When Benedict XVI became the first pope to resign in 600 years it sent shockwaves through the Catholic Church. Now, after spending two weeks in hospital battling pneumonia, the speculation in the Vatican is whether his successor Pope Francis might do the same.

The pope was put on a breathing machine on Friday, after suffering a sudden episode of respiratory difficulty, the Vatican said. The episode was complicated by vomiting, some of which the pope aspirated, it added. A Vatican source said on Friday the next 24-48 hours will determine whether the pope’s general condition has deteriorated. On Saturday morning, Francis was said to be resting, after what the Vatican called a peaceful night.

Resigning the papacy is not like stepping down from being the president of a company or CEO of a large corporation. There are no term limits, no board, and it is considered a job for life. For Catholics, the pope is St. Peter’s successor, carrying out a ministry given by Christ himself. Yet the papacy is also an office and advances in modern medicine and life expectancy have presented a new scenario. It also remains unclear how long the 88-year-old pope will remain in hospital or his long-term prognosis.

Ivereigh insisted that being an elderly or frail pope is not an impediment, nor would the Catholic Church want a precedent to be set that when a pope reaches a certain age or degree of ill health he must step down. Moreover, the biographer explained, this pope is “all in and full on” and would not want a dramatically pared down papacy.

This week brought back memories of that dramatic day, on February 11, 2013, when Benedict XVI, born Joseph Ratzinger, announced he was stepping aside. It all happened in what was assumed to be a routine meeting of cardinals – known as a consistory – to vote on sainthood causes. At the end of that meeting, the German pope started speaking in Latin and stunned those present as he told them he was resigning. Some cardinals started leaning over to each other to ask if they had heard him correctly.

Parallels were drawn with Benedict’s resignation when the Vatican on Tuesday announced Francis had called a consistory at an unspecified date to consider sainthood candidates. He had done this during a meeting at the hospital where he is being treated with some of his most senior officials Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Holy See Secretary of State, and Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra, effectively the papal chief of staff.

“After the surprise of Ratzinger’s resignation, consistories in certain difficult periods of the church now became highly political,” said Marco Politi, a respected Vatican commentator and author of a new book on Francis’ papacy “The Unfinished.”

“I believe that, at the moment, the pontiff is focused on the prospect of surviving the crisis and being able to complete the Jubilee (year). On his 89th birthday he will be forced to ask himself the question if he is still fit to lead the church.’” The Catholic Church is in the middle of a year-long jubilee celebration, an event traditionally held every 25 years.

Francis likes to keep people on their toes and will have known that announcing the consistory would set off plenty of speculation. The pope is unlikely to have wanted to reveal his hand on such a big decision.

“For Francis, the freedom to discern these questions is absolute,” Ivereigh said.

Freedom is important because according to church law a papal resignation is a decision that must be “made freely and properly manifested” and is not to be “accepted by anyone.” A pontiff cannot come under outside coercion or pressure when making his decision.

In the past, Francis has said the papacy is “ad vitam” (meaning “for life” in Latin) and that resignation is not on his agenda. Nevertheless, he has never ruled out resigning and said Benedict’s decision had “opened the door” to future popes retiring.

A conclave is called in the same way following a resignation as with a papal death, however in 2013 Benedict amended the law to allow the election to take place sooner.

The Argentinian pope is driven by a deep sense of mission and since being in hospital has shown a determination to recover, despite battling pneumonia in both lungs. Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican foreign minister, pointed out this week that a papal resignation is not on the cards and that Francis will give everything to recover.

“If God’s will is that he should get better, wonderful,” he told America, a Catholic publication. “If it’s God’s will that he shouldn’t, well then, he will accept that. That is the spirit of his life…”

This pope often pulls off surprises. And if Francis were to step down, it’s highly likely he’d do so when people were least expecting.

The Dominican Republic deported more than 276,000 people in 2024, the country’s Immigration Directorate said Wednesday.

In the last three months of the year alone, over 94,000 foreigners with irregular status were deported under a new operation aiming to remove up to 10,000 undocumented Haitians per week, ordered by the Dominican Republic’s National Security and Defense Council headed by President Luis Abinader.

Dominican authorities also deported 48,344 during the January-March quarter, 62,446 between April-June, and 71,414 from July to September, according to the statement.

Government spokesman Homero Figueroa told reporters in October that the government ramped up deportations to address an “excess” of Haitian migrants in the Dominican Republic, which shares an island with Haiti. The two countries have long seen an informal flow of people across their shared border.

Haiti’s then-Foreign Minister Dominique Dupuy condemned “brutal scenes of raids and deportations,” and demanded justice for “dehumanizing acts” against her compatriots. Dominican authorities maintain that the deportations are carried out in compliance with human rights.

In October, Reuters footage captured dozens of migrants crammed into caged Dominican Republic law enforcement trucks heading to Haiti. Aid organizations have rushed assistance to the Haitian side of the border to assist the thousands of deportees.

The mass deportations come amid a worsening political and social crisis in Haiti; gangs are estimated to control more than 80% of the country’s capital, Port-au-Prince.

Correction: This story and headline have been corrected to reflect that the cited deportation statistics did not specify nationality.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky says US support is “crucial” a day after cutting short a visit to Washington DC following an extraordinary public argument with Donald Trump.

A meeting intended to discuss a natural resources deal imploded, with Trump and Vice President JD Vance berating the Ukrainian leader in front of reporters in the Oval Office. At one point, when Zelensky tried to respond, an angry Trump accused him of “gambling with World War III.”

A Europe already rattled by Trump’s overtures to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin quickly rallied around Zelensky, with the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, saying in a statement that it’s “clear that the free world needs a new leader.”

On Saturday, Zelensky appeared conciliatory when he posted on social media after arriving in London to meet UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

“It’s crucial for us to have President Trump’s support,” Zelensky said in a series of posts on X on Saturday morning. “He wants to end the war, but no one wants peace more than we do.”

Zelensky emphasized his gratitude for the US’ backing of Ukraine in the three years since Russia invaded his country.

In Friday’s fiery exchange, Vance questioned whether the Ukrainian leader had been thankful enough for US support.

“We are very grateful to the United States for all the support. I’m thankful to President Trump, Congress for their bipartisan support, and American people. Ukrainians have always appreciated this support, especially during these three years of full-scale invasion,” Zelensky reiterated in his posts on social media.

The Ukrainian leader stressed that, despite Friday’s clash, Ukraine and the US “remain strategic partners. But we need to be honest and direct with each other to truly understand our shared goals.”

He said that Ukraine is ready to sign the minerals agreement that he had traveled to the US to hammer out, but noted that “it’s not enough,” highlighting the absence of the security guarantees he’s been seeking.

“We need more than just that. A ceasefire without security guarantees is dangerous for Ukraine. We’ve been fighting for three years, and Ukrainian people need to know that America is on our side,” Zelensky said.

Zelensky is due to meet Starmer at the British leader’s official residence later Saturday, ahead of a broader meeting with a host of European leaders at a summit on Sunday.

The summit was announced amid growing concern that the Trump administration’s push to work with Russia could exclude Ukraine from deciding its own fate.

Just last week, Trump wrongly accused Ukraine of starting the war with Russia and called Zelensky a “dictator.” The week before, he said that Ukraine “may be Russian someday” when discussing what has now become the minerals agreement.

Russian officials reacted with glee to Friday’s fractious meeting. Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president, said Zelensky had “finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office.”

Meanwhile, a flurry of Western countries took to X to show their staunch support for Kyiv.

A joint statement by the leaders of the European Union, said that Zelensky’s “dignity honors the bravery of the Ukrainian people.”

NATO chief Mark Rutte called the fractious Zelensky-Trump meeting “very unfortunate.” In an interview with BBC News, Rutte added that “it is important that President Zelensky finds a way to restore his relationship with the American president and with the senior American leadership team.”

The first phase of the ceasefire in Gaza that saw dozens of Israeli hostages and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners freed is nearing its end – with Israel and Hamas split on what comes next.

In essence, the Israelis want phase one to continue – the exchange of hostages, alive and deceased, in return for the continued release of Palestinian prisoners and the flow of higher volumes of aid into Gaza. There are thought to be 24 Israeli hostages still alive in Gaza.

But Hamas insists that negotiations include the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of Gaza they still occupy and a permanent end to the conflict, as envisaged in the second phase of the deal.

A spokesperson for the group said there were currently “no negotiations” underway on the second phase, which – per the ceasefire agreement – had been due to start immediately and last six weeks, blaming Israel for the failure to start talks.

“Extending the first phase in the manner proposed by the occupation is unacceptable to us.”

The ceasefire agreement stipulates that the truce can continue so long as negotiators are talking, but it’s not clear they are. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will hold a meeting Saturday evening local time with ministers on the “continuation of the hostage deal,” his office says.

The ceasefire came into effect in January. Altogether 33 Israeli hostages were released, including two men held in Gaza for a decade, as well as five Thai citizens who had been working on kibbutz in southern Israel. Eight bodies were returned. They included the remains of Shiri Bibas and her two small sons – a hugely emotional moment for Israelis.

A total of 1,737 Palestinian prisoners were released, including 120 women and children. One thousand of the prisoners released had been arrested after the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023; others were serving long sentences, including life. Some had been in Israeli prisons for decades.

Israeli forces also withdrew from a key corridor splitting north and south Gaza.

The first phase was not smooth, with accusations by each side that the other was contravening the agreement. Israel was aggrieved by the choreographed handover ceremonies organized by Hamas, and especially by the return of a body said to be that of Shiri Bibas which turned out to be that of a Gazan woman.

In return, Hamas accused Israel of delaying the return of people in Gaza to the north, part of the first phase of the agreement, and of obstructing the entry of essential medicines and hospital supplies, as well as tents, prefabricated houses, fuel and rubble-removing machines into Gaza

There were several delays and changes to the schedule, and a good deal of brinkmanship, but international mediators were able to keep the deal alive.

Against this background, talks were due to begin at the beginning of February on the second phase of the deal. These were repeatedly delayed, amid accusations from Hamas that Israel was showing no interest in phase two.

Right-wing members of the Israeli cabinet have demanded a return to war once the first phase was complete. Their support is critical in sustaining Netanyahu’s administration, which must pass a budget by the end of the month.

Hamas has shown during the first phase of the deal that it is still standing, even if battered. The goals of turning the ceasefire into a permanent end of hostilities and the destruction of Hamas are irreconcilable, short of the group agreeing to be disarmed. It has shown no sign of that.

Waiting in the wings is the evolving Arab plan to offer an alternative to Trump’s blueprint for removing Gaza’s two million people. Regional sources say it envisages a 10-year mandate for the reconstruction, governance and security of Gaza and it is due to go to an Arab League summit on Tuesday. It would then be conveyed to the Trump Administration.

But it is a long-term plan predicated on a solid and sustainable end to hostilities. The Israeli government has shown no sign it is ready for that.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet European leaders at a vital summit in London on Sunday, after his extraordinary argument with US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office left Western allies reeling and threw the future of the Russia-Ukraine war into deep uncertainty.

King Charles has also accepted an invitation to meet Zelensky on Sunday, the Ukrainian leader said.

Zelensky landed in Britain on Saturday ahead of the talks, which the West hopes will revive momentum towards an acceptable peace deal that had appeared to be slowly building this week, only to come crashing down in a nasty few minutes on Friday.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Zelensky met at Downing Street on Saturday where the two men signed an agreement to accelerate $2.8 billion worth of loans to Ukraine. The first tranche of funding is expected to be disbursed next week, according to the UK government.

But the leaders at Sunday’s summit – which includes presidents and prime ministers from across Europe, convened by Starmer – will have a difficult challenge ahead of them.

“It’s crucial for us to have President Trump’s support,” Zelensky said in a series of posts on X on Saturday morning. “He wants to end the war, but no one wants peace more than we do.”

“We’ve been fighting for three years, and Ukrainian people need to know that America is on our side,” he said.

The spectacle of the American president and vice president berating the leader of a war-torn ally stunned Europe and would have delighted the Kremlin. It added intensity to Sunday’s summit, which had initially sought to build on the progress achieved during a similar meeting in Paris last weekend.

Trump and JD Vance accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for American military support, for “gambling with the lives of millions of people,” and risking “World War III” by fighting Russia’s invading army in his country.

The scenes were Europe’s worst nightmare. One day before the shouting match, a chummy Starmer managed to get Trump to walk back previous false remarks that Zelensky was a “dictator,” voice his “respect” for Ukraine’s leader and even raise the possibility that Ukraine would claw back occupied territory from Russia in a ceasefire deal. All of those comments were notable reversals from Trump, and seemed to set the table well for Zelensky’s trip.

Now Europe is starting from square one again.

“Three years on from Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, we are at a turning point. Today I will reaffirm my unwavering support for Ukraine and double down on my commitment to provide capacity, training and aid to Ukraine, putting it in the strongest possible position,” Starmer said in a statement ahead of the London summit.

“In partnership with our allies, we must intensify our preparations for the European element of security guarantees, alongside continued discussions with the United States,” he said. “Now is the time for us to unite in order to guarantee the best outcome for Ukraine, protect European security, and secure our collective future.”

The summit will have three goals, Downing Street said: Ukraine’s short-term needs, securing a “lasting deal” to end the conflict, and “planning for strong security guarantees.”

As European leaders rushed to reaffirm their support for Zelensky on Friday evening, Starmer was noticeably silent. A few hours later, we learned why: Downing Street said he had spoken to Trump and Zelensky following their heated encounter. “He retains his unwavering support for Ukraine and is playing his part to find a path forward to a lasting peace, based on sovereignty and security for Ukraine,” Starmer’s spokesperson said.

The role of interlocutor between the Europe and the White House is one Starmer is taking seriously, even – perhaps especially – when it seems futile. It is one he will hope can reap rewards this weekend, but an increasing sense of desperation is setting in.

Yaroslav Zhelezniak, a Ukrainian member of parliament, wrote on Telegram ahead of the meetings in London: “If you thought the situation would somehow miraculously improve today… don’t count on it.”

In January 1988, one of Taiwan’s most senior nuclear engineers defected to the United States after passing crucial intelligence on a top-secret program that would alter the course of Taiwan’s history.

Colonel Chang Hsien-yi was a leading figure in Taiwan’s nuclear weapons project, a closely guarded secret between the 1960s and ‘80s, as Taipei raced to develop its first nuclear bomb to keep pace with China.

He was also a CIA informant.

Chang exposed Taiwan’s secret nuclear program to the United States, its closest ally, passing intelligence that ultimately led the US to pressure Taiwan into shutting down the program – which proliferation experts say was near completion.

“I decided to provide information to the CIA because I think it was good for the people of Taiwan,” said the 81-year-old. “Yes, there was political struggle between China and Taiwan, but developing any kind of deadly weapon was nonsense to me.”

Chang’s story bears similarities with that of Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli whistleblower who famously exposed his country’s clandestine nuclear program to the world. But while Vanunu went public with his country’s progress, Chang’s whistle-blowing was done in secret and without any fanfare.

Taiwan’s nuclear ambitions

In 1964, just 15 years after the Chinese civil war ended with communist victory, leaving Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists controlling only Taiwan, Beijing successfully tested a nuclear weapon – deeply unsettling the government in Taipei which feared it could one day be used against the island.

Two years later, Chiang launched a clandestine project to lay the technical groundwork for nuclear weapons development over the next seven years. The Chungshan Science Research Institute ran the project under the Defense Ministry, and it was there that Chang began working as an army captain a year later.

He was picked for advanced nuclear training, which would involve stints in the US. After studying physics and nuclear science in Taiwan, he attended Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

Despite Taipei’s official statements that its nuclear research was only for peaceful purposes, Chang said students sent to the US were all aware of their true mission: learning skills for weapons development.

“We know precisely – even though it’s not in the written statement – we know what we are going to do, what kind of area we should concentrate on,” Chang said.

“We were kind of excited and trying to get the job done,” he added. “All we did was focusing on the area they assigned us, we put all our efforts to do it, to learn as much as possible.”

While he was at Oak Ridge, Chang recalled, the CIA already had an interest in him.

“In 1969 or 1970, I remembered receiving a phone call,” he said. The caller said he was “with a company and they are interested in the nuclear power business… they offered to take me out for lunch.”

“At that time, I said I had no interest because I had a mission-oriented assignment. But I was not aware he was from the CIA; I only knew that after quite a few years.”

American suspicions

In 1977, a year after attaining a PhD in nuclear engineering from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Chang returned to Taiwan. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel and spearheaded the development of computer codes for simulating nuclear explosions at the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research (INER), a national laboratory that covertly advanced weapons development under civilian pretenses.

Taiwanese leaders faced a delicate balancing act: the United States strongly opposed new nuclear weapons programs anywhere in the world, and Taipei could not afford to alienate its most crucial ally. The US has long relied on nuclear deterrence as part of its broader strategy to counter China’s stockpiling of nuclear warheads. But, under a policy of nonproliferation, it opposes any country newly developing nuclear weapons.

Back then, Taiwan was not the wealthy and vibrant democracy it is today. It was a developing economy under the autocratic rule of the Chinese Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang. That regime continued to hold a seat at the United Nations until 1971, and maintained formal diplomatic relations with the United States until 1979.

To minimize the risk of its nuclear ambitions being exposed, the island only sought to secretly establish the capability to produce nukes quickly at any time, but not build a stockpile.

“Taiwan’s cover stories were unbelievably good,” said David Albright, a nuclear proliferation expert and author of “Taiwan’s Former Nuclear Weapons Program: Nuclear Weapons On-Demand.”

“They always emphasized that the research was only for civil purposes… (US) officials didn’t know how to breach this cover story.”

But the risk of a cross-strait nuclear conflagration weighed on Chang. Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who assumed power in 1978, warned that if Taiwan acquired nuclear weapons, China would respond with force.

“I think they’re quite serious,” Chang added. “I believed in that.”

“I didn’t want to have any conflict in any way with mainland China,” he said. “Using any kind of deadly chemical or nuclear weapons… it’s nonsense to me. I believe we are all Chinese and that doesn’t make sense.”

So when CIA agents approached Chang again during a trip to the United States in 1980, he agreed to speak.

“They said, ‘We know you, and we’re interested in you,’ and we had a conversation,” Chang said, adding that the Americans put him through a “very thorough” lie-detector test to ensure he was not a double agent. He assisted the CIA with some ad hoc tasks before becoming an informant in 1984.

For the next four years a CIA case officer, identified only as “Mark,” met with Chang every few months at safehouses around Taipei, including a condo near Shilin Night Market – one of the island’s most famous street food destinations.

In those meetings, the CIA asked him to corroborate intelligence, share information about recent projects at INER, and take photos of sensitive documents.

“All those conversations were quite professional. He would take a pencil and notebook to write down my answers,” Chang said. “He kept saying that they will try their best to keep me and my family safe.”

The Chernobyl disaster in 1986, a catastrophic nuclear accident in Ukraine that exposed hundreds of thousands of people to harmful radiation, solidified Chang’s conviction that halting Taiwan’s nuclear weapons program was imperative.

That same year, Vanunu publicly exposed details of Israel’s clandestine nuclear program, handing what he new to the British media and causing an international sensation. He was later kidnapped by Mossad agents, returned to Israel and prosecuted, spending years in prison.

A new chapter of life

Chang’s life – and those of his wife and three children – took a dramatic turn in January 1988, when the CIA exfiltrated them to the US.

By then, President Ronald Reagan’s administration had amassed sufficient evidence and seized the opportunity created by the death of President Chiang Ching-kuo – Chiang Kai-shek’s son – to pressure his reformist successor Lee Teng-hui into cooperation.

Albright, the expert and author, said Chang was the most crucial informant in arming Washington to shut down the Taiwanese program.

“The United States had been in a cat-and-mouse game with Taiwan over its nuclear program for years,” he said. “Chang really made sure the US had heavy evidence that Taiwan couldn’t deny… and directly confront the Taiwanese.”

In the months after Chang’s departure, the US sent specialists to dismantle a plutonium separation plant – a facility designed to extract nuclear materials for weapons production. The team also oversaw the removal of heavy water, a substance used as a coolant in nuclear reactors, and irradiated fuel, nuclear fuel that can be reprocessed to extract materials for nuclear weapons.

Hero or traitor?

To date, Chang’s decision to work with the CIA has remained controversial in Taiwan, which in the intervening years has continued its massive industrial and economic expansion, becoming a full democracy in the 1990s.

But cross-strait hostilities persist. Taipei has come under growing military pressure from China, which now has the world’s largest military and is becoming more assertive in its territorial claims over Taiwan. The Chinese communist Party has vowed to take Taiwan by force if needed, despite having never controlled it.

Beijing dwarves Taiwan’s military, spending about 13 times more on defense. Some have argued that if Taiwan had successfully acquired nuclear weapons it could have served as an ultimate deterrent – paralleling Ukraine, where Russia might not have invaded if Kyiv had retained its Soviet era nuclear arsenal instead of giving it up.

Some Taiwanese have criticized Chang, saying he overstepped by deciding unilaterally that the island is better off without a nuclear deterrent.

“I believe he is a traitor,” said Alexander Huang, an associate professor in strategic studies at Tamkang University, because the weapons “would be seen as a useful tool in bargaining for a better diplomatic result” with Beijing.

But Su Tzu-yun, a director of Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, said the lack of a nuclear option has not overly affected Taiwan’s modern defense capabilities, because precision ammunition can be used to achieve similar objectives to those of tactical nuclear weapons.

“The Taiwanese government back then thought that if China landed in Taiwan, it could use tactical nuclear weapons to eliminate the landing troops,” he said. “But in their absence, we can also employ precision weapons like missiles to replace them.”

Taiwan buys these weapons from the US, which – despite shutting down the nuclear program – remains its key military partner, supplying ammunition, training, and defense systems.

Besides weaponry, the island has what some consider a more effective deterrent than nuclear bombs. In 1987 – just one year before the nuclear program was shut down – tech entrepreneur Morris Chang founded the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which now produces an estimated 90% of the world’s super-advanced semiconductor chips for tech companies, including Apple and Nvidia.

The island’s integral role in the global semiconductor supply chain, some observers say, would be enough to deter China from launching an invasion, forming what is dubbed its “Silicon Shield.”

Albright, who conducted extensive research into the Taiwanese program, also said its success would not have been beneficial to Taiwan.

“I think [it] would have raised the military risk of a Chinese attack,” he said, while Washington could have also responded by “reducing its security commitment or limiting military aid” once Taiwan’s capabilities were known.

As for Chang Hsien-yi, who became a Christian and enjoyed playing golf outside a part-time role at a nuclear safety consultancy firm, the decision he made four decades ago was correct.

“Maybe that’s good for the Taiwanese people. At least [we] didn’t provoke mainland China in a such way to start an aggressive war against Taiwan,” Chang said.

“I did it with my conscience clear, there is no betrayal – at least not to myself.”