You are invited to join us for Global Crisis Watch 334, on Friday, May 2nd at 17:00 BST / 12:00 EDT.
The highlighted topics will include:
UK Joins US-Led Airstrikes Targeting Houthi Military Infrastructure in Yemen
The UK has launched airstrikes against Houthi targets in Yemen in coordination with the United States, marking the first British involvement in such strikes since Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency. RAF Typhoon jets, using precision-guided bombs, targeted a cluster of buildings south of Sanaa, believed to be used for manufacturing drones. The UK Ministry of Defence emphasized that the strikes
were carefully planned to minimize civilian risk, with all aircraft returning safely.
Since November 2023, the Iran-backed Houthis have launched numerous attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, claiming to act in solidarity with Palestinians amid the Israel-Gaza conflict. Their actions have caused significant disruption to global trade, with a 55% drop in Red Sea shipping reported, impacting the UK and global economies.
The US responded by intensifying airstrikes against the Houthis under “Operation Rough Rider,” carrying out over 800 strikes targeting drone facilities, missile sites and infrastructure. Despite these efforts, the Houthis have maintained operational capabilities and successfully shot down expensive American drones. Recent Houthi claims allege that US strikes caused civilian casualties, including dozens of African migrants held in a detention center—claims currently under US military investigation.
This is the first RAF strike against Houthis authorized under Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government. Defence Secretary John Healey stressed that the action was necessary to protect international shipping and British economic interests. Meanwhile, the Houthis warned the UK to “anticipate consequences” for its involvement and condemned the US, UK and Israel as aggressors.
European countries have been criticized by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for limited participation in the campaign, highlighting growing tensions within Western alliances on handling the threat.
Liberals Win Big as Canadians Reject Trump’s Annexation Threats
Canada’s federal election turned into an unexpected referendum on Donald Trump’s influence—and it backfired for Trump and his allies. The Liberal Party, once trailing by 25 points, staged a dramatic comeback, fueled by widespread nationalist backlash against Trump’s attacks on Canadian sovereignty and threats of annexation. Mark Carney, now Prime Minister, capitalized on this sentiment, leading the Liberals to victory while Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre lost his own parliamentary seat.
Voter turnout reached 68.5%, the highest since 1993, showing strong public engagement. Canadians protested Trump’s aggressive rhetoric by boycotting American goods, renaming coffee drinks and even booing the US national anthem at sporting events. Trump’s trade war and annexation comments were seen not insults but as betrayals of the close US-Canada relationship.
Although Poilievre tried to distance himself from Trump late in the campaign, it was too little, too late. Trump’s endorsement of Canada becoming the “51st state” and his continued attacks appeared to energize the Liberal base. International leaders like France’s Emmanuel Macron celebrated Carney’s win, emphasizing global solidarity against US pressure.
The election also devastated Canada’s smaller parties. The New Democratic Party (NDP) lost official party status after losing most of its seats, and three of the five party leaders lost their own ridings. The Bloc Québécois and Green Party also suffered significant losses. Meanwhile, 17% of House of Commons seats changed hands, reflecting a major political shift.
While the government remains in Liberal hands, Canada’s politics have been reshaped by a new wave of nationalism—and by the realization that Trump’s influence abroad can sometimes strengthen, rather than weaken, his opponents.
BRICS Foreign Ministers Struggle for Consensus Amid Growing Divisions
At a recent foreign ministers’ meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the BRICS group— comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and newly expanded members Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Iran—failed to reach a consensus on a joint communiqué, highlighting internal rifts within the bloc. Instead, Brazil, the chair of the meeting, issued a “chair statement” condemning global trade protectionism and stressing concerns about a fragmented global economy. The statement expressed serious worry about the rise of unilateral protectionist measures, particularly tariffs imposed by the U.S., which have sparked fears of a global economic slowdown.
The expanded BRICS group is increasingly facing challenges in aligning on key issues. While all members shared concern over trade protectionism, disagreements emerged over the reform of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council. Brazil, India and South Africa have long advocated for reform, but Egypt and Ethiopia opposed language that suggested South Africa as a preferred candidate for the reformed Council. This highlights the difficulty in reconciling the diverse views of BRICS members, especially with the addition of new African and Middle Eastern countries with varying priorities.
China, which has been heavily affected by the US-China trade war, pushed for stronger language against tariffs but ultimately settled for the broader consensus in the final chair statement. While the failure to reach a joint communiqué was disappointing, diplomats emphasized the importance of keeping multilateral trade systems intact. They also recognized the expanded BRICS as a growing force but noted that consensus-building becomes increasingly complex. The issue of global trade protectionism will be revisited at the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro in July.
Crime, Fear and Discrimination Drive South African Afrikaners Toward US Asylum
President Donald Trump’s administration sparked controversy by offering a special pathway to US citizenship for white South African Afrikaners, a group of descendants from Dutch and French settlers. Trump cited South Africa’s land expropriation laws and affirmative action policies as discriminatory toward Afrikaners, framing their resettlement as a humanitarian necessity. However, this offer stands in stark contrast to his broader stance on immigration, as he had hundreds of thousands of refugees.
Trump’s refugee ban affected those who had already been approved for resettlement, including individuals who had spent years waiting for admission, only to see their hopes dashed. This move was in line with Trump’s long-standing opposition to immigration from certain countries, particularly those in Africa, the Middle East and Central America. His administration’s emphasis on limiting refugee admissions and expressing preference for immigrants from “nice countries” like Norway, while offering a fast track for Afrikaners, raised questions about racial and geopolitical motivations behind the policy.
Critics argue that Trump’s offer to Afrikaners is politically charged rather than humanitarian, given the group’s relative economic privilege in South Africa. White South Africans, though a minority, continue to hold significant wealth and land ownership. The focus on Afrikaners also perpetuates the controversial narrative of “white genocide” in South Africa, which experts say is exaggerated and based on selective framing of violence.
Plus, all the stories that are catching our attention wherever we live in the world. Feel free to join us and add your voice to the conversation.