Belgian police recently searched various houses linked to DRC President Felix Tshisekedi's inner circle. Early reporting suggests most of the homes are owned by Tshisekedi family members and that the investigation stems from complaints made by civic organizations about the looting of DRC mining resources. Belgium politically supported Tshisekedi but this is likely to strain the relationship. One question that jumps out: exactly how many homes and properties does the Tshisekedi family own? The searches were conducted in Brussels and several other areas. Were these all the houses, and do they have others in other countries? How did they pay for them?

Eritrea and its partisans are denying it has forces inside Ethiopia. It is difficult to get information on what is happening because the area is almost entirely inaccessible to outsiders, including because there’s a war going on, and because it can be difficult to distinguish Eritrean troops from other forces. However, we now have multiple independent reports of Eritreans inside Ethiopia that have been found credible enough for many media outlets to repeat. They could all be wrong and fooled, but I doubt it. Beyond the reporting, there are other reasons I’m strongly inclined to believe the reports: First, it was widely believed that Eritrea maintained a residual force inside Tigray near the border following the end of the Tigray War. So, it's possible it already had troops inside Tigray when the current bout of fighting began. Second, Eritrea regularly meddles in Ethiopia (as Ethiopia does with Eritrea). The idea that Asmara has suddenly become scrupulous about respecting Ethiopian sovereignty is far-fetched. Third, Eritrea is allied with the TPLF faction inside Tigray that is now fighting federal forces. Fourth, Asmara likely views the Abiy government as an existential threat (and vice-versa) because of the decades’ worth of animosity between the two countries and because of Addis’ rhetoric about gaining access to the sea. It is highly motivated to overthrow Abiy. Finally, Asmara and its partisans have a standard playbook they are running now. When there were indisputably many Eritrean troops inside Tigray during the previous war, they vociferously denied it, accused anyone who mentioned it of being anti-Eritrean and violators of Eritrean sovereignty, and demanded an impossible level of proof. When the evidence came pouring in, they said it was fabricated, unreliable, and part of an anti-Eritrean conspiracy. So, they have no credibility on these issues, and the fact that they are using the very same tactics now makes me disbelieve essentially everything they say. Notwithstanding all of that, I still staunchly believe Ethiopia should not invade Eritrea and try to take Assab or any other port. That would be a disaster for everyone involved.

There is still potentially a long way to go in the current fighting in Ethiopia, but at this point it appears as though the Tigrayan army badly miscalculated either its own forces' ability to take on the national forces, the strength of the coalition it formed against the government, or the level of support it would receive from Eritrea. I doubt the rebel coalition is entirely a spent force, but at least for now the most urgent question is whether there will be a full-scale Ethiopia-Eritrea clash (again). There are Eritrean forces inside Ethiopia. That constitutes an invasion by any measure, and Ethiopia is within its rights to push them out. Beyond that, however, I hope the Ethiopians take no further action. TPLF leadership is rumored to be in Eritrea which would understandably anger Addis, but it appears the TPLF may be a discredited and spent political force. Ordinary Tigrayans seem to have little appetite for another war of the sort the TPLF launched. This is also an opportunity for Addis to reassert control of its full territory, a clear victory. The US should urge it to be content with those gains. The Eritreans should cut their losses by withdrawing fully into their own borders. The US should make it clear that any further rapprochement depends on Asmara’s forces staying out of Ethiopia. I hope Washington will talk with all the conflict’s outside parties to get everyone to agree to participate in deescalation. A full Eritrean-Ethiopian clash would be awful for both countries and the region. We're still in the fog of war so it's tough to determine exactly what is happening on the ground, and new information might change the picture entirely. But right now there seems to be an opportunity to prevent this from getting worse, as long as the Eritreans get out of Ethiopia immediately.

Just a bizarre situation in eastern DRC. I was unfamiliar with Tim Kennedy, but apparently he has a large following. Now he's been wounded and a former New Zealand special operator killed serving as contractors for Erik Prince's outfit, Vectus, that the DRC government has hired. Until now, most of the contractors have been from places like Belarus, Colombia, Russia, and Ukraine. I don't know what it portends that guys who are presumably among Vectus' most highly trained and expensive contractors are deployed so far forward they're getting into firefights, but it is a new development as far as I know.

There was a narrative going around a few months ago that the US was demanding Zambia's minerals in exchange for health assistance. It was sloppily reported and then amplified all over. Zambia just signed a health MoU with the US, which is one of the clearest possible indicators that the original narrative was badly wrong. After all, why would Zambia sign even a re-negotiated MoU with a country that tried to blackmail it into surrendering its minerals? And why would the US sign a re-negotiated MoU if the supposed whole point of the original one was to extort minerals from Zambia?

It is not a diplomat’s job simply to talk. A diplomat is supposed to advance his country’s national interests, primarily by means of discussion. So, talking is a tool, not an end state. Tools can fail. The US has judged after 18 months that approaching South Africa primarily through discussion is unlikely to be effective, so now it is moving to a more coercive model. Endless discussion is also a well-known tactic to delay, distract, and obfuscate. My sense is that the SA government is paralyzed as it has rarely faced the type of unavoidable demand for swift and decisive action that it now faces. It is temporizing in response, hoping that some unknown entity or development will save it from its dilemma. There is nothing that will. The US is demanding a response from the SA government on a timeline. My best bet is that Pretoria will continue to be paralyzed and the US will take the next step it has been warning about. Finally, the indignation about US meddling in SA’s internal affairs is tiresome. Influencing other countries’ behavior is a staple of international geopolitics. South Africa has done it to the U.S. in very public ways in the past.

There are only four possible explanations for the UN Secretary-General claiming the Gaza war is the worst he's seen as Secretary-General: 1. He is catastrophically uninformed about the most pressing issues in his portfolio or too incompetent to do basic comparisons among conflicts. 2. He doesn't care about suffering in Africa. 3. He's afraid to not acquiesce to the prevailing narrative among his professional peer group. 4. He's an ideologue using his prominence and the UN's unwarranted moral authority to delegitimize Israel and by extension the West, especially the US. My guess is that it's mostly 4, with perhaps some 3 mixed in.

I'm perplexed by this. Minister Lamola blasts Afrikaner resettlement because it is "race-based," making it akin to apartheid, he says. Leave aside that the Refugee Convention includes persecution on the basis of race as one of the criteria for determining refugee status. Minister Lamola, his party, and the government he is in defends and perpetuates a program called "Black Economic Empowerment." Does he really not view BEE as race-based? Race is mentioned in the title. Furthermore, casually comparing a policy like refugee resettlement to apartheid cheapens the terribleness of the latter. He and the government he represents describe apartheid as one of the cruelest systems ever devised, so the bar should be very high for comparisons. The strong implication is that they are playing fast and loose with the specter of apartheid for political purposes which, again, cheapens the awfulness of that system.

I first argued for this sort of approach 18 months ago, but I still find it tragic that it's necessary. The US and South Africa would be better off with a strong relationship, but the South African government hasn't demonstrated that it is willing to make the necessary reforms to improve the relationship. I am glad this is targeted rather than sweeping. The US should focus its actions against the specific people who conceive and implement the policies that are harming US interests and avoid damaging innocent people. Now, I hope the US will sanction individuals for corruption. That would allow targeting of the right people, potentially disrupt some of the patronage networks underpinning the anti-US ideologues, and, as a bonus, likely enjoy wide support among ordinary South Africans. It also has the best chance to change the South African government’s behavior. South Africa’s non-non-alignment is the most salient problem for US interests. BEE is philosophically and morally wrong—discrimination against anyone because of their skin color is vile regardless of the reasons for it—as well as impractical. It also burdens US companies while the US doesn’t burden South African companies in such a way. EWC, for its part, is a potential threat to US property in South Africa. The biggest SA-related problem for US national interests is Pretoria using its moral cachet to diplomatically support the US’s staunchest adversaries. That includes Iran with which the US is in open conflict; Russia that is supporting Tehran including with targeting intelligence; and China that is straining every element of its national power to weaken the US. The other issues matter, but the US should avoid overweighting its focus. I’ve seen claims that this infringes on South African sovereignty. How? The US is entirely within its rights to restrict visas. If the argument is that any attempt to influence or coerce another country is an attack on sovereignty, then virtually every country violates other countries’ sovereignty constantly. Countries are always trying to influence other countries, it’s a common goal of statecraft. For anyone unconvinced, simply note what China does to any African country even contemplating inviting the Dalai Lama to visit. I'm sure the US would still happily accept a genuine change in policy by the South African government and immediately strengthen cooperation. I still hope for that outcome, but right now the trajectory of the relationship is strongly negative, sadly.

The Durban Conference was so anti-Western and anti-Israel that delegates from both countries walked out. The final declaration declared that "especially the transatlantic slave trade" was a crime against humanity, doing its best to distract from the Arab slave trades, African slaving, and the rights abuses in Africa that were ongoing at the time. If the South African government wants to convince the US it is changing its anti-Western ways, its foreign ministry celebrating one of the most explicitly anti-Western conferences in UN history is not the way to do it.

Palestine has displaced climate change as the most revered orthodoxy within transnational progressivism. That is in part because those who wish to demoralize and degrade the West view it as the current most useful cause for doing so.