German Chancellor Olaf Scholz fired his finance minister on Wednesday, leaving the government teetering on the brink of collapse.

In a televised address, Scholz said he had dismissed Finance Minister Christian Lindner saying it “was necessary to prevent harm to our country.”

The firing came after days of political negotiation between the key members of Germany’s ruling “traffic light” coalition government – Scholz of the Social Democratic Party, Lindner of the Free Democratic Party, and Robert Habeck of the Green Party.

Following the announcement, which comes amid fears that an incoming Trump administration could spell bad news for an already ailing German economy, Lindner’s Free Democratic Party said it had left the coalition but Habeck said the Greens would remain.

Scholz said he would now call a confidence vote for January 15, which could allow elections to be held by the end of March next year. He said he would remain in office until January 15 and attempt to get the most important legislation done, suggesting he would talk to opposition leader Friedrich Merz’ of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to pass legislation relating to the economy and defense. “The economy cannot wait until after the elections,” Scholz said.

The so-called “traffic light crisis,” as it is known locally in reference to the the colors of the governing coalition, was triggered by competing views on the future of Germany’s economy among the three partners.

Prior to his firing, Lindner had triggered days of wrangling with the publication of an 18-page economic paper published last week, entitled “Germany’s economic turnaround.” It had been described in German media as the coalition’s divorce papers, as its tone and contents appear distinctly at odds with the positions of his government partners.

In the detailed document, which advocates for tax cuts, Lindner said “an economic turnaround with a partly fundamental revision of key political decisions is necessary in order to avert damage to Germany as a business location.”

Aside from the divides it reveals with his coalition partners, cynics are also suggesting that Lindner’s paper looks like a campaign manifesto. Before Wednesday’s developments, Germany’s next scheduled elections were due to take place in September 2025.

The last time Germany had snap elections was in 2005, when they were called by Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, who subsequently lost to Angela Merkel.

Scholz told the press conference Wednesday that “Lindner showed no willingness to implement any of our proposals” and, therefore, “there is no trust basis for any future cooperation” with the outgoing finance minister.

The Chancellor also accused the finance minister of being “not about serving the common good but about serving his own clientele and party.”

According to Scholz, Lindner will also be dismissed by the country’s President Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Speaking to reporters later Wednesday, Lindner said he had “recommended early elections as a solution to the budget impasse” – a proposal he said Scholz rejected.

Lindner also accused Scholz of having asked him to pause the “debt brake” – a constitutional article that prevents the government from borrowing excessively and amassing debt – something Lindner said he was not willing to do.

“After the US elections we need to show we can be relied on,” Scholz said, adding that “great financial room for maneuver” is needed given the challenges that Germany faces.

The news has been welcomed by far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

“The end of the traffic light coalition is a liberation for our country. The end of the self-proclaimed ‘progressive coalition’ that took Germany to the brink of economic ruin was more than overdue,” its leader Alice Weidel posted on X.

This is a breaking news story. More to come.

When the United States votes for a new president, the outcome reverberates far beyond its borders.

Russia: Uncertainty over Ukraine policy tempers optimism over Trump return

When Trump was first elected in 2016, Russian politicians literally popped champagne corks.

Those were simpler times. Russia had been accused of hacking into the Democratic National Committee several months earlier. Trump was busy dismissing those allegations and resolutely refusing to criticize Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin also had serious historical beef with Trump’s rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for what he saw as her role in fomenting protests in Russia in 2011. For Russia it was Trump: good, Clinton: bad.

This time, the fog of an almost three-year-old war has somewhat clouded the picture.

In February, Putin wryly claimed he would prefer Joe Biden to win because he was more “predictable.” There may have been more than just trolling here. Despite Trump’s toughening rhetoric towards Ukraine, and his running mate’s JD Vance’s open opposition to sending more US military aid to Kyiv as it battles Russia’s invasion, it’s not yet clear if Trump would, or could, cut the purse strings for Ukraine.

“Trump has one useful quality for us: as a businessman through and through he is dead against spending money on various hangers-on and lackeys, on dumb little allies, bad charitable projects and gluttonous international organizations,” wrote former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now a senior security official, on his Telegram channel Wednesday, adding that Ukraine is “one of those.”

“The question is, how much will they force Trump to give to the war. He is stubborn, but the system is stronger,” he said, a clear reference to the vital role the US Congress plays in funding Ukraine. Down-ballot races also matter in Moscow.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of RT and now top Kremlin propagandist, wrote simply: “Trump won. Go to sleep, team.” Eight years ago, she was posting about driving through Moscow with an American flag in her car window.

The Kremlin also kept it professional, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov noting only that Trump had “expressed his peaceful intentions on the international stage and his desire to end the ongoing policies of extending old wars,” but that in terms of next steps, “we will see after January,” when he takes office.

Middle East: Israel welcomes Trump return but elsewhere there’s trepidation

Just minutes after Trump had himself declared victory, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued gushing congratulations, calling the US election result “history’s greatest comeback.”

“Your historic return to the White House offers a new beginning for America and a powerful recommitment to the great alliance between Israel and America,” Netanyahu said on X.

Ahead of the vote, opinion polls indicated Israelis overwhelmingly favored another Trump presidency.

The Biden administration – including Vice President Kamala Harris – is seen here as having sought to restrain Israel’s tough military response in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran in the aftermath of the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel in October last year.

Trump’s presidency, on the other hand, is remembered for a series of pro-Israel moves, like relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and taking a tough stance on Iran.

From a second Trump term in the White House, Israel may be hoping for even more full-throated US support for its military plans.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Trump’s election victory has been greeted with trepidation.

A spokesman for the Iranian state said a Trump presidency will make “no significant difference” to them. But amid a spiraling confrontation with Israel, which said it had carried out unprecedented airstrikes on Iranian missile production facilities and air defenses last month, the possibility of even firmer US support for Israel is likely to be a major concern for Tehran.

Hamas, the Iran-backed Palestinian militant group still holding a large number of Israeli citizens hostage in Gaza, has called for an immediate end to America’s “blind support for Israel and its fascist government.”

Europe: Wary leaders face prospect of higher security costs and NATO funding questions

In Ukraine, where the rubber meets the road in the coming friction between Europe and President-elect Trump, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock tried to strike a conciliatory tone, saying: “Germany will also be a close and reliable ally for the future American government. That is our offer.”

But like all the statements of support coming from European leaders early Wednesday, the offer belies deep concerns that Trump doesn’t care what his allies think.

On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to end the war in Ukraine “in a day,” raising fears among NATO allies he’ll reward Putin’s illegal invasion and rampant aggression with territorial gains that will whet the Russian dictator’s appetite for further military conquests, potentially inside NATO’s borders.

The European pitch to Trump not to throw Ukraine under Putin’s nationalist drive to steamroller former Soviet states into submission is undoubtedly going to be heated. As Baerbock says: “As in any good partnership: where there are unquestionable political differences, an honest and, above all, intensive exchange is more important than ever.”

That exchange, in part, will likely focus around Trump’s not unreasonable fixation that Europe should pay for its own security, rather than expect the United States to bail it out.

There will undoubtedly be reminders that of the $190 billion in economic and military aid the European Union and United Kingdom give to Ukraine, $29 billion is spent on buying American weapons for the Ukrainians. In short, the US gains too.

The new NATO Secretary General, former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, appears to be taking a leaf from his predecessor Jens Stoltenberg’s book on managing Trump, playing to his ego as he congratulated the soon-to-be-leader of the most powerful partner in the now 32-nation alliance by saying “his leadership will again be key to keeping our alliance stronger.”

Careful supplication might help keep the alliance alive; it worked for Stoltenberg. But Zelensky’s chances of keeping Ukraine whole and not losing any territory in a Trump-hastened deal with Putin to end the war may be receding, leaving him clutching at straws.

Zelensky, like the others playing to Trump’s vanity through praise, said: “I appreciate President Trump’s commitment to the ‘peace through strength’ approach in global affairs. This is exactly the principle that can practically bring just peace in Ukraine closer. I am hopeful that we will put it into action together.”

Baerbock, whose own government is at risk of breaking apart under huge economic pressure, is already pragmatic about the political, diplomatic, and economic uncertainties a Trump victory brings, saying: “Europeans will now have to assume even more responsibility for security policy.”

China: Fears over unpredictability of another Trump term

In 2020, Chinese leader Xi Jinping didn’t congratulate Biden until more than two weeks after the Democratic candidate was projected the winner of the US presidential election. Xi likely won’t wait that long this time around – and many of his underlings had been mentally prepared for a Trump victory for months as they watched the race with a mixture of bewilderment and growing anxiety.

Publicly, throughout the campaign, Chinese officials and state media had been flooding the public with a narrative of Washington’s “bipartisan consensus” to contain and suppress China’s rise – in other words, “both candidates are equally bad.” In a country known for its ever-tighter media control, this messaging sinks deep in many people’s minds – weighed down by a sluggish economy – along with a picture painted for them highlighting political polarization and violence in the US, in stark contrast to that of unity and stability under Xi’s iron grip.

For those whose life or work is more intertwined with the US, though, a second Trump term appears to be a lot more unsettling. One of the oft-heard talking points from Beijing is that Trump’s “America First” approach benefits China strategically – on issues ranging from Taiwan to the South China Sea – compared to a united front with US allies and partners targeting China advocated by Biden and Harris.

However, Trump’s trademark unpredictability is the one trait that kept many Chinese officials awake at night and still haunts them, especially in a place where certainty in government and policy is almost a given under one-party rule. Some officials, in private, had been fretting over the prospect of disruption or even total halt to just-resumed US-China talks – and its consequences for both sides and the world – on subjects that include economic and military affairs, fentanyl crackdown and climate change.

Trump’s campaign rhetoric on new tariffs and the dark cloud over immigration have jolted Chinese exporters and students. And his pending White House return has even hit home for China-based foreign journalists, who still remember Trump’s decision to kick out numerous Chinese state media journalists in the US, ushering in a round of tit-for-tat that has now left only two dozen or so American reporters in China to cover this superpower of 1.4 billion people.

Taiwan: Defense and economic concerns dominate

Election observers in Asia view Trump’s apparent win as a source of significant uncertainty and a potential double-edged sword for the self-governing island of Taiwan.

Trump has previously indicated that Taiwan should contribute more financially for US defense support, potentially reshaping the partnership between the two sides, and increasing pressures on the democracy of 23 million.

China’s ruling Communist Party views Taiwan as part of its territory, despite never having controlled it, and has vowed to take the island by force if necessary. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, Washington is legally required to provide the island with the means to defend itself, and it supplies Taipei with defensive weaponry. But the arms sales have drawn angry rebukes from Beijing.

In a statement, Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te congratulated Trump and Vance on their electoral victory, and thanked Biden and Harris for their resolute support for Taiwan during their term. Lai stressed the importance of Taiwan’s friendship with the US and said Taipei would “continue to cooperate closely with the new US government and Congress to create a new chapter in Taiwan-US relations.”

Meanwhile, Taiwan’s main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT), which favors warmer ties with Beijing, voiced a hopeful outlook, expressing confidence that Trump’s experience could pave the way for “steadier bilateral relations” and foster closer cooperation between the US and Taiwan.

Aside from defense, economic concerns add another layer of potential tension. Trump has repeatedly accused Taiwan of “stealing” US chip business and has even threatened tariffs on Taiwan’s critical chip exports – used to power an array of modern technologies, from smartphones to satellites.

However, analysts say, far from stealing, Taiwan grew its own semiconductor industry organically through a combination of foresight, hard work and investment.

Taiwan now faces the challenge of navigating Trump’s shifting priorities, balancing both opportunities and uncertainties. Ultimately, the full impact on US-Taiwan relations remains to be seen, and hinge on who will be advising Trump on foreign policy.

Korean Peninsula: Big questions loom for South and North

Could President-Elect Trump reduce the number of American troops on the Korean Peninsula, or ask South Korea to pay more for its US security guarantee, once in office?

Those are the central questions now facing Seoul, as Trump has openly considered downsizing the approximately 28,500 US troops stationed in South Korea.

During an interview last month with the Economic Club of Chicago and Bloomberg News, Trump said if he served a second term, South Korea would pay $10 billion for US troops.

Seoul currently pays $1.13 billion annually for American military forces within its territory, a figure which under an agreement signed Monday is expected to rise to $1.26 billion annually in 2026.

“If I were there (in the White House) now, they’d be paying us $10 billion a year. And you know what? They’d be happy to do it,” Trump said. “It’s a money machine, South Korea.”

South Korea currently hosts the largest US overseas military base, Camp Humphreys, an Army garrison about 60 miles from North Korea. The South Korean government financed 90% of Camp Humphreys’ expansion costs within the past decade.

The American presence on the Korean Peninsula serves as a counterweight to North Korean and Chinese military forces, with joint military drills between the US and South Korea launching frequently from the American installations.

Would the drills cease or be reduced once Trump returns to office? Some of the exercises have also included Japan, after the Biden administration forged a new security partnership between Tokyo, Seoul, and Washington. Will that security pact continue with the same force into the next Trump administration?

Another question looming large in Seoul and Pyongyang: Will Trump seek another high-profile summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un? The cautious answer, according to Trump’s last national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien: “I think we’d resume talks with North Korea.”

But if another summit were to happen, Trump would face an emboldened North Korea. Kim has since forged a new military partnership with Putin, sending munitions and North Korean special forces troops to fight in the Ukraine war.

In exchange, observers note, Putin may help Kim with advanced military technology, and send the isolated nation badly needed cash. North Korea is in desperate need of income after years of crippling sanctions over its nuclear program.

North Korea now has less of a reason to negotiate with Washington, since it’s the beneficiary of diplomatic cover, economic, and military resources from Moscow.

Trump, meanwhile, will likely demand change from both sides of the DMZ.

Africa: Cautious optimism over Trump win

Trump has many fans in Africa, despite the declining influence of the US on the continent and widespread anti-Western sentiment. Africa’s population is overwhelmingly Christian or Muslim in faith so Trump’s “family values” positions, especially on abortion and LGBTQ issues, resonate deeply here. Colonial-era anti-homosexuality laws remain in place in large parts of the continent and the American right’s messaging on culture war issues has spread like wildfire on African social media.

Even though Harris travelled to Africa as vice president – visiting Ghana, Tanzania and Zambia – many here believed misinformation that falsely claimed that she had not accepted her Black identity before the campaign and that her Jamaican ancestors owned slaves. That is why some prefer Trump, who reportedly referred to African nations as “shithole countries” in 2018, over Harris who they grumbled was not proud of her African roots and identified as Indian.

The myth of Trump as a successful businessman remains strong in Africa, partly because “The Apprentice” TV show was widely distributed. Many on the continent have also embraced the Republican narrative of a strong US economy during the first Trump presidency. Their hope is that a stronger global economy bodes well for African trade with the rest of the world.

Africans who want an end to what they see as US meddling support Trump, hoping that his “America First” policy means he will leave the continent alone. Many analysts say Africa has fared better under Republican administrations, and view Trump’s win with cautious optimism. One example is the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) which was launched by George W. Bush 21 years ago and has saved many lives.

The Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to counter China’s influence in Africa will likely suffer with Trump’s win. It’s not clear if Biden will still visit Angola early next month to highlight one of those initiatives – the Lobito Corridor.

Latin America: Bracing for Trump

Trump’s victory holds enormous impact for Latin America.

Conservative leaders such as Argentinian President Javier Milei and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, as well as Jair Bolsonaro, the former Brazilian president, were among the first to congratulate Trump and will feel emboldened by such a conclusive win.

Progressives like Colombia’s Gustavo Petro and Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum are instead bracing for a bumpy relationship with the new White House.

Mexico will probably bear the brunt of the next four years because, as the US’ largest trading partner, its exports could be hit hard by the protectionist tariffs Trump has promised: on Wednesday morning the Mexican peso tumbled to its weakest level in two years before partially recovering in later trading.

Sheinbaum told reporters Wednesday that “there is no reason for concern” and that the US and Mexico “don’t compete with each other,” but her administration will be pressed to get on good terms with Trump quickly and sign a deal before the new economic policy is drawn.

Much of that deal will rest on migration, with Mexico required to play a more active role in limiting arrivals at the US’ southern border.

Trump’s pledge to forcibly deport millions of undocumented migrants, if enacted, could wreak havoc across the region, where many countries depend on remittances from the US to boost their economies.

That said, restraining migration towards the US will remain a formidable challenge in the next four years, especially if Trump’s plans boost domestic production at the expense of economies in the rest of the Americas.

Lastly, authoritarian regimes such as those in Venezuela and Nicaragua could see the benefit of a more transactional approach to foreign policy, the new White House happy to overlook their anti-democratic abuses as long as migration trends are reverted.

If his first term in the White House is any indication, President-elect Donald Trump is likely to keep the Middle East high on his agenda.

During his first four years, Trump made history by selecting Saudi Arabia for his first foreign trip, attempted to broker a “deal of the century” between Israelis and Palestinians, strengthened the Jewish state’s regional integration, and significantly intensified pressure on Iran.

But the Middle East has changed significantly since he left office in 2021, and all regional actors are keenly watching how the new president will navigate these shifts.

“Your historic return to the White House offers a new beginning for America and a powerful recommitment to the great alliance between Israel and America. This is a huge victory!” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted on X on Wednesday.

Gulf Arab states also welcomed the president-elect’s victory. Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman congratulated Trump, and the United Arab Emirates said: “the UAE and US are united by our enduring partnership based on shared ambitions for progress.”

Iran downplayed the significance of the election, saying there is “no significant difference” in who becomes president in the US, state media reported. Fatemeh Mohajerani, spokesperson for the government, was cited by Iranian media as saying that the “general policies of the US and Iran are unchanged” after Wednesday’s ballot.

Here’s how Trump’s election could affect key players in the Middle East:

Israel and the Palestinians

Ending the wars in Gaza and Lebanon and integrating Israel in the Middle East are likely to be at the top of the president-elect’s Middle East agenda, analysts said.

“Netanyahu will face a much tougher president than he is used to in the sense that I don’t think that Trump would tolerate the wars in the manner that they are happening,” said Mustafa Barghouti, leader of the Palestinian National Initiative, adding that for Palestinians, it won’t make a major difference “because both administrations were totally biased” toward Israel.

“He will say: wrap it up; I don’t need this,” Pinkas said, adding that Trump will likely ask the Israeli prime minister to “announce victory” and then strike a deal through mediators.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has not specified how he would approach the Israel-Hamas war if reelected, or how his policies would differ from predecessor Joe Biden’s. In April, Trump did say that Israel needs to “finish what they started” and “get it over with fast,” noting that it was “losing the PR war” because of the images coming out of Gaza.

Trump, Pinkas said, “couldn’t care less about the Palestinian issue.” During his first term, he didn’t throw his weight behind the US’ longstanding support for an independent Palestinian state, saying he would like the solution “that both parties like.”

There is fear, said Barghouti, that Trump may allow Israel to annex parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, which would spell “the end of the two-state solution.”

During his first term, Trump took several steps in Israel’s favor. In 2017, he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, upending decades of US policy and international consensus. He also recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria during the 1967 war.

But while Trump has often claimed to be most pro-Israel president in modern history, and even touted his close and personal relationship with Netanyahu, ties between the two leaders haven’t always been friendly.

In 2021, when both were out of office, Trump accused Netanyahu of betrayal when the Israeli leader congratulated Biden on winning the presidency in 2020.

Shortly after Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel last year, Trump criticized Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence services for being unprepared, claiming the attack would not have occurred if he was president.

The accords, a set of agreements facilitated by Trump’s first administration that saw Israel normalize relations with four Arab nations, put prospects of an independent Palestinian state on the back burner, he said.

“When the war will be over, you’ll need a real restart in the Middle East,” and Trump will be the best person to bring about a “new Middle East,” Bismuth added.

Nadav Shtrauchler, a political strategist who has worked closely with Netanyahu, said Trump’s election sends a message to Israel’s enemies in Iran.

The Israeli prime minister is also likely emboldened domestically, a day after he fired Defense Minister Yoav Gallant after months of clashes over domestic politics and Israel’s war efforts.

“He’ll calculate his next moves maybe different from he would if Harris was elected,” Shtrauchler said, adding that Trump’s unpredictability could mean that there will be more pressure on Israel to end the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, potentially to refocus efforts at confronting Iran.

Iran

The next four years could be the Islamic Republic’s biggest test since its founding in 1979, with Tehran under Trump’s scrutiny that would most likely lead to a return of the “maximum pressure” campaign he imposed during his last presidency, which increased Iran’s isolation and crippled its economy, experts say.

Trump, who prides himself as a master dealmaker, failed to contain Tehran’s influence in the Middle East despite withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear agreement to curtail Iran’s nuclear program, reimposing sanctions on it, and even ordering the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the military commander who oversaw ties with Iran’s proxies in the region.

Since Trump left office in 2020, Iran has ramped up enrichment of uranium, increased its oil exports, stepped up support for regional militant groups, and has set a precedent by striking Israel in a direct attack twice.

But as Israel continues to degrade Tehran’s regional capabilities by striking its proxies, Iran finds itself losing its deterring powers as it faces economic turmoil and widespread internal discontent.

“The Islamic Republic appears as fragile as the threats against it are formidable,” said Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project and senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, adding that 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has limited bandwidth to be dealing with all the crises happening at the same time.

As the Middle East teeters on the brink of a wider war, with Iran threatening to respond to an Israeli attack on its territory this month, there are concerns that Trump’s election may empower Netanyahu to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, something the Biden administration warned against.

“There is one scenario that Trump will tell Netanyahu to finish the job before he formally takes over, that means we might see a sharp escalation in tensions in November and December – Israel trying to push its advantage to weaken Iran and its Axis of Resistance (of militant groups) before Trump comes to office… then Trump comes in and takes credit on being a peacemaker,” Vaez said.

That could change if the Biden administration decides to “pull the plug” on Israel’s ability to escalate tensions in its final months in office, he said. The US has already laid the ground for that by sending a letter to Israel last month warning of repercussions if Israel does not improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

An important factor in Iran’s relationship with the next US president will be how Trump responds to recent US intelligence reports suggesting that Tehran attempted to assassinate him – allegations Iran dismissed as “unsubstantiated and malicious.”

But there must be a clear distinction between Trump and the Trump administration, said Vaez.

“Trump might be attracted by the allure of outwitting the Iranians at the negotiation table because that for him would be the ultimate test of his mastery in the art of the deal,” he said, adding that during his first term, he was attracted to the prospect of dealmaking with Iran.

“Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!” Trump wrote in a tweet in 2020.

Vaez noted that a revival of Trump’s “maximum pressure” approach might be paired with a policy of “maximum support” for Iranian people – a potential regime changing policy. This, he argued, would make it unlikely for the two countries to return to the negotiating table.

“I don’t think anyone in (Trump’s) national security team would share the objective of reaching a mutually beneficial deal with the Iranian regime,” he added.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states

Anticipating his possible comeback, Gulf Arab states continued to engage with Trump after he left office. Analysts say that could prove fruitful for them.

Relations between Saudi Arabia and the US under Trump’s first term flourished. He made history by choosing Riyadh for his first foreign visit as president in 2017 and stood by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during the crisis surrounding the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi agents in 2018, when the Saudi heir faced global isolation.

“Gulf states place a lot of premium on the ability to work with a likeminded leader and conduct relations through interpersonal contact… It reflects the way they do business with other countries as well,” said Hasan Alhasan, senior fellow for Middle East policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Bahrain.

During his first term, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were engaged in wars in Yemen, and both countries’ ties with Iran were at their worst in decades.

But Gulf states have significantly modified their foreign policies since, opting to limit their military interventions and reach out to former foes like Iran, while diversifying alliances in an increasingly multipolar world amid skepticism over the US’ role in the Middle East.

“With Iran, there is a chance that Trump reverts to a maximum pressure stance and given the improved relations with Iran (Gulf states) could be subjected to greater pressure from the US to abide by the maximum pressure,” Alhasan said.

One challenge that emerging middle-powers like Saudi Arabia and the UAE could face under Trump will be managing their closer relationship with China. Over the past years, the oil-producing states have expanded trade and technology ties with China despite competition between Washington and Beijing.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE were invited to join the BRICS group of developing nations, and Saudi Arabia was granted dialogue partner status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – a China-led Asian security and economic bloc.

Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have used Chinese technology for key infrastructure, and despite pledges to limit Beijing’s influence on their emerging artificial intelligence sectors, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have increasingly relied on Chinese expertise.

“It’s a question of whether the Trump administration will exert greater pressure on Gulf states to decouple from China in certain areas, not to mention the tariff and trade wars that are likely to be exacerbated under a Trump administration which could have an impact on (Gulf) exports as well,” Alhasan said.

Trump also hopes to expand Israel’s integration in the Middle East but may face a challenge in Saudi Arabia’s refusal to normalize relations with the Jewish state until it sees a pathway for Palestinian statehood, which Israel has refused.

Qatar, one of the first nations to congratulate Trump, has become indispensable to US efforts in reaching a ceasefire in Gaza due to its relations with Hamas. Those relations may however prove to be a liability under Trump, according to Alhasan.

“They’re probably quite worried about what a Trump 2.0 might be,” he said.

Sunlight pours into the cavernous building. A towering ceiling and polished floor give the look of a railway station or airplane hangar. But the air is still and intensely claustrophobic. Down the long sides of the hall are large built-in cages, each containing dozens of men staring out. This is Cecot — El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center — and the men are known as the “worst of the worst.”

Mass murderers, drug dealers and gangsters, they are accused of once holding El Salvador hostage, gripping the nation with fear as they ruled cities and streets. Today, they are stripped of freedom, influence, and individuality. And they may never get them back.

Each wears a simple white T-shirt and shorts. Some have white socks and sandals. Their heads have been shaved and some have tattoos covering their faces. Many stand confidently, even defiantly, arms crossed within a few feet of the floor-to-ceiling bars, trying to get a better look at us. Others sit cross-legged and motionless on four-tiered metal bunks that line the cells. And still others are at the back, looking down or away from us, wearing face masks, as if they want to avoid being seen on camera or to catch our eyes, almost ashamed.

We are the only outsiders here, granted exclusive access and a private tour as the first major US news organization allowed inside Cecot late last month. Opened less than two years ago, it is already an iconic feature of the “new El Salvador” of President Nayib Bukele. Under his strongman rule, the Central American nation has been transformed. Once the “murder capital” of the world, it is now far safer and family life and businesses have returned to the streets. But the ruthless cleaning up of those streets and merciless treatment of gang members have triggered outrage and concern among human rights organizations, which have condemned Cecot as inhumane and unacceptable.

The hard-hearted treatment of men is on full display throughout Cecot. Each of the more than two dozen group cells we see in Sector 4 are built to hold 80 or so inmates. The only furniture is tiered metal bunks, with no sheets, pillows or mattresses. There’s an open toilet, a cement basin and plastic bucket for washing and a large jug for drinking water. The cells are meticulously clean — an intentional and stark contrast to the dingy and squalid prisons of El Salvador’s past.

The men are inside these cells for 23½ hours a day. They do not work. They are not allowed books or a deck of cards or letters from home. Plates of food are stacked outside the cells at mealtimes and pulled through the bars. No meat is ever served. The 30-minute daily respite is merely to leave the cell for the central hallway for group exercise or Bible readings.

There is no privacy here, no trace of comfort. Armed masked guards provide constant surveillance and prison officials say the lights are on 24/7. There is a haunting stillness as the prisoners’ hollow stares meet our curious gaze. There’s an emptiness in some of their eyes, an unnerving vacancy that suggests their souls have departed, leaving mere shells behind.

The deprivation is deliberate, a departure from pre-Bukele times when inmates were said to eat better than civilians. “Now, here, what they get for breakfast is beans, cheese or a mix of rice and beans, maybe plantain and a cup of coffee or atole (a corn-based drink),” says the director of Cecot, Belarmino García, as he shows us around. “For lunch, it’s rice, pasta, and a beverage. Dinner is the same as breakfast. Meat doesn’t exist here, chicken doesn’t exist here, special menus don’t exist for anyone.”

Outside of war, there is no death penalty in El Salvador but there is also no intention that these men will ever be released. Gustavo Villatoro, El Salvador’s public security minister, offers a blunt assessment of the government’s approach to gang members. “We believe in rehab, but just for common criminals,” he says, differentiating between so-called gang “collaborators” and gang members.

“Someone who every day killed people, every day raped our girls, how can you change their minds? We are not stupid,” he adds. “In the US, imagine a serial killer in your state, in your community being released by a judge … how would you feel as a citizen? We don’t have facts that someone can change a mind from a serial killer … and we have more than 40,000 serial killers in El Salvador — the members of these gang organizations,” he says.

‘I wanted to be a gangbanger’

We ask to speak with an inmate, and prison officials remove 41-year-old Marvin Vásquez from a group cell. The self-admitted MS-13 clique leader says he’s willing to talk to us, if only to discourage young people from following his ways. We meet him already seated on a chair in a concrete-walled side corridor, out of sight from the other prisoners. His hands and ankles are shackled as two guards — in head-to-toe combat gear — stand over him, facing each other.

Vásquez says he was raised in Los Angeles and speaks in perfect English with a calm confidence. He recounts the life that led him here with an ease that belies the brutality of his words. “Some people wanted to be lawyers, cops, soldiers,” he tells us. “I wanted to be a gangbanger. And I wanted to accomplish everything I put my mind to. And until this time, I think I accomplished everything I wanted to accomplish.” Vásquez, who was imprisoned pre-Bukele, says he joined MS-13 as a boy, rising through the ranks. He even created his own clique, “Crazy Criminals,” now tattooed across his back, after he returned to El Salvador.

When we ask about his crimes, he is chillingly matter of fact. “Rob, murder, do what you got to do to survive,” he says with a slight shrug. “You killed people?” we press him, to which he replies without hesitation, “Yeah. That’s the gang-banging life.” While expressing regret for ever joining a gang, his estimate of his victims is as casual as his tone. “I don’t even know how to tell you how many,” he says. “We don’t be thinking about how many we got to kill. We just do what we got to do to survive.” He concedes it could be “at least 20 to 30,” though he’s not certain of the exact number.

He recalls “blasting up” a car full of people in the US, admitting it’s “possible” they didn’t survive. Reflecting on life in Cecot, he says with a detached acceptance, “It’s probably not a hotel (with) 5-stars, but this is what is for us. They give you the three times a (day) food. They give you some programs. You get to do exercise. Some church or religion programs too. But you know, that’s how it is. We got to get used to what we got to get used to right here. There’s no option for us. We did bad things. We pay it the rough way, doing time.”

As the conversation with Vásquez ends, guards move in swiftly to take him away. Prison chief García wants to hammer home the point. “As you just observed, how they so cynically say, ‘Yes, I have killed, I did this, I did that’,” he says. “What we have here is the worst of the worst.”

Watchtowers, electrified fences and armed guards

Members of different gangs are deliberately housed together. In front of one cell, an officer orders the inmates to remove their shirts. They do so meekly and immediately, revealing tattoos for MS-13 and Barrio 18 — sworn enemies outside this place, forced bedfellows inside.

For anyone who does commit “grave offenses” against other prisoners or staff, solitary confinement awaits — cement cells that hold inmates for up to 15 days. The rooms are pitch-black save for a small hole in the ceiling, two stories above, that allows in a sliver of light. A cement basin, a toilet, and a concrete slab for a bed are the only furnishings. Meals are passed through a door slot.

Inmates never leave their sectors. Concrete side rooms can be used for legal consultations and court hearings via video. We see medical staff who provide any treatment needed, again, on-site.

No visits from family or friends are allowed under the rules. Anyone arriving at the prison gives up all personal items and is physically searched and electronically scanned for any contraband. A thousand armed security personnel — guards, police and soldiers — are ready to respond to any threat from outside or inside.

The prison itself is ringed by multiple electrified fences with 19 watchtowers surrounding the facility, built in isolation in a rural area away from any town. Checkpoints start before you see the buildings, with vehicles searched and identities verified. Cell signals vanished as we approached the prison’s towering steel gate — the only way in, or out.

Cecot was built in just seven months and opened in January 2023 to hold up to 40,000 inmates. For security reasons García does not disclose the exact population, but he concedes that between 10,000 and 20,000 inmates are currently housed here.

‘It’s too extreme’

Bukele’s state of emergency, declared in March 2022, has led to the arrest of at least 81,000 individuals — more than 1% of the Salvadoran population — a sweeping effort to root out gang influence. Bukele has admitted that some innocent people have been caught up in the net, with 7,000 of them already released, according to the government. He and his many supporters argue that such collateral damage is part of the difficult process of transforming a nation gripped by decades of corruption and violence.

“Why do we have the biggest incarceration (rate) in the world?” Bukele asked in June. “Because we turned the world’s murder capital into the safest country in the Western Hemisphere. The only way to achieve that is to arrest the murderers … we don’t have a death penalty, so we have to imprison them all.” In early 2016, there was an average of a murder every hour in this country of just six million people. Now government statistics indicate there are more days without a homicide than with one, with a total of 104 killings reported in the first nine months of this year, a third of which were family violence.

Critics inside and outside El Salvador question the veracity of the government’s crime data and claimed success over the gangs. And even if true, they argue that Cecot’s strict control and isolation of prisoners crosses the line into human right abuses.

“The abuse starts with how they enter the prison and how they are kept inside … it’s too extreme,” says Juan Carlos Sánchez, program officer for the Due Process of Law Foundation, which campaigns for human rights and the rule of law across Latin America.

“For example, the food of a person in state custody — like in Cecot — is a human right that cannot be deprived … it must be an adequate diet for them, not just to survive.”

Sánchez adds there are concerns about due process — with Cecot used for both convicted men and those still going through the court system — and what he called “oppressive control.”

“What worries us the most, is these prisoners enter a penitentiary system, and they lose all contact with the outside world, including contact with their families … this impacts others, not just the prisoners,” he says.

“Under these conditions, if they are ever out, they will not be rehabilitated … they will become a burden for the state, they will come out sick physically, mentally, they will come out with rage.”

Before we could even ask about those allegations, Cecot’s García offers: “Much has been said about Cecot and human rights violations, but you are seeing everything we do — medical assistance, ensuring they follow due process … the whole operation is based on strict respect for human rights.” To him, Cecot’s harsh restrictions are both justified and necessary, a “last barrier” between these criminals and civil society.

A government officer traveling with us is on her first visit to Cecot. A woman in her 20s, she reflects on her own past in El Salvador and a time — only a few years back — when carrying a cell phone in public or staying out after dark was unthinkable, inviting robbery or worse. “I can breathe easier now,” she tells us quietly as she surveys the caged men.

As we climb one of the watchtowers overlooking Cecot, the sun dips low, casting the vast complex in shadow. The facility stretches beneath us, with rows of barbed wire, concrete walls, and looming guard towers fading into the hilly and lush terrain. Built to hold the darkest echoes of El Salvador’s past, it feels like an isolated city, a world apart, where prisoners are erased from society.

Renewed life outside the prison walls

More convicts could be on the way to Cecot for the crackdown is not yet over. The Supreme Court overturned a constitutional ban on consecutive presidential terms in favor of Bukele and the president stood for and won an unprecedented second term earlier this year. The so-called temporary state of emergency is now more than two years old.

After leaving the sterile and muted interior of Cecot, we join a force of approximately 2,500 police and soldiers patrolling a neighborhood in San Salvador flagged for potential remnants of gang activity. Heavily armed troops navigate the narrow, dimly lit alleys as families inside their homes sit seemingly unfazed, eating dinner or watching TV.

We ask a man in his mid-50s how it feels to have such an imposing military presence right outside his door. Throwing on a t-shirt, Salvador Molinas tells us he, in fact, feels reassured by the soldiers, noting that this visible force was why he now felt it was safe enough to let his teenage sons go to school and social outings on their own.

“I see the men (soldiers) here with us and honestly this is good, we feel safe, this was missing before,” says Molina, who lives with his boys and his mother.

“I have a son in college and another in the 7th grade and thanks to God, I let them go (to class) with confidence. I used to have to take the youngest to class and now he goes on his own by bus, and I don’t have the fear that something will happen to him,” he adds.

“Since the president took office, thank God, we’ve lived calmly, something we didn’t have with prior presidents.”

Bukele’s crackdown on gang violence has garnered widespread support among Salvadorans, even as his methods remain divisive. Since taking office, he has consolidated control over the judiciary, silenced critics, and sidelined political opponents. Yet, most people we meet see these measures as vital for restoring safety — and Cecot has become a powerful symbol of this tough-on-crime approach.

You cannot see the prison from the capital city, and the boisterous night streets are a jarring contrast to the gleaming but soulless interior of Cecot where silence and surveillance reign.

But for so many Salvadorans, they go together. The prison where gang members lose all their power and autonomy has given them their freedom to live.

As the election results roll in and America holds its breath, Chinese state media hasn’t missed the chance to accentuate US political polarization – and play up the threat of post-vote turmoil in its democratic superpower rival.

Beijing has long bristled at Washington’s criticism of its one-party authoritarian rule. Under leader Xi Jinping, who has cleared the way to rule for life, its mouthpieces have increasingly scoffed at the American political system and liberal democracy.

In a string of election day news reports and commentaries, state media has attempted to portray the vote as a reflection of deep social divisions and political dysfunction in the United States, amid broad sentiment in China that no matter who wins, tense bilateral ties are unlikely to improve.

“US Election Day voting begins amid fears of violence, unrest,” declared a headline in nationalist tabloid Global Times.

On state broadcaster CCTV, a reporter’s dispatch from Washington, DC focused on boarded up businesses, increased police patrols and metal fences erected around the White House and Capitol Hill to “prepare for the worst-case scenario of chaos,” while playing down the millions of people peacefully exercising their democratic rights.

“The US election, once considered a highlight of the so-called ‘beacon of democracy,’ may now become the starting gun of ‘social unrest,’” the state-run Beijing Daily claimed in a commentary on social media.

“The election feels like theater, filled with controversies. The root lies in the extreme polarization and division between the two parties, which has already created a sharply divided electorate.”

On Chinese social media, the US election featured high among the trending topics throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. On microblogging site Weibo, a popular quip goes: “The country is so divided, they might as well break into US-A and US-B.”

But for many Chinese watching the run-up to the vote, the focus was more on spectacle than substance – with a sense that no matter who wins, the tensions of the US-China relationship will remain.

Part of the reason for that may well be a consensus in China – from policymakers down to regular citizens – that the die is cast for a US administration that wants to constrain China’s rise on the global stage, regardless of whether Vice President Kamala Harris or former president Donald Trump wins.

Trump’s last term saw the Republican slap tariffs on hundreds of billions worth of Chinese goods, launch a campaign against Chinese telecoms giant Huawei and use racist language to describe the virus that causes Covid-19, which was first identified in China.

The past four years under President Joe Biden have seen a tone shift and effort to stabilize communication. But US concern about China’s threat to its national security has only deepened, with Biden targeting Chinese tech industries with investment and export controls, as well as tariffs.

Biden has also appeared to sidestep long-standing US policy in voicing support for Taiwan – a “red line” issue in the relationship for Beijing, which claims the self-ruling island democracy as its own.

“(It) doesn’t matter who it is (that wins),” one social media user wrote in a popular comment on Weibo. “Their containment of China won’t ease.”

A series of Israeli raids and airstrikes in towns and villages in the occupied West Bank that stretched overnight from Monday into late Tuesday have killed at least eight people, according to Palestinian authorities and local residents.

Qatari-owned Al Araby TV alleged that Israeli fire in Qabatya also injured a Palestinian employee working there. Rabe’e Al-Munir, a photojournalist, is now hospitalized in stable condition, it said.

The bloodshed comes as violence surges in the West Bank, where the Israeli military has intensified incursions following the Hamas-led October 7 attacks.

Since October 7, 2023, Israeli troops and settlers have killed at least 775 Palestinians, including 167 children, in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, the Palestinian health ministry reported on Tuesday.

Earlier on Monday, Israeli settlers vandalized and set fire to vehicles in the city of Al-Bireh, in what Ramallah governor Laila Ghannam warned “could have ended in a massacre.”

The West Bank, a territory that lies between Israel and Jordan, is home to 3.3 million Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation, as well as hundreds of thousands of Jewish Israelis who began settling there some 57 years ago.

In total, nearly 1,600 settler attacks against Palestinians have been recorded since October 7, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said on October 31.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has fired Defense Minister Yoav Gallant after months of clashes over domestic politics and Israel’s war efforts.

In a recorded statement Tuesday evening, Netanyahu said that “trust between me and the minister of defense has cracked.”

Israel Katz, currently the foreign minister, will become defense minister. Gideon Sa’ar will replace Katz as foreign minister, the prime minister’s office said Tuesday. Neither has extensive military experience, though Katz has served in the cabinet throughout the war.

The move came as voters in the United States, Israel’s most important ally, voted for their next president. Gallant is a close interlocutor for the US administration, and has been said to have daily conversations with US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

The reshuffle also comes as Israel awaits a potential retaliatory attack from Iran.

Gallant responded to the decision shortly after it was made public, posting on X that the “security of Israel has been and will always be my lifelong mission.”

Netanyahu said that he had “made many attempts” to bridge differences with Gallant, but that they “kept widening” and “came to the public’s knowledge in an unacceptable manner.” He continued: “Worse than that, they came to the knowledge of the enemy – our enemies enjoyed it and greatly benefited from it.”

Minutes after Netanyahu made the announcement, opposition leaders called for Israelis to take to the streets in protest. Protestors outside Netanyahu’s residence in Jerusalem shouted “shame!” In Tel Aviv, families of hostages held in Gaza chanted “Bibi is a traitor,” using the prime minister’s nickname. When Netanyahu first sought to fire Gallant last year, over his opposition to proposed judicial reforms, it led to mass nationwide demonstrations.

Israel’s political class has long speculated that Netanyahu would fire Gallant and replace him with a political ally to shore up his domestic power. Netanyahu has struggled to maintain a hold over his fragile governing coalition, a muddle of competing interests, whose collapse could spell the end of his leadership.

Clashes over the war and domestic politics

The relationship between both men was rarely cordial and often caustic. There was little love lost between them – over the state of negotiations with Hamas, Israel’s military strategy and Netanyahu’s bid to bring in a sweeping overhaul of the judiciary in 2023.

Netanyahu and Gallant have often disagreed over the war in Gaza. In August, Gallant told a closed-door Knesset committee that Netanyahu’s goal of “absolute victory” in Gaza was “nonsense,” according to Israeli media. Netanyahu then took the extraordinary step of releasing a press statement accusing Gallant of adopting an “anti-Israel narrative.”

Gallant was also highly critical of Netanyahu’s emphasis on controlling the Gaza-Egypt border, known as the Philadelphi Corridor. He said that prioritizing its control over a ceasefire and hostage deal was a “moral disgrace.” In the cabinet, he voted against continued occupation there. “If we want the hostages alive, we don’t have time,” he said.

But it may be domestic politics that ultimately played the biggest role.

Netanyahu on Tuesday was forced to withdraw draft legislation that would have allowed ultra-Orthodox Israelis to get government subsidies for daycare even if the father of the children does not serve in the Israel Defense Forces, as all other Jewish Israelis must do. Netanyahu relies on ultra-Orthodox parties to govern, and they have threatened to upend his coalition if they are forced to serve in the military en masse.

Gallant had been outspoken against the idea that ultra-Orthodox Israelis be exempt from service, saying that “the security system under my leadership will not submit it to legislation.”

Sa’ar, whom Netanyahu has tapped for foreign minister, is thought to be an influential interlocutor to the ultra-Orthodox parties. Netanyahu, in his statement, said that Sa’ar’s appointment “will enhance the stability of the coalition and the stability of the government, and these are very important at any time, but especially at wartime.”

Also on Tuesday, Israeli police announced that a criminal investigation had been opened “concerning events at the outset of the war,” without offering further details.

Gallant has repeatedly called for an official inquiry into Hamas’ October 7 attack. It is the second investigation this week that threatens to ensnare Netanyahu. On Sunday, a court revealed that police had arrested a top Netanyahu aide for allegedly leaking classified and faked intelligence to foreign media.

Netanyahu had faced pressure from far-right members of his cabinet to dismiss him, with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir saying in September that he had been demanding Gallant’s ouster for months “and the time has come to do so immediately.”

His relationship with Gallant deteriorated when the prime minister threatened to fire him in March 2023, after he criticized the government’s judicial overhaul legislation. The bill, which provoked widespread popular protests in Israel, would have granted the ruling coalition more sway in selecting judges.

Gallant was the first minister to oppose it, saying: “The deepening split is seeping into the military and security agencies – this is a clear, immediate and real danger to Israel’s security. I will not facilitate this.”

Netanyahu said he would fire the defense minister, but reversed his position following pressure. The rancor between the two men has persisted and grown since the Hamas attack last October.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

A Nigerian court freed 119 people including minors on Tuesday, after the authorities dropped charges against them arising from deadly protests in August against economic hardship.

The accused had faced charges including treason and inciting a military coup and had been arraigned in batches of 76 and 43 last Friday. One of the charges carried the death penalty.

President Bola Tinubu on Monday ordered the release of all minors detained during anti-government protests in August and dropped the charges against them.

“The case has been struck out and the 119 protesters have been released,” Deji Adeyanju, counsel to the protesters, told Reuters.

“Now we are asking for their rehabilitation and compensation by their various state governments.”

The country’s attorney general took over the case from the police and dropped the charges after bringing forward the matter due to be heard in January.

Homeowners in France have discovered a skeleton in the attic of an outbuilding while undertaking renovation work.

The body is thought to belong to the former occupant of the property, which is located in Erstroff in eastern France, who disappeared in 2009, according to a statement from the local prosecutor’s office published Monday.

It appears that the man took his own life, as a rope was found attached to a beam near the body, which was found on Saturday in an outbuilding adjoining the main house.

The remains were found in a small room immediately under the roof accessible only by a trapdoor that was “almost invisible,” according to the statement.

The discovery is thought to be linked to the former owner, a man born in 1927, who disappeared in 2009.

No trace of him was found despite a police investigation, which was eventually closed in 2016. In December 2021, he was declared legally dead by a local court, the statement added.

The remains have now been sent to the Strasbourg Institute of Forensic Medicine, which will undertake an autopsy and confirm the identity of the dead person using DNA from surviving family members.

High in the mist-shrouded Himalayas, a winding mountain road opens to a clearing in the pine forested valley, revealing rows of uniform Tibetan-style houses, each topped with a Chinese flag.

Construction is booming in this remote place. Piles of logs and other building materials line the road. On a nearby hillside, cranes tower over rising housing blocks.

“They are building resettlement houses here,” says the Chinese travel vlogger who captured these scenes last year, speaking into his phone on a roadside. “When people live and settle here, it undeniably confirms that this is our country’s territory.”

But the village – known as Demalong and formally founded in March last year with a community of 70 families, according to a government notice seen in the footage – is not only located in territory claimed by the world’s ascendent superpower.

It is one of a string of Chinese settlements that also fall well within the border shown on official maps of Bhutan – a Buddhist kingdom of fewer than 1 million people that’s never agreed on a formal international border with China.

For centuries, herders looking for summer pastures were the main presence in this harsh and inhospitable region some 14,000 feet (4,200 meters) above sea level in the eastern Himalayas. But now, there is a growing population as the Chinese government incentivizes hundreds of people to settle there from across Tibet, the region of China that borders Bhutan.

Those settlements show another, quieter front in China’s expanding efforts to assert its control over disputed, peripheral territories – also playing out in the South and East China Seas – as Chinese leader Xi Jinping seeks to bolster national security and enhance China’s position over its rivals.

Bhutan and China have been holding yet-unresolved border talks for decades. Looming in the backdrop of those discussions is India, China’s biggest regional rival and Bhutan’s close diplomatic ally.

The nuclear-armed neighbors have previously gone to war and more recently engaged in a series of skirmishes over their disputed 2,100-mile (3,379-kilometer) border, which straddles Bhutan – and, in Beijing’s eyes, makes the small Himalayan nation all the more critical to its national security.

A comparison of China’s official map of the Tibet Autonomous Region and Bhutan’s national map published in its 2023 Statistical Yearbook show this development is located in territory claimed by both countries.

Bhutanese authorities, however, have repeatedly rejected previous reports of Chinese encroachment, including in a foreign media interview last year when then-Prime Minister Lotay Tshering “categorically” denied that China had been building in Bhutan’s territory.

“The map of Bhutan covering the northern border will be finalized in accordance to the demarcation of the Bhutan-China border,” the ministry’s statement said. It also pointed to the two countries’ boundary talks and said Bhutan was “confident that the northern border will be finalized in the near future.”

“China’s construction activities in the border region with Bhutan are aimed at improving the local livelihoods,” a ministry statement said. “China and Bhutan have their own claims regarding the territorial status of the relevant region, but both agree to resolve differences and disputes through friendly consultations and negotiations.”

The construction has taken place in border regions in northeast Bhutan and the west of the kingdom – near the disputed border between India and China, according to the research. The findings, also described by Barnett in The Diplomat, add to his 2021 Foreign Policy magazine report on earlier construction in the same northern area – and document what the latest research describes as a new “surge” in building there since early last year.

High-altitude rivalry

The blurry boundaries through the Himalayan peaks and plateaus separating China and its southern neighbors are often relics of imperial era agreements and nomadic routes – now charged with the nationalist rhetoric and military might of New Delhi and Beijing.

Landlocked by both, Bhutan has long navigated carefully between India – its largest development and trading partner, which until 2007 effectively controlled its foreign policy – and China, an economic and military giant with whom it has no formal diplomatic ties.

Bhutan’s place in their dispute was thrown into the spotlight in 2017, when the kingdom accused the Chinese army of building a road “inside Bhutanese territory” in the Doklam area, near a strategic and disputed junction between all three countries along Bhutan’s west.

Then, Indian troops moved into the area to block China – sparking a tense, 73-day standoff that threatened to pitch the rivals into conflict.

Though not part of India’s territorial claims, Doklam is close to the so-called “chicken’s neck,” or Siliguri Corridor, a vital artery between New Delhi and its far northeastern states. China claims Doklam has been its territory “since ancient times.”

Ultimately diffused, the incident was one more reminder for Beijing of the volatility of the unresolved border.

India and China reached an agreement on military disengagement along a section of their disputed border earlier this month – in a step toward easing tensions there.

However, strengthening its position in that rivalry has been a driving force for Beijing, experts say, as it extends its foothold in lands traditionally claimed by Bhutan – and enlists its citizens to relocate there to press its counterclaim.

“Knowing India has a strong presence in Bhutan, China naturally becomes vulnerable in the bordering region,” said Rishi Gupta, assistant director at the Asia Society Policy Institute in New Delhi.

“This vulnerability compels China to enhance its influence in Bhutan and assert its territorial claims more aggressively, seeking to counterbalance India’s strategic partnerships in the area.”

One year prior to the 2017 standoff, Beijing was already starting a major bid to bolster its claims by building roads and villages in the Jakarlung valley – along another China-Bhutan frontier far to the northeast of Doklam.

The buildup follows what observers say were long-standing efforts by China to convince Bhutan’s leaders to cede their claims in the west around Doklam – in exchange for Beijing giving up its claims to the northern areas.

In 2016, China founded Jieluobu, its first official village in the Jakarlung valley. Two years later, Jieluobu was branded a model “border xiaokang village” – one of hundreds of such villages built or upgraded in recent years along China’s western and southern frontiers.

The “xiaokang” – or “moderate prosperity” – villages along China’s borders have been billed as part of Beijing’s scheme to eradicate poverty and improve living conditions in its far-flung frontiers.

But experts say these villages are also part of Xi’s vision to use civilian settlements to solidify control of China’s border, amid perceived threats of foreign encroachment and infiltration – and a growing obsession with security.

“Only when there are people can the border remain stable,” the leader is often quoted as saying by officials in frontier regions.

By 2022, more than 600 “border xiaokang villages” – including Jieluobu – had been completed in Tibet, boosting its border population by 10.5%, the regional government said in its annual work report.

“It is no doubt that the villages are aimed to strengthen China’s territorial claims and control of the border regions, especially the disputed areas,” said Yun Sun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center think tank in Washington.

“Once the Chinese villagers are there, China has causes for stationing troops and performing administrative control. The strategy has a long history in China, tracing back as early as the Han dynasty,” she said.

No place anybody would choose

Chinese construction that began in the Jakurlung valley in 2016 has ramped up since last year relative to earlier periods, according to the research by SOAS’s Barnett, based on satellite imagery.

As of this summer, more than 2,000 residential units – estimated to have space for thousands of people – had been built in multiple settlements across both areas, according to the report.

That buildup has also been supported by an expanding network of roads, which geointelligence researcher Damien Symon says have progressed south from China into Bhutan over recent years.

“None of the roads connect into Bhutan, they start from the Chinese border and end in forest areas. There is no connectivity to existing Bhutanese roads or villages,” said Symon, of analysis collective The Intel Lab, who in a December 2023 report for London-based think tank Chatham House tracked new Chinese construction “across the contested border with Bhutan” in the north.

Road access is crucial for new settlements in the Jakarlung valley, which Chinese reports say used to be cut off from the outside world by heavy snow for half the year.

“These are not places anybody would normally choose to relocate to, because they are either extremely high or extremely exposed to the elements,” Barnett said.

To populate the cold, damp valley, officials in Tibet entice settlers from across the region with spacious new homes and generous subsidies.

In Jieluobu, the Tibetan herders moved into two-story houses with courtyards. Residents aged 16 and older are eligible for an annual subsidy of more than 20,000 yuan (about $2,800), state media reported.

Patriotic education is part of everyday life in Jieluobu. In 2021, the village held 150 study sessions on Xi’s speeches, party policies and history, Mandarin Chinese and border defense, state media reported. Since then, the village has also undergone a major expansion.

Meanwhile, in the southeastern part of the valley, Demalong has added 235 new homes since last year and aims to build a kindergarten and a clinic, according to government statements. It also has a military compound, the travel blogger’s video shows.

Since late September, a new wave of residents has moved into Demalong, Jieluobu, Semalong and Qujielong from as far as Nagqu, a city in northern Tibet some seven hours’ drive away, according to a local government notice and videos shared by relocatees on Chinese social media.

The new families, arriving in long columns of vans, coaches and trucks escorted by police cars, were greeted by red banners and traditional Tibetan dances, social media footage shows.

‘No intrusion’

Bhutan has repeatedly denied that Chinese construction has taken place in its territory.

Asked in March last year about reports of China building in the kingdom’s north, then-Prime Minister Lotay Tshering told Belgian outlet La Libre, “We are not making a big deal of it because it’s not in Bhutan.”

“We have said categorically that there is no intrusion as mentioned in the media,” he said. “This is an international border and we know exactly what belongs to us.”

In a separate interview with India’s The Hindu about six months later, the former prime minister, whose government was replaced in elections earlier this year, reiterated that “there are no real differences between China and Bhutan, but there is an un-demarcated border dating back to Tibet-Bhutan ties,” referring to the period before Tibet’s 1951 official annexation by Beijing.

As early as 2020, Bhutan’s ambassador to India said there was “no Chinese village inside Bhutan,” following Indian media reports about such development in the kingdom’s western borderlands.

That appears to be in sharp contrast to recent decades when Bhutan repeatedly protested what it claimed were incursions into its territory by Chinese soldiers and Tibetan herders. In 1997, Thimphu told Beijing that Tibetan herdsmen had been intruding into the Jakarlung valley and even constructed sheds there, according to Bhutan’s National Assembly records cited by Barnett.

In a 1998 pact, the two countries agreed to maintain the status quo in the border region as they continue talks to resolve the “boundary question.”

Observers say Bhutan’s rhetoric on this issue has become increasingly opaque in recent years, and some wonder whether the kingdom’s muted comments are because it’s already reached a tacit understanding with China to give up some territorial claims.

Others suggest Bhutan’s priority may be to keep relations stable so they can finally reach a deal – with the potential to ease the uncertainty of the countries’ power imbalance and bring the economic benefits of normalized ties.

“Most Bhutanese would love to see the borders demarcated and settled and a new chapter of friendly relations with China,” said Bhutanese scholar Karma Phuntsho.

But while Bhutan remains “keen to solve the border issues with China,” the remote border areas have little impact on Bhutanese peoples’ livelihoods, so, “the countries are taking time to reach the best mutually beneficial solutions,” he added.

Other observers take a more pointed view.

The Bhutanese “have realized that they have no way in which they can get back anything which the Chinese have occupied, and they lack the capacity … to police the border, let alone the military capacity to retrieve anything from the border,” said Manoj Joshi, a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi.

“So at one level, they have taken the position that they will try and resolve the border issue … pending that settlement, they don’t want anything to come up.”

Despite the negotiations over the decades, the kingdom has already shed land to China.

Bhutan’s official maps have lost a parcel of land to its northwest and the Menchuma valley and plateau in its northeast, according to Barnett. That northwest parcel, which includes Kula Kangri mountain, is often cited as covering some 400 square kilometers (154 sq miles).

“These areas fall north to the traditional boundary between Bhutan and China,” its statement said.

In 2021, Bhutanese and Chinese officials agreed to a “road map” to expedite settling their border. They picked up formal talks last October for the first time since the Doklam standoff, with Bhutan’s foreign minister making a rare visit to Beijing.

There, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi assured counterpart Tandi Dorji that Beijing was ready to “fix and develop China-Bhutan friendly relations in legal form.”

Regardless of how each side defines the location of these developments, they appear to be part of a long-term plan for China to strengthen its position and apply pressure along the yet un-demarcated border.

This year, a local government chief from a county in Tibet has visited the villages in the Jakarlung valley at least twice to inspect construction projects and check in with residents.

During a visit in April, the official reminded local cadres and residents of their mission.

“(We’re) lacking oxygen but not spirit, enduring hardship without fear, overcoming higher altitudes with an even higher sense of purpose,” he said, quoting a 2020 speech by Xi.