Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Legal groups in Uganda have strongly condemned the arrival of a dozen deportees from the United States, calling the deportation process 'undignified, harrowing and dehumanising'. The Uganda Law Society and the East Africa Law Society have taken the matter to court, seeking relief to halt what they describe as 'patent international illegality'.The deportation marks the first confirmed instance of deportees being transferred from the US to Uganda. The 12 individuals reportedly landed at Entebbe International Airport by private aircraft. No identifying information about the deportees has been provided.The deportation is part of President Donald Trump's efforts to offload immigrants to 'third countries' where they have no personal connections. Uganda is one of several countries that have agreed to accept deported foreigners, including Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Rwanda, Eswatini, and South Sudan.The deal with Uganda was confirmed by the country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs last August, stating it was a 'temporary arrangement' with priority given to deportees from other African countries. Unaccompanied children and people with criminal records are excluded from the deal.Critics have raised concerns about the safety of countries receiving US deportees, citing human rights abuses in Uganda. The US has previously criticised Uganda for 'significant human rights abuses', including extrajudicial killings, life-threatening prison conditions, and torture.The Trump administration has defended the deportations as legal under the US Immigration and Nationality Act, citing diplomatic assurances from 'third countries' that deportees would not face persecution. However, the policy has faced numerous legal challenges, with concerns about immigrants' due process rights.

Pakistan reaffirmed its commitment to steer the United States and Iran back to the negotiating table, even as it faces "obstacles" that were not disclosed by Foreign Office spokesperson Tahir Andrabi during a weekly briefing in Islamabad.The statement came hours after U.S. President Donald Trump warned he would bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages" if Tehran rejected Washington’s peace terms, underscoring the volatile backdrop to Pakistan’s diplomatic push.Andrabi emphasized that Pakistan will continue to "promote facilitation and dialogue" and is working to create conditions for meaningful negotiations among relevant stakeholders. He noted that both Washington and Tehran view Pakistan as a neutral intermediary.In a tangible sign of confidence, Iran has permitted 20 Pakistani‑flagged vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Andrabi described this as "a harbinger of peace" and a positive step for regional stability, though he did not confirm whether any ships have already sailed.The Hormuz corridor has been largely blocked since Iran curtailed oil and gas shipments after the outbreak of the US‑Israel‑Iran conflict on February 28, driving up energy prices and straining economies across the region.High‑level contact between Islamabad and Tehran continues. Andrabi cited a March 28 call between Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, during which both leaders stressed the need to "build trust" and praised Pakistan’s "supportive role for peace".Regional diplomacy intensified after Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar returned from Beijing, where he met Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. The two sides produced a joint five‑point initiative calling for an immediate ceasefire, urgent diplomatic engagement, and the restoration of normal maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.Andrabi said the China‑Pakistan proposal has been shared with the United States, Iran and other stakeholders, receiving appreciation "across the region and beyond". The plan aligns with outcomes from a four‑nation ministerial meeting in Islamabad that included Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt.Despite a hairline fracture sustained during the Islamabad talks, Dar travelled to Beijing, underscoring Pakistan’s strategic partnership with China. He later announced that Pakistan is ready to host direct US‑Iran negotiations in the coming days, a proposal reiterated by Andrabi at the briefing.While Pakistan positions itself as a facilitator, Andrabi acknowledged that Iran has so far limited mediation to indirect messages and has not committed to direct talks, stating, "Iran, as a sovereign country, determines its own policies."In a separate diplomatic track, Pakistan sent senior officials to Urumqi, China, for discussions with Afghanistan – the first substantive contact since Islamabad launched cross‑border strikes in late February. Andrabi stressed that Afghanistan must demonstrate "visible and verifiable actions" against terrorist groups operating from its territory.Pakistan continues its Operation Ghazab lil‑Haq, launched on February 26 to target terrorist sanctuaries in Afghanistan after alleged cross‑border fire from Taliban forces. Following a five‑day Eid‑ul‑Fitr pause, the operation remains ongoing.Islamabad accuses the Taliban‑run Kabul government of allowing the Tehrik‑i‑Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to use Afghan soil for attacks inside Pakistan, a claim the Afghan side denies. China has also facilitated Pakistan‑Afghanistan engagement, hosting meetings in Beijing and Kabul earlier in the year.

In a recent analysis, the author argues that Lebanon’s accession to the International Criminal Court (ICC) would mark a pivotal step toward greater accountability and international legitimacy. By becoming a State Party, Lebanon could align its judicial framework with the global standards set by the Rome Statute, thereby enhancing the credibility of its legal institutions. The piece highlights three core benefits: first, the ICC’s jurisdiction would provide a mechanism to investigate and prosecute serious crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide that have historically plagued the region. Second, joining the Court would signal Lebanon’s commitment to the rule of law, potentially attracting foreign investment and diplomatic support by demonstrating a stable, rights‑respecting environment. Third, participation could facilitate cooperation with other ICC members, fostering regional dialogue on justice and reconciliation. While acknowledging the political complexities surrounding accession, the author stresses that the long‑term gains—greater judicial independence, deterrence of future atrocities, and improved international relations—outweigh short‑term challenges. The article concludes that embracing ICC membership would not only serve victims of past abuses but also position Lebanon as a proactive contributor to the global fight against impunity.

The United Kingdom has taken the lead in gathering foreign ministers from 40 countries to discuss strategies for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route that has been blocked by Iran's actions.UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper emphasized that Iran's blockade of the waterway is threatening global economic security. The virtual meeting, which included countries like France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, and the United Arab Emirates, resulted in a joint statement demanding that Iran cease its attempts to block the strait and pledging to ensure safe passage through the waterway.The coalition's efforts are seen as a response to US President Donald Trump's comments that securing the strait is not the US's responsibility. The meeting is considered a first step, to be followed by working-level meetings to hammer out details.Al Jazeera's Rory Challands noted that while the coalition is broad, involving countries from various regions, there are questions about the naval capacity of these countries to enforce the reopening of the strait. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has emphasized the need for non-military solutions, and French President Emmanuel Macron has suggested that talking directly to Iran is the best approach.The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has had significant economic impacts, including soaring petroleum prices and disruptions to global oil supplies. There have been 23 direct attacks on commercial vessels in the Gulf since the conflict began, resulting in 11 crew members killed.

Pakistan and Afghanistan have confirmed they are holding talks in China aimed at ending the worst conflict between the South Asian neighbours since the Afghan Taliban returned to power in 2021.Senior officials from both countries are holding preliminary talks in the northwestern Chinese city of Urumqi to try to secure a ceasefire to end months of cross-border attacks, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said on Thursday.The fighting has killed dozens of people on both sides and disrupted trade and cross-border travel since it started in October.Pakistan accuses Afghanistan of harbouring fighters who carry out attacks inside Pakistan, especially the Pakistani Taliban, known as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The group is separate from but allied with the Afghan Taliban, which took over Afghanistan in 2021 following the chaotic withdrawal of United States-led troops.Andrabi told reporters in Beijing that the government hoped for a “durable solution”.“Our participation [in talks] is a reiteration of our core concerns,” he said.“The burden of real process, however, lies with Afghanistan, which must demonstrate visible and verifiable actions against terrorist groups using [its] soil against Pakistan.”Following China’s request for talks, Afghanistan’s Taliban government said it had sent a “mid-level delegation” to Urumqi.The Afghan side “intends to hold comprehensive and responsible talks with the other side on good neighbourliness, strengthening trade relations, and effective management of security issues”, Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Qahar Balkhi said.Pakistan described the negotiations as “working-level talks”.“Our delegation has not returned yet,” Islamabad’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said.China, which also borders both countries, has been trying to mediate a negotiated settlement to the conflict.Beijing deployed a special envoy to try to broker a deal last month, but the diplomatic effort was followed by Pakistani strikes on a Kabul rehab centre that prompted international condemnation.More than 400 people were killed in the attack, according to Afghan officials. Islamabad said the strike targeted military installations and “terrorist support infrastructure”.The two sides then announced a pause in fighting to mark the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, at the request of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkiye.But sporadic attacks have been reported in border areas since the temporary truce ended.

Argentina has taken a significant step in its diplomatic relations with Iran by expelling the Iranian charge d'affaires in Buenos Aires, Mohsen Tehrani. This move comes in response to Iran's rejection of Argentina's decision to blacklist the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a 'terrorist' group.The Foreign Ministry of Argentina stated that Iran's response contained 'false, offensive and unfounded accusations against the Argentinian Republic and its highest authorities.' The ministry emphasized that these statements constitute unacceptable interference in Argentina's internal affairs and a deliberate misrepresentation of decisions adopted in accordance with international law and national law.Iran's Foreign Ministry had condemned Argentina's move against the IRGC, calling it an 'action against Iran's security and national interests.' Tehran accused Argentina of making this decision 'under the influence of inducements and pressures from the genocidal and occupying Zionist regime,' referring to Israel.The designation of the IRGC as a 'terrorist' group by Argentina follows similar moves by the US in 2019 and the European Union in January. Argentina's President Javier Milei, who has taken staunchly pro-Israel positions, described himself as 'the most Zionist president in the world.'The relationship between Argentina and Iran has been strained, particularly over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires, which an Argentinian court ruled was carried out by Iran. Iran has denied its involvement in the attack.Milei's government cited the 1994 attack in its decision to blacklist the IRGC. The Argentinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Iran of failing to cooperate with the probe or hand over suspects in the case, stating that 'The Argentine Republic will not tolerate grievances or interference from a State that has systematically failed to comply with its international obligations and that persists in obstructing the progress of justice.'

One year ago, US President Donald Trump introduced a 10% global tariff, sparking a trade war with far-reaching consequences. The immediate impact was severe, with the stock market experiencing its worst drop since the pandemic. In response, countries scrambled to negotiate deals with Washington or retaliate with their own tariffs. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that most of Trump's tariffs are illegal, citing the president's lack of authority to impose broad, open-ended tariffs under a national emergency. However, this ruling did not end the trade war. Within hours, Trump invoked a different statute to launch a temporary tariff, set to expire in July. The effects of the tariffs have already reshaped the US economy. The average effective US tariff rate surged from 2.6% to over 13%, the highest level since World War II. This significant increase has led to higher costs for American consumers. According to the Tax Foundation, US households paid $1,000 more in 2025 for the same goods. Tarrifs work by imposing a tax on foreign goods and services, making them more expensive and encouraging local purchases. Despite Trump's promise that tariffs would reduce the trade deficit and make the US richer, the reality is that the average US consumer is worse off. The Penn Wharton Budget Model reports that the US collected over $287.1 billion in customs duties in 2025 and $64.4 billion in 2026. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that nearly 90% of the economic burden from tariffs has fallen on US businesses and consumers, with foreign exporters absorbing only a small percentage of the cost. Lower-income households have been disproportionately affected, as they spend a higher proportion of their earnings on essential goods like food, clothing, and transportation. Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the government may be required to refund up to $175 billion to businesses that paid the tariffs. With Trump's tariffs being replaced by a flat 10% tariff, the Tax Foundation projects that the average cost to US households will fall to about $600. While an improvement, it remains a significant cost for consumers.

The United Nations‑backed Gang Suppression Force (GSF) announced on Wednesday that its first foreign troops have landed in Haiti, signalling a new phase in the international effort to tame the country’s spiralling gang warfare.An advance team of soldiers from Chad arrived in Port‑au‑Prince, accompanied by Jack Christofides, a South African UN official appointed to lead the mission’s operations on the ground.The deployment is the initial step of a force slated to expand to 5,500 personnel with a 12‑month mandate. The GSF was authorized by the UN Security Council last September as a replacement for the earlier Kenyan‑led multinational security mission, which has struggled with funding shortfalls, insufficient manpower and limited institutional backing.Unlike its predecessor, which was limited to supporting Haitian police, the new force will have the authority to make arrests and conduct direct operations against groups designated as gangs. The concept was first put forward by the United States and Panama to “neutralise, isolate and deter” criminal networks.During the Security Council vote, twelve members voted in favour of the force, while China, Russia and Pakistan abstained. Russia’s representative, Vassily Nebenzia, criticised the plan as “rushed” and warned that its broad language could enable abuses, noting that the mandate permits the use of force against anyone labelled a gang.Haiti’s recent history of foreign intervention adds a layer of sensitivity to the deployment. Past UN peacekeeping missions have been linked to a cholera outbreak that claimed roughly 10,000 lives after the 2010 earthquake, and UN personnel have faced accusations of sexual assault in earlier decades.Gang control has tightened dramatically since the 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moïse. Analysts estimate that up to 90 % of Port‑au‑Prince is now under gang influence, with around 26 criminal groups operating in the capital. The UN estimates that at least 16,000 people have been killed since 2022 and that more than 1.5 million have been displaced, many facing food insecurity. A recent human‑rights report recorded 5,519 gang‑related deaths and 2,608 injuries between March 2025 and mid‑January 2026, alongside reports of extrajudicial killings and sexual violence.The arrival of the GSF coincides with Haiti’s tentative steps toward a national election scheduled for August, where roughly 300 political parties and groups have registered. Acting Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils‑Aime has recently met with UN officials to discuss the new force’s role in stabilising the country ahead of the vote.

Europe’s attention is fixed on Hungary’s parliamentary election scheduled for April 12, a contest many analysts view as a litmus test for the bloc’s cohesion on foreign‑policy, defence, energy and migration. Since coming to power, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has consistently blocked EU initiatives: he has refused to join a common asylum framework, opposed a joint defence scheme, resisted the shift toward renewable‑energy independence while still importing Russian hydrocarbons, and vetoed both Ukraine’s accession talks and a proposed €90 billion low‑interest loan package for Kyiv. These actions have made Hungary the most disruptive member state in the Union, prompting observers to argue that the election’s outcome will reverberate far beyond Budapest’s borders. Greek conservative MP Angelos Syrigos warned that the EU is plagued by “fanatically Trump‑like and pro‑Russian” governments, naming Hungary and Slovakia as examples. He told Al Jazeera that the constant threat of an Orban veto forces other capitals to seek ad‑hoc compromises rather than genuine consensus. Opposition leader Peter Magyar of the Tisza party is campaigning on a pro‑European platform, pledging a binding referendum on Ukraine’s membership, a crackdown on corruption, the release of billions in frozen EU funds, and a reversal of Hungary’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court. Current polls give Tisza roughly 50 % of the vote, a ten‑point lead over the ruling Fidesz, though the political landscape remains fluid. Even a Magyar victory would not automatically resolve the EU’s structural challenges. Other illiberal leaders—such as Slovakia’s Robert Fico and the Czech Republic’s Andrej Babiš—could step into a vacuum of obstructionism. Nevertheless, some scholars argue that Orban’s habit of breaking consensus has forced the Union to become more pragmatic. At a December 2023 summit, EU leaders temporarily excluded Orban to secure unanimous approval of Ukraine’s candidate status, later offering Hungary a €10 billion release of blocked funds as an incentive. Professor Katalin Miklossy of the University of Helsinki explained that the EU has shifted from a rigid, rule‑bound approach to a more flexible, problem‑solving mindset, saying, “We were weak when we clung to the book; now we act more practically.” Should Orban remain in power, the bloc is considering a workaround: issuing 26 bilateral loans to Ukraine from member states, bypassing any single‑country veto. Historical precedent exists. In 2010, when Greece’s debt crisis threatened the euro, EU members created the Greek Loan Facility—an ad‑hoc series of bilateral loans that compensated for the lack of a common rescue fund. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned that delays in funding could leave the Ukrainian army under‑resourced, underscoring the geopolitical stakes of the Hungarian vote. The EU’s inability to move from unanimity to qualified‑majority voting—an ambition thwarted by failed French and Dutch referenda in 2005—has amplified Orban’s leverage. Yet the Union continues to evolve, having launched a common bond in 2020 to revive the pandemic‑hit economy and, since Russia’s 2022 invasion, channeling resources into a nascent European defence union. Orban’s recent reversal on the €90 billion Ukraine loan—after Kyiv refused to repair the Druzhba pipeline damaged by a Russian bomb—illustrates the volatility of his stance. He initially agreed to the loan in December, on the condition that Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic would not be required to co‑sign, only to withdraw support a month later. Even if Magyar secures a parliamentary majority, the promised loan may not materialise immediately. Cambridge‑based expert Victoria Vdovychenko notes that a decision made in December 2025 to disburse funds from January 2026 has already stalled, with the next realistic window possibly in June. Academics stress that a Tisza victory would deliver a psychological boost to the EU and its trans‑Atlantic partners, injecting confidence into a system battling “stealth creep of illiberalism” and economic disenfranchisement. Professor SM Amadae of Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk warned that while a change in Hungary could energise citizens, the entrenched gerrymandering and patronage networks of Fidesz present formidable obstacles to lasting reform. In sum, the April 12 election is more than a domestic contest; it is a pivotal moment that could reshape the EU’s decision‑making architecture, determine the flow of critical aid to Ukraine, and signal the future trajectory of populist politics across Europe.