Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

OECD preliminary figures reveal a 23% decline in international development assistance between 2024 and 2025, the steepest annual fall recorded since the organization began tracking aid.The United States was the primary catalyst, with its official development assistance slashing nearly 57% in 2025, a reduction that accounts for roughly three‑quarters of the overall drop.Total aid from the 34 DAC members fell from $214.6 billion to $174.3 billion. American contributions shrank from about $63 billion in 2024 to just under $29 billion the following year, according to the OECD.Other major donors—including Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and France—also trimmed their budgets, and only eight DAC countries managed to meet or exceed their 2024 levels.The cuts arrive at a time of heightened global economic and food‑security uncertainty, exacerbated by the ongoing US‑Israeli conflict with Iran.OECD official Carsten Staur described the plunge as “deeply concerning,” urging donors to reverse the trend as humanitarian needs surge. Oxfam’s Development Finance Lead Didier Jacobs warned that wealthy governments are “turning their backs on millions of lives in the Global South” by cutting life‑saving aid while funding conflict.Academic research links the U.S. reductions to a rise in armed conflict across Africa, with the Center for Global Development estimating that the cuts could have caused between 500,000 and 1,000,000 excess deaths in 2025. A Lancet analysis warns that continuing the downward trajectory may result in **over 9.4 million additional deaths by 2030**.Under President Trump, the United States has dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and pursued a handful of bilateral agreements with African nations that tie aid to mineral access and health data. Simultaneously, the administration is seeking a historic $1.5 trillion military budget for FY2027** and between **$80 billion and $200 billion** for the Iran‑Israel war effort.Analysts and NGOs are calling on DAC members to restore aid levels and reinforce the global humanitarian system, which they say faces its most serious crisis in decades.

Peru is on the cusp of electing its 10th president in as many years, with a record-breaking field of 35 candidates competing for the top spot. The election, set to take place on April 12, comes as the country grapples with persistent political instability and growing concerns about crime and corruption.The presidential race has been marked by a fragmented electorate, with voters divided among dozens of candidates. Keiko Fujimori, daughter of former right-wing leader Alberto Fujimori, has emerged as a frontrunner, but her approval ratings remain relatively low at around 15 percent.The election also features a bicameral legislature, which was reinstated after a decades-long hiatus. Voters will select candidates to form a Senate for the first time since 1992.Crime and corruption are top-of-mind issues for voters, with 68 percent of Peruvians ranking insecurity as a top concern, followed by corruption at 67 percent. The country's political crisis has also contributed to the uncertainty surrounding the election.The leading candidates include Keiko Fujimori, Carlos Alvarez, Rafael Lopez Aliaga, and Roberto Sanchez Palomino. If no single candidate captures more than 50 percent of the vote, a second round of voting will be held on June 7.

The strategic Strait of Hormuz, linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, has become the focal point of the Israel‑U.S. war on Iran that began in February. In peacetime the narrow waterway handled about 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments without any tolls, but the conflict has turned it into a contested zone. After a series of Israeli and U.S. strikes, Iran retaliated by targeting merchant vessels it deemed hostile, effectively shutting the passage and triggering one of the most severe energy‑distribution crises in recent memory. While a two‑week ceasefire, brokered by Pakistan, was declared on Tuesday, Tehran has issued a set of official terms that would govern the strait moving forward. According to Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghi, safe passage will be allowed in coordination with the Iranian armed forces and subject to technical limitations. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has even published a new navigation map that pushes traffic farther north, away from the traditional route near Oman’s coast, citing the risk of anti‑ship mines. Central to Tehran’s 10‑point peace proposal is the idea of charging fees for strait usage. Iranian media report that the plan could levy up to $2 million per vessel—a sum to be shared with Oman—or a charge of $1 per barrel of oil shipped. The revenue would allegedly fund reconstruction of military and civilian infrastructure damaged by the U.S.–Israeli campaign. Oman has publicly rejected any toll scheme, with Transport Minister Said Al‑Maawali reminding that the country has already signed all relevant international maritime transport agreements that prohibit such fees. International law adds another layer of complexity. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) prohibits levying charges for mere passage through international straits, allowing fees only for services like navigation assistance or port use. Neither the United States nor Iran have ratified UNCLOS, but the principle remains a benchmark for maritime norms. Analysts suggest a possible workaround: charging for de‑mining and safety services rather than for passage itself, which could be permissible under existing legal frameworks. The proposal has sparked diplomatic pushback. At the United Nations Security Council, Bahrain led a resolution urging coordinated reopening of the strait, backed by Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. The resolution passed with 11 of 15 votes, but was vetoed by Russia and China, who argued it unfairly targeted Iran and ignored the initial strikes. Beyond the region, the United States is unlikely to accept indefinite tolls. Former President Donald Trump, who announced the ceasefire, warned that U.S. forces would remain in the area and threatened to resume attacks if negotiations faltered. American troops are reportedly “hanging around” to assist with traffic buildup, though the extent of their operational control remains unclear. Maritime analyst C. Uday Bhaskar notes that only three to five ships have traversed the strait since the ceasefire began, underscoring the lingering uncertainty for global shippers. He adds that ship owners facing multi‑million‑dollar losses each day may ultimately acquiesce to Iran’s terms, at least temporarily. Should Iran implement a toll regime, the immediate impact would fall on Gulf oil‑producing nations, but the ripple effects could destabilize global energy markets, already strained by supply shocks. Major powers such as the United Kingdom have been coordinating with a coalition of 40 countries to explore alternative mechanisms for reopening the waterway without conceding to tolls. In sum, Iran’s proposed protocol for the Strait of Hormuz introduces a contentious new variable into an already volatile geopolitical landscape, pitting national security interests against established maritime law and the broader stability of world energy supplies.

The escalating tensions in Iran have significant implications for global supply chains, which are still reeling from the impact of the conflict. The country's strategic location and critical infrastructure make it a crucial hub for international trade. As the situation continues to unfold, experts are closely monitoring the potential disruptions to global supply chains. Any prolonged conflict could lead to increased costs, delays, and uncertainty for businesses and consumers alike. The impact on global trade is a pressing concern, with Iran playing a vital role in the global economy. The country's significant oil reserves and key transportation routes make it an essential player in the international trade landscape. As the international community watches with bated breath, one thing is clear: the resilience of global supply chains will be put to the test. The ability of these chains to recover and adapt to the challenges posed by the conflict will be crucial in determining the future of international trade.

President Donald Trump declared on Truth Social that U.S. troops, aircraft and naval vessels will stay positioned around Iran until what he termed the "REAL AGREEMENT" is fully honored, warning that any failure by Tehran will trigger "bigger, better, and stronger" military action.Trump’s message, posted late Wednesday, underscores Washington’s demand that Iran abandon any nuclear weapons ambitions and guarantee safe passage through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. He added that U.S. forces are "loading up and resting, looking forward to its next conquest," a rhetoric that heightens concerns of a rapid escalation.The announcement follows a two‑week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan that paused six weeks of combat and briefly steadied global markets worried about disruptions to oil shipments through Hormuz. However, the truce remains precarious.Iranian semi‑official outlets ISNA and Tasnim released a chart suggesting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had laid sea mines in the strait, marking a "danger zone" that forced some vessels to navigate farther north near Larak Island. The chart, dated Feb. 28 to Apr. 9, leaves it unclear whether the mines have been cleared.On the ground in Tehran, public sentiment is deeply skeptical. One woman told Al Jazeera that any day without bloodshed would be "very good," while another dismissed the ceasefire as meaningless while Israel continues its bombardment of Lebanon. A third resident called the truce "a theatrical show" orchestrated by Trump.Negotiations are further complicated by Tehran’s rejection of a sweeping U.S. proposal. Iran insists on an end to Israeli attacks on Lebanon and the lifting of sanctions—conditions Washington has yet to accept.Despite the uncertainty, Iranian officials hinted at a diplomatic push: Ambassador Reza Amiri Moghadam announced on X that a delegation would arrive in Islamabad for talks based on ten Iranian‑proposed points, though he later deleted the post. Pakistan’s capital simultaneously announced two days of unannounced holidays, adding to the opacity.Israel has intensified its campaign in Lebanon, killing at least 182 people in a single day, which Tehran warns could render further negotiations "unreasonable" under the current circumstances.In Washington, opposition to the conflict is mounting. Senator Cory Booker announced that Democrats intend to invoke the War Powers Resolution to force a congressional vote, condemning Trump’s actions as "unauthorised" and "reckless war‑mongering" that the American public does not support.The convergence of U.S. military posturing, Iranian skepticism, Israeli escalation, and domestic political pressure creates a volatile environment where the fragile ceasefire could unravel, threatening regional security and global energy markets.

The Gulf region breathed a sigh of relief on Tuesday after Iran and the United States agreed to a two-week truce, halting over five weeks of escalating attacks and hostile rhetoric.However, Gulf states are expressing caution, concerned that the US, seeking a swift exit, might agree to terms granting Iran some control over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which one fifth of the world's oil and natural liquefied gas passes.Iran had nearly brought traffic through the strait to a standstill in response to joint US-Israeli attacks on its soil since February 28. Under the truce, Iran has agreed to halt attacks for two weeks in exchange for resumed maritime transit in the key waterway.Despite this, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are stressing that any deal must result in a permanent, long-term arrangement to keep the strait open. They fear a weakened yet intact Iranian leadership could use the strait as leverage, leaving them under constant threat of disruption and economic blackmail.“There is a quiet but palpable concern that President Trump, eager for a quick political victory, could tolerate some Iranian leverage over the strait in exchange for a fragile truce, prioritising optics over Gulf realities,” said Hesham Alghannam, a Saudi Arabia-based scholar at the Malcolm H Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center.The GCC countries, which have faced near-daily Iranian missile and drone attacks, have welcomed the truce but emphasize that the Strait of Hormuz must reopen. They are also concerned about Iran's future influence over the strait, with a Bahrain-sponsored UN Security Council resolution calling for countries to use defensive missions to keep the maritime chokepoint open being vetoed by Russia and China.A further escalation could have devastating consequences for the GCC economies, undoing decades of work to make the region a safe hub for finance, tourism, and culture. Analysts say GCC countries have stepped up diplomacy in the lead-up to the conflict, but officials across the region have warned Iran should not mistake their inaction as a sign of weakness.“The Gulf will leave no stone unturned if Iran continues to take the path of aggression,” said Hamad Althunayyan, a political analyst and professor at Kuwait University. “The Gulf expects its interests to be represented, and included, in any deal with Iran.”

In a stark address delivered as the cease‑fire in the Iran conflict teetered, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva warned that the war will leave a permanent scar on the global economy, slowing growth beyond the IMF’s original projections for 2026. Georgieva noted that, had the hostilities not erupted six weeks ago, the Fund would have been poised to raise its 2026 growth outlook. Instead, even the most optimistic scenario now entails a downgrade, and a swift return to pre‑war conditions appears unlikely. The uncertainty surrounding the cease‑fire—exacerbated by divergent positions of Washington and Tehran—has already pushed oil prices higher, reflecting fears of continued disruptions to shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital conduit for world energy supplies. According to the IMF’s upcoming World Economic Outlook, the conflict’s “scarring effects” will translate into lower living standards worldwide. The Fund had previously forecast global growth of 3.1% in 2026, a modest slowdown from 3.2% in 2025, buoyed by a tech‑driven investment surge. Georgieva emphasized that the war arrived when the economy was riding “considerable momentum” from technology investment and supportive financial markets. She outlined the mechanisms of damage: damaged infrastructure, supply‑chain interruptions, eroded confidence, and prolonged uncertainty over oil and gas production in the region. These factors will depress growth regardless of whether a peace agreement is ultimately reached. Georgieva highlighted that the most vulnerable will be net oil‑importing nations, poorer economies and small island states, which stand to feel the brunt of higher energy costs and reduced trade flows. She urged governments to avoid unilateral measures such as export bans or price controls, warning that such actions could "pour gasoline on the fire" and further destabilise markets. With many countries already carrying elevated debt levels and higher borrowing costs, the IMF chief called for targeted, temporary assistance to protect the most at‑risk households. She cautioned against broad tax cuts or blanket energy subsidies, which could stoke inflation and strain fragile public finances. Central banks, she added, should keep policy rates steady while remaining ready to act against inflationary pressures. Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, who also chairs the Financial Stability Board, echoed the IMF’s concerns, describing the conflict as a "very big shock" that has heightened market volatility. He stressed that the situation remains fluid and that policymakers must stay vigilant. Overall, the IMF’s message is clear: the Iran war will reshape the global growth trajectory for the foreseeable future, and coordinated, prudent policy responses are essential to mitigate its lasting impact.

Rebecca Solnit's latest book, 'The Beginning Comes After the End', serves as a powerful reminder that change is inevitable and that we have the power to shape our future. Drawing on her previous work, Hope in the Dark, Solnit emphasizes the importance of hope and resilience in the face of uncertainty.In her 2004 book, Hope in the Dark, Solnit offered a vision of solidarity and tenacity in response to the war in Iraq. The book experienced a surge in popularity after the 2016 election of Donald Trump, and its message of hope and humility continues to resonate today. As Solnit notes, 'Hope is not a door, but a sense that there might be a door at some point, some way out of the problems of the present moment even before that way is found or followed.'Solnit's new book picks up this thread, arguing that 'you do not have to picture the destination to reach it or at least draw closer to it, you just need to choose a direction and keep on walking'. She draws on a wide range of sources, including history, philosophy, and contemporary writing, to explore moments of reparation and progress.One of the key takeaways from Solnit's work is the importance of acknowledging the enormous gains that have been made in recent decades in areas such as women's rights, racial justice, and environmental protections. As she notes, 'Our world has changed more than almost anyone imagined, in ways both wonderful and terrible, often in ways no one anticipated'. By focusing on these successes, Solnit encourages readers to adopt a more optimistic and forward-thinking mindset.Solnit also explores the idea of interconnectedness and independence, arguing that this worldview has the power to shape our future. She writes, 'whether or not it is true, a lot of us want it to be true, and that desire says a lot about who we are right now'. By embracing this idea, readers can begin to see the world in a new light and work towards creating a better future.While some readers may be disappointed by the lack of policy prescriptions or organizing strategies, Solnit's book is a deliberate exercise in reframing our approach to change. As she notes, 'change happens so subtly, so slowly, that only a milestone lets you know that it has been taking place all along'. By adopting a more nuanced and hopeful view of the world, readers can begin to see the small changes that add up to a large one.

Djibouti, a country with a population of less than a million people and no significant natural resources, has become a crucial hub for foreign military bases. The nation's strategic location at the entrance to the Red Sea, a vital maritime chokepoint through which roughly 12 percent of global maritime trade passes daily, has made it an attractive location for global powers.The country's President, Ismail Omar Guelleh, has leveraged Djibouti's strategic importance to advance his own aims, welcoming bases from the US, China, France, Japan, and Italy. These countries pay significant fees for the privilege of hosting their bases, with the US paying $65 million annually, France $30 million, China $20 million, and Italy and Japan over $3 million each.The Bab-el-Mandeb strait, a narrow corridor barely 30 kilometers wide, is a critical passage for global trade and communication cables. The region's instability, particularly with the US and Israel at war with Iran, has heightened Djibouti's importance. Federico Donelli, author of 'Power Competition in the Red Sea,' notes that Djibouti sits at the center of many global interests, including trade, shipping, and fiber optic connectivity.Djibouti's base-for-cash model is part of a broader development strategy, including significant infrastructure investment from Chinese firms and a new railway linking landlocked Ethiopia to the coast. However, the country's economic benefits have not trickled down to its citizens, with official unemployment near 40 percent and over one in five people living in extreme poverty.The opposition leader, Daher Ahmed Farah, has criticized Guelleh's rule, stating that the country's strategic position and hosting of military bases have not benefited the Djiboutian people. The US embassy has warned Americans to avoid areas near Camp Lemonnier, citing threats against US interests, while Finance Minister Ilyas Dawaleh has expressed concerns about the Iran war risks pushing Djibouti into deeper economic uncertainty.