In the world of high-stakes diplomacy, perception is power—and right now, the U.S. and China are locked in a petty yet telling tug-of-war over a single question: Who made the first move?

Ahead of this weekend’s much-anticipated U.S.-China trade talks in Switzerland, the two superpowers aren’t just negotiating tariffs. They’re wrestling over narrative control. Beijing claims Washington requested the meeting. President Donald Trump says it was the other way around—and he’s not backing down.

“They said we initiated it? Well, I think they ought to go back and study their files,” Trump shot back on Wednesday, swearing in new U.S. Ambassador to China David Perdue.

This isn’t mere diplomatic drama—it’s a proxy war for leverage. As Craig Singleton of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies explains:

“For Washington, saying Beijing called first reinforces the story that tariffs are working. For China, denying outreach helps save face at home and preserve the illusion of parity.”

China’s Protocol Problem

Former top U.S. diplomat Daniel Russel offers historical clarity:

“In my entire career, I don’t know of a single time a Chinese leader initiated a call with a U.S. president.”

Why? Because in Beijing, the one who dials first is seen as weak. It’s not diplomacy—it’s dominance. And that’s a game Trump knows how to play.

Tariff Tug-of-War

Since Trump’s hike to a staggering 145% on Chinese goods, and Beijing’s 125% retaliation, both economies have been reeling. Yet neither wants to blink first. Trump keeps implying that Chinese President Xi Jinping called him.

“He’s called,” Trump told TIME, offering no date or transcript. “And I don’t think that’s a sign of weakness.”

Beijing fired back: “All is fake news.”
But then, like a slow walk-back, China’s Commerce Ministry admitted the U.S. had “repeatedly conveyed” interest in reopening talks.

So Who Blinked? Both Did. And Neither Will Admit It.

Sun Yun of the Stimson Center explains the confusion:

“Both sides are in regular contact. They just define ‘reaching out’ differently.”

On Chinese social media, the narrative is being cautiously managed to paint the U.S. as the petitioner. In the U.S., Trump is already spinning the deal as a “win” before a single handshake in Switzerland.

By Thursday, Trump had shifted tone:

“We can all play games — who made the first call, who didn’t. Doesn’t matter. What matters is what happens in that room.”

What’s at Stake? Everything.

With global markets jittery and U.S. investors eager for clarity, this is more than a trade meeting—it’s a stage. And the opening act is already setting the tone: distrust, bravado, and silent desperation.

In the end, it may not matter who picked up the phone first. But everyone will remember who walked out of that Swiss meeting in control of the story.

A sudden spike in military strikes between India and Pakistan has sparked fears of an unprecedented full-scale war between two nuclear powers.

The chain of events began with the April 22 Pahalgam attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, killing 25 tourists. India blamed Pakistan-based groups. What followed was a rapid slide into retaliatory drone and missile attacks, with both sides now exchanging fire on military bases. For the first time, both nations appear to be operating under open-ended military escalation—with no signs of stepping back.

The biggest fear: a nuclear confrontation.

India’s nuclear policy is anchored in a “No First Use” doctrine—but with caveats. India reserves the right to respond with massive retaliation if struck with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. However, recent political signals suggest this posture may be softening. Defense officials have said NFU “depends on circumstances,” leaving room for preemptive action.

Pakistan’s strategy is built on deliberate ambiguity. It has no NFU policy and maintains the option to use tactical nuclear weapons early in a conflict. Pakistan has outlined four triggers: major territorial losses, military collapse, economic strangulation, or political destabilization. But these red lines are vague—and dangerously flexible.

With over 350 nuclear warheads combined, a strike—even tactical—could trigger retaliation spiraling into a wider nuclear conflict. Experts warn that a limited exchange could still kill millions and cause long-term regional and global fallout.

Despite both sides claiming deterrence as their primary goal, strategic ambiguity and rising political pressures raise the risk of miscalculation. The United States and China are reportedly pushing for back-channel mediation, while President Trump has floated the idea of an emergency ceasefire summit.

A nuclear war remains unlikely—but not impossible. As nationalist fervor grows and red lines blur, the world watches nervously.

China’s J-10 vs. France’s Rafale Has World Militaries Watching Closely

Somali Hajj pilgrims pay over double regional rates as government faces growing pressure for reform. 

As 431 Somali pilgrims leave for Hajj 2025, public outrage grows over high costs — with Somalia charging over $4,600 per pilgrim, more than double the price in neighboring countries.

The first wave of Somali pilgrims embarking on the 2025 Hajj departed Mogadishu’s Aden Adde International Airport on Friday, joining millions of Muslims worldwide on the sacred journey to Mecca. But as the spiritual excitement builds, so does public anger over what many are calling “exploitative and unjustifiable” Hajj costs imposed on Somali citizens.

A total of 431 pilgrims were seen off at a high-profile farewell ceremony attended by senior government officials, including Minister of Endowments and Islamic Affairs Sheikh Mukhtar Robow Ali, Health Minister Dr. Ali Haji Aden, and Transport Minister Mohamed Farah Nuh.

“You represent Somalia,” said Sheikh Mukhtar, advising pilgrims to uphold discipline and comply with Saudi Hajj regulations. The Minister prayed for their safe journey and divine acceptance of their pilgrimage.

Sticker Shock at $4,604 Per Pilgrim

The Ministry of Endowments has pegged this year’s official Hajj cost at $4,604, up from last year’s $4,434 — citing increased accommodation and transport prices in Saudi Arabia. While officials claim the hike is modest, Somali pilgrims still face some of the highest Hajj fees in the region, igniting public outrage.

In comparison:

Ethiopia and Kenya offer Hajj packages as low as $1,600

Djibouti pilgrims pay roughly $1,850

Sudan charges about $2,000 despite ongoing internal strife

Somalia’s cost is nearly three times higher, raising suspicions of profiteering by local Hajj agencies. In a previous statement, Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre blamed “middlemen and greedy service providers” for inflating costs and called for sweeping reforms in the sector.

A History of High Costs and Broken Promises

This isn’t a new problem. In 2022, Somali pilgrims paid between $5,500 and $6,000, with many taking out loans or selling property to afford the trip. While the government touts this year’s rate as “progress,” many view it as window dressing that still leaves the majority of citizens priced out of a religious obligation.

“Why must Somali Muslims pay more than anyone else in the region to fulfill their faith?” asked a Hajj applicant who was forced to withdraw due to cost. “This is spiritual apartheid.”

Public Demands Transparency and Overhaul

Religious scholars, civil society groups, and frustrated citizens are now demanding full transparency in Hajj pricing, public disclosure of contracts with Saudi agencies, and the establishment of an independent oversight body.

Unless the government responds decisively, critics warn that Somali citizens will continue to be spiritually excluded from one of Islam’s five pillars — not by distance or war, but by bureaucratic greed.

As the 2025 Hajj season begins, one thing is clear: Somalia’s pilgrims are flying to Mecca, but the anger over Hajj costs is not going away anytime soon.

General Goita silences dissent, suspends all political activity in Mali as fears of indefinite military rule mount.

The fragile experiment with democracy in Mali has come to a halt — again. In a sweeping decree issued Wednesday night, military ruler General Assimi Goita suspended the activities of all political parties and political associations “until further notice,” citing vague “public order” concerns.

The move, seen as a direct response to a rare public protest over the weekend, is the junta’s latest escalation against civil society — and a dangerous signal that Mali’s transition to democracy may be dead in the water.

“We expected this,” said protest leader Cheick Oumar Doumbia, who helped mobilize last Saturday’s demonstration in Bamako. “This is the only language they know: repression. But we are a people committed to democracy.”

The decree comes days after a coalition of over 80 political parties and civic groups united to demand the military hand back power by December 31, 2025 — a transition deadline that the junta is now clearly ignoring.

Just last week, Mali’s transitional authorities repealed the law governing political parties, raising fears of a broader dissolution campaign. Now, the suspension of party activity across the board all but confirms the junta’s intent to rule by decree.

The Long Road to Authoritarianism

Goita first seized power in a 2020 coup, then again consolidated control after a second power grab in 2021. Under the guise of a “transitional government,” Mali has seen elections delayed, media constrained, and political space steadily eroded.

Most alarmingly, a national political conference last week recommended Goita be installed as president for a renewable five-year term — a blatant shift from transitional rule to permanent authoritarianism.

“This isn’t a transition anymore. It’s a cold-blooded regime change,” said one West African diplomat, speaking anonymously. “The mask is off.”

In 2024, Mali briefly suspended political parties for three months — now the language of “until further notice” suggests indefinite suppression.

Wider Implications for West Africa

Mali’s drift toward autocracy comes as a growing number of countries in West Africa — including Niger, Burkina Faso, and Guinea — fall under military control. The promise of democratic consolidation in the Sahel now feels increasingly remote.

With ECOWAS weakened, Western pressure diffused, and regional alliances fraying, military strongmen are discovering they can suppress political life with impunity.

For now, Mali’s opposition has pledged peaceful resistance. But with arrests, harassment, and party shutdowns escalating, the space for dissent is narrowing fast.

Beijing backs Moscow against U.S. pressure, warns against global ‘hegemonic order’ as Chinese leader attends Russia’s WWII victory parade.

Chinese President Xi Jinping landed in Moscow to join Vladimir Putin for Russia’s WWII Victory Day celebrations—just as Donald Trump’s White House renews secretive diplomatic overtures toward Moscow.

Speaking at the Kremlin, Xi echoed Moscow’s anti-Western sentiment, vowing to join Russia in resisting “unilateralism and hegemonic bullying.” While the words may seem abstract, their target was clear: Washington and its allies, who continue to support Ukraine and challenge China on trade and regional dominance.

“China will work with Russia to shoulder the special responsibilities of major world powers,” Xi declared beside Putin, referencing their growing “strategic coordination.”

Putin welcomed Xi as a “dear friend,” seizing the moment to connect Russia’s WWII legacy with his ongoing war in Ukraine—a conflict he frames as a fight against “neo-Nazism.”

The optics of Xi standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Putin at a time when Western leaders have boycotted the parade was not lost on observers. It marks China’s most explicit alignment with Russia’s wartime narrative since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

A Warning to Washington

Xi’s visit lands amid a dramatic backdrop: Trump’s push for a ceasefire deal between Russia and Ukraine is gaining traction, unsettling Beijing’s strategic calculus.

“Beijing is watching nervously,” said one Moscow-based diplomat. “Any U.S.-Russia deal could weaken China’s leverage and leave it isolated.”

Chinese media is already preparing domestic audiences for what it calls a “new era of multipolar diplomacy.” But critics say China’s stance as a neutral party in the Ukraine war is increasingly a fiction. Kyiv has accused Beijing of allowing Chinese nationals to assist Russian operations.

Pipeline Politics and Economic Pressure

Behind the scenes, Xi’s delegation is also pushing for progress on the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline—a delayed $55 billion gas project designed to redirect Russian energy flows from Europe to China. With both nations under economic strain, analysts expect a deal may finally be within reach.

“Economic pressure on both sides could push them closer to a compromise this time around,” said Yulia Shapovalova.

As Xi promises to defend the “correct view” of WWII and backs Putin’s line on “modern militarism,” it’s becoming harder for China to sit on the fence. This visit marks a critical turning point in the global alignment: Beijing and Moscow are preparing for a world where American influence is contested—not respected.

As a new electoral commission looms, fear grips while Irro’s reform agenda reshapes the battlefield ahead of municipal and House of Representatives polls.

The real war for Somaliland’s future won’t be fought in presidential palaces or televised debates—it will be decided at the ballot box in 2026, when voters return to elect a new House of Representatives and local councils across the nation. On the surface, it looks like just another electoral cycle. But beneath that calm, insiders whisper: this one will shake the political foundations of Somaliland.

Why? Because this is the first major test of President Irro’s new vision of governance, meritocracy, and institutional integrity. The old script of tribal patronage, inherited seats, and rubber-stamp politics is facing its final act. The parliamentary and local council elections won’t just install new officials; they will reveal whether Somaliland is ready to transition into a mature democracy that rewards brains over bloodlines.

And the establishment is terrified.

Election Commission in Flux Behind closed doors, a major shift is already underway. The current National Electoral Commission (NEC), is quietly preparing to step aside. Sources close to the presidency confirm that discussions for appointing a new, reformed Election Commission are already in motion—and the implications are massive.

KAAH new opposition party that once mastered the art of backdoor deals and local strongman control is panicking.

From Local Power to National Symbolism In Somaliland, local elections are anything but local. They are breeding grounds for national leaders, testing grounds for policy, and platforms for party influence. A clean sweep in the municipal vote not only reshapes local governance—it rewrites the national political narrative.

President Irro knows this. His administration has quietly backed new political actors and independent candidates with clean records, strong ideas, and zero clan baggage. These candidates—many of them young professionals, women, and former civil society leaders—are preparing to challenge the dinosaurs of Somaliland politics.

2026: The Year Clan Politics Dies? Make no mistake: 2026 could mark the symbolic end of politics by clan and the beginning of real accountability. If the new electoral commission is appointed in time, and if voters embrace change over nostalgia, the results will redraw Somaliland’s political map.

This election won’t just elect representatives. It will test the credibility of Somaliland’s democratic claim before the world. It will determine whether Hargeisa’s promise of peace and governance is more than just rhetoric.

And for the old guard, it’s the beginning of the end.

Because after 2026, there may be no more hiding behind family names, no more bought ballots, no more “we were here first” excuses. The next generation of leaders is coming. And this time, they’re coming for real change.

Somali officers join PLA-led exchange as Beijing ramps up defense diplomacy and supplies African armies with Chinese-made weapons.

Beijing has rolled out the red carpet for Africa’s next generation of military leaders—and Somalia is at the front of the line. Nearly 100 officers from over 40 African countries, including Somalia, have touched down in China for a 10-day defense diplomacy blitz that is equal parts charm offensive and strategic maneuver.

Hosted by the Chinese Ministry of National Defense and anchored at the PLA’s elite National University of Defense Technology, the exchange includes base tours, joint strategy sessions, and leadership workshops from May 6–15. It’s China’s fourth such program, but this one arrives at a critical time: Somalia’s armed forces are rearming, reorienting—and now, reengaging with Beijing.

The Somali National Army’s participation comes just weeks after it took delivery of Chinese-built ZFB-05 armored vehicles via the African Union. Although AU-branded, their Chinese origin is no accident. Beijing has quietly become a key player in African military logistics, especially where Western support has waned.

This exchange is not just about optics. China is offering hard power too: a billion-yuan military aid package, 6,000 troops to be trained, and an additional 1,000 police officers slated for capacity-building. Beijing is pitching itself not just as a friend—but as a defense partner willing to train, equip, and engage.

And it’s working. From the Red Sea to the Sahel, more African uniforms are being stitched with Chinese assistance. For Somalia, a country rebuilding its army from scratch, the promise of advanced training and modern gear—without Western political strings—is seductive.

China’s defense diplomacy in Africa is no longer subtle. It’s a strategic playbook: train elites, equip partners, and lock in loyalty through long-term military-to-military ties. The presence of Somali officers in this exchange isn’t just a photo op—it’s a snapshot of Africa’s shifting defense alliances.

In a major escalation along the Line of Control, India’s military on Wednesday launched Operation Sindoor, striking nine targets in Pakistan-administered Kashmir (PoK) and Punjab province. New Delhi said its precision missile strikes hit “terrorist infrastructure…from where attacks against India were planned and directed,” deliberately avoiding Pakistani military bases to minimize civilian harm.

Pakistani forces responded within hours, claiming to have downed five Indian warplanes and shot down several missiles. Islamabad confirmed at least eight civilians killed and 35 wounded in PoK locations including Muzaffarabad and Kotli, as well as the city of Bahawalpur in Punjab, where a mosque was struck.

Both sides have since exchanged heavy shelling and small-arms fire along multiple sectors of the contested frontier. India’s Ministry of Defence emphasized that its action was “focused, measured, and non-escalatory,” while Pakistan’s army vowed to continue responding to any further incursions.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for “maximum restraint” from both nuclear-armed neighbors. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed concern over the clashes, calling them “a shame” and urging an immediate de-escalation.

Analysts warn that rising domestic pressures in both capitals—fueled by last month’s brutal attack on tourists in Indian Kashmir—risk dragging the region into a wider confrontation. For now, both governments appear locked in a dangerous tit-for-tat, with civilians on both sides bearing the brunt of renewed hostilities.