For years, East Africa has struggled with unreliable power, and these issues have only worsened with the global energy crisis &  the increasing demand for clean, affordable power. However, the East Africa Electric Highway project is offering a solution, with plans to build a connected, sustainable energy network that could help address these challenges.

On November 21, 2023, East Africa achieved a major milestone when Kenya successfully transmitted electricity to Tanzania. This success was part of the larger East Africa Electric Highway project, which aims to create a “fully integrated regional electricity grid.” The goal is to provide reliable, affordable, and renewable energy throughout the region. This project also builds on earlier efforts, (like the Ethiopia-Kenya power interconnection) and marks a growing commitment to energy security and regional cooperation.

Ethiopia plays a critical role in the region’s energy market, thanks to its vast renewable resources, including hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal power. Over the next decade, Ethiopia could generate up to 60,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity, enough to meet both its own needs and the energy demands of its neighbors, including Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, and Kenya. In addition, Ethiopia’s electricity exports could bring in up to $200 million annually, giving a boost to its economy. Kenya, too, has made great strides in renewable energy, with over 90% of its electricity coming from geothermal and hydropower sources, like the Olkaria geothermal field. But even with these advances, both countries still face challenges, such as hydropower disruptions from droughts and a lack of energy storage capacity.

One of the major components of the project is the Ethiopia-Kenya Electricity Highway, completed in 2023. This 650-mile transmission line can transfer up to 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity, and right now, Kenya imports about 200 MW of electricity from Ethiopia every day. CNN shows us that, with this $1.2 billion dollar funding from the African Development Bank and the World Bank, the highway represents a step toward a system where countries share renewable energy resources to address local shortages.

While the Electric Highway offers significant benefits, it also comes with challenges. The $1.2 billion investment in the Ethiopia-Kenya Highway highlights the high costs of such projects. In Kenya, diverting resources to fund the Highway puts additional strain on already underfunded sectors like public schools and healthcare clinics, which are crucial for both rural and urban communities. Similarly, in Ethiopia, where inflation rates reached double digits in 2023, prioritizing energy initiatives over social programs like drought relief worsens existing vulnerabilities.

In addition to financial concerns, relying on cross-border energy imports introduces geopolitical risks, as stable relations are critical for uninterrupted electricity flow. Ongoing disputes over access to the Nile’s water resources and contested borderlands, such as the Ilemi Triangle, threaten regional cooperation. If these tensions disrupt energy cooperation, areas like Nairobi in Kenya and northern Ethiopian towns, which depend heavily on the Highway’s electricity, could face outages, severely impacting businesses and households.

China has also played a significant role in supporting the development of the East Africa Electric Highway. Through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has invested in energy infrastructure projects across the region, including in Ethiopia and Kenya. While this foreign investment helps speed up development and meet growing energy needs, it raises concerns about long-term dependency. East African countries need to carefully manage these foreign investments to avoid becoming too reliant on outside powers, which could influence their political and economic decisions in the future.

Read more here:

• Joshua, Hoffman CNN

• Staff, TV BRICS

• David Dollar, Brookings

Canada is known for being incredibly polite and understanding, even passing a law in 2009 to limit the legal liability of those who say “sorry” excessively even when it’s not their fault. Unfortunately, for one particular Canadian, sorry only goes so far. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is teetering on the edge of collapse, driven by widespread voter anger over a cost-of-living crisis and inept governance by the ruling center-left Liberal Party. 

Trudeau’s political weakness was exacerbated by the resignation of Chrystia Freeland, his once-steadfast ally and deputy Prime Minister, from Cabinet. Freeland’s departure makes her the 5th minister in Trudeau’s cabinet to quit this year. In her resignation letter, Freeland explicitly criticized Trudeau for his “costly political gimmicks”, writing that “[Canadians] know when we are working for them, and they equally know when we are focused on ourselves.” Freeland was referring to Trudeau’s  plans to suspend the Goods and Services (GST) sales tax for two months and send out $250 checkers to low and middle-income families, which will cost taxpayers $6.3 billion CAD ($4.7 billion USD). These initiatives were criticized by economists for failing to boost economic growth and costing an enormous amount at a time when the federal deficit reached $61.9 billion CAD, $20 billion more than initially projected.

All of these crises have caused Trudeau’s approval rating to plummet to a dismal 26%, with 68% of Canadians disapproving of him as prime minister. Even worse for his Liberal Party, there must be an election for Canada’s House of Commons by October 2025, and the opposition Conservative Party is over 20 points ahead in the popular vote and is projected to win a large majority of 217 out of 343 seats. 

The Liberal Party does not hold a majority in the House of Commons, and Trudeau has stayed on as prime minister by relying on support from the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP), which voted with the Liberals to defeat previous motions to topple the Trudeau government earlier in October of 2024. However, that support has run out, with NDP leader Jagmeet Singh promising to propose a no-confidence motion to end the Trudeau government in January of 2025. With the Conservative Party also calling for such a move, a general election would be triggered immediately.

However, despite the rapid turn of events in recent days, the collapse of Trudeau’s government was also long set in stone by structural factors in Canada, among which are the carbon tax, housing crisis, and anemic economic growth. 

The carbon tax is a major cause of Trudeau’s unpopularity, as 68% of Canadians oppose the government's recent increase of the carbon tax. The carbon tax’s effect on prices is still up for debate as several University of Calgary professors recently found that prices are only 0.5% higher due to the carbon tax, but conservative economists assert the tax will cost households $1,540  per year on average and eliminate 185,000 jobs. No matter the academic conclusion, Canadian voters have already made up their minds in opposition to the tax.

Like many countries after COVID-19, housing in Canada has become increasingly unaffordable. Recently, the home price to household income ratio, a common measure of housing affordability, hit 6.7, up from 3.5 in 2000 and 5.9 in 2010. And even worse, home prices have increased by 30% since April 2020 but inflation-adjusted household disposable income is only up by 2.3%. One of the main reasons is a lack of supply and substantial demand. In 2023, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimated that the country requires an additional 3.5 million housing units to be built to “restore affordability” by 2030. Homeownership being out of reach for millions is yet another indictment on Trudeau’s governance.

Canada’s moribund economy is yet another cause of Trudeau’s unpopularity. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that Canada’s national income per capita will be just 70% of the U.S. 's, down from 80% pre-pandemic. If Canada was a U.S. state, it would have regressed from being slightly richer than Montana, America’s ninth-poorest state, to being a bit worse off than Alabama, the fourth-poorest. The Economist goes even further, lamenting that, for Canada, “Catching up to Alabama may soon seem like a distant dream.”

Dream or not, this coming election will serve as a sobering wake up up for Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party.

Read more here:

• Joshua P. Meltzer, Brookings Institution

• The Economist

• Ephrat Livni, New York Times

• Jessica Murphy, BBC

It’s both tragic and poetic that the Pacific Island nations—whose very existence is threatened by rising seas—are now rising to challenge the world’s biggest polluters in court. These islands have taken their fight to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), demanding answers on states’ legal responsibilities to address climate change. For nations like Vanuatu, where the line between land and ocean grows thinner each year, this case isn’t just about legal clarity—it’s about survival. As global temperatures climb and emissions remain unchecked, the Pacific Islands’ call for accountability has placed climate justice squarely at the intersection of law, science, and global politics.

The ICJ's advisory opinion on the climate change case could set significant legal precedents and shape international climate governance. While the ICJ's advisory opinions are non-binding, they carry substantial legal and moral authority, influencing states, international organizations, and courts worldwide. The case could clarify the scope of states' legal obligations to combat climate change and provide a framework for holding polluting states accountable. 

The scientific evidence supporting this case is clear. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global temperatures have already risen by 1.1°C since pre-industrial levels, with catastrophic consequences disproportionately affecting small island developing states. Sea levels are rising at an accelerating pace, with projections estimating increases of up to one meter by 2100. For low-lying nations like Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands, this could mean the loss of entire territories and the forced migration of entire populations. Despite contributing little to global emissions, the Pacific Islands are bearing the brunt of the climate crisis. This glaring inequity underpins their legal argument. 

At the heart of the case is the "no harm" principle, a cornerstone of international environmental law. This principle, which asserts that states must prevent activities within their jurisdiction from causing harm to other states, has been established in cases like the Trail Smelter Arbitration and reaffirmed by the ICJ in the Pulp Mills case. The Pacific Islands seek to extend this principle to greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that high-emitting countries have a duty to prevent the harm caused by their contributions to climate change. Additionally, the case could reinforce the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR), enshrined in the Rio Declaration and the Paris Agreement, which holds developed nations to a higher standard due to their historical emissions and greater capacity to act.

The potential legal precedents of this case are monumental. An ICJ advisory opinion linking greenhouse gas emissions to state responsibility would send a powerful message: failing to mitigate emissions is not just a policy choice—it’s a violation of international law. This would not only influence diplomatic negotiations but could also empower domestic courts to enforce climate action. Nations might use the ICJ’s opinion as a basis for lawsuits against corporations or states that fail to meet their climate commitments, much like how the Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands case forced the Dutch government to cut emissions by 25%.

The Pacific Islands’ case also brings a moral dimension to the global climate conversation. It highlights the ethical responsibility of wealthy nations to act, not only for their own citizens but for the world’s most vulnerable populations. By framing climate change as a matter of justice rather than charity, the case challenges the narrative of voluntary climate action and demands accountability. Rising seas and intensifying storms have already caused billions of dollars in damage to these nations, threatening agriculture, tourism, and basic infrastructure. The ICJ’s advisory opinion could strengthen claims for financial compensation from high-emitting nations, offering a path toward funding for adaptation and resilience-building. This would ensure that vulnerable nations have the resources needed to combat climate change and protect their economies.

Culturally, the Pacific Islands’ case is a profound act of leadership. These small nations, among the least responsible for the climate crisis, are taking bold steps to hold the world’s largest emitters accountable. Their case at the ICJ is a testament to the power of international law as a tool for the vulnerable to demand fairness and justice in an unequal world. It also redefines leadership in the climate conversation, showing that even the smallest voices can have a profound impact when amplified on a global stage.

Whether or not the advisory opinion delivers immediate change, it will undoubtedly shape the global conversation on climate change for years to come, offering a beacon of hope for those on the frontlines of this existential crisis. By demanding accountability, these nations are paving the way for a more equitable and sustainable future.

Read More Here:

• Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker

• IPCC

• Molly Quell, AP News

The Himalayas. One of the most beautiful regions of the world, home to mountains including Mount Everest, has been turned into a tense battle between two of the few of the most powerful nations on the planet: India and China. For decades, the two countries have had a border dispute that’s involved a war, failed negotiations, and hundreds of lives. But where did it all start?

China and India are both historical empires with thousands of years of history - dynasties, plagues, colonization - they’ve been through it all. One would think that by now they would have resolved their problem - but clearly not. When India gained independence, China moved forward with construction of a road that went through territory India believed to be theirs. Though Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru met and attempted diplomacy, nothing ever worked out. Throughout the 1940s till 1962, diplomatic settlements from both countries failed, and border skirmishes ensued. In 1962, war broke out.

The average length of a war in modern times is 15 months. The Sino-Indian war lasted 1 month and 1 day. The war, which happened mostly thousands of feet in the air through land combat in mountainous regions, ended in Chinese victory, though notably thanks to their force of 80,000 soldiers against the Indian force of 22,000 soldiers. From 1962 to 2017, skirmishes would occur, but nothing serious would happen until a border standoff that year.

It seems like roads are a major problem for both countries - because yet again, conflict arose over a literal road. After China began building across Doklam, a disputed area that India defends for Bhutan, who believe they rightfully own Doklam, India sent soldiers and bulldozers to defend the area. But the bulldozers didn’t stop at just bulldozing the land. Peace agreements were bulldozed for the following two months, with both sides failing to come to an agreement, and statements being released against each other that only blamed the other side for not ending the standoff sooner. Following peace visits to each other’s country, both countries withdrew their forces from the region. But this time, it would only take a few years for a major development to happen.

In May of 2020, escalations were seen when forces from China promptly crossed and exited the LAC (Line of Actual Control - a demarcation line that neither side should technically cross). Chinese and Indian soldiers were both sent to the line, adding fuel to a fire only waiting to explode.

Just one month later, one of the deadliest clashes in the border dispute history would take place, with fighting for nearly a day on one of the control points, leading to at least four Chinese deaths (the exact number is unconfirmed due to Chinese censoring) and twenty Indian deaths. Both countries immediately called out the other and disparaged each other for the fight. 

Today, China and India still lack a comprehensive agreement on how to handle their border. The two have continued military drills, deployments to the border, and even infrastructure projects. But perhaps, there may be hope after all. Just four days ago, India and China agreed to talks, with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval meeting in Beijing on Wednesday. They came to an agreement on multiple fronts - including increased border trade and another meeting within diplomats to continue working on peace. 

Since the modern birth of India, one of its biggest issues has been on its northern border. For China, they continue to struggle on an issue they’ve failed to resolve for eighty years now. This has hurt diplomatic relations, key economic trade, and infrastructure development. Though Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi, the current leaders of both countries, have recognized its harm, they must take action to finally complete a historic peace deal.

Sources:

• Murali Krishnan, DW News

• Kanti Bajpai, Foreign Policy Magazine

• Staff, Baron Public Affairs

• Krishn Kaushik and Mei Mei Chu, Reuters

• Andrew Scobell, Sameer P. Lalwani and Daniel Markey, United States Institute for Peace