South Korea imposes martial law briefly, Aleppo falls — here’s what happened in the world this week

Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO allies for underfunding their defence commitments, warning earlier this year that the US might withhold security guarantees. His remarks — “We’re not going to protect NATO allies if they are not going to pay” — have spurred European capitals to explore innovative funding mechanisms.

The proposed financing vehicle would allow participating countries to issue bonds backed by national guarantees, rather than relying on collective EU backing. This model would also be open to non-EU states like the UK and Norway, enhancing its scope. According to sources involved in the discussions, while the precise borrowing target is yet to be finalised, the fund’s scale would exceed EUR500 billion. The European Investment Bank is expected to play a role in administering the vehicle and managing treasury functions.

This marks a significant departure from traditional EU fiscal conservatism, which has historically resisted joint borrowing initiatives. Countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark, known for their fiscal hawkishness, are showing signs of warming to the idea.

Reactions across Europe

Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who has been a vocal proponent of Eurobonds for defence, noted a palpable shift in sentiment, stating “There is a growing consensus that we need to spend more on defence, and perhaps it’s time to establish a joint European mechanism to finance projects of common interest.”

While nations such as the Netherlands, Finland, and Denmark have expressed support, Germany’s stance remains uncertain and could hinge on its upcoming February elections. Meanwhile, the UK has yet to commit but a senior British official welcomed the proposal as an “encouraging” sign of European ambition.

The geopolitical urgency behind the proposal is underscored by Europe’s dual objectives: sustaining military support for Ukraine and preparing for Trump’s potential foreign policy shifts. As one senior EU official explained, “Europe must take its security into its own hands, especially when uncertainty looms over US commitments.”

If implemented, this financing model could signal a turning point in European defence cooperation, showcasing a unified and proactive response to global security challenges.

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol attempts to impose martial law

South Korea is grappling with a political crisis following President Yoon Suk Yeol’s short-lived attempt to impose martial law, a move that has plunged the country into turmoil and reignited fears of authoritarianism.

The crisis unfolded Tuesday night when Yoon declared martial law, accusing the left-wing Opposition, which holds a parliamentary majority, of “paralysing state activities” and harbouring “North Korean sympathies.” The military swiftly announced the suspension of parliamentary activities, but this dramatic escalation only galvanised public outrage. Thousands of citizens gathered outside the National Assembly, protesting what they viewed as an unconstitutional power grab.

The situation intensified as troops stormed the Assembly, clashing with protesters and legislative staff. However, in a rare display of political resistance, lawmakers convened and voted to revoke the martial law order. Under mounting pressure, Yoon rescinded the decree within hours.

Opposition parties wasted no time in initiating impeachment proceedings, labelling Yoon’s actions as “treason.” Park Ahn-soo, a prominent army general, testified during the initial stages of the impeachment process, revealing that he learned of the martial law declaration through Yoon’s press conference. He pointed to Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun as the orchestrator of the military’s actions, following the president’s directive.

Amid the backlash, Yoon accepted the resignation of Kim, who took responsibility for ordering the military to enforce martial law. This marks a striking reversal for a president who, in his 2022 inauguration speech, pledged to rebuild South Korea into a nation “that truly belongs to the people”.

Yoon’s presidency, however, has been marred by persistent challenges. He entered office with historically low approval ratings and has faced a politically hostile parliament dominated by the Opposition. This latest controversy underscores the fragility of his administration and the deepening divide in South Korean politics.

Observers have noted the troubling historical echoes of Yoon’s attempt. South Korea’s last experience with martial law was in 1979, during its authoritarian era, which only ended in 1987. The country’s vibrant democracy has since been tested, most notably in 2017, when conservative President Park Geun-hye was impeached and removed amid a corruption scandal.

As South Korea contends with the fallout from this crisis, the nation confronts a stark reminder of the delicate balance between democratic governance and executive overreach. Yoon’s failed gambit may prove to be a turning point, but for now, it has left his presidency in jeopardy and the country’s political landscape deeply unsettled.

Opposition forces gain ground in Syria

After years of relative stagnation in Syria’s brutal civil war, the conflict has taken a dramatic and violent turn. Rebel forces led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) have seized the cities of Aleppo and Hama in a sweeping offensive, displacing tens of thousands and rekindling fears of an escalating humanitarian disaster.

This resurgence of hostilities comes as Bashar al-Assad’s regime and its Russian allies have periodically targeted rebel-held areas in the northeast, while the US and its Kurdish allies continue their fight against ISIS. Israel, too, has intensified strikes on Hezbollah and Iranian-linked targets in Syria, particularly following the October 7 attacks in Israel. Yet, until now, the war in Syria had largely receded from global attention, with fixed frontlines and Assad consolidating his grip over much of the country.

The fall of Aleppo

Aleppo, a city of two million and once Syria’s industrial hub, has long been a symbol of the conflict. Divided during the early years of the war, it was recaptured by Assad’s forces in 2016 after a devastating offensive supported by Russia and Iran. Now, its fall to HTS has shocked observers. Reports suggest the rebel takeover was swift and met with limited resistance, though it has left tens of thousands displaced in its wake, according to the UN.

HTS, which has sought to rebrand itself as a more moderate Islamist group in recent years, now faces the challenge of governing a major urban centre. While it has established a civilian-led administration, the Syrian Salvation Government, in its stronghold of Idlib, its rule has been marked by a mix of stability and authoritarianism. There are fears that in Aleppo, a city with a more diverse population, HTS’s conservative governance could prove deeply contentious.

Entry into Hama

The rebels’ offensive also delivered a symbolic blow by capturing Hama, a city deeply embedded in Syria’s turbulent history. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Hama was the site of a brutal crackdown by Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, against an Islamist uprising. The 1982 massacre that followed claimed tens of thousands of lives and has since haunted the national psyche.

HTS’s leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, underscored the historical resonance, declaring, “The revolutionaries have begun entering the city of Hama, to cleanse the wound that has persisted in Syria for 40 years.” Images from Al Jazeera showed small groups celebrating in Hama’s streets, though such scenes remain fraught with uncertainty given the regime’s history of retribution.

Assad’s response

The Assad regime and Russian forces have already begun a fierce counteroffensive, launching airstrikes on Aleppo and other rebel-controlled areas. Many fear this could mark the beginning of another cycle of devastation. HTS, meanwhile, has declared its intent to push further, targeting the strategic city of Homs, which connects Damascus to the northern and coastal regions.

As the rebels consolidate gains, the broader implications remain unclear. The resurgence of active hostilities complicates the fragile regional dynamics, where countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have begun normalising relations with Assad. Additionally, Syria’s role in the regional drug trade and as a proxy battlefield for external powers further muddies the waters.

After 13 years of war, this sudden shift threatens to undo years of tenuous stability, reigniting the conflict with devastating consequences for Syria’s population. With Aleppo and Hama now under rebel control, the coming weeks will determine whether these gains hold or provoke a new, more brutal phase of the civil war.

Biden’s par­don of his son stirs out­rage

In a move that has already ignited fierce political debate, President Joe Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, on Sunday night. The pardon covers all offences committed or potentially committed by Hunter from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024. This sweeping clemency absolves years of legal troubles, including a federal conviction for tax evasion and illegally purchasing a firearm.

In a statement from the White House, President Biden defended his decision, asserting that the charges against his son were politically motivated. “The allegations and subsequent prosecution of Hunter were not about justice but a calculated attempt to harm me politically,” he stated.

However, the pardon has added fuel to a contentious political landscape. It comes at a time when Trump has openly declared his intention to use the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a tool of “retribution” against political adversaries. The clemency may weaken Democrats’ ability to criticise Trump’s plans, as the party has long condemned the use of presidential powers for perceived personal or political gain.

Reactions across the aisle

The decision has split Democrats and further inflamed Republican criticism. Representative Greg Stanton, a Democrat from Arizona, publicly opposed the move, calling it a mistake. “This wasn’t a politically-motivated prosecution,” Stanton wrote on social media. “Hunter committed felonies and was convicted by a jury of his peers.”

Conversely, some Democrats have rallied to Biden’s defence. Former Attorney General Eric Holder described the pardon as justified, arguing that “no reasonable U.S. attorney would have brought charges against Hunter Biden.” Holder deflected criticism by pointing to the appointment of Kash Patel, Trump’s controversial choice for FBI director, saying, “Ask yourself a vastly more important question: Is Patel qualified to lead the world’s pre-eminent law enforcement agency? Obvious answer: hell no.”

On the Republican side, Trump took to Truth Social, accusing Biden of hypocrisy and demanding similar treatment for January 6 rioters. “Does the pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years? Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!” Trump wrote.

The fallout

While controversial, presidential pardons are not unprecedented. Before leaving office, Trump pardoned several allies, including Steve Bannon, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn, as well as Charles Kushner, father of his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Similarly, Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother Roger Clinton for drug-related offences and Democratic donor Marc Rich, a fugitive facing tax evasion charges, in the final days of his presidency.

Biden’s decision, however, may carry unique ramifications. It bolsters claims of a “weaponised” justice system, a narrative Trump has repeatedly used to justify his own legal troubles and impending plans to reshape the DOJ. Moreover, it leaves Democrats in a precarious position as they attempt to navigate the moral and political implications of both defending Biden’s actions and opposing Trump’s.

As the US political climate becomes increasingly polarised, Biden’s unprecedented pardon of his son underscores the growing challenges of balancing governance, accountability, and family loyalty in an era defined by partisan divisions.

A no-confidence vote in France

In a dramatic turn, the French National Assembly voted on Wednesday to oust Prime Minister Michel Barnier, just three months into his term, plunging France into political chaos. The motion of no confidence, supported by 331 lawmakers, was driven by an unlikely coalition of Marine Le Pen’s far-right Rassemblement National and a Leftist bloc, united in opposition to Barnier’s controversial deficit-cutting budget.

The failed 2025 budget, which proposed €60 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts to tackle a ballooning deficit of 6% of GDP, had become a lightning rod for criticism across the political spectrum. The vote marks only the second time in the history of France’s Fifth Republic, founded in 1958, that a government has been removed by parliament.

Barnier’s tenure as prime minister now stands as the shortest on record, leaving President Emmanuel Macron tasked with appointing a new premier amid a fractured and unruly parliament. The collapse of Barnier’s administration comes just weeks after a similar crisis toppled German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition, leaving the European Union’s two most influential members in political disarray.

Rising pressure on Macron

Macron now faces the dual challenge of navigating the political fallout while contending with a resurgent Marine Le Pen, whose party played a pivotal role in Barnier’s ouster. Le Pen framed her support for the no-confidence vote as a stand against the government’s “dangerous, unfair, and punitive budget,” while accusing Macron of exacerbating the crisis.

“This chaos is a direct result of Emmanuel Macron’s mismanagement,” Le Pen said in an interview with TF1 television after the vote.

Critics have also pointed to Macron’s decision to call a snap parliamentary election last summer as a miscalculation. The resulting highly divided parliament has made governing nearly impossible and calls for Macron’s resignation are growing—not just from Opposition figures but also from moderates disillusioned with the current deadlock.

Despite the mounting pressure, Macron has ruled out stepping down, asserting his commitment to serving the remainder of his term, which ends in 2027. “I was elected with a mandate of five years, and I intend to fulfil it,” Macron said, dismissing calls for his resignation. “The only timetable that matters to me is not that of ambitions; it is that of our nation.” He pledged to spend his remaining time in office “being useful to the country.”

Macron’s next step will be selecting a new prime minister capable of navigating a parliament divided into three hostile blocs, none of which commands a majority. This task is made even more daunting by the increasing strength of Le Pen’s Rassemblement National, which has capitalised on public frustration with inflation, government spending, and Macron’s leadership.

The broader implications for France, and the European Union, are profound. With Germany and France both facing political crises, the EU’s ability to act cohesively on key issues like economic reform, security, and climate policy may be severely hampered.

As Macron seeks to stabilise his government and regain control of the political narrative, his challenges are mounting. The next few weeks will determine whether France can overcome its current crisis or slide deeper into political instability.

Accusations of genocide in Bangladesh

In her first public address since stepping down and fleeing Bangladesh in August, former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina levelled grave accusations against interim government leader Muhammad Yunus, claiming he has failed to protect minorities, and accused him of “genocide.”

Speaking in Bengali for nearly an hour from an undisclosed location, Hasina recounted the events leading to her dramatic departure from Dhaka on August 5. She described an alleged plot to assassinate her and her sister Sheikh Rehana, similar to the 1975 murder of their father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh’s founding leader.

“The armed protesters were directed towards Ganabhaban,” Hasina said, referring to the prime minister’s residence. “If the security guards opened fire, many lives would have been lost. It was a matter of 25-30 minutes, and I was forced to leave. I told them not to fire no matter what happened.”

Rising tensions over minority rights

Hasina accused Yunus’s administration of gross negligence in safeguarding the country’s minorities, particularly Hindus, who have faced a surge in violence since the interim government assumed power.

India, a key regional ally, has expressed mounting concerns over these attacks. Relations between the two nations have grown increasingly strained under Yunus’s interim rule, with New Delhi urging Dhaka to ensure the safety of its Hindu population.

Yunus, a Nobel laureate celebrated for his work in microfinance, has faced significant domestic and international criticism since taking over as interim leader. However, his administration has dismissed Hasina’s allegations as politically motivated.

Bangladesh’s political climate remains tense following Hasina’s sudden departure, which came amid mounting protests and widespread dissatisfaction with her government. The power vacuum has left the country deeply polarised, with Yunus’s interim government struggling to maintain order.

Hasina’s accusations add to the uncertainty in a nation grappling with political instability and rising communal tensions. Her claims of an assassination plot and charges of genocide will likely escalate the already volatile political environment.

Observers are closely watching how the interim government addresses these accusations and whether they will lead to further unrest in Bangladesh, a nation at a critical juncture in its political history.