Peoples Dispatch

U.S. President Donald Trump announced on April 23 that the 10-day ceasefire deal between the Israeli and the Lebanese governments was extended by three weeks. 

Although the truce was extended, Israel has continued attacking the Arab country on an almost daily basis. The IOF announced on April 24, the killing of six Hezbollah fighters in Bint Jbeil city, in southern Lebanon.

Two other people were reportedly killed that same day in an Israeli airstrike in Touline village in the southern governorate of Nabatieh.

On April 26, Israel launched its deadliest aerial attack on southern Lebanon since the shaky ceasefire deal took effect more than one week ago. The onslaught left at least 14 people killed, including two women and two children, and dozens of others wounded, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health.

For his part, Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem re-affirmed on April 28 that his group is not concerned in the direct negotiations between Tel Aviv and Beirut.

Qassem also asserted that Hezbollah will not return to the pre-March 2 era, during which Israel unilaterally violated the previous truce reached in November 2024, thousands of times.

The Hezbollah leader pledged that the group “will press with its defensive resistance to protect Lebanon and its people.” He also emphasized the importance of the unity between all the Lebanese political and religious components in confrontation with Israel.

“No matter the scale of threats, we will neither retreat nor yield, and we will not be defeated. Issue your threats as you will—those on the frontlines do not bow their heads and remain resolute in the face of tyranny.

We will stand united with all honorable forces, alongside the Amal Movement, national political factions, and figures from across all regions and sects,” Qassem noted.

Moreover, Sheikh Naim called on the Lebanese state to rescind the decision it issued on March 2, “which criminalizes the resistance and its people, who represent more than half of the Lebanese population.”

The post Israel escalates its aggression on Lebanon after ceasefire extension appeared first on Final Call News.

The recent interview by Ibrahim Traoré, president of Burkina Faso, has caused widespread debate after going viral across global media platforms.

Headlines, particularly from mainstream outlets, quickly framed his remarks as a wholesale rejection of democracy, some even suggesting an intention to entrench permanent military rule.

But this interpretation, while sensational, is deeply misleading. It strips Traoré’s statements of their political, historical, and material context that is essential to understanding both his words and the broader trajectory of the Sahel region.

Democracy, but which democracy?

The remarks emerged not from an abstract discussion, but from a grounded conversation about security, sovereignty, and survival. For nearly half an hour, the interview focused on the ongoing insurgencies in the Sahel, particularly the threat posed by jihadist groups linked to al Qaeda and the broader crisis of state stability.

It was only when Traoré was asked about elections, specifically whether a newly adopted revolutionary charter could allow him to extend his rule, that the issue of democracy arose.

His response; elections, he argued, were not the immediate concern. Burkina Faso faces existential challenges, and the priority is confronting those threats and rebuilding the state. It is within this framework that his now widely quoted statement, “people need to forget about democracy” must be understood.

Saying, “we must tell the truth. Democracy is not for us, this kind of democracy that these people show us. That’s not what interests us.”

When Traoré states that “democracy is not for us,” he is not speaking in a vacuum. His critique is directed at a specific model; Western liberal democracy was historically exported to Africa through intervention, coercion, and conditional aid.

He gave the example of Libya, whose destruction following the NATO intervention in Libya remains as an example across the continent.

For Traoré, Libya represents a warning; a state that, whatever its internal contradictions, was dismantled in the name of “democracy,” leaving behind chaos, displacement, and humanitarian catastrophe.

“We came to completely change the way things work, but above all to change mindsets so that people open their eyes, see the world, and so that we never fall into that trap again. People are here; democracy is slavery.

There is no democracy in this world. They pretend there is. They do as they please. And to establish it, they kill. Democracy that kills. We do not want democracy.

May God spare us from that kind of democracy. We are focused on our conquest, on our rebuilding, and on the revolution. It is the only path to development.”

Thus, when he says, “democracy kills,” it can also be interpreted that he is condemning a geopolitical process whereby “democracy” becomes a justification for regime change, foreign domination, and violent restructuring. These narratives have been used recently in both Venezuela and Iran, where actions against leaders are framed as justified interventions.

Traoré’s position must be situated within the crisis of sovereignty in the Sahel. Countries like Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso have experienced repeated cycles of instability, foreign military presence, and economic dependency.

The rise of military-led governments in the region, notwithstanding the challenges, has been tied to a popular rejection of neocolonial arrangements, particularly those associated with former colonial powers like France.

This is the political terrain from which Traoré speaks. His insistence on “revolution,” “rebuilding,” and “changing mindsets” reflects an attempt, however contested, to break from a model of governance seen as externally imposed and internally hollow.

Many liberal democratic commentators have approached Traoré’s statements through a narrow, textbook definition of democracy. This framework struggles to account for situations where the state itself is under threat, where territorial control is fragmented, and where external actors play a decisive role in shaping internal politics.

The result is a recurring pattern of misinterpretation, complex political statements are reduced to authoritarian impulses, and debates about sovereignty are dismissed as anti-democratic rhetoric.

Interestingly, similar questions arise elsewhere. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has postponed elections, arguing that national survival in the face of war must take precedence.

While the contexts are vastly different, the underlying principle is comparable, the sequencing of political processes in times of crisis. But global reactions to these decisions are far from consistent.

None of this is to suggest that the Sahel’s current trajectory is without challenges. The region faces immense challenges; political, economic, and social.  However, reducing Traoré’s position to a rejection of democracy misses the point entirely.

What is at stake is not simply “democracy versus authoritarianism,” but a deeper struggle over sovereignty, development, and the right of societies to define their own political paths.

Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, the historical realities shaping the Sahel must be taken into context.

The post Ibrahim Traoré: We do not want a democracy that kills appeared first on Final Call News.

Just a few days earlier, on March 26, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores made their second court appearance in New York, where the sanctions on Venezuela became a key point of dispute, drawing fundamental contradictions in the current state of U.S.-Venezuela relations to the surface.

Nearly three months have passed since Maduro and Flores were kidnapped from Venezuela in “Operation Absolute Resolve.” Since then, they have been held in detention in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, as the U.S. government builds its case against them to substantiate charges of narco-terrorism and drug trafficking.

In addition to the illegalities of their capture and of the unilateral U.S. military action against Venezuela, a key irregularity has been raised by the defense of Maduro and Flores: the restriction on the payment of legal fees.

Due to the extensive unilateral coercive measures imposed by the United States against Venezuela, the government of Venezuela (the same one which has now established formal diplomatic relations with the government of Donald Trump) is unable to transfer state funds to the U.S. to pay for legal defense.

In the days immediately following their capture, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) had granted a license to permit the legal defense of both the president and the first lady be paid by the Venezuelan government, but hours later, the same entity revoked the license for the payment of Maduro’s defense, and just recently revoked the license for Flores.

This means that the defense teams of both Maduro and Flores are not currently being paid, and, as argued by their defense, the defendants constitutional right to defense is being undermined by the U.S. government.

The issue had been raised by the Venezuelan president’s attorney, Barry Pollack, in a letter to the court dated February 20. Pollack wrote in the letter, “By its failure to allow the government of Venezuela to pay Mr. Maduro’s defense costs, OFAC is interfering with Mr. Maduro’s ability to retain counsel and, therefore, his right under the Sixth Amendment to counsel of his choice.”

In the letter, Pollack raised that he had already requested that OFAC reinstate the license and as of the time of publication, the office had refused to do so. As such, Pollack raised a motion to the court that if payment is not allowed, the court should assign a public defender to represent the president and his wife, or dismiss the charges against them given that their rights are being violated.

It was this matter that was before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 26, the second court appearance of Maduro and Flores.

‘Things have changed in Venezuela. Why continue to apply sanctions there?’

To some, the March 26 proceedings may have seemed like any other legalese-heavy, technical hearing, with the attorneys arguing to the judge about the similarities and differences of previous court rulings and whether or not the outcomes apply in this case (minus the unique fact that the defendant is the constitutional head of state and was kidnapped in a military operation).

“Luis and Stein cases say you should have right to counsel of choice when you have untainted funds available!” declared Pollack, citing a Supreme Court ruling and the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, regarding the Sixth Amendment as it relates to legal fees.

But underneath the legal sparring between the defense, prosecution, and the judge, was a debate on U.S. foreign policy and the contradictions and predicament that the U.S. has manufactured in the post-January 3 reality.

It was the 92-year-old Judge Alvin Hellerstein who first questioned the logic of the U.S. government’s approach to Venezuela and accused the government of using alleged foreign policy considerations to violate constitutional rights.

“What is the interest of the government now in blocking [Venezuela’s] funds?” he asked U.S. Attorney Kyle Wirshba, who responded, “National security and foreign policy.”

The judge continued, “We are doing business with Venezuela …” and asked later, “Things have changed in Venezuela. Why continue to apply sanctions there?” Wirshba seemed perplexed, and insisted that OFAC has the right to make the determinations it sees fit.

Judge Hellerstein insisted again, “We do business with Venezuela; the oil is important because of the Strait of Hormuz.” He then made a comment which seemed to completely upend the government’s insistence to keep sanctions in place in the current situation.

“I am looking at the Executive Order which set up the sanctions, it was by President Obama [in 2015]. The interests are no longer implicated. Maduro and Flores are here in the U.S. and the situation in Venezuela is different.”

“The U.S. government has a right to sanction to serve national security purposes,” Wirshba retorted, signaling to some that the U.S. government’s ability to unilaterally impose sanctions against foreign leaders and countries would not be challenged.

Still Hellerstein insisted, “The constitutional right to counsel supersedes the government’s right to sanction,” adding that “the Venezuelan government is no longer implicated in those atrocities [outlined in the executive order] … we corrected that … the purpose of the executive order has passed. The current need is the right to defense.”

The back and forth between the judge and the U.S. government’s attorney was heated, and though Hellerstein repeatedly declared that the denial of funds in this case would constitute a violation of the Sixth Amendment, he reserved his judgment in the matter.

Additionally, as was clarified in this back and forth, the judge does not have the ability to order OFAC to issue the licenses. There was no date set for the next hearing nor clarity on when the judge would issue its opinion.

Washington’s case against Maduro and Flores unfolds amid a dynamic geopolitical situation. The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has forced the United States to reconsider hardened positions such as the complete sanctioning of Venezuelan and Russian oil, which in turn compels it to modify its diplomatic relations with those countries.

Last week, after Venezuela and the U.S. re-established diplomatic ties, Venezuela re-opened its embassy in Washington, D.C. The office had been shuttered since 2019.

When Trump recognized Juan Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela. Now, the U.S. has removed sanctions on the acting president of Venezuela as the court proceedings exposed contradictions in U.S. policy toward the Caribbean country that threatened the continuation of the trial itself.

The U.S. case against Venezuela’s leaders is not merely constrained to the legal realm, as everything else, it is shaped by the dialectics of history and the ever-changing correlation of forces internationally.

The post U.S. sanctions against Venezuela take center stage in trial of Nicolás Maduro appeared first on Final Call News.

Across the African continent, progressive movements, grassroots organizations, and Pan-African networks are rallying in renewed solidarity with Cuba at a moment of deepening crisis.

While global media narratives often reduce Cuba’s situation to internal failure (a narrative activists and many Cubans claim is imperialist propaganda), African movements are advancing solidarity rooted in history and shared struggle.

International solidarity with the people of Cuba is rising, with caravans of medicines and food supplies being mobilized to support the island in the face of the ongoing siege.

Cuba today faces severe shortages of fuel, energy, and essential goods. These hardships are real and deeply felt. They are the direct outcome of a prolonged economic war, by the United States’ decades-long embargo, now intensified into new levels of inhumanity.

Since the victory of the Cuban Revolution, Cuba has stood as a defiant example of resistance to imperial domination. Its continued commitment to a socialist path, despite immense external pressure, has made it both a symbol of sovereignty and a target of sustained aggression.

Cuba and Africa: A history of shared struggle

Cuba, a nation of roughly 11 million people, has played an outsized role in supporting liberation struggles across the Global South. Its contributions have never been symbolic alone; they have been material, strategic, decisive, and often made at great sacrifice.

From the early years of African independence, Cuba provided weapons, training, and political support to liberation movements. Its role in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau was particularly significant.

In Angola, over 300,000 Cubans fought alongside African liberation movements against apartheid South African aggression, contributing to decisive victories, such as the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale.

This turning point weakened apartheid South Africa militarily and politically, accelerating the independence of Namibia and contributing to the eventual collapse of apartheid.

A continental call

In a statement endorsed by multiple organizations, Pan-Africanism Today has articulated a clear and uncompromising position of solidarity from Africa.

The statement situates Cuba’s crisis within the global context of intensifying imperialism:

“We write to you at this crucial moment in history, characterized by the increasing barbarism of United States imperialism and the equally growing anti-imperialist resistance of the peoples of the world.

We write not only to offer words of comfort, but to reaffirm active solidarity and internationalism forged through decades of shared struggle against a common enemy.”

Linking Cuba’s situation to global struggles from Palestine to Iran, the statement puts it clearly the blockade is not an isolated policy but part of a wider system that has “abandoned all pretense of legality, morality, and human decency.”

And, “a persistent act of war against an entire people … one of the gravest ongoing crimes against humanity in the modern era.”

Recent escalations, including new measures under U.S. policy, have intensified this reality, particularly through restrictions affecting fuel supplies, with devastating implications for hospitals, food systems, and daily life.

Internationalism vs. Imperialism

African movements contrast Cuba’s global role with that of imperial powers. Where dominant states deploy sanctions and military force, Cuba has historically deployed doctors, teachers, and technical support.

From sending medical brigades across Africa to training thousands of African students in medicine, Cuba has embodied a form of internationalism rooted in solidarity rather than extraction.

As the statement affirms: “You have not lectured us; you have shown us.”

This distinction is central. Cuba’s internationalism is not charity; it has been a political commitment grounded in a shared struggle against domination.

Solidarity is our responsibility

For African progressives, supporting Cuba is not about gratitude, it is about political responsibility in the face of a common enemy.

The statement unequivocally declares:

•       We condemn the criminal blockade of Cuba with contempt and pledge to intensify every effort to end it—politically, diplomatically, and in the court of international public opinion.

•       We commit to strengthening our solidarity with the Cuban people and to ensuring that the truth about Cuba’s revolutionary achievements, and the crimes against it, reaches the widest possible audiences across our continent and the world.

•       We salute the leadership of the Cuban Revolution for its steadfastness in the face of an ongoing U.S.-led imperialist siege.

•       We honor the memory of the revolution’s giants—such as Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Haydée Santamaría and others—by dedicating ourselves to upholding their example in our own struggles.

•       We stand with the Cuban people as you withstand the latest tightening of the imperialist stranglehold.

“You do not face this alone. An injury to Cuba is an injury to all of us.”

Cuba’s experience stands as living proof that another world is not only imaginable, but possible. As the statement concludes, “The task now, as African progressives insist, is to fight to make that world a reality.

We commit ourselves to doing precisely that: building the organized power of workers, peasants, women, and youth; deepening the anti-imperialist consciousness of our peoples; and forging the continental and international unity in action.

This can break the chains of capitalism and imperialism—our ability to work together and construct the socialist world that the people of Cuba have dared to demonstrate is necessary. A world for the many, built by the many!”

The post A continental call from Africa: Standing with Cuba against imperialist aggression appeared first on Final Call News.

African heads of state adopted a historic resolution recognizing slavery, deportation, and colonialism as crimes against humanity, marking a major step in Africa’s long-running struggle for historical justice and reparatory redress.

The decision was taken at the conclusion of two days of high-level deliberations during the Thirty-Ninth Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union, held at the African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from February 14-15.

Leaders considered a comprehensive study examining the legal and moral implications of describing colonization as a crime against humanity and certain acts committed during the era of slavery, deportation, and colonial rule as genocide against African peoples.

In its final communiqué, the Assembly reiterated the centrality of historical justice, truth-telling, remembrance, and reparatory justice, while reaffirming the need to preserve the dignity of African peoples and peoples of African descent globally.

Mahama to table resolution at UN General Assembly

A central outcome of the summit was the adoption of a draft resolution to be presented to the United Nations General Assembly in March. The resolution seeks global recognition of the Transatlantic Slave Trade as the gravest crime against humanity.

The initiative is being championed by John Dramani Mahama, in his capacity as the African Union Champion for Advancing the Cause of Justice and the Payment of Reparations. Addressing the Assembly, Mahama described the adoption of the resolution as a moment long awaited by people of African descent worldwide.

“All peoples of African descent have been waiting for this day. The truth cannot be buried. The legal foundations are sound; the moral imperative is undeniable,” he said.

The draft resolution, first announced during the 80th Session of the UN General Assembly in September 2025, represents the culmination of sustained continental efforts to elevate Africa’s reparations agenda within the international system.

Building continental mechanisms for reparations

President Mahama reported significant progress in establishing institutional mechanisms to advance reparatory justice. These include the AU Coordination Team on Reparations, the AU Committee of Experts on Reparations, and a Reference Group of Legal Experts tasked with developing legal strategies and frameworks.

He described the AU’s designation of 2025 as the Year of Justice for Africans through Reparations as “a historic turning point” not just symbolic, but a strategic and international commitment by the continent.

Member states were urged to establish national reparations commissions, engage formally with historical perpetrator states, and support the proposed Decade of Reparations to ensure continuity beyond the commemorative year.

“Reparatory justice will not be handed to us. Like political independence, it must be asserted, pursued, and secured through determination and unity,” Mahama declared.

The momentum builds on earlier continental actions, including resolutions adopted in 2025 that formally recognized slavery and colonialism as genocides and crimes against humanity. These positions were reinforced at a December 1, 2025, conference in Algiers, Algeria, where African leaders, diplomats, and scholars examined the crimes of colonialism and their enduring legacies.

Alongside the reparations agenda, the assembly also considered the Report of the Commission on the Situation in Palestine. African leaders reiterated the union’s solidarity with Palestine and reaffirmed support for a just, lasting, and comprehensive solution in line with international law and relevant UN resolutions.

The March presentation of the AU-backed resolution to the UN General Assembly is expected to mark a key moment in the continental campaign for global recognition and redress of historical injustices against African peoples.

Calling on Africa’s current leadership to rise to the moment, Mahama urged that this generation be “remembered not for hesitation, but for courage in advancing justice, restoring dignity, securing restitution, and shaping a future grounded in truth.”

The post AU adopts landmark resolution on slavery, colonialism, and reparatory justice appeared first on Final Call News.

Iran condemned the U.S. blockade of Cuba, calling it a violation of all existing international laws and of the basic human rights of the Cuban people. In the statement issued by Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on February 16, Iran demanded international accountability for the U.S.’ “crime against humanity” in Cuba.

Baghaei deplored the recent U.S. actions to further strangle Cuba’s economy and expressed his nation’s solidarity with the Cuban people and its government, Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported.

Millions of Cubans are facing an unprecedented crisis as the socialist island state has been denied its basic energy requirements through a U.S. decree.

On January 29, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling Cuba an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security and threatening tariffs on any third country selling oil to it.

Trump accused Cuba of supporting and building defense relations with countries such as Russia, China, and Iran, calling them all “malign actors and hostile” to the U.S. However, it is widely seen as an intensification of the U.S. long term regime change policies towards socialist Cuba.

The U.S. first imposed sanctions and blockade on Cuba in 1960, shortly after U.S.-backed Fulgencio Batista was overthrown in the Cuban revolution. The blockade has been maintained and expanded by all successive U.S. administrations since then.

Cuba, for its part, has denied U.S. allegations of hosting foreign military or intelligence bases in the country. President Miguel Díaz-Canel, during his address to the nation on February 5, claimed that “Cuba has never carried out, nor proposed, or organized any aggressive action that puts at risk the territorial integrity, the security, or the stability of the government of the U.S.”

Yet, Trump’s threats have multiplied, and coupled with the oil embargo imposed on Venezuela in December, the island nation has not received fuel for almost two months now.

Mexico, one of the other key suppliers of fuel to Cuba, has temporarily suspended shipments in response to the executive order.

U.S. is committing a crime against humanity

Cuba almost completely depends on imported oil for its energy supplies. The unprecedented dearth of energy sources is now forcing it to cut even the most essential activities and services such as medical care, transportation, food, and water supply.

Iran noted that the U.S. blockade against Cuba has a massive humanitarian and material cost threatening millions of its citizens.

Recently, the UN too expressed its concerns over the U.S. imposed energy crisis in Cuba claiming it is “extremely worried about Cuba’s deepening socio-economic crisis—amid a decades long financial and trade embargo, extreme weather events, and the recent U.S. measures restricting oil shipments.”

It noted that Cuba’s food, water supplies and health systems are at threat of shutting down due to lack of enough energy supplies risking the lives of millions of its citizens.

“Intensive care units and emergency rooms are compromised, as are the production, delivery and storage of vaccines, blood products, and other temperature sensitive medications,” said Marta Hurtado, spokesperson of the UN Human Rights in a press conference on February 13 in Geneva.

Noting how the decades-long blockade has caused massive humanitarian and material losses for the island nation, Iran called it a deliberate denial of the fundamental rights of the people, particularly of their right to self-determination.

The blockade of Cuba violates the basic principle of national sovereignty of the states and prohibition of intervention in any member’s internal affairs, the Iranian statement said.

“The U.S. must be held accountable for its continued and systematic violation of these principles and rules, as well as for the widespread violation of the human rights of Cuban people, which amounts to crime against humanity,” Iran said.

Several other countries, including Russia and China, have condemned the tightening of the U.S.“ blockade on Cuba and demanded its immediate withdrawal. For the past three decades, the UN General Assembly has voted almost unanimously to reject the U.S. blockade and demand the policy be ended.

The post Iran condemns the U.S. blockade of Cuba appeared first on Final Call News.

by Pablo Meriguet – The Peoples Dispatch

The January 3 attack on Venezuela by the U.S. military profoundly transformed the dynamics in the region, especially in the Caribbean. Following agreements reached between the Venezuelan government, led by Delcy Rodríguez, and the Trump administration, Cuba was forced to quickly seek solutions to its economic crisis.

For more than 60 years of economic and trade blockade by Washington, Cuba has managed to survive thanks to the support of allied governments, which have provided support for the revolutionary process.

During its existence, the USSR supported the island with machinery and goods in exchange for the sale of sugar and other products. After the fall of the USSR, Cuba has navigated a prolonged economic crisis thanks to the support of governments such as China and Vietnam, among others.

However, during the 21st century, Hugo Chávez and Venezuela became a lifeline for the Caribbean island. Despite threats from the United States and the tightening of sanctions against Havana, Venezuela decided to sell oil and other products in exchange for the various services that Cuban professionals could offer in the South American country.

However, the Trump administration seems determined to stifle the Cuban economy at all costs. According to reports, several of the Venezuelan oil tankers seized by U.S. forces in the Caribbean Sea were bound for Cuba, sending a strong and clear message to the government of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel.

“NO MORE OIL OR MONEY FOR CUBA—ZERO! I strongly suggest they come to an agreement BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,” Trump said on Truth Social.

Now that Washington has forced the Venezuelan government to stop selling oil to Cuba, Havana has had to turn to other allies who have promised their help. Among them is China, which has pledged food and financial aid to the revolutionary government in Havana.

China’s aid

Beijing’s aid includes the delivery of 60,000 tons of rice to Cuba, the first part of which arrived on the Caribbean island on January 20. Cuban Deputy Prime Minister Oscar Pérez-Oliva said:

“We deeply appreciate and are grateful for this aid at a difficult time, when levels of aggression are rising, and the United States’ economic, commercial, and financial blockade against the Cuban people is intensifying in an unprecedented manner.”

For his part, Chinese Ambassador to Cuba Hua Xin said the aid “embodies the deep bonds of special friendship between the two nations.” He added:

“We deeply understand that true friendship is revealed in times of greatest need … [China] has always been Cuba’s most steadfast partner … every grain of rice delivered today embodies the unwavering commitment of the Chinese people.”

In November last year, China sent six shipments of food by air. In 2025, Beijing sent essential supplies to the island, including solar lamps, roofing materials, and mattresses. In addition to aid, Chinese President Xi Jinping approved financial assistance amounting to $80 million.

Russian diplomats visit Cuba

Russia has also maintained friendly ties with Cuba despite the collapse of the USSR. On January 21, Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Alexandrovich Kolokoltsev, accompanied by a delegation of Russian officials and military personnel, held talks with Díaz-Canel in Havana.

The Russian Interior Minister said that the meeting was held to exchange opinions and views on the complex global situation following the U.S. attack on Venezuela.

This visit comes after Putin’s recent statement affirming that Russia “will continue to provide assistance to our Cuban friends, standing in solidarity with their determination to defend their sovereignty and independence by all means.”

As can be seen, Havana has made its moves to find a way to overcome the new obstacles that the Trump administration has placed in its path. Once again, the resilience and resistance of the Cuban people will be put to the test in the face of U.S. power, which, since the beginning of the Cuban revolution, has done everything possible to destroy it.

The post China and Russia reaffirm commitment to Cuba appeared first on Final Call News.

by Pavan Kulkarni – The Peoples Dispatch

Burkina Faso’s security forces foiled a plot to kill President Ibrahim Traoré and disable a drone base, ahead of a planned military invasion, the country’s minister of security, Mahamadou Sana, announced on January 6. “Our intelligence services intercepted this operation in the final hours,” he said in a late-night TV broadcast.

​As per a recording obtained by security agents allegedly showing conspirators discussing the plan, the operation was set to start an hour before midnight on January 3.

“Beginning with the neutralization of Comrade Captain Ibrahim Traoré, Head of State and President of Faso, either at point-blank range or through an operation to mine his residence,” Sana said, “there were to be efforts to put the drone base out of service, and a ground military intervention by external forces.”

Adversaries on the southern border

​While he did not name the countries involved in this allegedly planned military intervention, its northeastern and northwestern neighbors—Niger and Mali, respectively—are Burkina Faso’s allies.

After ousting the regimes propped up in their countries by France and establishing popular military governments that expelled the French troops and nationalized several resources, the trio formed the Alliance of Sahel States (AES).

Its adversaries are in the south, where France-backed regimes remain in place, especially the Ivory Coast to its southwest, which Sana accused of funding $125,000 for this operation.

To its southeast is Benin, whose territory, the Burkinabe government alleges, is being used by France to train terrorists to destabilize Burkina Faso after being expelled from the country.

​Earlier in December 2025, France, Nigeria, the Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso’s southern neighbor Ghana, and Sierra Leone militarily intervened in the country to prop up France-backed president Patrice Talon after a coup attempt against him.

Several of these foreign troops, hostile to Burkina Faso and the AES, remain stationed in Benin. To its west on Burkina Faso’s southern border is Togo—home to “the principal actor” named by Sana in this plot, Burkina Faso’s former Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Henri Damiba.

​Who is Damiba?

Riding on the wave of mass protests demanding the expulsion of French troops from the country, Damiba had taken power as the transitional president in January 2022 after leading the coup against the then-President Roch Kaboré, widely perceived in the country as a French puppet.

However, Damiba did not order the French troops out. Amid mounting resentment against the continued French presence even after Kaboré was removed, another coup followed in September that year. His junior, Captain Ibrahim Traoré, took the reins, removing Damiba from power.

Within months of taking power, Traoré expelled the French troops, the last of whom withdrew by February 2023. An avowed Pan-Africanist with the bearings of Burkina Faso’s revolutionary Marxist leader Thomas Sankara, assassinated in 1987, Traoré has become arguably the most popular leader in Africa and among the young African diaspora in the West.

Damiba, in the meantime, has been living in Togo, from where he has allegedly masterminded multiple coup attempts against Traoré, all of which have failed.

‘The irreversible march toward the liberation of Burkina Faso from the chains of imperialism’

Amid heightened activity by security forces on the intervening night of January 3 and 4, word was out about a possible coup against Traoré. Several groups on social media issued a call to citizens to mobilize in defense of the government. 

Hundreds took the squares and roundabouts in the capital, Ouagadougou, sloganeering in support of Traoré and declaring themselves a bulwark defending him.

“This latest mobilization of the people to protect their leader, Comrade Captain Ibrahim Traoré, bears witness to their determination to support the irreversible march toward the liberation of Burkina Faso from the chains of imperialism,” Sana said in his broadcast on Jan. 6.

Reassuring that “the situation is under control,” Sana, nevertheless, called for “heightened vigilance among the population to strengthen strategic monitoring in the fight against imperialism.”

The post Assassination plot against President Ibrahim Traoré foiled in Burkina Faso appeared first on Final Call News.

Lebanese parliament speaker Nabih Berri denounced on December 11, a statement by U.S. envoy Tom Barrack, in which he bluntly advocated, earlier during the week, the annexation of Lebanon to Syria. Berri described Barrack’s remarks as “a grave mistake and completely unacceptable,” warning foreign diplomats “not to threaten the Lebanese people.”

“It is utterly unacceptable to address the Lebanese people in this manner, especially by diplomats, and particularly by someone like Ambassador Tom Barrack,” the Lebanese politician said.

Barrack had brought forward the controversial proposal on December 7, during his participation in the Doha 2025 Forum. “We need to bring Lebanon and Syria together and aligned. Two of the most ancient and beautiful civilizations,” the U.S. diplomat suggested.

Barrack’s provocative suggestion came amid escalating tension with Lebanon, caused by Washington’s mounting pressure on the Lebanese state to complete the Hezbollah disarmament plan by the end of the year.

This tension was further aggravated due to the non-stop Israeli aggression on Lebanon, despite the ceasefire deal, which the Trump administration has seemingly overlooked in terms of the plan.

It is worth noting that Barrack’s recent remark is not the first to have sparked the ire of the Lebanese people. In August, the U.S. official came under fire after calling Lebanese reporters “animalistic” during a press conference.

Facts on the ground and the inflaming language with which Barrack has addressed the Lebanese nation foreshadow the unattainability of achieving the U.S.-dictated plan for Lebanon, at least in the short run.

On December 12, Israeli warplanes launched a series of airstrikes across southern Lebanon and West Bekaa.

Israel’s renewed assault took place three weeks prior to the deadline set in the U.S. plan to disarm Hezbollah, although it also stipulates ensuring the durability of the cessation of hostilities, and ending all types of violations, through air, land, and sea.

The post Nabih Berri slams Tom Barrack’s suggestion of annexing Lebanon to Syria appeared first on Final Call News.

China asked the Group of Seven (G7) countries to abandon their Cold War mentality and ideological bias on November 13, after they accused China of causing instability in the East Asian region.

The G7 should “take a clear grasp of the global trend, abandon the Cold War mentality and ideological bias and stop manipulating issues related to China,” said Lin Jian, spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while answering a question related to the allegations made by the G7.

On November 12, a joint statement issued after the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Niagara in Canada, expressed support for “Taiwan’s meaningful participation in appropriate international organizations” and accused China of causing political and economic instabilities.

Claiming that “China’s military buildup and rapid increase of its nuclear weapons arsenal” is causing instability in the region and on a global level, the G7 foreign ministers asked “Beijing to demonstrate its commitment to stability through improved transparency.”

Replying to the allegations, Jian called the G7 statement a “mischaracterization of facts, a deliberate vilification of China, and a gross interference in China’s internal affairs.”

Jian reiterated that Taiwan is China’s internal matter and asked the G7 to desist from interfering in the matter.

G7 is responsible for global tensions

Jian suggested that the G7 “should stop using maritime issues to stoke disputes, escalate tensions and undermine regional peace and stability.”

The U.S., Japan, and other members of the G7 have been participating in repeated military exercises in the region. These military exercises deliberately involve countries such as the Philippines, which has a long-term dispute with China over the sovereignty of a few small islands in the South China Sea.

The heavy U.S. military buildup in the region is a provocative move after accusing China of threatening “freedom of navigation” through the waters.

Claiming that China never “accepts the G7’s blame shifting or groundless accusations,” Jian also questioned the accusations about Chinese military build-up and a “rapid increase in nuclear weapons arsenal.”

China has argued that, unlike countries in the G7, which provide weapons to Ukraine and have been aiding the Israeli genocide in Gaza killing hundreds of thousands of people, it has “never provided lethal weapons to any party and strictly controls the export of dual-use articles.”

Jian reiterated that China’s national security policy is defensive in nature and it is “firmly committed to peaceful development” of the country.

“China always keeps its nuclear strength at the minimum level required by national security” Jian said, questioning the G7 turning “a blind eye to the U.S.’ special and primary nuclear disarmament responsibility and the nuclear proliferation risks from AUKUS [Australia, the UK, the U.S.] while directing the issue at China.”

Jian emphasized that “this is a typical move of confusing right with wrong.”

Stop weaponizing trade

The G7 statement targeted China’s attempts to regulate the export of rare minerals, accusing it of using “non-market” practices and attempting “market distortion” by building “overcapacity.”

China controls over 90% trade in rare earth minerals used for electronic goods and defense equipment production. Last month, it imposed restrictions on their trade in an attempt to regulate their usage. The U.S. and others have opposed the move.

Claiming that “China’s measures to standardize and refine its export control system comply with international common practices and aim to better defend world peace and regional stability and to fulfill its international obligations,” Jian dismissed the allegations of market distortion.

Jian also countered the allegations of “overcapacity” and “non-market” practices claiming that these allegations “have been proven false by facts and have no merits at all.”

Jian asked the U.S. and the G7 to stop “prioritizing and weaponizing trade issues, to refrain from disrupting international economic order, and the global industrial and supply chains” in response to the G7, accusing it of market distortions.

China has repeatedly pointed out how the arbitrary and illegal use of tariffs and other restrictions on trade of high technologies by the Donald Trump administration has disrupted global trade.

The post China tells G7 to abandon Cold War mentality and stop interfering in its internal affairs appeared first on Final Call News.