The man sitting in front of us belongs to the Sinaloa Cartel — one of the most powerful and feared criminal networks in the world — and one the US government recently designated a foreign terrorist organization.

This is a gang that “murder, rape, torture and exercise total control… posing a great threat to (the United States’) national security,” according to US President Donald Trump, who has promised to “wage war” against Mexico’s cartels.

It’s taken weeks to reach this man, verify his identity, and persuade him to talk with us. Our contact on the ground here in the Mexican state of Sinaloa has repeatedly reassured him we are not the police. Or DEA agents. Or the CIA.

We arrive at a nondescript house in a residential area on the southern side of Culiacán city and are instructed to cover our camera on the way in. It’s a neighborhood that’s known to be populated by cartels. Once inside, we’re taken to a dimly lit bedroom at the back of the house. A giant painting of Jesus Christ is nailed to the wall, above a rusty looking bed caked in dust. An older, beefy man stands by the window, holding a walkie-talkie close to his ear and anxiously glancing up and down the street where cars and military vehicles pass by.

The cartel member — now a terrorist in the eyes of the US government — sits in one corner of the room. He has a firm handshake and a hefty build. He wears a “Joker” movie baseball cap pulled down over his head, a scarf wrapped tightly around his face, sunglasses to disguise his eyes, and blue latex gloves to cover the tattoos on his hands. Propped up by his chair is an assault rifle. Next to that are two more walkie-talkies, from which cartel look-outs provide a constant stream of feedback on the movements of the Mexican military.

He says he produces fentanyl — the synthetic opioid that has become the most common drug involved in overdose deaths in the United States.

“Of course, of course, things are sad,” says the man, who didn’t give his real name. “(But) you have to continue… Families have to eat,” he shrugs.

For nearly two decades, Mexican authorities have been waging a battle against the cartels, with limited results. And for over five decades, various US presidents have declared wars on drugs. But amid fresh waves of cartel violence and pressure from Trump in the form of threatened US military intervention and higher import tariffs, President Claudia Sheinbaum has adopted a more head-on approach to tackling the issue. (Her predecessor Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s “hugs, not bullets” stance proved woefully ineffective.)

Around 10,000 members of Mexico’s National Guard have been sent to their northern border, in part to stop the flow of narcotics from entering the US. And hundreds of soldiers are believed to have joined preexisting armed forces, marines, National Guards and law enforcement already stationed in Sinaloa state, home to the infamous Sinaloa drug cartel previously led by the notorious drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán.

The precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl are largely sourced from China, before being cooked up in labs across Mexico, where cartels have well-established control over entire territories — and relatively easy access to the US market. (The Mexican government denies that fentanyl is produced in country, claiming instead that most of the synthetic labs they discover are being used to make methamphetamine.)

Business these days is not good, the cartel member says, acknowledging that the Sinaloa Cartel itself has been significantly weakened by the military’s actions. But they can still survive. Only small quantities of the drug can be produced, he explains, as the group needs to stay nimble in case the authorities carry out impromptu raids.

Using smaller reactors and cooking equipment allows them to dismantle their operation at a moment’s notice, and to smuggle these manageable quantities of drugs through different neighborhoods — and eventually over the border. Sometimes they move location for different stages of production, ensuring they’re only in one area for a short period of time. The cartels are also pouring additional resources into surveillance to keep tabs on the police and military. And much of the production has moved to other states, where the Mexican military has less of a presence.

A mammoth military task

Crammed into a Blackhawk helicopter with the Mexican military, the challenges of disrupting the drug trade can be seen in the sprawling landscape below.

Sinaloa state stretches out for over 22,000 square miles, and the soldiers scour the mountainous terrain beneath them for any signs of tracks, electrical wires or water supplies that could lead to a hideout where drugs are produced. Given that these operations have mostly moved out of the city and are now tucked away somewhere in this vast countryside, they’re much harder to spot.

Fields of marijuana and poppies (used to make heroin) are more visible, but the synthetic drug labs can pop up anywhere and often require only rudimentary equipment: pots, pans, basic protective gear to stop the workers from breathing in toxic fumes, plastic vats where the chemicals are mixed, small reactors used to “cook” the final product and a sheet of tarpaulin that hangs above, so their operation is not visible from the military’s helicopters or drones.

On a visit to one recently discovered meth lab, it was apparent that a small team of cartel employees had been working here up until the day before. The military rarely catch the culprits, who likely scarper as soon as they see the helicopter landing. Left behind are parts of a reactor and big plastic containers of liquid meth, along with piles of perishable food, water and even a pair of jeans — signs that they’d been camped up in this area for several days.

Mexican soldiers wearing gas masks and white Hazmat suits smash through the remaining equipment in sweltering 96-degree Fahrenheit heat, stopping occasionally to mop up sweat pouring from their faces.

A sign was nailed to a post at the entrance of the lab. It read “To make a deal: Cell phone”: an open invitation for any willing soldier to write their phone number and look the other way, presumably in exchange for a payout.

“This literally never happens,” insists Brigadier General Porfirio Fuentes Vélez. “I see the government’s commitment in addressing (the issue of drugs). We know it’s a very serious problem because there’s a market that demands a lot of synthetic drugs. But criminals are increasingly producing less… because the strategy of the current Mexican president is to strengthen the coordination of all agencies at the federal, state, and municipal levels.”

But off the record, almost everyone we speak to acknowledges that corruption is widespread. In fact, the security chief who oversaw a previous crackdown was later convicted in US federal court for taking millions of dollars from the Sinaloa cartel.

War within a war

Rosalinda Cabanillas lets out a guttural wail that echoes across the entire cemetery. The sound of pain that no mother should have to go through. She clings to the white casket carrying her 26-year-old daughter, Vivian Karely Aispuro, whose body was found 17 agonizing days after she disappeared.

“Thank you for the great adventure. Thank you for everything,” sobs 27-year-old Alma Aispuro, as her younger sister’s body is lowered into the ground. A bright, five-piece mariachi band blast out their tunes in a constant loop.

Over the last seven months, violence has surged across Sinaloa, particularly in Culiacán. The city has become awash with blood, as rival factions of the Sinaloa cartel fight a deadly war of vengeance. Two powerful leaders of the Sinaloa cartel were arrested in Texas last July: Ismael Zambada Garcia (known as “El Mayo”, he’s a co-founder of the group) and Joaquín Guzmán López, son of El Chapo. Both stand accused of leading fentanyl manufacturing and trafficking networks. But Zambada was caught after an alleged betrayal by Guzmán López, officials say, driving their followers into opposing groups. (In the US, Zambada has pleaded not guilty on a 17-count indictment accusing him of narcotics trafficking and murder. Gúzman López has pleaded not guilty to narcotics, money laundering and firearms charges.)

Since then, Culiacán has become paralyzed by regular shootouts between the two factions, as well as the military. More than 1,200 men, women, and children have been killed in the past year, more than double the toll of the previous 12 months, according to the State Council of Public Safety (a citizens’ organization). Hundreds more have gone missing.

Though the military’s presence has helped calm the situation somewhat, it’s far from under control, and fear runs deep among many residents. Attendance at local schools is down, and children are taught how to take cover in case they find themselves trapped between gunfire. As night falls, the usually vibrant city is eerily quiet — apart from the occasional sound of gunfire. A self-imposed curfew still mostly stands, with bars and restaurants closing early. Volunteer paramedics whizz round on motorbikes, responding to a stream of medical emergencies resulting from violent incidents.

Alma says that her sister Vivian was not involved with the cartels, and we found no evidence to suggest otherwise. “But the violence raging here in Culiacán led to this happening. Because before the war we’re experiencing now, there were codes — and women and children were respected. After the war, those codes no longer exist,” she says.

Anyone with even the slightest involvement with members of the cartel could be at risk. And even those who keep their distance, we were told by residents living through this, can find themselves taken hostage or murdered.

Miguel Calderón, who lives in Culiacán and works for the State Council on Public Security, believes that things could be even worse.

“That pressure (from the Trump administration) has translated into tangible results here, into better coordination that translates into all these issues of inhibiting criminal activity, especially its firepower… If it weren’t for federal forces and all this military support from the national government, the problem would be two or three times worse.”

Ultimately, though, he believes it’s difficult to maintain this pressure when so many young men are being recruited into the cartel every day, with promises of paychecks far bigger than they’d receive otherwise. He says that something needs to be done to seriously curb the US demand for the drugs produced here. Without that, the Sinaloa cartel are likely to remain a prominent, wealthy force — and more families will feel anguish like that of Vivian Aispuro’s family.

“After my sister, that same day we found her dead, five women disappeared, including girls and others the same age as my sister. And we’re afraid, honestly, I’m afraid. I’m afraid for my family. I’m afraid to be a woman in Mexico, and I’m afraid that no one will help us, no one will listen to us, and that no one cares about us,” says Alma, as she watches the gravediggers shovel dirt over her sister’s grave.

The world’s oldest person, Sister Inah Canabarro Lucas, has died at age 116, her order announced on Wednesday.

The soccer-loving Brazilian nun officially became the oldest person in the world in January following the death of Japan’s Tomiko Itooka, according to Guinness World Records (GWR).

When Canabarro was born on June 8, 1908, according to GWR, Theodore Roosevelt was still the United States President, penicillin had not yet been discovered, and movies were still silent.

There is some dispute about her exact birth date, as Cleber Canabarro, her 84-year-old nephew, told the Associated Press that her birth was registered two weeks late and she was actually born on May 27.

She was so skinny growing up, Canabarro added, that many doubted she would survive to adulthood, let alone become a centenarian.

She took up religious work as a teenager and always maintained her Catholic faith was the secret to her incredibly long life. “(God) is the secret of life. He is the secret of everything,” she once said, according to LongeviQuest, a database that tracks the lives of supercentenarians. On her 110th birthday, she received a blessing from Pope Francis.

After spending two years in Montevideo, Uruguay, Canabarro moved back to Brazil and lived in Rio de Janeiro before returning to her home state, Rio Grande do Sul, AP reported.

She spent much of her life as a teacher and counted General João Figueiredo, the military dictator who governed Brazil from 1979 to 1985, among her former students.

Canabarro was a lifelong fan of her local soccer club, Sport Club Internacional (Inter), which celebrated her birthday every year. The club released a statement on Wednesday paying tribute to her “kindness, faith and love.”

British woman is now world’s oldest person

Following Canabarro’s death, English great-grandmother Ethel Caterham became the oldest person in the world, at age 115 years and 252 days, according to GWR.

Caterham is believed to be the last living person born in 1909 and is the last British person born before 1913, GWR added.

Canabarro was the second-oldest Brazilian and 15th-oldest person ever, according to LongeviQuest. The title of the oldest person ever recorded belongs to Jeanne Louise Calment. Born on February 21, 1875, her life spanned 122 years and 164 days, according to GWR.

Germany’s domestic intelligence agency on Friday classified the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) as an extremist entity that threatens democracy, a move enabling it to better monitor the party that came second in February’s federal election.

The BfV agency’s finding, based on a 1,100-page expert report, that the AfD is racist and anti-Muslim allows the authorities to increase surveillance of the party, including by recruiting confidential informants and intercepting communications.

The stigma could also hamper the party’s ability to attract members, while public funding could be at risk.

The AfD, which currently tops several opinion polls, condemned the decision, while political analysts said it risked further fueling support for the party.

“Central to our assessment is the ethnically and ancestrally defined concept of the people that shapes the AfD, which devalues entire segments of the population in Germany and violates their human dignity,” the domestic intelligence agency said in a statement.

“This concept is reflected in the party’s overall anti-migrant and anti-Muslim stance.”

The AfD has “defamed and vilified” individuals and groups, stirring up “irrational fears and hostility toward them,” it added.

In the party’s first response to the report, the leader of a regional parliamentary group, Anton Baron, said: “It is sad to see the state of democracy in our country when the established parties now resort to the most politically questionable means to act against the strongest opposition party.”

Heated debate

The intelligence decision comes days before conservative leader Friedrich Merz is due to be sworn in as Germany’s new chancellor and amid a heated debate within his party over how to deal with the AfD in the new parliament.

The party won a record number of seats, theoretically entitling it to chair several key parliamentary committees.

A prominent Merz ally, Jens Spahn, has called for treating the AfD as a regular opposition party in parliamentary procedures, arguing that this approach prevents the party from adopting a ‘victim’ narrative.

However, other established parties as well as many within Spahn’s own conservatives have rejected that approach – and could use Friday’s news as justification for blocking AfD attempts to lead key committees.

“There is tension between a party’s claim to chair positions based on its size and the freedom of conscience of the members of parliament,” said political scientist Wolfgang Schroeder at Kassel University.

“Now, these members can argue that AfD representatives do not meet the necessary standards. The signs are mounting that the AfD is not a normal party, and as a result, it will continue to be marginalized.”

The classification could reignite attempts to get the AfD banned, but Germany’s outgoing chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose Social Democrats will be the junior partner in Merz’s new coalition, advised against rushing to outlaw the AfD.

“I am against a quick shot, we have to evaluate the classification carefully,” he said on Friday at a church convention in the northern city of Hanover.

The German parliament could also attempt to limit or halt public funding to the AfD – but for that authorities would need evidence that the party is explicitly out to undermine or even overthrow German democracy.

Certain factions of the AfD such as its youth wing had already been classified as extremist, while the party at large was classified as a suspected extremist case in 2021.

Created to protest the euro zone bailouts in 2013, the euroskeptic AfD morphed into an anti-migration party after Germany’s decision to take in a large wave of refugees in 2015.

That the BfV agency needs a certain classification to be able to monitor a political party reflects the fact it is more legally restrained than other European intelligence services, in reaction to the country’s experience under both Nazi and Communist rule.

The pontificate of Pope Francis profoundly shook up the Catholic Church.

His restless 12-year-papacy, with its focus on a “poor church for the poor,” called on Catholicism to leave its comfort zone and pitch its tent among the poorest communities. Francis opened discussions on topics that were once viewed off limits, such as the role of women. He welcomed LGBTQ Catholics as “children of God” and opened the door for remarried divorcees to receive communion. He also generated attention with his strong critiques of economic injustice and calls to protect the environment.

Throughout his papacy, however, Francis faced fierce resistance from small, but noisy, conservative Catholic groups and a certain amount of indifference and silent resistance from bishops in the hierarchy.

Now, as 133 voting members of the College of Cardinals prepare for the conclave, the closed-doors process to elect Francis’ successor, they face a weighty choice: Build on the late pope’s reforms and vision, or slow things down and embark on a course correction.

Those who will process into the Sistine Chapel on Wednesday to begin the process to elect a new pope could not have failed to notice the outpouring of affection for Francis after he died.

When Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, talked warmly about Francis’ vision for the church as he delivered the homily at Francis’ funeral, the crowd gathered in St. Peter’s Square repeatedly applauded. And in East Timor, which Francis visited in 2024, around 300,000 people attended a Mass for the late pope on the same day as the funeral. All of this has led one retired cardinal to urge his confrères to take note.

“The people of God have already voted at the funerals and called for continuity with Francis,” Cardinal Walter Kasper, 92, a theological adviser to the late pope, told La Repubblica, an Italian daily newspaper.

In other words – read the room.

Francis’ supporters say that only a pope willing to continue what the late pontiff started will do so. But the politics of a papal election process are subtle. Anyone overtly campaigning to be pope immediately disqualifies themselves and the cardinals must vote according to what they discern to be the will of God. Still, that doesn’t mean simply sitting in their rooms and praying for divine inspiration on how to vote.

Each morning during the pre-conclave period the cardinals meet in the Paul VI synod hall for “general congregations.” Then, in the evenings, they often continue the discussions over a plate of pasta and a glass of wine, with several seen eating in trattorias in the Borgo Pio, a village-like quarter near the Vatican.

A fault line is already emerging. Some cardinals want the next pope to follow firmly in Francis’ footsteps and focus on the “diversity” of the universal church, whose axis has shifted away from Europe and the West. Others are calling on the next pope to emphasize “unity” – code for a more predictable, steady-as-she-goes approach.

Austen Ivereigh, a papal biographer and Catholic commentator, puts the two positions this way.

“The first (diversity) sees Francis as the first pope of a new era in the Church, showing us how to evangelize today, and how to hold together our differences in a fruitful way,” he explained.

“The second (unity) sees the Francis era as a disruption, an interruption, that now needs to be reined back by a return to a greater uniformity.”

Those pushing the “unity” line include some of the most vociferous critics of the late pope, such as Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the Vatican’s former doctrine chief who Francis replaced in 2017. Characterizing the last pontificate as a divisive authoritarian, he recently told the New York Times: “All dictators are dividing.”

Most cardinals will not share Müller’s characterization, and cardinals have repeatedly expressed appreciation for Francis’ concern for those at the margins and his ability to connect with people.

But a number of them are rallying around the “unity” slogan and have plenty of criticisms of the last papacy, including his decision to embark on a major, multi-year reform process – the synod – that has opened questions about women’s leadership and how power is exercised in the church.

Some also didn’t like Francis’ full-throated critiques of priests who like to wear elaborate vestments or his offering of blessings to same-sex couples, which has been rejected by some bishops in Africa. The feeling among the “unity” group, which has the support of some retired cardinals, is that the next pope needs less of the disruptive style of Francis.

The leading “unity” candidate, it would appear, is Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Holy See Secretary of State. He would not represent an obvious break with Francis, but his style would be very different. Parolin is a mild-mannered, thoughtful Italian prelate who oversees the Vatican’s diplomacy, which has included a provisional agreement with China over the appointment of bishops.

But Parolin’s sceptics point to his lack of experience working at the church’s grassroots and his flat delivery of a homily at a Mass for around 200,000 young people in St Peter’s Square, the day after Francis’ funeral. As he read from his notes, the cardinal seemed unable to engage the congregation, in stark contrast to Francis, who frequently spoke off-the-cuff and would often engage in a back and forth with young people.

Others see the unity argument as superficially attractive but having the wrong focus. One of those is Cardinal Michael Czerny, who worked closely with Pope Francis, and has led the Vatican office for human development. He said that unity – while essential – cannot be a program or a policy.

“The terrible danger is, if you make this your obsession, and if you try to promote unity as your primary objective, you end up with uniformity,” he said. “And this is exactly what we don’t need. We spent decades now trying to learn to get beyond uniformity to a true catholicity, a true pluralism.”

Czerny added: “It’s interesting the words (unity and uniformity) are so close, but the difference is huge. I think one is the kiss of death, and the other is life and abundant life.”

Will of the people

Each night during the nine official days of mourning that follow the death of a pope, a cardinal presides at a Mass and has an opportunity to reflect on Francis’ pontificate. It’s harder for cardinals to be openly critical of the late pontiff while others among them are asking in these Masses how the cardinals can build on what Francis started.

“I think of the multiple reform processes of Church life initiated by Pope Francis, which extend beyond religious affiliations,” Cardinal Baldassare Reina, the vicar of Rome, said in a homily this week.

“People recognized him as a universal pastor. These people carry concern in their hearts, and I seem to discern in them a question: What will become of the processes that have begun?”

That need to continue the reforms begun by Francis could favor a candidate such as Cardinal Mario Grech, who leads the synod office, and which has showcased the diversity of the church. The reform-minded German cardinal Reinhard Marx has been among those arguing for a pope who continues in the line of Francis, as has Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg, who played a leading role in the synod.

A “diversity” candidate could come from Asia or be closely connected to the church’s frontline missions. In this vein, there is some talk of Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines, but he is not the only possibility.

Outcome hard to predict

The group of cardinals choosing Francis’ successor is a diverse body drawn from virtually every corner of the globe; during his pontificate Francis dramatically re-shaped the body of cardinals, making appointments to countries that had never had a cardinal before.

But it means that many of them don’t know each other well, and during the discussions in the Paul VI synod hall, the cardinals have been wearing name badges. The intense media interest also seems to have startled cardinals unused to being swarmed by groups of reporters and cameras when they enter or leave the Vatican.

It is much harder to predict how such a diverse body is going to vote. However, it seems the cardinals from the “peripheries,” who represent the shift in the Catholic Church’s axis away from Europe, largely share the late pontiff’s vision and are primarily focused on how the next pope responds to the crises facing the globe.

“Religions must unite in a common cause to save humanity,” he said. “The world urgently needs a new breath of hope – a synodal journey that chooses life over death, hope over despair. The next pope must be that breath!”

The cardinals entering the Sistine Chapel next week for conclave are not just casting their vote for a new pope, but making a critical decision that will impact the church for years to come.

Earthquakes are devastating for those who have lost loved ones, homes and livelihoods, but for military dictators clinging to power, such disasters can also bring opportunity.

Myanmar’s military rulers have spent the past four years waging a brutal civil war across the Southeast Asian country, sending columns of troops on bloody rampages, torching and bombing villages, massacring residents, jailing opponents and forcing young men and women to join the army.

The junta is headed by a widely reviled army chief who overthrew the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi and installed himself as leader.

But like with most aspiring strongmen, Sen. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing’s rule is precarious. He and his cronies have been sanctioned and spurned internationally, the economy is in tatters, and his military is losing significant territory in a grinding, multi-front war against a determined resistance.

By some accounts, he barely controls 30% of the country.

So when a powerful 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck central Myanmar on March 28, killing more than 3,700 people and causing widespread devastation, the general moved rapidly to bolster his position with a rare plea for international help.

“Min Aung Hlaing is leveraging the earthquake for regional engagement and electoral legitimacy,” said Kyaw Hsan Hlaing, a PhD student in political science at Cornell University.

“The humanitarian crisis gives him a pretext to open channels he’d long shut.”

Those openings included a face-to-face meeting last month between the junta leader and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia, which currently holds the rotating chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The regional bloc had shunned high-level talks with Myanmar since the coup, to avoid legitimizing the junta.

Following the meeting in the Thai capital Bangkok, Anwar said he had a “frank and constructive discussion” with the general, focused on humanitarian assistance for quake-hit communities and the extension of a military-declared ceasefire to facilitate aid deliveries.

“For Min Aung Hlaing, securing even a veneer of regional legitimacy now lays political groundwork: He can argue ‘Look, neighbors trust me enough to talk,’ even as democratic leaders and exile groups remain excluded from the table,” said Kyaw Hsan Hlaing.

Specter of elections

Some say now is the time for countries to engage with Myanmar’s military rulers, to push for dialogue and peace.

Four years of war has ravaged the country; 3 million people have been displaced by the fighting and the earthquake has only deepened an already dire humanitarian crisis in which at least 20 million people need aid.

“The main concern is the humanitarian situation. Sometimes, when we have this kind of crisis, it’s an opportunity for all the parties to try to come together, to think of the interests of the people… maybe it could lead to some kind of dialogue process,” said Sihasak Phuangketkeow, a former deputy foreign affairs minister of Thailand who has been part of his country’s efforts to engage the State Administration Council, the junta’s official name.

In recent months, Min Aung Hlaing has enjoyed a series of diplomatic engagements.

As bodies were still being pulled from the rubble of the quake, the general was shaking hands with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of a regional meeting in Bangkok.

Rights groups and civil society organizations said his presence at the BIMSTEC summit amounted to the gathering lending legitimacy to a war criminal.

India said its bilateral meeting, set up to facilitate disaster relief, provided an opportunity to push the junta for “inclusive dialogue” and underline that there could be “no military solution to the conflict.”

That meeting came a month after Min Aung Hlaing’s high-profile state visit to Russia to boost cooperation with President Vladimir Putin, his longtime ally and main arms supplier.

Above all for the junta leader, domestic legitimacy is key in order to maintain his regime. And regional support for his planned elections, slated to be held later this year, is the first step in securing that.

Since seizing power, Min Aung Hlaing has repeatedly promised elections.

But with most of the democratic camp in exile or jail, Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy dissolved, and the military’s widespread repression of the people, such a vote would never be considered free or fair, observers say.

Min Aung Hlaing’s March invitation to election observers from Belarus – Europe’s last dictatorship – appeared to underscore their point.

“We have to make it very clear that for the election to be credible, it has to have inclusive dialogue,” said Sihasak, who is now secretary-general of the Asian Peace and Reconciliation Council.

“It is not a blank check,” he added. “It’s an opportunity for us to engage, but not engage in a way that supports legitimacy, but to impress upon the regime that they have to also make concessions.”

Stopping the violence

Some observers say the junta cannot be trusted to make concessions, when the military’s history is littered with false promises masking an unending stream of atrocities.

Even as Malaysia’s Anwar was touting the military’s so-called ceasefire to help quake-hit communities, the junta was restricting aid and intensifying its deadly campaign with airstrikes in opposition areas that have reportedly killed dozens of civilians.

Analysts warn that the military will use greater engagement as a pretext to normalize diplomatic ties and entrench its authoritarian rule.

“If you negotiate with the devil without red lines, that is complicity,” said Adelina Kamal, an independent analyst and member of the Southeast Asian Women Peace Mediators network.

Kamal said the international community risks being “deceived into the military’s stage performance,” where elections would be “an illusion of democratic transition.”

In 2008, when parts of the country were ravaged by powerful Cyclone Nargis, the military regime at the time pushed ahead with a constitutional referendum that paved the way for a semi-civilian government but cemented the military’s influence on the country’s politics.

With a new military-drafted constitution in place, the regime – called the State Peace and Development Council – held elections in 2010 widely regarded as a sham.

Today’s junta is “taking a page from the SPDC’s playbook to assert and retain its political role,” said Moe Thuzar, coordinator of the Myanmar studies program at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

“The people of Myanmar have made it amply clear since 2021 about their mistrust in the military’s statements about elections, and view elections in the current situation as potentially leading to more violence.”

Those who have firsthand experience of that violence say actions speak louder than words.

“Talking to Min Aung Hlaing will not bring any political solution and satisfy what the majority of people want,” said Khun Bedu, chairman of the Karenni Nationalities Defense Force, which is fighting the military in the country’s southeast.

The Karen National Union, which has been fighting the military since independence from Britain more than 70 years ago, said inclusive dialogue cannot happen without first a ceasefire and the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

There is hope, however, from some quarters that progress could be made this year.

Following his talks with the junta leader, Malaysia’s Anwar also held a widely praised virtual meeting with Mahn Win Khaing Than, prime minister of the National Unity Government, in ASEAN’s first public face-to-face with Myanmar’s shadow administration of lawmakers deposed in the coup.

The NUG, which considers itself the legitimate government of Myanmar, has repeatedly insisted on engaging all stakeholders to solve the crisis.

“I see 2025 as the year, with the election coming in and with this crisis, that we can either win the peace or we can lose the peace,” said Sihasak, the former Thai minister.

To get there, international partners should “tie any dialogue to verifiable steps” including “genuine humanitarian corridors, release of political prisoners, and binding guarantees of inclusive talks,” said Kyaw Hsan Hlaing at Cornell.

“Otherwise, engagement simply extends the junta’s lifeline at the expense of the Burmese people’s aspirations for democracy,” he said.

Australians will cast their final votes Saturday in a national election campaign dominated by cost-of-living concerns that’s being closely watched abroad for signs of a Donald Trump-inspired swing against conservative candidates.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the Labor Party is facing off against Peter Dutton’s center-right Liberal Party, which is promising to get the country “back on track” after three years in opposition.

Pre-election opinion polls firmed in Labor’s favor, but Australia’s preferential voting system and the declining dominance of the two major parties makes it difficult to predict who’ll make up the 150-member House of Representatives.

Observers will be examining the results for signs of blowback against Australia’s conservative candidates from US President Trump’s whirlwind 100 days in office – after comparisons were drawn between Dutton’s policy offerings and those of the US leader.

Another center-left prime minister, Mark Carney of Canada – which like Australia is a G20 and Commonwealth nation, as well as US ally – recently scored an election win widely chalked up to anti-Trump sentiment.

In Australia, almost half of the 18 million registered voters cast their ballots before election day, and the remainder are expected to attend voting centers to comply with compulsory voting laws, with the threat of fines for no-shows.

Polling centers on election day often resemble a series of small community fairs, taking advantage of the guaranteed flow of customers by selling what’s known as “democracy sausages” – a sausage, sauce, and maybe onions, on a slice of white bread.

The tradition began decades ago but in recent years has become more organized with an online map built by volunteers showing where voters can find a ballot box with a barbecue.

“Everybody has to show up to vote. As long as you’re showing up anyway, why not connect with the community through the fair-like atmosphere of a sausage sizzle and whatever other fundraisers are available on the day,” said Alex Dawson from the Democracy Sausage Team.

International influence

Over the last five weeks, the two major parties have been locked in a battle for votes, using the promise of tax cuts, rebates and other relief measures aimed at easing a cost-of-living crisis.

Australian elections tend to focus on domestic issues – housing, health and the economy – but this one has been influenced by international events.

Albanese called the election in late March, just before Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs, sending global markets into a tailspin.

As with almost all other US allies, Australia was not spared from the tariffs, something Albanese criticized as “against the spirit of our two nations’ enduring friendship.”

On the campaign trail, the incumbent government has presented itself as a steady pair of hands as the initial hit to stocks broadened into fears of an impending global recession. Now, Labor says the Australian economy is turning the corner, pointing to a recent fall in inflation to 2.9%, the lowest since December 2021.

Dutton has placed the blame for inflationary pressures firmly on the Labor government, routinely questioning whether voters feel “better off than they were three years ago.”

Both parties say they’ll make it easier for first-time buyers to get a house, by either cutting the size of the minimum deposit, or offering tax deductions on mortgage repayments – both measures analysts say will likely drive house prices higher.

Pitch to young voters

This year, for the first time, younger voters will outnumber older demographics and analysts expect them to extend the decline of the two-party system with more votes for minor parties and independents.

A fierce competition for young voters has played out on social media, making this election “drastically different” from those of the past, said Andrea Carson, a professor of political communication at La Trobe University in Melbourne.

“Instagram and TikTok (are) really taking over some of the space that was occupied by Facebook,” Carson said.

However, the lack of any regulation requiring truth in political advertising has allowed political parties, as well as third-party campaigners, to say whatever they like about their rivals.

Many electorates, such as the hotly contested Wentworth in Sydney’s east, have seen a deluge of flyers and signs pushing personal attacks against candidates. The Australian Electoral Commission stated in April that it “cannot, and has never been able to, regulate truth.”

Commentators will be watching this year to see if more seats go to so-called Teal candidates, independents backed by funds raised through campaign group Climate 200.

The Teals were the talk of the last election three years ago, when Australians turfed out the Liberal-National Coalition after nine years of rule, in a vote dubbed Australia’s “climate election.” This year, 35 are competing as independents with a shared goal of promoting integrity, gender equality and greater climate action.

In 2022, the new Labor government committed to net-zero targets and immediately began the work of driving carbon emissions down in a country which derives a significant portion of its wealth from extracting fossil fuels.

However, despite escalating the rollout of new renewable projects, it’s been criticized for also approving new coal and gas projects.

The Liberal Party’s response to the country’s energy demands has been to propose a shift to nuclear power, with a plan to build seven nuclear power stations in the coming decades, funded by taxpayers.

This time around, there has been no promise of bolder climate action from Labor, even as activists have ambushed leaders on the campaign trail.

“When will you listen to young people?” one protester yelled at Albanese on April 8 at a press conference to announce more funding for mental healthcare.

For the candidates who’ve worked for weeks to push their message through the noise of competing election campaigns, Saturday could turn into a long, tense evening.

The last polls close at 6 p.m. on the west coast (6 a.m. ET) and a result is expected within hours – if one of the major parties receives enough votes to win a coveted majority.

Voters are also electing 40 of 76 seats in the upper house (Senate), replacing senators who are at the end of their six-year term.

Britain’s Prince Harry has revealed that his father, King Charles, no longer speaks to him and that he cannot imagine bringing his family back to the UK after losing a court case over his security arrangements on Friday.

In an explosive interview with the BBC after the court ruling, where at times he was visibly emotional, Harry described being “devastated” at the decision, which he said made it “impossible” for him to return to the UK with his wife Meghan and his two young children.

But he said that he would “love” to repair the rift with his family, which he said had broken down over the security issue. The king “won’t speak to me because of this security stuff,” he said.

The British government downgraded Harry’s security in 2020 after he and Meghan stepped down as senior royals. “When that decision happened, I couldn’t believe it. I actually couldn’t believe it,” he said. “I thought, with all the disagreements and all of the chaos that’s happening, the one thing that I could rely on is my family keeping me safe.”

Harry spoke with the BBC in California, where he has been living with Meghan and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, since relocating to the United States in 2020.

Interviews like this are not common for the royal family, though Harry and his wife made headlines in 2021 after speaking to Oprah Winfrey, with Meghan sharing that life as a working royal made her contemplate suicide. In the interview, the couple also alleged that there were “concerns” from the royal family during her pregnancy about how dark their unborn baby Archie’s skin would be.

The case the Duke of Sussex lost on Friday was deeply personal to him. He had previously expressed how important it is to ensure his family has security when they visit the UK.

“The only thing I’ve been asking for throughout this whole process is safety,” Harry said in his interview Friday, calling the situation a “good old-fashioned establishment stitch up.”

For the duke, there has been a sense of not wanting history to repeat itself, and he has frequently drawn comparisons between the treatment of his wife to that faced by his mother, Diana. The late Princess of Wales died in 1997 after suffering internal injuries resulting from a high-speed car crash in Paris, while being pursued by paparazzi.

Harry said it was currently “impossible” to bring his family to his home country. “I can’t see a world in which I’d be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point,” he said.

The Duke of Sussex also discussed the years-long rift between him and the royal family, sharing that there have been “so many disagreements” between him and some of his family members, but that the situation surrounding his police protection is the “sticking point.”

“It is the only thing that’s left,” he said. “Of course, some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book. Of course, they will never forgive me for lots of things. But, you know … I would love reconciliation with my family. There’s no point in continuing to fight anymore.”

The publication of Harry’s book “Spare” in 2023 ripped open old wounds in the family after he shared scathing and intimate details about his experience as a royal.

Later that year, the duke appeared briefly at the coronation of his father, sitting with his uncle Prince Andrew in the third row of the service. Both are non-working royals and did not perform any duties during the ceremony.

On Friday, Harry said that, despite their fractious relationship, he would like to make amends with the king, who last year was diagnosed with an undisclosed form of cancer.

“I don’t know how much longer my father has,” he added. “He won’t speak to me because of this security stuff, but it would be nice to reconcile.”

This story has been updated with developments.

Singapore is holding an election on Saturday almost certain to perpetuate the unbroken rule of the People’s Action Party, in a test of public approval for its new prime minister as the city-state braces for economic turbulence from a global trade war.

The election is a bellwether for the popularity of the PAP, which has ruled since before Singapore’s 1965 independence, with attention on whether the opposition can challenge the ruling party’s tight grip on power and make further inroads after small but unprecedented gains in the last contest.

Though the PAP has consistently won in landslides with about 90% of seats, its share of the popular vote is closely watched as a measure of the strength of its mandate, with premier Lawrence Wong keen to improve on the PAP’s 60.1% in the 2020 election – one of its worst performances on record.

Wong, 52, became the Asian financial hub’s fourth prime minister last year, promising continuity, new blood and to lead Singapore his own way.

He took over at the end of the two-decade premiership of Lee Hsien Loong, the son of former leader Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore.

Polls opened at 8 a.m. and will close at 8 p.m. (8 a.m. ET), with a result expected in the early hours of Sunday.

Living costs and housing availability in one of the world’s most expensive cities are key issues for the 2.76 million voters and a continued challenge for Wong, whose government has warned of recession if the trade-dependent economy becomes collateral damage in the war over steep U.S. tariffs.

Lopsided contest

The PAP has long had the upper hand in politics, with a big membership to draw from, influence in state institutions and far greater resources than its untested opponents, which are each running in only a small number of constituencies.

The election will be a lopsided affair, with 46% of all candidates representing the PAP, which is contesting all 97 seats compared to 26 for its biggest rival, the Workers’ Party, which won 10 last time, the most by an opposition party.

But though a PAP defeat is extremely unlikely, some analysts say the election could alter the dynamic of Singapore politics in the years ahead if the opposition can make more headway, with younger voters keen to see alternative voices, greater scrutiny and more robust debate.

“It is to be expected that (its) overall electoral support will gradually, gradually dip from general election to general election,” said National University of Singapore political scientist Lam Peng Er.

“Would Singaporeans be that surprised if the PAP’s electoral support were to dip to 57% or 58%? It will surprise nobody. I don’t think it will even surprise the PAP at all.”

The PAP for its part is keen to avoid upsets and warned voters of the consequences of seat losses for key cabinet members, whom Wong said were critical to balancing ties between the United States and China and navigating Singapore’s highly exposed economy through potentially choppy waters.

“I have backups … sure. But everyone knows that the team cannot function at the same level,” Wong told the 1.4 million-strong labor union on Thursday.