Pakistan strikes Afghan capital

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Start today for 1 euro per month on Shopify.nl Stel je voor dat je in de zorg niet nog harder werkt, maar slimmer. Omdat je medewerkers zorgdossiers kunnen bijwerken vanaf hun telefoon. En zo meer tijd hebben voor hun cliënten. Ontdek onze slimme technologie op kpn.com slash slimmerwerken. KPN. Voor een beter werkend Nederland. Hello and welcome to NewsHour from the BBC World Service. We're coming to you live from London. I'm James Menendez and we're going to start in the Afghan capital, Kabul. That's mobile phone footage sent to the BBC, which captured the sound of the emergency services responding to a series of explosions in the city overnight. Pakistani warplanes bombing both the capital and also the city of Kandahar, the twin strongholds of the country's Taliban government. We were all asleep when the plane came in very low. As soon as I heard the sound of the aircraft, I got up. I saw the plane descend and drop two bombs. Then it went back up again. It was around 2am. All of us, including the women, ran downstairs. By the grace of God, we didn't suffer any loss of life, but the doors were broken and the windows of the house were shattered. Pakistan says it hit 22 military targets in Afghanistan overall and is now, according to the country's defence minister, in a state of open war with its neighbour. The BBC's Yama Baris is in Kabul. Kabul experienced sort of a chaotic night last night. There were sounds of aircrafts, explosions and gunfires. But at the dawn, the things were calm. Life has returned back to normal. Today, the Taliban say that during the day, some eastern parts of Afghanistan were bombed again by Pakistani planes, which had some casualties. And at least there are reports that three civilians have died in the southeast of Afghanistan. He also claimed that they also targeted some military targets in Islamabad in four locations and they were drone attacks. Pakistani forces have accused Taliban that they had got help from TTP, a name for the Pakistani Taliban's movement. Yamal Baris in Kabul. Well, with us is my NewsHour colleague, Owen Bennett-Jones, who's been covering Pakistan for many years and was there only last month. Owen, very good to have you with us today. This sounds bad. How serious is it? I think it's very serious. I mean, it's not entirely new, but it takes it to a completely new level. And there have been cross-border clashes for 2023, 2024, 2025. But this is obviously different. And the difficulty with this is that the Pakistanis are saying, and probably rightly, that the Afghan Taliban government has got backing from India. So when they say they're at open war with the Afghan Taliban, that has clear possibilities of escalation to something more regional. And so we'll have to see. It's not clear how they de-escalate this, but they sort of need to. What's at the root of the conflict? Well, the Pakistan Taliban. So you've got two movements, Afghan Taliban in charge in Afghanistan, Pakistan Taliban fighting this insurgency in Pakistan. It's not getting much coverage because the military have a stranglehold on the media at the moment. But just to give you the figures, which I got from the army just last month, there were 5,400, what they would call terrorist incidents, in Pakistan in 2025. 5,400, in which 2,500 militants were killed and 1,235 police army and a few civilians killed. I mean, this is pretty – yeah, this is quite an intense conflict. And it's going on in the northwest of Pakistan. There's stuff going on in Balochistan as well. But these are quite significant and intensifying exchanges. I mean, it's getting worse every year. 2025 is about double 2024. It's intensifying. And that is what the Pakistanis are facing. And they're seeing it coming from Afghanistan. They're trying to stop it. One thing you can clear up for us before we hear our next interview. I mean, people talk about the Pakistani Taliban, the Afghan Taliban. Are they different? Are they one and the same? No, they're very different. I mean, the Afghan Taliban are governing in Afghanistan. and they, sure, they were based in Pakistan when they were running their campaign, but they are an Afghan movement. The Pakistan Taliban are, you know, a group that is trying to create a theocratic government in Islamabad, and they think they can do it. I mean, they've seen the Afghan Taliban defeat the Americans. They've seen their predecessors defeat the Soviets, and they're thinking if they stick at it long enough, they will defeat the Pakistan army. Owen, thank you for the moment. Do stay with us. We'll be back with you in a few minutes. And we're going to hear this interview I did a little earlier with the Pakistani military analyst, former Brigadier General Farouk Hamid Khan. First of all, does he agree with the defence minister that Pakistan and Afghanistan are effectively now at war? This is open war between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And And Pakistan means business. Our tolerance level has really forced us to go on an offensive against the Afghan Taliban government for not stopping those terrorist strikes from Afghanistan soil against Pakistan, against the civilian population, against religious sites, and of course against our police and law enforcement agencies. So I think enough is enough, as they say. and we said it's time to teach the Afghan government a lesson as to how to be good, responsible neighbours. Going after the Afghan Taliban government and bombing cities such as Kabul and Kandahar would seem to represent a major escalation. I mean, does Pakistan want a full-blown war with its neighbour, with all the risks that that entails? Let me be very frank and honest. We are already in a full-blown war with Afghanistan. We are not against the people of Afghanistan, but it's against the irresponsible behavior and attitude of the Afghan Taliban government. They were testing our patients, and we have been warning them repeatedly that, look, you've got to behave like good, responsible laborers, meet your international obligations, do not allow your soil to be used against Pakistan. But what has happened in the last few weeks, especially that we found Afghan national. We found members of the Afghan Taliban joining the other terrorist groups. So many of them. Afghanistan is now becoming a hub of global terrorism. And I should say, I should say, sorry to interrupt you, but I should say at this point that I'm oversimplifying, but people had drawn the distinction between the Pakistani Taliban operating, as you say, in those border areas and the Afghan Taliban, the government leadership sitting in Kabul and Kandahar. Do you now not see any distinction between the two? No, sir. Now I think they're all on the same page. They're working together in total harmony, supporting each other. The $7 billion worth of US weapons that were left behind by the exiting US NATO forces four years ago was extremely irresponsible. Many in Pakistan, they were pleased to see those U.S.-led coalition troops leaving and the Taliban returned to power, weren't they? Absolutely, you're right. I was one of the big supporters. We facilitated the Doha Accords, which led to the agreement between Afghanistan, Afghan Taliban and the United States. And that accord strictly stipulates that they will not allow their territory to be used for terrorist activity against any neighbor in the region. We in Pakistan are extremely upset that they have stabbed Pakistan in the back. They have broken their promises and they've joined hands. I don't know whether you like this or not, but I want to tell you the fact. This is how Pakistanis feel, that they've joined hands with our archival, the Indians. What evidence is there for that, that the Afghan Taliban are now acting in hock with India? Oh, great question, sir. There have been repeated visits by the defence minister, the foreign minister and other Afghan officials to Delhi. We see very positive statements coming from the Indian side that they are helping the Afghan Taliban government financially. And of course, the whole world knows, everybody knows that there's a very strong Indian-Afghan Taliban government next to it, a military next to it. Right, military, because it's one thing to have warmer diplomatic relations, but it's quite another what you're saying, which is that India is actively supporting Afghanistan militarily. Oh, yes. They've been training the Afghan military for many years now in India. So what is the end game right now if this is indeed an open war? Is it to get rid of the government in Kabul and Kandahar, get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan? There are also reports of the National Resistance Front. Those who are opposing the Afghan Taliban, they're attacking the Afghan Taliban also in Kabul and other places. And I have a feeling, this is my personal view, I have a feeling that if the Afghan Taliban government take Afghanistan to a very, very bad state, the people of Afghanistan would eventually like to see a regime change taking place in Afghanistan. That was retired Brigadier General Farouk Hamid Khan speaking to me a little earlier. Well, still with us, NewsHour's Owen Bennett-Jones. And Owen, on that, are there those in Pakistan that would like to see regime change next door in Afghanistan? Well, it's very interesting to hear him say that. I mean, all the talk until now has been, you know, we need a broad-based government in Kabul. So, you know, is that realistic? Are the opposition forces in a position to remove the Afghan Taliban government? I don't think many people would say they are. So there's a bit of wishful thinking in that. And I think it does illustrate the problem, which is that it's not totally clear how we get out of this. I mean, there are lots of people willing to mediate and lots of regional powers, you know, are offering their mediation services to try and calm this down. But the fact is that the one thing that will not change in all of this is the Pakistan Taliban insurgency. It is big. It is intensifying. The army says they're getting on top of it. And they may do. I mean, they defeated the Pakistan Taliban once before. It's possible they can do it again. It cost tens of thousands of lives, by the way, and they're having to do it again. But if that is ongoing, then the Pakistanis will feel they will want to attack targets in Afghanistan where these people have sanctuary. Let me just ask you a bit more about those accusations against India, which we heard again. I mean, is there any basis for that, that India is militarily supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan? look I mean you know as you know as journalists we get lied to by everyone and it's you know it's quite right to be skeptical I you know and can it be proven one way or the other you know not really I went up to Peshawar's asking about this and there was lots of talk from the Pakistan military about them finding Indian components in the drones that are coming across and that kind of thing you know can I be sure that's the case no but do I think it's happening yes I mean I think the the relationship it is clear that the Indians are now close to the Taliban movements and to the Baluch insurgents further to the south in Pakistan And it makes sense You know I mean they feel they under pressure in Kashmir, they're responding. So yes, I mean, it does have a regional dimension, no doubt. I mean, do you think both sides can be talked back from the brink? You talk about people willing to mediate. I mean, I noticed that Iran, which has got quite a lot on its plate at the moment, was one of those. The other important point about this, which speaks to what your question is, the role of the army chief Asim Muneer. Now, he is the undisputed ruler of Pakistan, despite not having the presidential or prime ministerial slots. He has the government completely in hand and following everything he says. So he is the man making the decisions. And he is a man who has used force against Iran, against India, and against Afghanistan. He is enjoying great success in these, that's how the military sits, in these military operations. No pushback really yet. So I think, as one official put it to me, if anyone escalates against us, we will not de-escalate. Owen, thank you very much indeed. Very good to talk to you. That was NewsHour's Owen Bennett-Jones joining us live for his analysis of that situation, that conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan. You're listening to NewsHour. Still to come, we'll hear from our man in Havana on the effects of the US oil blockade on Cuba. Every couple of corners, there is a huge festering pile of uncollected rubbish. Just discarded box after box and plastic bag after plastic bag. There's no fuel with which to run the rubbish trucks. Amid this energy crisis, such basic services are some of the first to go. More from Cuba coming up in the second half of the programme in about 20 minutes. Let's just recap our main headlines from the newsroom this hour. Pakistan's claim to have killed almost 300 Afghan Taliban as their conflict escalates. And several countries are issuing warnings to their citizens in the Middle East amid the prospect of war between the US and Iran. This is James Menendez with News Alive from the BBC. Now, last night was the first night behind bars for the father of a well-known pro-democracy activist from Hong Kong. Kwok Yin Sang was sentenced on Thursday to eight months in prison for violating the territory's strict national security law. He'd been found guilty of trying to cash in an insurance policy he'd taken out for his daughter, Anna Kwok, when she was a baby, deemed her financial asset. Anna is classed as an absconder after she fled Hong Kong into exile in the US. She now has a bounty on her head, wanted for her activism against the introduction of that security law five years ago. Well, Anna now pursues her activism from her base in Washington, D.C. When I spoke to her a little earlier, I asked her first for her reaction to her father's sentencing. Well, I definitely felt angry and frustrated and ridiculous that he has to be in jail. And of course, eight months compared to a lot other political prisoners in Hong Kong. It's not such a long time, but still even one day is too many for a case like this. Have you managed to speak to him at all in the past couple of days? I actually haven't spoken to him for almost a year now, because court mandated that we cannot contact each other as a bail condition. And of course, he was then brought to detention and now in jail. Which must be very difficult, not having that contact. Yeah, for sure. And the thing is, he's 69 years old. And with someone at that age, of course, you worry about their health. And all I can do is just to watch the news and, you know, get information about my family through the news and through photos I can find online. And that feels weird and ridiculous. What would you say to him if you could talk to him now? The first thing I would do is to give him a very big hug. That's something you don't really do often in an Asian family traditionally. And I also realized I haven't really hugged him since I became an adult. I mean, this is a difficult question. But I mean, do you feel in any way responsible for what's happened to him? I mean, in one way, I guess I do have this sense of guilt. But at the same time, I have to be super aware that that is exactly how the Hong Kong government wants me to feel. The Chinese Communist Party has always been so good at weaponizing love and taking hostage of your family to silence you. And that sense of guilt is exactly what they wish to engineer. It's not my fault. It's the government's fault. It's the Chinese Communist Party that is doing all this. And I have to remind myself of that. And everyone should remember that as well. So you see it as an attempt to silence you? For sure. And it is also their attempt to retaliate against me and my advocacy over the past years. I mean, the Hong Kong government, I mean, in a statement, has said that this is nothing to do with politics. It's simply applying the law. I mean, I imagine that's not how you see it. Yeah, for sure. That's really senseless things they have written up. Because in court, even the judge was saying part of the reason why he was giving my dad the sentence was because he thought my dad's action would lower the chance of me going back to Hong Kong to get a life sentence myself. And so you cannot really see how this is not politically motivated and how he's not charged for being my father. He's practically being used as a hostage. And when the government realized they have failed, they're like, OK, they're just going to put him in jail right away. Is it also a message to others, do you think? And I wonder whether it will work. For sure, a message for other activists working for Hong Kong overseas as well. But at the same time, I'm confident that the Hong Kong community will come through with this sort of pressure. We'll overcome it because we have done it before and we'll do it again. Really? So you don't think that this is just going to confirm to many people that the risks of speaking out are too great? People will be scared for a while. The chilling effect is there. But at the same time, I also think for activists, especially for those of us who are in exile, we kind of expected it to come because that has always been the playbook of the Chinese Communist Party. Yes I mean you've I think I'm just reading a quote of yours where you talk about the need to show people that you can still move forward. I mean I just wonder how Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement does move forward at this stage. The really big question is how do we counter transnational repression that we have been seeing. At the same time we are seeing more resilience from activists, more creativity to find new ways to talk about Hong Kong, for example, with finances, with trade, with technology. And so far, that has been the answer for us to expand a discussion so people understand Hong Kong beyond of it being a human rights issue. Resilience, but at great personal cost to activists like yourself. Yeah, for sure. You know, we talk about this sort of pain and suffering. But at the same time, I also want the public to remember how resilient and strong we are. I think being activist is about being human in the end. It's about choosing a life you want. It's about choosing the kind of meaning you want to live for. And it's about choosing the purpose of your life. And for me, this has been the journey to find my calling. And that's why I have the faith and I have the determination to continue walking down this path. The Hong Kong pro-democracy activist, Anna Kwok. Now, a bit of a change of gear, because it is 30 years since the world was first introduced to Pokémon. It began as a video game, originally called Pocket Monsters, and since then spawned a multimedia franchise that includes trading cards, comic books, an animated TV series, movies, and the hugely successful mobile game Pokémon Go. As part of the birthday celebrations, a Pokémon theme park has just opened in Japan, the country where it all started. The BBC's Shima Khalil has been speaking to fans there and sent us this report. Welcome to Pokemon Paradise. Everything here feels familiar, and for fans, it's nostalgia overload. If it makes you feel a little old, you're not alone. This is PokiPark Kanto, the first permanent Pokemon theme park, opening just as the franchise turns 30. What began as a simple video game here in Japan has become one of the biggest pop culture phenomena on the planet. Back in 1996, kids first met these pocket monsters on Nintendo's Game Boy, catching them, training them, and arguing over who got Pikachu. Three decades on, Pokemon fever is everywhere, from one of Tokyo's busiest stations like Shinjuku to card shops, anime, and the all-important soft toys. My older brother was playing it when I was in elementary school, and I played it together with him. Battling and catching strong Pokémon gave you a real sense of accomplishment. The appeal is simple. Adventure, friendship, and characters you never quite grow out of. They're cute. Their voices and everything are adorable. You get attached to them, and that's how fans overseas got interested too. In primary school, when it was coming out, it was a big thing. and then later in life I got into the card game as well, it's a Pokemon trading card game and they have little community centres all over the place where you can go there, get some free cards and then play with people and make new friends. And you create bonds with these fictional characters when you play the game. When you spend so many hours in a game with these fictional characters, they become, to you, like a real being. For fans, Pokemon has woven itself into everyday life through the years. Playground card swaps for some, serious trading for others, late-night gaming sessions, and later chasing Pokemon on smartphones. Pikachu may be the most recognizable Pokemon, but not everyone's favorite. Definitely Snorlax. Obviously, we're at a food market. I'm stuffing myself just like he would. So he's definitely my spirit Pokemon. 30 years on, Pokemon is still capturing the imagination of new fans and old ones. From a Game Boy screen to a worldwide obsession. And now a theme park where Pikachu still steals the show. That was the BBC's Shima Khalil, our Japan correspondent, reporting there. You're listening to News Ad. Do you stay with us? Lots more coming up in the second half of the program. We'll be right back. Are you ready to sell it? Then you're ready for Shopify. Make your own entrepreneurs' dream and start today for 1 euro per month on Shopify.nl Stel je voor that you work in the safety sector not much harder, but slimmer. Because inspectors can be a few minutes a report. And so per day more companies help you out the brand. Find our slim technology on kpn.com slash slimmer working. KPN. For a better work in the Netherlands. scientists are desperately searching for penguin feathers on their satellite screens they're worried it's a sign that thousands could have died because of melting ice i'm ikra and on what's in the world we're finding out how the emperor penguins molting that crucial shedding of feathers has become riskier because of climate change what in the world is a daily podcast from the bbc world service we go go in on a different topic every weekday in under 15 minutes Listen wherever you get your BBC podcasts I've spent the last three decades trying to better understand money across the boardroom, the newsroom and the trading floor. That's longer than most podcast hosts have been alive. But even though I've got questions, join me, Maren's Upset Web, every week for my show Maren Talks Money from Bloomberg Podcasts, where I have in-depth conversations with fund managers, strategists and experts about how markets really work. And join me for a separate episode where I answer listener questions on how to make those markets work for you. Follow Merrin Talks Money on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen. Welcome back to NewsHour. The streaming giant Netflix has walked away from the bidding war for the Hollywood conglomerate Warner Brothers Discovery. That clears the way for Paramount to take over the company and a whole array of high-profile media assets, including HBO and also the news networks CBS and CNN. But the deal does need to be approved by regulators. Let's talk to Jeremy Barr, media reporter for Guardian US, based in Washington, D.C. Jeremy, thanks very much for joining us on NewsHour. Is it all down to money in the end? Netflix couldn't top Paramount's offer? Well, I guess they probably could have, theoretically, but they didn't want to. The leadership of Netflix has basically said that this is a deal that they were not willing to overpay for, that they were willing to walk away from it. And the price was getting extremely high. I mean, what Paramount ended up, the final bid ended up being like $110 million, or $110 billion, I'm sorry. So a very, very large amount of money. And Netflix's shareholders have sort of not been super in favor of this deal. the stock price of Netflix has been down a bit. So I think this is a deal that maybe didn't make sense from the position of Netflix's shareholders and their ownership, particularly as the price kept getting larger and larger. Yeah, I've just noticed Netflix shares have opened up more than 9%. So clearly, those shareholders happy that they didn't go down that road. Did politics also play a part in all this? I think at this point, politics plays a part in almost everything in American media. You know, when you have administration with the president who so openly kind of voices his support and criticism of certain media companies, who weighs in on media mergers and approvals, you know, who has close relationships with various leaders. Obviously, we know he has a relationship with Rupert Murdoch, but I mean, the closeness that Trump has with Larry Ellison, who's the father of David Ellison and is the largest shareholder of Paramount Sky guidance. I think that, you know, the consensus was that the White House and our administration, you know, really supported Paramount's bid for Warner Brothers Discovery instead of Netflix. And I think Netflix had been, you know, doing all the right things and having all the right meetings. But ultimately, there clearly is more of an affinity between the Ellisons and Paramount and the White House than there is with Netflix. We're in the news business. So let me just ask you about that what might change with those news providers i mean i think you've been speaking to some people at cnn are they worried about all this they're very worried about it they thought they were kind of in the clear when a team like netflix was going to win but now that paramount is the likely winner they still the deal still needs to get approval from regulatory bodies but i think it's kind of seen as maybe a formality at this point but i think some people at cnn are definitely worried that the independence of the network is in question they're worried about something happening at CNN, like what's happened at CBS News, where you had a conservative opinion commentator brought in to lead the network. There's been a lot of changes at CBS News. So I think CNN is very worried that, you know, that the integrity of the news product might be diminished and that there might be an effort to kind of shift the network more ideologically to the right, which could be pretty damaging for the business. Jeremy, thank you very much indeed. Jeremy Barr, media reporter for Guardian US, joining us live there from Washington. This is the BBC. This is the BBC World Service in London. You're listening to NewsHour and I'm James Menendez. In less than an hour and a half, Bill Clinton will become the first former US president to testify before a congressional committee. He'll answer questions from members of the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating the files linked to the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. His wife, Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, had her turn yesterday and afterwards had this to say. I don't know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein. I never went to his island. I never went to his homes. I never went to his offices. so it's on the record numerous times. It then got, at the end, quite unusual because I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile, bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet. Let's talk to the BBC's Neda Taufik, who's in Chapaqua, New York, where the depositions are taking place. That's near the Clintons' home. Hi, Neda. Hillary Clinton says she never met Epstein, but Bill Clinton did, didn't he? Exactly. And that's why when Republicans say that today's deposition is going to go even longer than Hillary Clinton's, which was about six hours, everybody can understand why. It's just that they have a longer line of questioning because unlike his wife, Bill Clinton does have a well-documented set of interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. That was post his presidency when he was trying to build up his charitable work, but before Epstein was under federal investigation for sex trafficking and sex crimes. Bill Clinton, for example, took several trips on Epstein's private jet, for example, to Africa to raise awareness and money for AIDS. with the actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker. And of course, the latest Epstein Files release showed those photos of Bill Clinton swimming in a pool with Ghislaine Maxwell and also in a hot tub. Now, Bill Clinton has said that he regrets his association with Epstein, that he never knew about his crimes, and no one has accused Bill Clinton of any wrongdoing. But yesterday, Hillary Clinton was asked about those photos, and according to U.S. media, she responded coolly that she wasn't there to speak about her feelings. And when she was pressed about Epstein and donations, for example, to the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation, she hit back that they would need to ask her husband. So today is expected to be even more tense, and Republicans, no doubt, will have a long line of questioning. Neda, I mean, as you well know, the rigmarole in these sort of appearances before congressional committees is normally that they take place in Washington, D.C., in the full glare of the cameras. Everyone can see how they unfold. I mean, what's going to happen with these depositions? Will people get to see what was said? Yeah. And, you know, it's important to note that obviously this took months and months of wrangling back and forth with the Clintons initially saying they wouldn't appear, but then being threatened with criminal contempt and then agreeing to appear. But then the Clintons wanted this to be public, saying if we're going to do this. We want everyone to be able to see it firsthand. But then the committee said it was their standard procedure to keep it behind closed doors, but that they would release the video and transcripts of the depositions. Now, we were told yesterday by Republicans that this could take some time, obviously, because the video is quite long. The transcripts have to be reviewed by the Clinton's lawyers as well before they're released. So that is a process. But Democrats have been pushing, saying this needs to happen within the next 24 hours. And I should also add that Democrats are taking this opportunity, saying that this committee has set a new precedent where a former president is being compelled to testify in a congressional committee for the first time, that that means now President Trump should also testify under oath instead of just answering questions at press gaggles. Nader, thank you very much indeed. The BBC's Nader Taufik there. after nearly a month of blocking all oil deliveries to cuba the united states has said that it will ease the ban if the crude is sent to the island's small private sector and not the government since american special forces removed its close ally nicolas maduro from power in venezuela cuba has lost its most important source of energy so far other nations under pressure from washington have been unwilling to step in to replace venezuela and prop up the island's communist government. And the effects of the blockade are increasingly clear, with 18-hour long blackouts and severe shortages of essential goods. From the capital Havana, Will Grant reports. With Washington in control of Venezuela's oil industry and President Trump threatening tariffs against any nation which sends Cuba fuel, Breini Hernández has to chop driftwood he found on the beach. Gas hasn't been delivered in months to their huddle of flimsy homes in a Havana suburb, so the construction worker has no choice but to cook with firewood. His daughter went to school with no breakfast this morning. Every day is the same hunger, the same misery, says Brainy, stirring a pot of rice. Hopefully I can get enough money together in the next couple of days for a packet of hot dogs or three or four eggs. The situation has worsened since the US imposed a total fuel blockade on Cuba. Yet Brainy doesn't direct his ire at Washington. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'd like Trump to take this place over. Then let's see if things get better, he says with disarming honesty. Brainies remains an extreme view. Most don't want President Trump in charge. But such is the level of exhaustion at the dire circumstances, the public's fear of reprisals for speaking out is beginning to evaporate. On the streets, the effects of Washington's actions are even clearer. I'm at a crossroads in central Havana. It's always been a run-down and difficult neighbourhood for its residents. But now, every couple of corners, there is a huge festering pile of uncollected rubbish. Just discarded box after box and plastic bag after plastic bag. There's no fuel with which to run. The rubbish trucks, amid this energy crisis, such basic services are some of the first to go. I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas. The Trump administration's oil shutout is a far cry from the optimism of Washington's Cuba policy of a decade ago. Next month marks the 10th anniversary of Barack Obama's historic visit to Cuba, becoming the first sitting US president to step foot on the island in almost a century. The man who oversaw the diplomatic thaw was the then US ambassador to Cuba, Jeffrey de Laurentiis. It seems like they're taking sort of coercive steps to bring the government to the table or capitulate, but not necessarily collapse. And that's a pretty risky strategy, it seems to me, with a lot of potential for unintended consequences. The former US ambassador thinks the Trump administration is trying to repeat in Cuba the model it's applied in Venezuela. that is not overnight change, but rather working with an acceptable partner inside the existing regime. Recent reporting by the Axios news outlet suggests that the person the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is speaking to inside the Cuban government is Raul Castro's grandson. Called Raul Rodriguez Castro, he's better known on the island as El Cangrejo, meaning the crab, and is considered business-oriented, not ideological. In the meantime drivers must use a government app called Ticket under which they allowed a maximum of 20 litres of fuel paid for in US dollars Esteban Bello is a tour operator with several almendrones, the big gas-guzzling 1950s automobiles. He drives me around in his own beat-up Hyundai on a fruitless search of the city's petrol stations. There's a problem here, the fuel problem, so surely the people at the top on both sides have to sit down and figure this out, Esteban says bluntly. This is affecting the entire country, all of us, from the very top to the very bottom. Will Grant reporting there from Havana. There's been a major upset in a by-election or special election here in the UK. The governing Labour Party's lost control of one of its parliamentary strongholds in the north of England to a newly resurgent Green Party. Its candidate, Hannah Spencer, who's a plumber, won the Gaunton and Denton seat in Greater Manchester by more than 4,000 votes. And even she seems surprised. To my customers, I'm sorry, but I think I might have to cancel the work that you had booked in because I'm heading to Parliament. And when I get there, I will make space for everyone doing jobs like mine. We will finally get a seat at the table. Well, in the end, Labour came third behind the Greens and the populist right-wing party reform, putting even more pressure on the Prime Minister Keir Starmer over his leadership. Let's talk to our UK political correspondent, Rob Watson, who joins us from Manchester. Hello, Rob. We'll talk about Labour's woes in a moment. But the Greens, it's quite an achievement. How did they do it? What sort of party are they? so like other green parties across europe james that they've moved from being just focused on eco on ecological issues to being a sort of a left-wing party so they tend to take the view that the rich should be taxed more they want to see more nationalization of industry and they take a very hard view on on israel and are very pro-gaza um so they've done very well labor have done uh badly in third place. So, I mean, Labour seems to be being squeezed from the left and from the right. How big a hole are they in? They're in a huge hole. And I don't think it would be an overstatement to say that the result might not have been an earthquake here in Manchester, but certainly pretty seismic, James. I mean, I think there are three big takeaways. Number one, that the Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, seems to be very much living on borrowed time. This was a dreadful result for his leadership. As you say, secondly, it really puts Labour in a real bind. I mean, what do they do? How do they stop losing votes both to the Greens on the left, but also to the anti-immigration reform party on the right? And then, of course, the third sort of meta issue that this throws up is, you know, does this result confirm a trend that we've seen for some time? And that is the end of the dominance of Britain's two main parties who've dominated British politics since the Second World War, because the Conservatives also did truly dreadfully. And is it their thought, or is it that people, the electorate, are just pretty fed up? That's a fantastic question, James. I guess it's a bit of both, right? I mean, you know, what the polling suggests, the polling suggests that people are fantastically angry, driven by underlying concerns about living standards, the sense that nothing works, and concerns about immigration and social cohesion. So it's everything, James. Rob, it's going to be interesting next few months and years, and you will be there to guide us through, I'm sure. Rob Watson, our UK political correspondent, joining us live there from Manchester City of that by-election last night. You're listening to Newshead. This is James Menendez with News Our Life from the BBC. Now, just days after President Trump returned to the White House at the beginning of last year, he set his sights on the International Criminal Court with an executive order accusing it, quote, of illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel. It followed the ICC's decision to issue warrants for the arrest of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-Defense Minister Yoav Galant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza. Warrants were also set to be issued for three senior Hamas leaders, although they were all subsequently killed in the conflict. Well, the impact of President Trump's order became clear later in 2025, when US sanctions were imposed on 11 ICC officials, including its chief prosecutor and eight judges. Among them, the Slovenian judge, Betty Hola, who this week has been speaking to the European Parliament, calling for measures to protect EU citizens from US sanctions. I spoke to her a little earlier and asked her first for her reaction when news of the sanctions against her came through. I was quite honestly shocked, baffled, one could say. Although there was talk of sanctions even beforehand, you have to understand that imposing sanctions on independent international judges of an international court was really unprecedented. And the reality is that the consequences of sanctions were really immediate. And the sanctions have had and they continue to have a real impact on my life. So, for example, even the day after I was sanctioned, a European bank, in fact, informed me that is closing my bank account. And soon thereafter, your credit cards get cancelled and so on. So what sort of changes have you had to make to your life to deal with the impact of those sanctions? Well, as a sanctioned individual, essentially, I no longer have access to any American products or services, even in Europe. So that means that my Apple ID, my iCloud, Amazon, Airbnb, PayPal, and all other accounts have been blocked or canceled. And these cancellations happen overnight, essentially without any advanced warnings. So as you can imagine, without credit cards, it makes it difficult and sometimes impossible to do everyday things like making a reservation, buying a plane ticket, or subscribing to an online news outlet. So sometimes there are solutions, sometimes there are none. With regard to credit cards, for example, because there is no non-U.S. credit card alternative, it is essentially impossible to have a credit card as a sanctioned individual. And is it just you or is there a broader impact for you and your fellow judges in terms of your family's ability to carry out many day-to-day activities? The consequences of sanctions do extend also to family members. This is also in the executive order. My fellow judges with children have, for example, reported that their children's visas and their employment and education opportunities have been, for example, affected. So besides the psychological effect, obviously, on the family members, there is also a further impact. I mean, what about the psychological impact on you? Well, as you can imagine, this is very unpleasant. It is disruptive. It is stressful. And living with sanctions essentially also means living in constant uncertainty, because even a bank card that works today may not work tomorrow. An insurance company that insures your house today may essentially terminate the contract tomorrow. But at the same time, we, of course, continue to do our work determined and undeterred. We are equally committed to performing our judicial duties like we always have, independently, impartially, with integrity and with courage. This is part of the personal resilience that we essentially promise in our judicial own. The thrust of the accusation is that the court is politicised. it's not impartial, as you just said, and that you're part of an illegitimate campaign to target, to go after the US and Israel. What's your response? The court is, as the name says, an international criminal court. It is not a political actor. It is a court of law, and it is absolutely an independent and impartial institution. And we apply the law within the mandate that is given to us in the Rome statute by 125 state parties. And we apply the law on the basis of the facts and the evidence before us. But the US and Israel are not party to the statute that enshrined the creation of the court. And it's an argument that's been used not just by the Trump administration, but I think by the Biden administration, too, that non-signatories are not party to the court's actions and arrest warrants. Can you just explain for our listeners why that isn't the case, in your view? Well, the jurisdiction of the court is set out in the Rome Statute. Now, because these are live issues, also before the chamber that I sit in, I wouldn't want to comment in particular on any of these issues. But in essence, if you look at the articles of the Rome Statute, the answers are there. And that is what we apply. What do you think, going back to the sanctions that were placed upon you and your fellow judges, I mean, what are the broader implications for international law, the rule of law around the world, do you think? This is, I think, a very dangerous moment for international rule of law more broadly. And President Trump, I mean, he's been quite open about not caring about international law. I think he said, I don't need international law. I can just be guided by my own morality. Is that the world we're living in now? I wouldn't want to comment on any statements of President Trump. But what I will say is that I think it's very dangerous when the ICC is targeted in this way. The question then arises whether other international and regional judges could be next, if and when they issue a welcome decision. How should other countries respond? And I'm thinking particularly of European countries, because I know you've been talking to the European Parliament. I spoke in the European Parliament this week. I was there essentially to call on the European Union and on the member states that are all also members of the International Criminal Court to protect the court so that it can continue to fulfill its mandate, which is essentially delivering justice to the victim. The important thing is really enhancing and further building its institutional resilience. This is something that matters not just for the International Criminal Court, but more generally for international institutions more broadly. Because I think building this autonomy, showing the way forward based on lessons learned could also assist other international organizations if and when they come under attack from whatever direction. That was the Slovenian judge Berti Hola who sits on the International Criminal Court speaking to me a little earlier. And that brings us to the end of this edition of News Out from me and the rest of the team. Thanks so much for being with us. Until the next time. Bye-bye. Scientists are desperately searching for penguin feathers on their satellite screens. They're worried it's a sign that thousands could have died because of melting ice. I'm Ikra and on What's in the World we're finding out how the emperor penguin's molting, that crucial shedding of feathers, has become riskier because of climate change. What's in the World is a daily podcast from the BBC World Service. We go in-depth on a different topic every weekday in under 15 minutes. Listen wherever you get your BBC podcasts.