tyler Cowen.

She argued that Argentina should buy dollars more rapidly to strengthen its reserve position ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

Gopinath said the government could allow more movement within the existing exchange-rate band without abandoning its objective of eventually operating with a floating currency.

She also warned that Argentina’s history of monetary instability makes it especially important for the central bank to accumulate reserves at a much faster pace.

The former IMF official’s comments were interpreted as criticism of the government’s reluctance to allow a stronger adjustment of the peso.

Her argument is that maintaining an exchange rate that is too strong can create pressure on reserves and make future corrections more disruptive.

The government’s current framework includes an exchange-rate band intended to allow gradual movement rather than a fixed peg. Officials say the system provides stability and helps anchor inflation expectations.

Financial-sector critics respond that the exchange rate may not reflect the country’s underlying inflation, productivity, and external financing conditions.

The disagreement has also divided investment banks and international funds.

Facundo Gómez Minujín, JP Morgan’s chief executive for the region, said foreign investment funds remain cautious and are waiting for greater clarity before committing significant capital to Argentina.

He projected that exchange controls could remain in place until after the 2027 presidential election, delaying a complete liberalization of the foreign-exchange market.

The statement suggests that international investors do not expect the government to eliminate restrictions quickly, despite its commitment to deregulation.

Exchange controls limit access to foreign currency and regulate capital movements. The government has gradually relaxed some restrictions, but it has maintained controls to prevent a sudden loss of reserves and speculative pressure on the peso.

The decision to maintain controls may protect the central bank in the short term, but it also creates uncertainty for companies, importers, investors, and savers.

Businesses need to know whether they can access dollars, pay foreign debts, import equipment, and transfer profits abroad.

Investors also want clarity over whether future administrations will maintain the same exchange-rate rules.

The debate over Argentina country risk therefore involves more than the price of the dollar. It concerns the credibility of the government’s broader economic program.

Sovereign Bonds, Reserves, and Investor Confidence

See Allianz’s Argentina country-risk assessment and reserve outlook.

The recent rise in Argentina country risk comes as the government attempts to restore access to global debt markets.

The administration says fiscal surpluses and lower inflation will eventually allow Argentina to borrow at sustainable rates and refinance its obligations.

But investors remain concerned about foreign reserves and future debt payments. Argentina faces large external obligations, while the central bank’s reserve position remains relatively limited compared with the country’s financing needs.

The IMF is expected to resume principal repayments in September 2026, increasing pressure on Argentina’s external accounts.

Higher debt payments could force the government to accelerate reserve accumulation, seek additional financing, or adjust its economic policy.

The government’s supporters argue that fiscal discipline will gradually reduce risk and attract capital. They say markets need time to recognize that Argentina has changed its economic direction.

Critics respond that adjustment without growth, investment, and reserve accumulation can leave the economy vulnerable to external shocks.

The fall in sovereign bonds indicates that investors are not only judging current fiscal performance. They are also assessing whether Argentina can maintain its policies during an election year.

Political uncertainty may increase if the government faces opposition from provincial leaders, trade unions, social organizations, or voters affected by reduced public spending.

The government has reduced subsidies, public-sector employment, transfers to provinces, and some social expenditures. Officials say the cuts are necessary to end monetary financing of the deficit.

Opponents argue that the adjustment has increased poverty, weakened public services, and damaged domestic demand.

The social consequences of the program may influence the credibility of future reforms. If public dissatisfaction grows, investors could fear that a future government will reverse the policies or introduce new controls.

Argentina country risk also depends on whether the country can expand exports and generate sufficient foreign currency.

The administration is seeking investment in energy, mining, agriculture, and infrastructure. The Vaca Muerta shale formation, lithium production, and agricultural exports are central to its strategy.

Greater export revenue could help the central bank build reserves and reduce dependence on external borrowing.

However, investment projects require time, infrastructure, legal certainty, and access to financing. Investors may delay decisions if they believe the exchange rate is misaligned or if they expect political changes in 2027.

The government therefore faces a difficult balance. It wants to attract investment while avoiding a currency adjustment that could undermine its anti-inflation strategy.

A weaker peso could improve export competitiveness but also raise the local cost of imported goods, energy, machinery, and debt payments.

A stronger peso can help reduce inflation in the short term but may weaken exporters and increase pressure on reserves.

The debate over the exchange rate has become a test of the government’s economic priorities. It must decide whether to protect nominal stability or accept more depreciation to strengthen the external position.

The behavior of Argentina country risk suggests that investors are demanding a clearer answer.

Geopolitical Context: Argentina, the IMF, and Global Finance

The rise in Argentina country risk has implications beyond domestic economic policy because Argentina remains one of the largest debtors to the IMF and an important economy in South America.

The country’s relationship with the IMF influences access to international financing, investor confidence, and the government’s ability to manage external payments.

Milei has presented his administration as aligned with market reform and fiscal discipline. That position has attracted attention from international investors and conservative governments that view Argentina as a test case for aggressive deregulation.

At the same time, the country remains vulnerable to global interest rates, commodity prices, external demand, and geopolitical shifts.

Higher U.S. Treasury yields have increased financing costs across emerging markets. If global rates remain elevated, Argentina may face a longer period of restricted access to credit.

The country must also navigate relations with the United States, China, Brazil, and other trade partners.

Closer ties with Washington could facilitate financial support and investment, but Argentina also relies heavily on China for trade, financing, and currency-swap arrangements.

Relations with Brazil are particularly important because Brazil is Argentina’s largest regional partner and a central market for industrial exports.

The exchange-rate debate could also affect the country’s role in Mercosur. A heavily managed or overvalued peso may weaken Argentine exports, while a sharp depreciation could produce tensions with neighboring economies.

The 2027 presidential election will intensify these pressures. The government may want to avoid a major devaluation before voters go to the polls, while economists and investors may demand an adjustment before the imbalance becomes more dangerous.

That political timing is one reason Gopinath and Gómez Minujín have emphasized reserves and exchange-rate flexibility.

A government that delays adjustment may preserve short-term calm but risk a more abrupt correction later. A government that allows depreciation now may strengthen reserves but face political backlash from households already struggling with high living costs.

The increase in Argentina country risk reflects that unresolved dilemma. Markets are asking whether the current economic program can deliver growth, reserves, debt sustainability, and political stability at the same time.

The answer will depend on several variables: global interest rates, agricultural and energy exports, reserve accumulation, inflation, public support, and the government’s negotiations with creditors.

For now, Argentina remains committed to fiscal discipline, but investors are demanding greater clarity on currency policy.

The rise to 610 points—and the intraday peak of 628—shows that confidence remains fragile. The government’s return to international credit markets may take longer than officials originally expected.



From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

17
1

A new eruption of Mount Etna, located on the Italian island of Sicily (south), has forced the suspension of all operations at the airport of the nearby city of Catania until tomorrow, Sunday, due to the large cloud of ash it generated.

Eruptive Etna Volcano Activity Forces To Close Part of Sicily’s Airspace, Italy: Catania Airport Closes Due New Etna’s Eruption

Initially, the company managing the air base (SAC) had limited activity at the airport until this Saturday afternoon, but has finally decided to “suspend all flight operations, both arrivals and departures, until noon tomorrow, Sunday.”

🔵 #26settembre Ancora una volta voli sospesi, oggi almeno fino alle 16, all'aeroporto di Catania per l'attività in corso sull'#Etna e l'emissione di cenere lavica dal cratere Nord-Est cheproduce anche una nube eruttiva alta 4 km pic.twitter.com/hMnfVQ5pzo

— Rai Radio1 (@Radio1Rai) September 26, 2026

“Passengers are asked to check with the airline for the status of their flight before going to the airport,” it requested in a statement released on social media.

The Observatory of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV) had issued a ‘red’ alert, the highest on the scale, for this new eruption in the morning.

The entity confirms in its bulletin the presence of a volcanic ash cloud 4 kilometers high above sea level moving south, where the city of Catania is located.

But, in addition to this eruption, the Sicilian city has experienced a heavy rainstorm.Etna is a very active volcano that often causes problems in the operations of nearby city airports, the last time being this Thursday.

This year, its continuous eruptions since August 7 caused chaos in the middle of the summer season, as the emission of ash forced the cancellation and diversion of numerous flights in Sicily.


From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

18
1

China and the United States have agreed to establish a dialogue channel on “superintelligence” to exchange views on the risks and benefits of artificial intelligence (AI), as well as a new agreement under which Beijing will import American coal.

[China and the U.S. Must Compete While Avoiding Conflict: President Xi: China and Us Reach Agreement on Coal and Establish Channel of Dialogue on AI](https://www.telesurenglish.net/china-and-us-reach-agreement-on-coal-and-establish-channel-of-dialogue-on-ai/)

According to a White House statement on the outcomes of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Washington this week, the next exchange of the ‘US-China Dialogue on Superintelligence (SI)’ will take place in November 2026, and both countries also agreed to establish a bilateral communication channel for incidents related to this technology.

According to the text, the two countries agreed to refer to this emerging technology as “superintelligence,” the term with which US President Donald Trump rebranded artificial intelligence during his speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.

China and the United States Reach Eight Deliverables and Understandings 🇨🇳🇺🇸
🔗https://t.co/cj76THNtQb pic.twitter.com/Pq3Pe4zVkV

— Mao Ning 毛宁 (@SpoxCHN_MaoNing) September 26, 2026

AI gained importance in the meeting between the two leaders after Trump disregarded warnings from industry leaders to regulate it, fearing that China would surpass the United States.

While the American said on social media that this technology should “be left as it is,” Xi advocated during the meeting for ensuring that it “remains under human control and benefits the population.

“In addition, the US-China Trade Council and the US-China Investment Council, established during Trump’s visit to Beijing in May 2026, were launched, and it was announced that China will import at least 10 million metric tons of coal from the United States in 2027 and again in 2028.

Likewise, both countries reached a consensus on recommendations to apply more favorable tariff treatment to $30 billion in non-sensitive goods in each direction.

American exports include agricultural products, wood, and cosmetics, while imports include home appliances and toys.

The statement also indicates that both parties will “continue to work” on US concerns regarding Chinese exports of rare earths and critical minerals to the United States, “with the goal of ensuring that shipment levels return to adequate levels.”

The military forces of China and the United States agreed to promptly finalize a memorandum of understanding on communication and crisis prevention, and will continue to collaborate in the search for remains of American military personnel missing in China.


From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

19
1

This article by Alma E. Muñoz originally appeared in the September 25, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.

Villahermosa, Tabasco. The report on the new lines of investigation into the Ayotzinapa case will be on Monday, reported President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, who, in response to the mobilization that mothers and fathers held yesterday at the National Human Rights Commission to reproach the exoneration of the Army, replied: “we have our investigations; we are not going to pass judgment, one way or the other, on the demonstrations that take place in the country, and particularly regarding the case.”

She said that “on Friday there were too many activities, tomorrow is the march for the 12 years of Ayotzinapa, and on Monday all the information will be given” by the Undersecretary for Human Rights, Arturo Medina, and the special prosecutor for the case, Mauricio Pazarán.

Regarding tomorrow’s mobilization, “we always seek, and we always make the call, for it to be peaceful.” She indicated that she will set out her position in more detail on Tuesday at the mañanera.

What we decided from the moment we took office, first with (former) Attorney General (Alejandro) Gertz and then with Attorney General Ernestina Godoy, is to pursue other lines of investigation that had not been followed, based on information both on the use of telephones that night (September 26, 2014) and early morning, and on other lines of investigation that we considered had not been sufficiently investigated.

President Claudia Sheinbaum

And that, she maintained, “is what they are going to report on Monday: the attention to the parents, the number of searches there have been, as well as the new arrests that have been made and the reasons for these arrests, and from what scientific elements these lines of investigation start.”

She maintained that the mothers and fathers of Ayotzinapa “are informed” of all of it. “I was with them about a month ago; we are going to keep meeting and keep giving all the information.”

The post Ayotzinapa Case: The Report on the New Lines of Investigation Will Be on Monday, Sheinbaum Announces appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.


From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

20
1

Iran Trump summit conditions: President Masoud Pezeshkian rejects a meeting with Donald Trump until the United States ends hostilities and lifts sanctions.

Iran Trump summit conditions require an end to U.S. hostilities, sanctions and broken agreements before Pezeshkian will meet Trump or resume nuclear talks.

Related: Colombia Breaks Ties With Iran, Labels IRGC Terrorist Group


Iran Trump Summit Conditions Block Bilateral Meeting

Iran Trump summit conditions have ruled out an immediate bilateral meeting between Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and U.S. President Donald Trump.

In an interview with CBS News, Pezeshkian said Tehran cannot enter close negotiations while Washington continues military pressure, imposes sanctions, issues threats, and violates written commitments.

The Iranian president said the first step toward renewed diplomacy must be respect for existing agreements.

“We have signed agreements. We have made commitments. They must fulfill what they agreed to so that we can trust that this process can work,” Pezeshkian said.

He added that the United States must respect its written commitments before Iran can consider resuming close talks.

“Then we can sit down and speak closely and resume negotiations,” he said.

Pezeshkian’s position reflects a deep crisis of confidence between Tehran and Washington. Iranian officials argue that negotiations cannot succeed while one side is under military attack and economic pressure.

The president questioned the value of sitting across from U.S. officials while American forces continue military operations and Washington imposes new sanctions.

He said it was extremely difficult to trust a government that increases sanctions daily, issues direct threats, and abandons commitments reached in writing.

The interview came after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi presented a conditional plan for ending hostilities, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and returning to discussions about Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran’s proposal was delivered to Washington through intermediaries, including Qatar. According to the plan, the timeline would begin once the United States accepted Tehran’s conditions.

The proposed sequence would include several days of initial measures, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz on the sixth day, and renewed U.S.-Iran nuclear talks on the seventh.

The conditions include an end to military operations, the lifting of a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports, the release of frozen Iranian assets, and sanctions relief for Iranian oil exports.

Iranian officials have said the plan is based on a memorandum of understanding reached earlier this year. They maintain that the steps are not new demands but commitments already included in previous agreements.

According to reports, the frozen assets could be worth at least $12 billion. Tehran has also demanded that the United States stop attacks on Iran and its regional allies.

Pezeshkian said Iran remains prepared for diplomacy but will not negotiate under coercion or military intimidation.

The Iranian government has also indicated that it could allow United Nations nuclear inspectors to return to the country as part of a long-term ceasefire agreement.

Pezeshkian rejected accusations that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. He said inspections could be discussed if Washington first accepts a framework based on mutual commitments and respect for Iranian sovereignty.[france24][aljazeera][bbc.co]

Iran Trump Summit Conditions Include Sanctions Relief

Read the seven-day proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume nuclear talks.

The Iran Trump summit conditions are closely connected to the future of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important maritime energy routes.

The waterway links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Before the current conflict, approximately one-fifth of the world’s traded oil and gas passed through the strait.

Iran has used control over navigation as leverage in its confrontation with Washington. Tehran says restrictions will remain until the United States ends military pressure and meets its demands.

Iran’s foreign minister told reporters at the United Nations that the seven-day plan would reopen the waterway only after Washington fulfilled the required conditions.

The initial measures would take four or five days. Iran would reopen the strait on the sixth day, and negotiations on a final nuclear agreement would begin on the seventh.

The proposal also includes a ceasefire covering the broader region, including Lebanon and Yemen. Tehran has insisted that an agreement cannot focus only on Iran while attacks continue against its regional partners.

The United States has rejected the proposal, according to officials cited by The Wall Street Journal. Trump reportedly told advisers that he intended to resume bombing operations against Iran after the November midterm elections.

Washington has not publicly confirmed all details of the reported rejection. The White House has continued to demand that Iran end what it describes as destabilizing regional activity and accept restrictions on its nuclear program.

The dispute has created a gap between Iran’s conditions and the U.S. position. Tehran wants an end to hostilities and economic pressure before nuclear negotiations. Washington wants concessions and verification before offering sanctions relief.

This sequencing issue is at the center of the diplomatic impasse. Each side wants the other to take the first step.

Iran says it cannot negotiate while under attack. The United States says it cannot ease pressure without proof that Iran will comply with its commitments.

Pezeshkian said Iran’s demands are grounded in international law. He accused the United States of violating agreements and harming the Iranian people through sanctions and military action.

The Iranian president also referred to the killing of senior officials and scientists in operations attributed to the United States and Israel. He argued that those attacks made it even more difficult for Tehran to trust Washington.

The dispute has implications for global energy markets. Any prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz could increase oil prices, shipping costs, insurance premiums, and pressure on countries dependent on Gulf energy.

Asian economies would be particularly vulnerable because a large share of their oil and gas imports pass through the waterway.

The diplomatic proposal is therefore being watched not only as a possible path toward negotiations but also as a test of whether military escalation can be replaced by an agreement.

Pezeshkian Gives Health Update on Mojtaba Khamenei

See reporting on Iran’s position regarding the Strait of Hormuz proposal and nuclear talks.

During the CBS interview, Pezeshkian also addressed the health of Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader.

The president said Mojtaba Khamenei does not have any specific ongoing health problem following injuries sustained during the joint U.S.-Israeli offensive at the beginning of the year.

“No, he does not have any health problem or any specific ongoing difficulty,” Pezeshkian said when asked about the leader’s recovery.

He said he had met with Khamenei twice. The most recent meeting lasted more than seven hours.

Pezeshkian said the supreme leader was healthy enough to remain engaged throughout the meeting. He added that they changed angles and positions because they were not accustomed to sitting for such a long period.

The statement was significant because rumors about Khamenei’s health have circulated during the conflict. Iranian authorities have sought to project continuity and stability within the country’s leadership.

The president’s comments also offered a rare glimpse into the internal functioning of Iran’s leadership during a period of military confrontation and diplomatic pressure.

The health of the supreme leader is a matter of national and regional importance because the position holds ultimate authority over Iran’s defense, foreign policy, and nuclear strategy.

Any uncertainty surrounding the leadership could affect calculations in Washington, Tel Aviv, and other regional capitals.

Pezeshkian’s statement was intended to reduce speculation and reassure the public that the leadership remains capable of making decisions.

The president’s refusal to meet Trump should also be understood within that political context. Tehran wants to show that it is not negotiating from weakness, even while leaving the door open to diplomacy.

Iran’s public position combines two messages: it rejects talks under pressure, but it remains willing to negotiate if Washington stops hostilities and honors written commitments.

That approach allows Tehran to defend sovereignty while keeping open the possibility of a diplomatic settlement.

Geopolitical Context: U.S.-Iran Confrontation and Regional Security

The Iran Trump summit conditions reflect a broader transformation in the Middle East security environment.

The confrontation now involves direct U.S.-Iran hostilities, Israeli military operations, armed groups in Lebanon and Yemen, maritime restrictions, sanctions, and disputes over Iran’s nuclear program.

The Strait of Hormuz has become the central pressure point because it links military conflict with global energy security. Iran can use the waterway to increase pressure on Washington and its allies, while the United States can use naval power to demand open navigation.

Neither side appears willing to concede its core position. Tehran says it will not abandon sovereign rights under threats or intimidation. Washington insists that Iran must change its regional and nuclear policies.

The crisis also involves the United Nations. Araghchi announced the seven-day plan while attending the UN General Assembly, signaling Iran’s attempt to place the dispute within a multilateral diplomatic framework.

Iran wants sanctions, military operations, and naval restrictions to be debated as questions of international law and state sovereignty.

The United States is likely to present the conflict as a matter of protecting allies, preventing nuclear proliferation, and defending maritime commerce.

Those competing narratives make compromise difficult. A future agreement would have to address military operations, sanctions, frozen assets, nuclear inspections, regional armed groups, shipping, and security guarantees.

The issue of trust is particularly difficult. Iran’s leadership says previous commitments were violated by Washington. The United States says Iran’s actions demonstrate that only pressure can produce results.

Pezeshkian’s refusal to meet Trump until hostilities end sends a message to both domestic and international audiences. Inside Iran, it presents the government as defending national dignity. Abroad, it signals that Tehran will not accept negotiations conducted under military threat.

At the same time, the proposal to reopen Hormuz within seven days shows that Iran is not closing the door to diplomacy. Tehran is offering a sequence in which pressure is reduced first, navigation resumes, and nuclear discussions follow.

The role of Qatar and other intermediaries could become increasingly important if direct negotiations remain politically impossible. Regional governments have an interest in preventing the conflict from spreading and protecting energy shipments.

China, India, Russia, and European governments are also watching the crisis closely. Each has economic interests in Gulf energy and maritime trade, even though their political positions differ.

If the dispute continues, the consequences could include higher energy prices, disruptions to shipping, increased military deployments, and deeper divisions within the international system.

If negotiations resume, the seven-day plan could become a starting point for a broader ceasefire. But substantial obstacles remain, particularly over sanctions relief, nuclear enrichment, military withdrawal, and accountability for attacks.

For now, Pezeshkian’s message is clear: Iran is willing to negotiate, but not under ongoing bombardment, economic coercion, or broken promises.



From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

21
5

Mexican Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco Álvarez at the UN General Assembly discussing Cuba, U.S. embargo and Mexico's foreign policy

Mexico will continue sending humanitarian aid to Cuba, Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco says at the UN General Assembly.


Mexico reaffirmed its solidarity with Cuba and condemned the U.S. embargo against the island at the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, with Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco Álvarez saying his country will continue sending humanitarian aid to address the Cuban population’s most urgent needs.

RELATED: Mexico, South Korea Sign Historic Trade Roadmap Through 2030

Speaking Friday on behalf of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, Velasco said Mexico has maintained its support for Cuba and opposition to the embargo and other unilateral economic measures contrary to the UN Charter for more than six decades.

“Our regional vocation also explains a position Mexico has maintained for more than six decades: solidarity with the Cuban people and rejection of the embargo and any unilateral economic measure contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. We will continue sending humanitarian aid to address the most urgent needs of its population,” Velasco said.

Ver esta publicación en Instagram

Una publicación compartida por teleSUR (@telesurtv)

Text Reads: 📌 During the 81st session of the UN General Assembly, Mexican official Roberto Velasco Álvarez reaffirmed Mexico’s solidarity with Cuba, condemned the United States blockade, and stated that his country will continue sending aid in solidarity to the Cuban people.
🔴 Velasco noted that solidarity with Cuba and opposition to the blockade are stances Mexico has maintained for over six decades.
Do you think regional solidarity is key to confronting unilateral measures?

He said solidarity between the two peoples does not depend on political circumstances or differences, and called for greater regional cooperation through dialogue and concerted efforts to address disparities.

Velasco also stressed the principle of sovereign equality among nations, saying that sovereignty should not be measured by military strength or material resources.

Mexico’s priorities at the United Nations

The Mexican foreign minister outlined his country’s broader priorities at the UN, including strengthening international mediation and advancing reforms aimed at making the organization more effective and transparent.

Mexico is leading the UN80 Global initiative alongside Norway, which seeks to transform the United Nations into a more effective and transparent organization capable of having a greater impact on people’s lives.

Mexico is also working with Qatar, Norway and Switzerland to strengthen the UN’s mediation capabilities. Velasco said strengthening international mediation reflects the principle that every conflict prevented through diplomacy is more valuable than those that force attempts to resolve.

Ahead of the next election for UN secretary-general, Velasco said Mexico believes that “it is also time for women” at the United Nations.

Mexico’s position on Palestine

On the Middle East, Velasco reaffirmed Mexico’s recognition of the State of Palestine and backed a two-state solution. He called for the protection of civilians and said international law must prevail over force.

He framed Mexico’s foreign policy around constitutional principles including self-determination, non-intervention, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the legal equality of states.

“Mexico does not need to adapt its foreign policy to the Charter of the United Nations, because it has it written into its Constitution,” Velasco said.

🇲🇽 La presidenta de México, Claudia Sheinbaum, afirmó que la ONU está rebasada ante conflictos internacionales como el de Palestina.

La mandataria defendió una reforma profunda de la organización.#teleSUR #México pic.twitter.com/smvhbFNyGH

— teleSUR TV (@teleSURtv) September 24, 2026

Text Reads: 🇲🇽 Mexico’s President, Claudia Sheinbaum, stated that the UN is overwhelmed in the face of international conflicts such as the one in Palestine.
The leader defended a profound reform of the organization.

Velasco also highlighted developments under Sheinbaum’s government, including a reduction in poverty affecting more than 13 million people between 2018 and 2024, an approximately 51 percent decline in intentional homicides over the previous 22 months, a 154 percent real increase in the minimum wage since 2018, and gender parity in Congress and the presidential cabinet.


From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

22
3

Swiss voters referendum on constitutional neutrality, sanctions and military cooperation

Swiss voters will decide whether to ban foreign sanctions and restrict military cooperation under a proposed constitutional amendment.


Swiss voters will decide Sunday whether to enshrine stricter neutrality rules in the Constitution, including a ban on economic sanctions against third countries and tighter restrictions on international military cooperation.

RELATED: World Chess Championship to Be Held in Switzerland

The proposed “Neutrality Initiative,” backed by the right-wing political association Pro Schweiz, would prohibit Switzerland from joining or cooperating with military or defense alliances unless the country itself came under armed attack.

It would also bar Switzerland from participating in wars between third states and prevent it from imposing economic sanctions on parties to armed conflicts, except when such measures have the direct backing of the United Nations.

Supporters say the restrictions are necessary to strengthen Switzerland’s role as a “credible peace mediator” on the international stage.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by teleSUR English (@telesurenglish)

The Swiss government has opposed the initiative, arguing that a legal ban on participation in international sanctions would significantly limit the flexibility of its foreign policy and its ability to protect national interests.

The initiative was launched by Pro Schweiz after controversy over Switzerland’s decision in 2022 to join European Union sanctions against Russia following the launch of its military operation in Ukraine.

The move was described by the initiative’s supporters as a departure from Switzerland’s longstanding diplomatic tradition.

Opinion polling cited in the source material indicates that the government’s position has the backing of a majority of voters. A representative survey of 26,000 citizens published in June found that 54 percent opposed the initiative, while 34 percent supported it and 12 percent remained undecided.

A longstanding policy

Switzerland’s permanent neutrality was formally recognized internationally in the 1815 Treaty of Paris following Napoleon’s defeat and was later reaffirmed in the 1907 Hague Conventions.

The country’s neutrality has nevertheless been tested by its actions at different points in history. During World War II, Switzerland traded arms with Nazi Germany and restricted the passage of Jewish refugees.


From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

23
23

This article by Arturo Sánchez Jiménez originally appeared in the September 25, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.

Mexico “has shown that a country can cooperate closely and respectfully with its partners and at the same time fully assert its sovereignty,” Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco Álvarez said this Friday before the 81st General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) in New York, where he maintained that the organization faces “a challenge of enormous magnitude” to renew itself and fulfill its founding mandate, in addition to reiterating recognition of the State of Palestine and support for Cuba in the face of “any unilateral economic measure” contrary to the UN Charter.

Representing President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, the foreign minister said that this challenge of renewal implies “preserving humanity from the scourge of armed conflicts, protecting human rights, improving the situation of millions of vulnerable people, and ensuring the validity of international law.” He added that the reform must also reach the organization’s leadership, in reference to the upcoming election of the Secretary-General: “in the United Nations, too, it is time for women,” he stated.

Velasco Álvarez noted that Mexico, together with Norway, is promoting the UN80 Global group, aimed at a “more effective and more transparent” reform of the organization, and maintained that the legitimacy of international institutions depends on their capacity to “transform people’s lives in practice.”

He further explained that, together with Qatar, Norway, and Switzerland, the country is promoting the strengthening of the organization’s mediation capacities, under the premise that “every conflict that diplomacy prevents is worth more than all those that force claims to resolve.”

The foreign minister insisted that the sovereignty of states does not depend on their power.

Sovereignty is not measured in armies or in material resources. All nations, all peoples, are worth the same before the law.

Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco Álvarez

Mexico, he said, has shown that it is possible to “cooperate closely and respectfully” with its partners “and at the same time fully assert its sovereignty,” since “no nation builds its future from isolation” and “its sovereignty is strengthened in dialogue and respectful collaboration with all peoples.”

In his address, the Mexican official reiterated the country’s historic position regarding Cuba. “We will continue sending humanitarian aid to meet the most urgent needs of its population,” he said, and ratified “the solidarity with the people of Cuba” that Mexico has maintained “for more than six decades,” as well as the rejection “of any unilateral economic measure contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.”

On the Middle East, Velasco Álvarez noted that Mexico “has defended the two-state solution for decades” and recognizes the State of Palestine, “with the right of its people to live in peace within secure and recognized borders.” He maintained that, in the face of ongoing international conflicts, “international law must prevail over force” and that “the civilian population must be protected.”

The foreign minister framed these positions within the constitutional principles of Mexican foreign policy—self-determination of peoples, non-intervention, peaceful settlement of disputes, and the legal equality of states—which, he said, coincide with the purposes of the San Francisco Charter.

“Mexico does not need to adapt its foreign policy to the Charter of the United Nations, since it has it written into its Constitution,” he expressed.

In his speech, Velasco reviewed what he called “five facts” of the Sheinbaum government: the reduction of poverty by more than 13 million people between 2018 and 2024, the drop of around 51 percent in intentional homicides in 22 months, the real increase of 154 percent in the minimum wage since 2018, gender parity in the cabinet and Congress, and the exercise of a foreign policy that he described as “sovereign and independent.”

The post Mexico at the UN: Velasco Defends Sovereignty and Calls for Renewing the Organization; Reiterates Support for Cuba and Recognition of Palestine appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.


From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

24
19

President Lula decided to move forward with the measure despite strong resistance from football clubs, sponsored mostly by betting sites. Photo: EFE.

Brazil’s government announced this Friday a ban on online betting, sparking protests from major football clubs while receiving strong public support.


Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva signed a decree on Friday banning the operation, offering, brokering and advertising of sports betting and online casinos across the country, pushing the measure through despite fierce resistance from football clubs, most of which are heavily sponsored by betting companies.

The decision reverses the regulatory framework the government itself had pursued since 2023 and comes just nine days before the first round of general elections, scheduled for Sunday, October 3.

RELATED: Lula’s Party Demands Investigation into Foreign Election Interference in Brazil

The decree takes effect automatically upon publication in the Official Gazette, though Congress will have up to 120 days to determine whether it remains in force.

The text includes a brief transition period: starting October 6, two days after the first round of presidential and legislative voting, betting websites, apps and advertising will no longer be permitted to operate. “As of today, it is no longer possible to place bets on gambling websites in the country. Users will be able to withdraw their remaining balance until 11:59 P.M. on October 5,” Brazilian Finance Minister Darío Durigan said.

Acabamos com as bets no Brasil.

As bets estão destruindo a renda das famílias, afetando a saúde mental e levando sofrimento para dentro de casa. Por isso, tomamos uma decisão firme, de fazer o que tem que ser feito: acabar com as bets.

E, para quem ficou endividado, vamos… pic.twitter.com/jWJfSP5ESy

— Lula (@LulaOficial) September 25, 2026

President Lula described the measure as “tough, drastic and necessary” against what he called a “cancer.”

In Lula’s view, Brazilian society was left “completely unprotected” against digital betting. “It’s something chilling; it reminded me of the beginning of the crack epidemic in this country. Online betting is the same thing, but at a much higher level, because it’s digital and within everyone’s reach,” Lula affirmed after signing the decree in São Paulo.

Lula said his decision was shaped by testimonies from victims he spoke with directly, people who described suffering major financial losses and the loss of close family members tied to the impact of digital betting.

“This isn’t a joke, it’s something very serious that is affecting the mental health of millions of people, poor people,” Lula said. “It’s like cancer, either we remove the tumor or the tumor destroys us,” he added.

Football Clubs Push Back

On social media, Lula pointed out the Desenrola program, launched in May, which aims to restructure debt and expand access to credit under favorable terms for those affected by high-interest, low-value debts. “We will put the state at the service of families,” he affirmed.

Responding to criticism from Brazil’s top football clubs, including Flamengo, Palmeiras, São Paulo and Fluminense, which have signed lucrative sponsorship deals with betting companies in recent years, Lula recalled that Brazil’s national team won five World Cups “without the bets.” Under the slogan “The End of Brazilian Football,” the clubs had jointly published a manifesto defending the existing regulatory framework, arguing that betting revenue is one of their main sources of sponsorship and advertising income, sustaining squad competitiveness as well as youth academy and infrastructure development.

O Brasil levou anos discutindo como regulamentar as apostas esportivas. O Congresso aprovou, o governo regulamentou, empresas pagaram para operar legalmente no país, fizeram investimentos e passaram a cumprir regras de fiscalização, tributação e proteção ao consumidor.

Não se… pic.twitter.com/RxK2nBe6S7

— Flamengo (@Flamengo) September 25, 2026

A day before Friday’s announcement, Brazil’s Justice Ministry had also ordered the removal of 1,367 pages and profiles on Facebook and Instagram promoting unregulated betting platforms, while the government separately introduced legislation to criminalize the operation of illegal online betting, carrying penalties of up to six years in prison.


From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

25
1

Geovany Andrés Rojas alias Araña extradited to the United States from Colombia under President Abelardo de la Espriella

Geovany Andrés Rojas, a former peace negotiator for a FARC dissident group, was handed over to U.S. authorities in Barranquilla.


Colombia extradited Geovany Andrés Rojas, alias “Araña,” to the United States on Friday, with President Abelardo de la Espriella personally overseeing the handover at a military base in Barranquilla.

RELATED: Colombia Arrests Leader of a Dissident FARC Urban Guerrilla Group

Rojas, who headed the Comandos de Frontera, a FARC dissident group operating in southern Colombia, was transferred before dawn from La Picota prison in Bogotá to the Catam military base and later to the Combat Air Command No. 3 in Malambo, in the metropolitan area of Barranquilla.

De la Espriella handed Rojas over to U.S. authorities inside a military hangar, where Rojas appeared handcuffed and wearing prison clothing while being guarded by Interpol agents and armed military personnel.

“This criminal you see here is Giovanni Andrés Rojas, alias Araña,” De la Espriella said.

Hoy se hizo efectiva la extradición de alias “Araña” a los Estados Unidos.

Como Presidente de la República hice personalmente la entrega de Geovany Andrés Rojas, alias “Araña”, cabecilla de los Comandos de la Frontera y requerido por la justicia de los Estados Unidos.

La Corte… pic.twitter.com/BbGvqkiydV

— Abelardo De La Espriella (@ABDELAESPRIELLA) September 25, 2026

Text Reads: Today, the extradition of alias “Spider” to the United States became effective.
As President of the Republic, I personally oversaw the handover of Geovany Andrés Rojas, alias “Spider,” leader of the Border Commands and wanted by the justice system of the United States.
The Supreme Court of Justice authorized his extradition, and I signed it without delay. With this decision, there are now 94 extraditions carried out during my administration.

End to talks with FARC dissidents

Rojas had been held in Bogotá since 2025, when he was arrested under an Interpol Red Notice. In August, De la Espriella signed his extradition order along with those of four other members of armed groups who had participated as negotiators in talks pursued by the previous government as part of its “total peace” policy.

The initiative was a central policy of the previous administration and sought negotiations with the National Liberation Army (ELN) and FARC dissident groups, as well as the submission to justice of criminal organizations including the Clan del Golfo, described in the release as the country’s largest illegal organization.

De la Espriella ended all negotiating tables with armed groups last month and used Friday’s extradition to renew his criticism of former President Gustavo Petro’s government, which governed from 2022 to 2026.

“Under the previous government, this man’s extradition was suspended (…) and they hid behind false peace processes to defend and protect them,” De la Espriella said, adding that Rojas had been covered by one of those processes.

During his remarks in Barranquilla, De la Espriella linked Rojas’ extradition to several elements of his security agenda, including the fight against drug trafficking, the spraying of coca crops, closer cooperation with the United States and the abandonment of negotiations with armed groups.

The president said he had signed 94 extradition orders since taking office and indicated that more would follow.

Extradition has become a prominent part of the security strategy the government has pursued since the beginning of his administration.


From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.

view more: next ›

Latin American Publications!

190 readers
90 users here now

A community for Latin American publications.

NOTE: All the publications in this feed are Latin American in origin; that does not mean they only report on Latin American news.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS