A growing confrontation between Israel and Turkey over influence in Syria is posing a serious challenge for Syria's fragile new government.

On Wednesday night, Israel bombed several military targets in Syria, including two airports – Hama military airport and the T4 base near Homs.

Syria's foreign ministry said the bombardment virtually destroyed the Hama base. A prominent Syrian human rights group said four defence ministry employees were killed, and a dozen other people injured.

The air strikes hit Syria, but their real target was Turkey.

Shortly afterwards, Israel's foreign minister accused Turkey of playing a "negative role" in Syria, and Israel's defence minister warned Syria's interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, that he would "pay a very heavy price" if he allowed "hostile forces" to enter his country.

Ankara is currently negotiating a joint defence pact with Sharaa's new government, and there have been widespread reports that Turkey is moving to station aircraft and air defence systems at Syria's T4 and Aleppo airbases.

Some analysts compared Israel's intense air strikes on Hama airport this week with the much lighter bombing on the edge of the T4 base, suggesting that Turkey may have already moved some equipment there and that Israel was calibrating its attack to avoid a full-blown escalation.

Relations between Israel and Turkey have nose-dived since the Gaza war began in October 2023, with Ankara introducing trade restrictions and accusing Israel of genocide.

That regional tension is now playing out on new ground in Syria.

After the air strikes on Wednesday, Turkey's foreign ministry accused Israel of destabilising the region by "both causing chaos and feeding terrorism" and said it was now the greatest threat to the security of the region.

But foreign minister Hakan Fidan told Reuters news agency that his country was not seeking confrontation with Israel, and that Syria could set its own policies with its southern neighbour.

Syria's new leader has repeatedly signalled that he was not looking for confrontation with Israel. Soon after sweeping President Bashar al-Assad from power last December, he told the BBC that Syria would not pose a threat to any country.

He has even left the door open to normalising diplomatic relations with Israel in the future, telling the Economist last month that Syria wanted peace with all parties, but that it was too early to discuss such a sensitive issue.

His top priority since taking power has been to unite a bitterly divided Syria, and pacify external relations with its neighbours, while he cements his power and control.

But Israel has not made that easy. Its military interventions in Syria are fuelling conflict with both external powers like Turkey, and with internal groups like jihadists in the country's south.

Once an implacable enemy of Syria's former president and his Iranian ally, Israel is also suspicious of Sharaa, a man who once led the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda and whose new government is backed by Turkey.

Since he took power, Israel's military has repeatedly pounded Syrian weapons stores, airfields and other military sites left by the former regime, to avoid them falling into enemy hands, it says.

It has also occupied a demilitarised buffer zone, set up after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, and has sent forces onto the Syrian side of a nearby mountain, setting up nine bases across the area.

Israeli troops are also making regular incursions into Syria's south-western provinces, vowing to prevent the presence of any armed groups or government forces there.

Earlier this week, the local government in the southern city of Deraa said nine civilians were killed in an Israeli bombardment, during the deepest incursion there yet by Israeli forces.

Another four people were killed in Israeli shelling near the village of Koya late last month, after local gunmen tried to stop the advance of Israeli forces there.

Since then, mosques in both Deraa and Damascus have reportedly called for jihad against Israeli forces.

Charles Lister, head of the Syria Programme at the US-based Middle East Institute, which studies the region, has counted more than 70 ground incursions into south-west Syria since February, describing this as "an extraordinarily dangerous moment – and an unnecessary one".

Since the fall of Assad four months ago, he says, not one attack has targeted Israel from Syria, the country's security forces have intercepted "at least 18 weapons shipments destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and dismantled at least eight formerly Iranian-linked rocket launch sites".

Many Syrians are disappointed by Israel's response to their new government. They watched for years as Israel targeted the Assad regime, and believed that Assad's fall would bring the chance for a less confrontational relationship with Israel.

Some say that view is now changing.

"We used to believe that the Israeli army was only targeting Assad's regime forces," said Ismail, a restaurant owner in the west of the country. "But its continued, incomprehensible bombings are sadly making us think that Israel is an enemy of the Syrian people."

Syria is vulnerable because its internal divisions are easily inflamed by regional and global interventions. The roots of sectarian conflict run deep here, nourished by decades of repressive rule by the Assad family, members of Syria's Alawite minority.

Ahmed al-Sharaa's attempts to reassure the country's minorities were interrupted in early March by an explosion of violence in Syria's coastal region – a stronghold of the former regime.

At least 1,000 Alawite civilians or disarmed fighters were massacred by pro-government forces, after government units were ambushed in a co-ordinated attack led by remnants of Syria's former armed forces.

Those former armed forces were once backed by Iran. Some analysts believe their remnants may still be receiving some support from Tehran.

Syrians celebrated the fall of Bashar al-Assad as an end to their civil war, and a chance to unite.

But outside powers helped fuel that civil war for more than a decade, and its neighbours are now eyeing the vacuum left by Assad. The risk is growing that Syria will again fall victim to the conflicts of outside powers, played out on Syrian soil.

Libyan authorities have accused aid groups of plotting to change the country's ethnic make-up by encouraging African migrants to stay there, and has ordered them to close their offices.

Ten groups have been singled out - including Doctors Without Borders, the UN refugee agency, and Norwegian Refugee Council.

"This plan to settle migrants of African origin in our country represents a hostile act. It aims to change the demographic composition of the country and threatens the balance of Libyan society," said Internal Security Authority spokesman Salem Gheit on Thursday.

It echoes a similar announcement made by Tunisia two years ago, which was swiftly condemned as anti-black racism.

Both nations sit on the Mediterranean coast and are key transit points for African migrants crossing the sea to Europe.

Since the overthrow of Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 there has been a breakdown in government, allowing armed militias and human-traffickers to proliferate.

The country has been divided into two, each run by a rival administration.

Militiamen have been accused of running detention centres where migrants are beaten to death or starved, and the Libyan coastguard is accused of sometimes filming people in the sea rather than rescuing them. The Libyan authorities have not commented on these accusations.

Thursday's order to expel the aid groups was made by the internationally recognised government based in the capital, Tripoli.

'Are they not Africans themselves?'

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) suspended its work in Libya a week ago, describing a campaign of harassment by Libyan authorities "summoning and interrogating the staff of international NGOs" since mid-March.

"Our organisation is very concerned about the consequences that these orders will have on the health of patients and on the safety of humanitarian workers," MSF said in a statement sent to the BBC.

In response to Thursday's announcement, the UN's refugee agency (UNHCR) has defended its work, telling the BBC that the people it helps are not "migrants" but refugees in dire need.

It also says it operates with the consent of the Tripoli government.

"We are in contact with the authorities in Libya and are following up with them to seek clarity. UNHCR has been operating in Libya for over 30 years, providing humanitarian assistance to refugees, asylum-seekers and vulnerable Libyan communities," spokesman William Spindler told the BBC.

One of the accusations reportedly made by Libya's International Security Authority against the 10 aid groups was that they support "illegal migrants by providing them with food, clothes, and medicine, which encouraged these migrants to consider Libya as a final destination and not a transit country". But many say they do not want to stay in the country.

For years sub-Saharan African migrants have been subjected to grave rights abuses and dehumanising treatment in Libya - including being killed, enslaved, or repeatedly raped.

"He used to call me a 'disgusting black'. He raped me and said: 'This is what women were made for,'" a Sudanese refugee trafficked in Libya told the BBC this year, about a man who had offered her a job cleaning his house.

"Even kids here are mean to us, they treat us as beasts and sorcerers, they insult us for being black and African, are they not Africans themselves?"

You may also be interested in:

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

South Korea's president has been removed from office after the Constitutional Court voted unanimously to uphold his impeachment.

Yoon Suk Yeol was suspended from duty in December after being impeached by parliament, following his failed attempt to impose martial law.

The ruling on Friday was met with tears of joy and sadness among Yoon's critics and supporters, who had gathered in various parts of Seoul to watch the verdict live.

A snap election to vote for Yoon's replacement must be held by 3 June.

What next for South Korea?

After months of anxiously waiting, South Koreans have some badly needed closure. The country can now start to repair and move forward, the first step being to elect a new leader.

But the crisis Yoon has unleashed is far from over. Although his military takeover only lasted six hours, the political fallout has only intensified with each month that has passed.

The night of 3 December, when Yoon ordered troops to storm parliament, changed something in South Korea's psyche. It reawakened the ghosts of the country's violent, dictatorial past, showing people that martial law was not, as most had assumed, consigned to history.

Many are still upset by what happened that night, and afraid that the threat of martial law could be brandished again by future zealous politicians.

Today's verdict therefore came as a relief to most, who cheered on the streets of Seoul as the verdict was read out. It is a victory for South Korea's democracy, that for a while looked as if it was on dangerous ground.

The constitutional court was damning in its criticism of Yoon's authoritarian power grab, as all eight judges voted to remove him from office.

In upholding his impeachment, Moon Hyung-bae, acting president of the eight-men bench, said Yoon's short-lived military takeover was not justified, and that he had "[gone] against the people he was supposed to protect".

He added that the implementation of martial law "damaged people's basic political rights" and "violated the principles of the rule of law and democracy".

Already, there are serious calls to change South Korea's constitution – to strengthen its institutions and limit the powers of the president - to guard against this happening again. However, it will take a particularly patriotic future president to sign off on reducing their own authority.

South Korea more polarised than ever

As Yoon leaves office, he leaves behind not just a shaken country, but a divided one. In the aftermath of that shocking December night, South Koreans were mostly united in their disgust for the president and what he had attempted to do.

But Yoon showed no remorse. He dug in, fought his trial at every step, and continued to dangle the same unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that he used to justify his military takeover.

He claimed that the country and his political opposition had been infiltrated by North Korean and Chinese spies, and that these "anti-state forces" had rigged past elections.

Gradually more and more people believed him. Through his belligerence, Yoon has turned himself into a political martyr for many – the victim of an establishment that has been overrun by "communists".

His conspiracy theories have firmly taken root, and far-right extremism is flourishing. Thousands protest every week in the centre of Seoul. They were on the streets on Friday, and will be there again Saturday, claiming the country's politicians and judges are corrupt and elections are rigged.

And these are not fringe views.

More than a third of people now say they do not trust the Constitutional Court while delivered Yoon's verdict; more than a quarter do not trust the voting system.

Within this climate of distrust, South Korea must head to the polls. Yoon's successor needs to be chosen in the next 60 days. These days are sure to be fraught and even more divisive. Many may not to accept the result that comes.

Yet South Korea urgently needs a new leader who can advocate for the country as whole, having been without one for months.

It quickly needs to figure out how to deal with President Trump, having started on the backfoot. His 25% tariffs on cars and steel have dealt Seoul, and its ailing economy, an early a blow, but many believe worse is coming; that it is only time until Mr Trump turns his gaze to the Korean peninsula, and when he does he will try to force South Korea to pay more for its defence and cut a deal with Seoul's arch enemy, Kim Jong Un.

Yoon's legal team has accused the court of politicising the ruling.

"The whole process of this trial itself was not lawful and unfair," said one of his lawyers, Yoon Gap-geun.

"I feel regrettable that this completely is a political decision," he said.

But politicians are calling for unity, asking everyone to accept this verdict, so South Korea can at least start to move on.

Yoon's political party, the PPP, has conceded, but Yoon himself has not. In a statement he apologised to his supporters for his "shortcomings" without mentioning the ruling.

"I am truly sorry and regretful that I could not live up to your expectations," he said.

"It has been a great honor to serve the Republic of Korea. I am deeply grateful to all of you who supported and encouraged me, despite my many shortcomings," he said.

He cannot appeal, as the decision was made by South Korea's top court. But, having repeatedly vowed to fight to the end, he could still refuse to go quietly.

How did we get here?

In an unprecedented televised announcement on 3 December, Yoon said he was invoking martial law to protect the country from "anti-state" forces that sympathised with North Korea.

At the time, the embattled leader was in a deadlock over a budget bill, dogged by corruption scandals and several of his cabinet ministers were under investigation.

Less than two hours after Yoon's declaration, 190 lawmakers who gathered, including some from Yoon's party, voted to overturn it.

Yoon was impeached by parliament and suspended from his duties on 14 December.

He is also facing separate charges for insurrection - making him South Korea's first sitting president to be arrested and charged with a crime - which he will be trialed for at a later date. He is now on bail.

Yoon is not the only South Korean politician to have faced impeachment in recent months.

Prime Minister Han Duck-soo was reinstated as the country's interim leader last month - a role he took up when Yoon was suspended - after he himself was impeached over his move to block the appointment of new judges to the constitutional court.

In 2017, former president Park Geun-hye was forced from office over her role in a corruption scandal involving a close friend.

Celebrity doctor and former TV host Mehmet Oz has been confirmed by the US Senate to run the agency that oversees the healthcare of millions of Americans.

Oz, who has never held public office, was picked last year by President Donald Trump to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

On Thursday, he was confirmed to the role by the Republican-controlled US Senate by a party-line vote of 53-45.

The 64-year-old, whose approaches have come under scrutiny, trained as a surgeon before finding fame on The Oprah Winfrey Show in the early 2000s.

Health experts have previously criticised Oz's promotion of what they deem to be bad health advice about weight-loss drugs and "miracle cures", and for suggesting malaria drugs could be used as a cure for Covid-19 at the start of the pandemic.

After picking Oz to lead CMS, Trump said in a statement there "there may be no physician more qualified and capable...to make America healthy again".

Ahead of his inauguration, Trump's transition team said Oz would "work closely" with US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr to "take on the illness industrial complex".

The CMS oversees the country's largest healthcare programs, providing coverage to roughly half of Americans.

It regulates health insurance and sets policy that guides the prices that doctors, hospitals and drug companies are paid for medical services.

In 2023, the US government spent more than $1.4tn (£1.1tn) on Medicaid and Medicare combined, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Oz also hosted The Dr Oz Show, in which he offered health advice to viewers, from 2009 to 2022.

But he was scrutinised for recommending homeopathy, alternative medicine and other treatments that critics have called "pseudoscience".

Democrats have previously claimed a review of his financial records suggests Oz may not have paid $403,739 in Medicare taxes on more than $10 million of income from his media company between 2021 to 2023.

However, a spokesperson for Oz said a review by the Office of Government Ethics found he had complied with the law.

Veteran Bollywood actor and director Manoj Kumar has died at the age of 87 in India's financial capital, Mumbai.

The actor died of "age-related health issues", Dr Santosh Shetty of Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, where the actor was admitted, said.

His son, Kunal Goswami, told ANI news agency that Kumar had been battling health issues for a long time.

Kumar leaves behind a rich legacy of patriotic films, which propelled him to fame in the 1960s and 1970s.

Kumar, who was originally named Harikrishan Goswami, was born in 1937 in the northern state of Punjab.

He carved a niche for himself in the Hindi film industry with films like Shaheed, Roti Kapada Aur Makaan and Kranti. Known for their patriotic fervor, his films struck a chord with the Indian public.

Kumar received numerous awards over the years, including the Padma Shri - the fourth highest civilian award in India.

His contributions earned him the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, India's highest cinematic honour.

Tributes have been pouring in on social media to mourn his death.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi called him an "icon of Indian cinema".

"Manoj Ji's (a term of respect in Hindi) works ignited a spirit of national pride and will continue to inspire generations," he wrote in a post on X.

Filmmaker Ashoke Pandit said his death was "a great loss to the [film] industry" and that the entire industry would miss him.

Stock markets in London, Paris and Berlin fell as trading began on Thursday after US President Donald Trump's sweeping announcements on tariffs.

The UK's FTSE 100 share index was down 1% while France's Cac 40 fell 1.7%.

Earlier Asian markets had slid, while the price of gold, which is seen as a safer assest in times of turbulance, climbed to a record high.

Traders are concerned about the global economic impact of Trump's tariffs, which they fear could stoke inflation and stall growth.

Markets across Asia had fallen sharply after Trump's announcement, with the Nikkei in Japan closing down nearly 3% and Hong Kong's Hang Seng index 1.5% lower.

The price of gold hit a record high of $3,167.57 an ounce at one point on Thursday, before falling back.

A combination of a 10% baseline levy and higher duties on a number of other trading partners reverses decades of liberalisation that shaped the global trade order.

"This is the worst-case scenario," said Jay Hatfield, chief executive at Infrastructure Capital Advisors.

"Enough to potentially send the US into a recession," he added, echoing nervous market sentiment.

• Live: Follow the latest reaction to the tariff announcement
• The countries hit hardest by the new US tariffs - the plan at a glance
• Faisal Islam: The biggest change to global trade in 100 years

George Saravelos, head of FX at Deutsche Bank Research, said the new US trade tariffs were a "highly mechanical" reaction to trade deficits, rather than the "sophisticated assessment" the White House had promised.

He warned the move "risks lowering the policy credibility of the [Trump] administration".

"The market may question the extent to which a sufficiently structured planning process for major economic decisions is taking place. After all, this is the biggest trade policy shift from the US in a century," he said.

Last year, on 17 September, at around 15:30, a pager which a nurse called Adam was given at the start of his shift at a hospital in Lebanon received a message. The devices had been distributed by Hezbollah, the Shia Muslim group, to thousands of its members, including Adam, and he said it was how he and his colleagues expected to be alerted of emergencies or a disaster.

"The pager started beeping non-stop and, on the screen, it said 'alert'," Adam, who did not want to use his real name for safety reasons, said. The text appeared to have been sent by the group's leadership. To read it, he had to press two buttons, simultaneously, with both hands. Adam did it many times, but the beeps continued. "Then suddenly, as I was sitting at my desk," he said, "the pager exploded".

On his phone, Adam showed me a video of the room, filmed by a colleague minutes after he was rescued. There was a trail of blood on the floor. "I tried to crawl to the door because I had locked it while I changed my clothes," he said. The blast had opened a hole in the wood desk. I noticed a beige-like object. "That's my finger," he said.

Hezbollah is known for being a powerful militia and is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by countries including the UK and the US. But in Lebanon, it is also a significant political movement with representation in parliament and a social organisation. Here, being a Hezbollah member does not necessarily mean you are a fighter. In fact, many are not. Adam told me he had never been one. People can work in the group's large array of institutions that include hospitals and emergency services, for example.

Hezbollah had decided to equip members with low-tech pagers for communicating rather than smartphones which it feared could be used by Israel, its arch-enemy, to gather sensitive information about the group. It turned out, though, that the devices which Hezbollah had distributed were part of a years-long elaborate Israeli plan: an explosive compound had been concealed within the pagers, waiting to be activated – and that is what happened on that day.

In the attack, Adam, who is 38, lost his thumb and two fingers on his left hand, and part of a finger on the other. He was blinded in his right eye, which has been replaced with a glass eye, and has only partial sight in the other. He showed me a picture of him in a hospital bed, taken an hour after the explosion, with his face burned, entirely blooded, covered with bandages. Despite his wounds, Adam remained committed to Hezbollah. I asked him how he felt when he looked at himself like that. "Very good," he said in English. Then, in Arabic, he told me: "Because we believe that the wounds are a kind of medal from God. Honouring what we go through fighting a righteous cause."

But the group is no longer the force it was since being dealt a devastating blow in Israel's bombing campaign and invasion of Lebanon, which followed the pager attacks, and faces serious challenges. At home, there is discontent among some supporters over the lack of funds for reconstruction, while the new government has vowed to disarm the group. In neighbouring Syria, the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's regime has disrupted the route used by Iran, its main supporter, for the supply of weapons and money.

I visited communities in southern Lebanon that were destroyed by Israel's attacks, and saw that support for Hezbollah appeared undimmed. But, in views rarely expressed to media, others who backed it said the war had been a mistake, and even questioned the group's future as a military force.

You can listen to more from Hugo in his radio documentary - Crossing Continents: Hezbollah in trouble - here

Hezbollah, or Party of God, was created in the 1980s in response to Israel's occupation of Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war. To this day, the destruction of Israel remains one of its official goals. Their last war had been in 2006, which was followed by years of relative calm. Violence flared up again in 2023 after Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October, killing about 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages. When Israel started bombarding Gaza, Hezbollah began firing rockets in around northern Israel, saying it was acting in support of Palestinians. Israel responded with air strikes on southern Lebanon, and tens of thousands of people were forced to flee on both sides of the border.

The pager attacks were a turning point in what had been, until then, an intensifying but relatively contained conflict. The devices exploded as people were working, shopping or at home. About a dozen people, including two children, were killed, and thousands wounded, many of them maimed. The attack caused anger in Lebanon, because of what was seen as its indiscriminate nature. A day later, walkie-talkies used by the group suddenly exploded too. I was at a funeral of some of the victims of the pagers when there was a loud blast. Hezbollah members, desperate, asked us to turn off our cameras or phones, as no-one knew what else could explode.

In the following weeks, Israel carried out a relentless bombing campaign and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. Across the country, around 4,000 people were killed and almost 18,000 others wounded. For Hezbollah, the conflict proved to be catastrophic. The group's top leaders were assassinated, many of its fighters killed and much of its arsenal destroyed. Among the dead was Hassan Nasrallah, who had been the head of Hezbollah for more than 30 years, assassinated in a massive air strike on the group's secret headquarters under apartment blocks in the Dahieh, where Hezbollah is based in Beirut.

At the end of November, battered, the group agreed on a ceasefire that was essentially a surrender.

Southern Lebanon is the heartland of Lebanon's Shia Muslim community, which is the bulk of Hezbollah's support base, and one of the regions of the country where the group has traditionally had a significant presence. I travelled to the border town of Kfar Kila, which had a pre-war population of 15,000 and was one of the first to fall when Israel invaded. Israel's stated war goal was to allow the return of residents to its northern communities, which had been emptied because of Hezbollah's attacks. In Kfar Kila, there was almost nothing left standing, and yellow Hezbollah flags dotted the huge piles of broken concrete and twisted metal.

A 37-year-old woman called Alia had come with her husband and three daughters, aged 18, 14 and 10. The youngest was wearing a badge with a smiley picture of Nasrallah. "I only knew that this was my house because of the remains of this plant over there, the roses, and this tree," Alia told me. From the street, she pointed at what she could identify in the rubble. "This is the couch. There, the curtains. That was the living room. And that was the bedroom. That's my daughter's bicycle," she said. "There's nothing to recover".

According to the World Bank, costs related to reconstruction and recovery are estimated at $11bn (£8.5bn) across the country. One of Hezbollah's immediate challenges is to give financial help to people affected by the war, which is crucial to keep supporters on board. Those who lost their houses have received $12,000 to cover for a year's rent. But the group has not promised money to rebuild what was destroyed or to give compensation for destroyed businesses. The limited support is already fuelling discontent. Aila's shop had stock worth $20,000, and she was concerned no-one would cover her losses.

Iran, Hezbollah's backer, is one of the group's main sources of funds, weapons and training. But Lebanon's international allies want to cut off any financial support from Iran, to put even more pressure on Hezbollah, and say there will be no help if the Lebanese government does not act against Hezbollah. With the group weakened militarily, critics see this as a unique opportunity to disarm it.

Alia told me: "We don't want any aid that comes with conditions about our arms... We won't allow them to take our dignity, our honour, take away our arms just for us to build a house. We'll build it ourselves."

It is not surprising that Hezbollah's supporters remain defiant. For many, the group is a fundamental part of their lives, essential in their identities. But Hezbollah's power is seen - and felt - beyond its base. Before the war, its military wing was considered to be stronger than the Lebanese national army. A solid parliamentary bloc means that virtually no major decision has been possible without Hezbollah's consent. Because of Lebanon's fractured political system, the group has representation in the government. In short, Hezbollah has had the ability to paralyse the state, and many times has done so.

But the war has diminished the group's domestic position too. In January, the Lebanese parliament elected a new president, former army chief Joseph Aoun, after a two-year impasse that critics had blamed on Hezbollah. In the past, its MPs and allies would walk out of the chamber when a vote was scheduled. But Hezbollah, severely wounded and with its communities in need of help, felt it could no longer block the process, which was seen as vital to unlock some international support. In his inauguration speech, Aoun promised to make the Lebanese army the sole carrier of weapons in the country. He did not mention Hezbollah, but everyone understood the message.

Ultimately, Hezbollah's future may lie with Iran. One of the reasons for Iran to have a strong Hezbollah in Lebanon was to deter any Israeli attack, especially on its nuclear facilities. This is now gone. Other groups backed by Iran in the region, part of what it calls the Axis of Resistance, have also been significantly weakened, including Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen. And the fall of the Assad regime in Syria has interrupted Iran's land corridor to Lebanon - and Hezbollah. Even if Iran decides to rearm Hezbollah, it will not be easy.

Nasrallah has been succeeded by Naim Qassem, his former deputy, who is not seen as charismatic or influential. From time to time, rumours emerge of internal disagreements. And whispers of dissent among the rank and file are spreading. In southern Lebanon, I met a businessman who did not want to have his name published, fearing that he could become a target on social media. On the wall of his office, he had pictures of Hezbollah's leaders. Now, he was critical of the group.

"The mistakes have been huge," he said. "Hezbollah decided to engage in a war to support Gaza without proper calculations, without consulting the people or the Lebanese state". (To date, Israel's war in Gaza has killed more than 50,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.) He told me a lot of supporters shared his view. "If Hezbollah don't do a proper reassessment of the situation... they will destroy themselves and harm us along the way. We brought this destruction on ourselves, and we're now suffering".

As part of the ceasefire deal, Hezbollah agreed to remove its weapons and fighters from southern Lebanon, and a Western diplomatic official told me the group had largely done it. Israel was required to withdraw its troops, but has remained in five positions, saying this is needed for the safety of its border communities. The Israeli military has also carried out air strikes on targets and people it says are linked to Hezbollah. Lebanon says the Israeli permanence in Lebanese territory and its attacks are violations of the deal.

Discussions about Hezbollah's disarmament are likely to be difficult and long. A source familiar with the group told me one of the options was for Hezbollah's arsenal, believed to still include long-range missiles, to be put under the control of the state, while its fighters, estimated to be several thousand, could be integrated into the Lebanese army.

The businessman told me: "A lot of the families, especially those of wounded and martyred fighters, are totally dependent on Hezbollah. These people won't disengage from Hezbollah immediately… Without a plan, it would be a recipe for internal conflict. It would drive Lebanese to fight against each other".

For weeks, I tried to interview a representative from Hezbollah, but no-one was made available.

Adam, the pager casualty, has now returned to his work as a nurse. He no longer does nightshifts, however, as he cannot see well. The explosion also left shrapnel in head and chest. As he gets tired easily, he needs to take constant breaks to rest. Physiotherapy sessions are helping him adapt to using what is left of his left thumb and middle finger.

Prominent in his living room, is a picture he framed, of himself, with his injured hands, holding a pager. He shared with me another picture, of his maimed hand, only now it also bore a tattooed message which expressed that his wounds were a cheap sacrifice in honour of Nasrallah, the late Hezbollah leader. He, like many, still believes in the group's purpose, and the role it plays.

Denmark will not give up Greenland to the US, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said during an official visit to the Arctic Island.

Responding to repeated threats from Donald Trump, Frederiksen offered closer collaboration on security but told the US president: "You can't annex other countries."

Frederiksen stood alongside Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and his predecessor Mute Egede in a show of support and unity in the face of US threats on Thursday.

Her three-day trip to the territory follows last week's controversial visit by a US delegation headed up by Vice President JD Vance, which was widely criticised in both Greenland and Denmark.

During his whirlwind trip, Vance reiterated Trump's ambitions to bring Greenland under United States' control for security reasons, criticised Denmark for not spending more on security in the region, and claimed it had "not done a good job" for Greenlanders.

After arriving in Greenland on Wednesday, Frederiksen said: "It is clear that with the pressure put on Greenland by the Americans, in terms of sovereignty, borders and the future, we need to stay united."

Frederiksen said on Thursday that Denmark was fortifying its military presence in the Arctic and offered closer collaboration with the United States in defending the region.

But she added: "When you demand to take over a part of... Denmark's territory, when we are met by pressure and by threats from our closest ally, what are we to believe in, about the country that we have admired for so many years?"

Frederiksen rode around the capital Nuuk in a Danish navy patrol boat, alongside Egede and Nielsen.

According to Danish public broadcaster DR, many people cheered at seeing the Danish prime minister, with one resident shouting from a window: "Hey Mette! Thanks for being here."

Egede, who served as prime minister for almost four years, said the island had cooperated with the US on security for almost 80 years - including the construction of the Pituffik Space Base following a 1951 agreement between Denmark and the United States.

The former leader insisted Greenland was not for sale, but added the island wanted trade with the US, Greenlandic national newspaper Sermitsiaq reported.

Trump first floated the idea of buying Greenland during his first term - and his desire to own the island has only grown with time.

Mikaela Engell, an expert on the Arctic territory who previously served as Denmark's High Commissioner to Greenland, told AFP news agency "it's very, very important and it's very reassuring for Greenlanders to see a Danish head of government."

Greenland - the world's biggest island, between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans - has been controlled by Denmark, nearly 3,000km (1,860 miles) away, for about 300 years.

Greenland governs its own domestic affairs, but decisions on foreign and defence policy are made in Copenhagen.

Five of the six main parties favour independence from Copenhagen, but disagree over the pace with which to reach it.

A new Greenland coalition government was formed in March, led by the centre-right Democrats party which favours a gradual approach to independence.

Polls show that the vast majority of Greenlanders also want to become independent from Denmark, but do not wish to become part of the US.

Since 2009, Greenland has had the right to call an independence referendum, though in recent years some political parties have begun pushing more for one.

Tom Cruise has paid tribute to his Top Gun co-star Val Kilmer, who died earlier this week aged 65.

Appearing at CinemaCon in Las Vegas, Cruise led a crowd in The Colosseum theatre in a moment of silence to "honour a dear friend of mine, Val Kilmer".

"I can't tell you how much I admired his work, how much I thought of him as a human being and how grateful and honoured I was when he joined Top Gun," Cruise said of Kilmer, who played his rival Ice Man in Top Gun in 1986.

The 2022 sequel Top Gun: Maverick marked Kilmer's last movie role. Kilmer, also known for his roles playing Batman and Jim Morrison in The Doors, died Tuesday night in Los Angeles.

In Las Vegas, Cruise bowed his head in the cavernous theatre, which was packed with movie theatre owners and others who work in the industry.

"Thank you, Val - wish you well on your next journey," Cruise said afterwards.

Cruise was speaking during the Paramount Pictures presentation at CinemaCon. He also showed off a sneak peek trailer of Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning, which is set to be released later this year, and honoured the film's director Christopher McQuarrie, who was named CinemaCon's director of the year.

• Hollywood remembers 'wonderful' actor Val Kilmer
• Val Kilmer: A brilliant, underrated and unpredictable film star
• Look back at Val Kilmer's best-known roles

The trailer showed Cruise, who is famous for doing his own stunts, in a series of action-packed scenes - on fighter jets, in explosions and wing walking on a vintage plane.

As Hollywood paid tribute to Kilmer, Cruise had been one of the few stars who waited to publicly commented on the actor's death.

The star has been vocal about how much he enjoyed working with Kilmer. He said on Jimmy Kimmel Live! that he cried having him on set for Top Gun: Maverick.

"I was crying, I was crying. I got emotional," Cruise said on the show about working with Kilmer. "He's such a brilliant actor. I love his work."

Kilmer's family told US media that he died after coming down with a pneumonia. The actor had two tracheotomies while undergoing treatment for throat cancer.

The procedures forced him to use a voice box to speak, and in the 2022 film, he types on a screen to communicate with Cruise's character. Toward the end of their scene together, Kilmer's Iceman gets up from his chair and coarsely tells Cruise: "The Navy needs Maverick".

The two embrace and then Iceman pokes fun, questioning Cruise about who is the better pilot.

At least 27 Palestinians have been killed in an Israeli air strike on a school in northern Gaza that was serving as a shelter for displaced families, the Hamas-run health ministry says.

Dozens more were wounded when the Dar al-Arqam school in the north-eastern Tuffah district of Gaza City was hit, it cited a local hospital as saying.

The Israeli military said it struck "prominent terrorists who were in a Hamas command and control centre" in the city, without mentioning a school.

The health ministry earlier reported the killing of another 97 people in Israeli attacks over the previous 24 hours, as Israel said its ground offensive was expanding to seize large parts of the Palestinian territory.

The spokesman for Gaza's Hamas-run Civil Defence agency, Mahmoud Bassal, said children and women were among the dead following the strike on Dar al-Arqam school.

He also said a woman who was heavily pregnant with twins was missing along with her husband, her sister, and her three children.

Video from the nearby al-Ahli hospital showed children being rushed there in cars and trucks with serious injuries.

A statement from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said the site in Gaza City that it struck had been used by Hamas fighters to plan attacks against Israeli civilians and troops.

It added that numerous steps had been taken to mitigate harm to civilians.

Overnight, at least 12 people were killed when several homes in Gaza City's eastern Shejaiya district were struck, the Civil Defence said.

It posted a video that appeared to show the bodies of two young children being pulled by rescuers from the remains of a collapsed building.

A witness, who asked not to be named, told BBC Arabic's Gaza Lifeline programme that he had been sleeping when he was "suddenly shaken by a violent explosion and discovered that it occurred at the house of our neighbours, the Ayyad family".

There was no immediate comment from the IDF, but on Thursday morning it ordered residents of Shejaiya and four neighbouring areas to immediately evacuate to western Gaza City, warning that it was "operating with great force... to destroy the terrorist infrastructure".

This week, the IDF issued similar evacuation orders for several areas of northern Gaza, as well as the entire southern city of Rafah and parts of neighbouring Khan Younis, prompting around 100,000 Palestinians to flee, according to the UN.

Israel renewed its aerial bombardment and ground offensive in Gaza on 18 March after the first phase of a ceasefire and hostage release deal agreed with Hamas in January came to an end and negotiations on a second phase of the deal stalled.

The IDF's chief spokesperson, Brig-Gen Effie Defrin, told a briefing on Thursday that its operation had "progressed to another stage" in recent days.

"We have expanded operations in the southern Gaza Strip with the goal of encircling and dividing the Rafah area," he said. "In northern Gaza, our troops are operating against terrorist targets, clearing the area, and dismantling terrorist infrastructure."

He added that over the past two weeks Israeli forces had struck more than 600 "terrorist targets" across Gaza and "eliminated more than 250 terrorists".

Before the strike in Tuffah, Gaza's health ministry had said that at least 1,163 people had been killed over the same period. A UN agency has said they include more than 300 children.

On Wednesday evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israeli forces were establishing another military corridor that would cut off Rafah from Khan Younis.

He argued that military pressure would force Hamas to release the remaining 59 hostages it is holding, up to 24 of whom are believed to be alive.

However, Hamas said it would not engage with Israel's latest proposal for a new ceasefire, which is said to have been co-ordinated with the US, one of the mediators in the negotiations.

The Palestinian group said it accepted only the plan put forward by the two other mediators, Qatar and Egypt, for a 50-day truce.

The full details of that plan have not been disclosed, but it is understood the regional proposal would see five hostages being released in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of Gaza where they have recently redeployed, and the influx of humanitarian aid. There would also be negotiations on ending the war.

Israel wants a larger number of hostages be released at the start of a new truce.

In another development on Thursday, the IDF said the general staff's fact-finding mechanism was investigating the killing by Israeli forces of 15 Palestinian emergency workers near Rafah on 23 March, as well as their burial in what a UN official described as a "mass grave".

"We want to have all the facts in a way that's accurate and we can also hold accountable people if we need to," an IDF spokesman said.

A Palestinian paramedic who survived the attack, speaking to the BBC, challenged the Israeli account of how five ambulances, a fire engine and a UN vehicle were fired on while responding to emergency calls.

The military said the vehicles were "advancing suspiciously" towards its troops without headlights or emergency signals. It also said a Hamas operative and "eight other terrorists" were among those killed, but named only one.

The survivor, Munther Abed, insisted that "all lights were on" until the vehicles came under direct fire. He also rejected the military's claim that Hamas might have used the ambulances as cover, saying all the emergency workers were civilians.

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage.

More than 50,520 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory's health ministry.

Social media influencers pose a "new and increasing threat" for uncontacted indigenous people, a charity has warned after the arrest of a US tourist who travelled to a restricted Indian Ocean island.

Mykhailo Viktorovych Polyakov, 24, allegedly landed on North Sentinel Island in an apparent attempt to make contact with the isolated Sentinelese tribe, filming his visit and leaving a can of coke and a coconut on the shore.

Survival International, a group that advocates for the rights of tribal people, said the alleged act endangered the man's own life and the lives of the tribe, calling it "deeply disturbing".

The US said it was aware and "monitoring the situation".

Andaman and Nicobar Islands' police chief HGS Dhaliwal told news agency AFP that "an American citizen" had been presented before the local court and was remanded for three days for "further interrogation".

AFP, citing Mr Dhaliwal, said Mr Polyakov blew a whistle off the shore of the island in a bid to attract the attention of the tribe for about an hour.

He then landed for about five minutes, leaving his offerings, collecting samples and recording a video.

The police chief told AFP: "A review of his GoPro camera footage showed his entry and landing into the restricted North Sentinel Island."

It is illegal for foreigners or Indians to travel within 5km (three miles) of the islands in order to protect the people living there.

According to police, Mr Polyakov has visited the region twice before - including using an inflatable kayak in October last year before he was stopped by hotel staff.

On his arrest earlier this week, the man told police he was a "thrill seeker", Indian media reported.

Survival International said the Sentinelese have made their wish to avoid outsiders clear over many years and underlined that such visits pose a threat to a community which has no immunity to outside diseases.

Jonathan Mazower, spokesperson for Survival International, told the BBC they feared social media was adding to the list of threats for uncontacted tribal people. Several media reports have linked Mr Polyakov to a YouTube account, which features videos of a recent trip to Afghanistan.

"As well as all the somewhat more established threats to such peoples - from things like logging and mining in the Amazon where most uncontacted peoples live - there are now an increasing number of... influencers who are trying to do this kind of thing for followers," Mr Mazower said.

"There's a growing social media fascination with this whole idea."

Survival International describes the Sentinelese as "the most isolated Indigenous people in the world" living on an island around the size of Manhattan.

Mr Mazower told the BBC an estimated 200 people belong to the tribe, before adding it was "impossible" to know its true number.

Few details are known about the group, other than they are a hunter-gatherer community who live in small settlements and are "extremely healthy", he said.

He added that the incident highlighted why government protections for communities such as the Sentinelese are so important.

The UN's Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention sets out obligations for governments to protect the rights. India's government has an initiative focusing on tribal welfare, but the country has come under criticism in recent years for failing to protect against evictions.

It is not the first time an outsider has attempted to make contact with the Sentinelese.

In November 2018, John Allen Chau, also a US national, was killed by the tribe after visiting the same island.

Local officials said the 27-year-old was a Christian missionary.

Mr Chau was shot with bows and arrows upon landing. Reports at the time suggested he had bribed fisherman to take him to the island.

Europe's leaders had been preparing for "Trump's trade war" - but the reality of a 20% blanket US tariff still came as a shock.

"This decision is a catastrophe for the economic world," said French Prime Minister François Bayrou.

"The consequences will be dire for millions of people around the globe," said the EU's Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, who was on a trip to Central Asia.

The message from the EU, which has the task of responding on behalf of its 27 member states, is that Europe is ready to negotiate with the US but at the same time poised to hit back too.

Europe 'calibrates' its response

EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic aims to talk tariffs with his US counterparts on Friday.

"We'll act in a calm, carefully phased, unified way, as we calibrate our response, while allowing adequate time for talks," he said.

For every European country, President Donald Trump's tariffs will be a severe blow, and national governments have been trying to allay the fears of industry and commerce.

Italy's Giorgia Meloni – who until Wednesday seemed more reluctant than others to retaliate in kind against the US – cleared her diary and hastily summoned ministers and business leaders to an emergency summit.

Italy exports €1.6bn (£1.35bn) worth of agrifood products and €2bn worth of wine to the US, Alessandro Apolito of the country's main farmers' organisation Coldiretti told the BBC.

Aside from economic losses, he says there is a risk that US consumers will turn to imitations, capturing market share that would otherwise go to authentic Italian products.

In Spain, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez rejected Trump's claim that the EU was imposing 39% tariffs on US goods, insisting in reality it was just 3%.

"It's just an excuse to punish countries and implement sterile protectionism. The trade war will affect everyone, but it'll hit the one imposing it most of all," he warned.

Europe's businesses hold their breath

The Spanish Chamber of Commerce fears a 14% cut in exports to the US, especially in machinery and electrical equipment. Sánchez has announced a €14.1bn response plan to help business with finance and look for new markets beyond the US.

Slovakia is more exposed than most EU countries, because of its heavy reliance on industrial exports, and some economists are warning of a deep fall in economic output of at least 2.5% in just two years.

Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned of a potential 0.4% fall in its economic output this year.

Even before Trump's announcement, the French government had revised down expected growth this year to 0.7%.

• At a glance: The countries hit hardest by these plans
• Watch: Three things to know about Trump's plans
• Global reaction: How five big economies see new Trump tariffs

The French wine and spirits sector in particular is likely to be hit. The head of one of the main wine organisations, Jérôme Bauer, has warned of a net loss of €1bn (£835m) to France's wine industry.

Italy's winemakers are holding their breath too.

"We've halted exports for almost two weeks now. Everything is paralysed, because clients aren't placing orders and importers aren't importing," says Stefano Leone of Marchesi Antinori, a winery in Tuscany with over six centuries of history.

The US accounts for 12 to 13% of total sales, and Leone says the company is in a state of limbo.

"We're waiting to understand what decisions to make, depending also on any countermeasures the European Union may adopt in response to the United States. We're hoping some form of negotiation will take place and lead to a concrete outcome."

Sentiment across Europe's markets was glum as investors sold shares considered most vulnerable to Trump's tariffs. One of the big German companies, Adidas, saw 12% of its value wiped off the stock market.

Small companies as well as large are going to be hit.

"This is the first year we've started exporting to the United States, and the tariffs affect us even more directly," says Rocco Mangiaracina, who runs a small family business producing 20,000 bottles of olive oil a year in Sicily.

"Only a week ago, we sent our first 900 bottles to the American market."

French government spokeswoman Sophie Primas said "we are ready for this trade war", but added that "the [European] Union must be strong, it must be united for this".

Europe's biggest economy, Germany, was quick to call out an "unprecedented attack on the international trading system, free trade, and global supply chains".

But Germany is still waiting for chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz to form a government, so it was up to acting chancellor Olaf Scholz to point out that the "world's strongest internal market with 450 million consumers" gave Europe strength.

So how will the EU respond and can it stay united?

• BBC Verify: How were Donald Trump's tariffs calculated?
• UK: What this means for you and your money
• Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
• US analysis: Trump's tariffs are his biggest gamble yet

Retaliation in two steps

It has already laid out a measured response.

From mid-April, a first package of EU tariffs worth up to €26bn will be slapped on US goods, in retaliation for 25% US tariffs on EU steel and aluminium exports which were already announced in March. These had been put back to give space for a negotiated solution. If they go ahead they'll cover a wide range of agricultural, food and textile goods.

Discussions are currently under way on an even bigger package of countermeasures that are due to come in at the end of April.

In von der Leyen's words, Europe "holds a lot of cards". Further measures would not just include US goods, but potentially its digital services too.

Trump complains about the US trade deficit with the EU, but with services the US has a €109bn trade surplus with the EU, according to Brussels.

If the EU decides to impose tariffs or restrictions on Big Tech services or limiting US access to public contracts, it could use what some have labelled its "big bazooka" - more drily known as the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI).

That would need majority support from EU member states, but it is a powerful weapon when Europe's businesses are under threat.

Peter Dige Thagesen, head of geopolitics at the Danish Industry board, told the BBC that Trump "threw a hand grenade right into global trade, creating enormous uncertainty".

He said US tariffs would hit smallest companies that exported to the US the hardest. While the EU had to respond proportionately, he said it had to keep negotiating to avoid a deeper trade war.

While the majority of European leaders were quick to condemn the US tariffs, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto laid the blame squarely at the EU's feet. Hungary's leader, Viktor Orban, is widely seen as Trump's biggest ally in Europe.

"It has again been proven that in Brussels incompetent people are leading the European institutions, who are also suffering from a very serious Trump-phobia," said Szijjarto.

Although Norway is not an EU member state, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store said the US decision to impose a 15% tariff was "bad news" that would have consequences for many Norwegian companies and jobs.

Norway is primarily an exporter and Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg fears it could be hit by a "triple squeeze". Not just by Trump tariffs and lower growth, but by the EU's countermeasures too.

It could be a trade war with many casualties.

Additional reporting by Giulia Tommasi in Rome.

Warning: This story contains distressing details.

A protest march has been held in Zambia's capital, Lusaka, against a recent spate of reports of men raping children.

Over the last two months, Zambians have been shocked by several cases of child rape, some of which resulted in death.

Among the most horrific reports was that of a father allegedly raping his seven-year-old daughter while she was admitted to hospital for cancer treatment.

There have also been reports of a five-year-old allegedly being raped by a gang of four men, while another father was jailed for raping and infecting his six-year-old with genital warts, a sexually transmitted infection.

Zambia's Justice Minister Princess Kasune-Zulu has called for the castration of child rapists as an extreme measure to deter perpetrators and protect children from abuse.

"How low can we go as a nation? How low can we go as a society? What is happening is sickening. It is beyond laws now - it is up to us as Zambians to interrogate why our morals have decayed," she recently told parliament.

Following the reports, civil society organisations, musicians, and individuals held a protest march on Thursday, calling for the government to amend the law to introduce tougher punishments for child rapists.

In a petition handed to Vice-President Mutale Nalumango, they demanded the law be changed so that those accused of child rape are not granted bail.

In response, Nalumango said the issue concerns everyone and that Zambians must take a stand.

A musician who took part in the protest march told the BBC that "we need to create a safe environment for our children".

Daputsa Nkhata-Zulu, also known as Sista D, added that child rapists should be castrated "for the safety of children and also to deprive them of the pride of manhood because they don't deserve it."

In just the last three months of 2024, Zambia recorded more than 10,000 cases of gender-based violence (GBV) involving children, according to the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation. These were mostly in the capital, Lusaka.

More than 32,000 people received counselling for GBV last year, according to the Zambia Police 2024 annual GBV data analysis.

You may also be interested in:

• One-year-olds among those raped during Sudan civil war, UN says
• Sierra Leone sexual violence: What difference did the national emergency make?
• Kenya femicide: Why men fail to condemn deadly misogyny

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

South Africa's coalition government is on shaky ground, with the sharp divisions between its two biggest parties - the African National Congress (ANC) and Democratic Alliance (DA) - exposed in a crucial vote on the national budget.

The centre-right DA voted against the fiscal framework - a key part of the budget - after rejecting an increase in VAT, and demanding a cut in spending across all government departments.

The ANC, which positions itself as a centre-left party, refused to bow to what it called the DA's demand for an "austerity budget".

It demonstrated its political acumen by winning the support of a slew of smaller parties - both inside and outside government - to get the fiscal framework through parliament by 194 votes to 182.

The DA filed papers in court to challenge the vote, saying it was "procedurally flawed" while its top leadership is due to meet later to decide whether or not to remain in what South Africans call a government of national unity (GNU).

Professor William Gumede, an academic at Wits University's school of governance in Johannesburg, told the BBC it was unclear whether the DA would quit the government at this stage.

"It will be asking itself whether this is the tipping-point or whether it should wait - at least until the outcome of the court case," Prof Gumede said.

The coalition government was formed less than a year ago after the ANC lost its parliamentary majority in elections for the first time since Nelson Mandela led it to power in 1994 at the end of white-minority rule.

South Africa's business sector lobbied the two parties to enter into a coalition, seeing it as the best option to guarantee economic stability.

But hinting that the DA's participation was no longer certain, DA spokesman Willie Aucamp accused the ANC of a "serious infraction" and said the party had "crossed a line in the sand".

DA federal chair Helen Zille said the party would consider all its options, and not rush into a decsion.

"We know that being in a coalition requires compromise. You can't get it all. But the ANC also can't get it all, and they are refusing, point blank, to share power," Zille added.

The ANC took an equally tough stand, with its parliamentary chief whip, Mdumiseni Ntuli, accusing the DA of "complete betrayal" by breaking ranks with its partners in the GNU.

"The DA is a member, or was a member," Ntuli said.

"I don't know what is going to happen with them now, but the GNU remains," he added, referring to the fact that other parties in the 10-member coalition remain committed to it.

President Cyril Ramaphosa's spokesman Vincent Magwenya also threw down the gauntlet to the DA, saying: "You can't be part of a government whose budget you opposed."

The DA found itself voting alongside South Africa's two biggest, and most populist, opposition parties - former President Jacob Zuma's uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party and Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).

Advocating the nationalisation of key sectors of the economy, these two parties are the impeccable foes of the pro-business DA.

But the three parties were united in opposing a VAT increase, believing it would hit the poor hard.

As DA leader John Steenhuisen put it: "The ANC is out of touch with the people, and if they bought their own groceries or filled their own tanks, they would know how expensive life already is."

But the ANC argued that a VAT increase - set at 0.5% this year and a further 0.5% next year - was necessary to raise revenue, and to offer public services such as health and education.

Crucially, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) voted with the ANC, signalling the end of the alliance it formed with the DA in the build-up to the election in a failed bid to keep Ramaphosa's party out of power.

ActionSA - a small opposition party which broke away from the DA - helped the ANC clinch the vote.

It said it had reached a deal with the ANC that would see the VAT increase scrapped, while alternative ways of raising revenue for the government are explored.

"Yesterday's [Wednesday's] adoption of the report on the fiscal framework was merely one step in a multi-stage budgeting process before the final budget is approved," ActionSA said in a statement.

Prof Gumede said the ANC would find it difficult to convince the public to pay more taxes when public services were crumbling.

"The optics don't look good for the ANC," he told the BBC.

"The DA has taken the budget as an opportunity to make a big impact, and to show it is pro-poor."

The dispute over the budget is the latest sign of the sharp differences between the two parties, with the DA also challenging in the courts three other pieces of legislation - including the land expropriation act.

This law was one of the issues that led to US President Donald Trump's administration cutting aid to South Africa.

The Trump administration has now imposed tariffs of 30% on all South African imports, in a move that is likely to be a huge blow to its already floundering economy.

"They have got some bad things going on in South Africa. You know, we are paying them billions of dollars, and we cut the funding because a lot of bad things are happening in South Africa," the US president said, before going on to name other countries.

In a statement, Ramaphosa's office condemned the new tariffs as "punitive", saying they could "serve as a barrier to trade and shared prosperity".

But for many South Africans, the tariffs signal the need for the two biggest parties to resolve their differences and work together - or risk seeing the nation sink into a deeper economic crisis at a time when the unemployment rate is already at more than 30%.

You may also be interested in:

• What big business wants for South Africa’s future
• South Africans still battling ‘economic apartheid’ 30 years on
• Race policies or Israel - what's really driving Trump's fury with South Africa?

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

One country that did not feature on Donald Trump's list of tariffs on US trade partners was Russia.

US outlet Axios quoted White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt as saying this was because existing US sanctions on Russia "preclude any meaningful trade" and noting that Cuba, Belarus and North Korea were also not included.

However, nations with even less trade with the US - such as Syria, which exported $11m of products last year according to UN data quoted by Trading Economics - were on the list.

The US imposed large-scale sanctions on Russia after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Trump has generally taken a friendlier approach to Russia since his return to the White House.

He has made ending the war a priority and a top Russian official is in Washington this week for meetings with his administration, as negotiations continue on a deal.

Last month, Trump threatened to impose a 50% tariff on countries buying Russian oil if Russian President Vladimir Putin did not agree to a ceasefire.

On Thursday, Russian media also argued that their country was not on the sweeping tariffs list because of existing sanctions.

"No tariffs have been imposed on Russia, but that's not because of some special treatment. It's simply because Western sanctions are already in place against our country," says state-run Rossiya 24 TV.

According to its sister channel Rossiya 1, Russia is missing from the list "to the disappointment of many in the West".

Many Kremlin-controlled media outlets have specifically referred to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who told Fox News: "Russia and Belarus, we don't trade with. They're sanctioned."

According to the Office of the US Trade Representative, the US imported goods from Russia worth $3.5bn (£2.7bn) in 2024. It mainly consisted of fertilisers, nuclear fuel and some metals, according to Trading Economics and Russian media.

Some of the Russian coverage has taken a mocking tone, with pro-Kremlin NTV saying Trump treated America's allies in Europe as "serfs" who only respond with "moaning".

Many, such as Zvezda TV which is run by Russia's defence ministry, note the inclusion of uninhabited Heard Island and McDonald Islands on the tariffs list.

"Looks like it's some penguins who will have to pay the 10% tariff," Zvezda said.

• Live updates: Reaction to Trump's tariffs announcement
• At a glance: The countries hit hardest by these plans
• Watch: Three things to know about Trump's plans
• Global reaction: How five big economies see new Trump tariffs
• BBC Verify: How were Donald Trump's tariffs calculated?
• UK: What this means for you and your money
• Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
• US analysis: Trump's tariffs are his biggest gamble yet

Ukraine, meanwhile, is facing a 10% tariff on its exports to the US.

The country's first deputy prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, said the new US tariff would mostly hit small producers.

She also said Ukraine was "working to secure better terms".

In 2024, Ukraine exported $874m (£642m) worth of goods to the US and imported $3.4bn from the US, according to the deputy prime minister.

"Ukraine has much to offer the United States as a reliable ally and partner," she added. "Fair tariffs benefit both countries."

Despite the small scale of trade, the US has provided significant material support for the war against Russia. Trump has argued that the US has spent $300-$350bn on such aid, while the US Department of Defense said $182.8bn had been "appropriated" - a figure that covers US military training in Europe and replenishment of US defence stocks - for Operation Atlantic Resolve.

The US has also been attempting to reach a deal for access to Ukrainian minerals as part of negotiations to end the war.

US President Donald Trump has imposed a 10% tariff on goods from most countries being imported into the US, with even higher rates for what he calls the "worst offenders".

But how exactly were these tariffs - essentially taxes on imports - worked out? BBC Verify has been looking at the calculations behind the numbers.

What were the calculations?

When Trump presented a giant cardboard chart detailing the tariffs in the White House Rose Garden it was initially assumed that the charges were based on a combination of existing tariffs and other trade barriers (like regulations).

But later, the White House published what might look like a complicated mathematical formula.

But the actual exercise boiled down to simple maths: take the trade deficit for the US in goods with a particular country, divide that by the total goods imports from that country and then divide that number by two.

A trade deficit occurs when a country buys (imports) more physical products from other countries than it sells (exports) to them.

• Punitive or a gift? How five big economies see new Trump tariffs
• Trump's tariffs are a longtime goal fulfilled - and his biggest gamble yet
• How Trump's tariffs might affect you and your money

For example, the US buys more goods from China than it sells to them - there is a goods deficit of $295bn. The total amount of goods it buys from China is $440bn.

Dividing 295 by 440 gets you to 67% and you divide that by two and round up. Therefore the tariff imposed on China is 34%.

Similarly, when it applied to the EU, the White House's formula resulted in a 20% tariff.

Are the Trump tariffs 'reciprocal'?

Many commentators have pointed out that these tariffs are not reciprocal.

Reciprocal would mean they were based on what countries already charge the US in the form of existing tariffs, plus non-tariff barriers (things like regulations that drive up costs).

But the White House's official methodology document makes clear that they have not calculated this for all the countries on which they have imposed tariffs.

Instead the tariff rate was calculated on the basis that it would eliminate the US's goods trade deficit with each country.

Trump has broken away from the formula in imposing tariffs on countries that buy more goods from the US than they sell to it.

For example the US does not currently run goods trade deficit with the UK. Yet the UK has been hit with a 10% tariff.

In total, more than 100 countries are covered by the new tariff regime.

'Lots of broader impacts'

Trump believes the US is getting a bad deal in global trade. In his view, other countries flood US markets with cheap goods - which hurts US companies and costs jobs. At the same time, these countries are putting up barriers that make US products less competitive abroad.

So by using tariffs to eliminate trade deficits, Trump hopes to revive US manufacturing and protect jobs.

But will this new tariff regime achieve the desired outcome?

BBC Verify has spoken to a number of economists. The overwhelming view is that while the tariffs might reduce the goods deficit between the US and individual countries, they will not reduce the overall deficit between the US and rest of the world.

"Yes, it will reduce bilateral trade deficits between the US and these countries. But there will obviously be lots of broader impacts that are not captured in the calculation", says Professor Jonathan Portes of King's College, London.

That's because the US' existing overall deficit is not driven solely by trade barriers, but by how the US economy works.

For one, Americans spend and invest more than they earn and that gap means the US buys more from the world than it sells. So as long as that continues, the US may continue to keep running a deficit despite increasing tariffs with it global trading partners.

Some trade deficits can also exist for a number of legitimate reasons - not just down to tariffs. For example, buying food that is easier or cheaper to produce in other countries' climates.

Thomas Sampson of the London School of Economics said: "The formula is reverse engineered to rationalise charging tariffs on countries with which the US has a trade deficit. There is no economic rationale for doing this and it will cost the global economy dearly."

What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?

Hungary's government has announced it is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The move was announced by a senior official in Prime Minister Viktor Orban's government hours after Israel's leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who is sought under an ICC arrest warrant, arrived in Hungary for a state visit.

Orban had invited Netanyahu as soon as the warrant was issued last November, saying the ruling would have "no effect" in his country.

In November, ICC judges said there were "reasonable grounds" that Netanyahu bore "criminal responsibility" for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the war between Israel and Hamas. Netanyahu has condemned the ICC's decision as "antisemitic".

The ICC, a global court, has the authority to prosecute those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Hungary is a founding member of the ICC, which counts 125 member states, and will be the first European Union nation to pull out of it.

The US, Russia, China and North Korea are among the nations that are not part of the ICC, and therefore do not recognise its jurisdiction.

Israel is also not part of the treaty, but the ICC ruled in 2021 that it did have jurisdiction over the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, because the UN's Secretary General had accepted that Palestinians were a member.

Hungary now needs to send written notification to the UN Secretary General to leave the treaty, with the withdrawal taking effect one year later, according to article 127 of the Rome Statute.

Since the warrant was issued, Hungarian authorities should technically arrest Netanyahu and hand him over to the court in the Hague, although member states do not always choose to enforce ICC warrants.

In Europe, some ICC member states said they would arrest the Israeli leader if he set foot in their country, while others, such as Germany, announced that he would not be detained if he visited.

The White House had said the US rejected the ICC decision and Netanyahu has visited the country since the warrant was issued in November. His visit to Hungary marks Netanyahu's first trip to Europe since then.

Hungarian Defence Minister Kristof Szalay-Bobrovniczky, greeted Netanyahu on the tarmac of Budapest airport on Wednesday night, welcoming him to the country.

Soldiers lined a red carpet laid out for the Israeli leader as he exited his plane. After military honours at the presidential palace, he will meet Orban on Thursday.

Israel is appealing against the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and strongly rejects the accusations. It both denies the authority of the ICC and the legitimacy of the warrants.

In the same ruling, ICC judges also issued a warrant against Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, whom Israel says is dead.

The visit comes as Israel announced it was expanding its Gaza offensive and establishing a new military corridor to put pressure on Hamas, as deadly Israeli strikes were reported across the Palestinian territory.

The war in Gaza was triggered by the deadly Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, which killed some 1,200 people and led to 251 hostages being taken to Gaza. Since then, more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed, Palestinian health authorities say.

Hungary's government has announced it is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The move was announced by a senior official in Prime Minister Viktor Orban's government hours after Israel's leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who is sought under an ICC arrest warrant, arrived in Hungary for a state visit.

Orban had invited Netanyahu as soon as the warrant was issued last November, saying the ruling would have "no effect" in his country.

In November, ICC judges said there were "reasonable grounds" that Netanyahu bore "criminal responsibility" for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the war between Israel and Hamas. Netanyahu has condemned the ICC's decision as "antisemitic".

The ICC, a global court, has the authority to prosecute those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Hungary is a founding member of the ICC, which counts 125 member states, and will be the first European Union nation to pull out of it.

The US, Russia, China and North Korea are among the nations that are not part of the ICC, and therefore do not recognise its jurisdiction.

Israel is also not part of the treaty, but the ICC ruled in 2021 that it did have jurisdiction over the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, because the UN's Secretary General had accepted that Palestinians were a member.

Hungary now needs to send written notification to the UN Secretary General to leave the treaty, with the withdrawal taking effect one year later, according to article 127 of the Rome Statute.

Since the warrant was issued, Hungarian authorities should technically arrest Netanyahu and hand him over to the court in the Hague, although member states do not always choose to enforce ICC warrants.

In Europe, some ICC member states said they would arrest the Israeli leader if he set foot in their country, while others, such as Germany, announced that he would not be detained if he visited.

The White House had said the US rejected the ICC decision and Netanyahu has visited the country since the warrant was issued in November. His visit to Hungary marks Netanyahu's first trip to Europe since then.

Hungarian Defence Minister Kristof Szalay-Bobrovniczky, greeted Netanyahu on the tarmac of Budapest airport on Wednesday night, welcoming him to the country.

Soldiers lined a red carpet laid out for the Israeli leader as he exited his plane. After military honours at the presidential palace, he will meet Orban on Thursday.

Israel is appealing against the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and strongly rejects the accusations. It both denies the authority of the ICC and the legitimacy of the warrants.

In the same ruling, ICC judges also issued a warrant against Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, whom Israel says is dead.

The visit comes as Israel announced it was expanding its Gaza offensive and establishing a new military corridor to put pressure on Hamas, as deadly Israeli strikes were reported across the Palestinian territory.

The war in Gaza was triggered by the deadly Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, which killed some 1,200 people and led to 251 hostages being taken to Gaza. Since then, more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed, Palestinian health authorities say.

Drake has been given the green light to access sensitive record company documents in his ongoing defamation case over Kendrick Lamar's song Not Like Us.

The star had asked for copies of Kendrick Lamar's recording contract, as well as information on salaries and bonuses for senior executives at his record label Universal Music Group (UMG).

Drake is accusing the company of defamation by allowing Lamar's song to be published and promoted, claiming it spread the "false and malicious narrative" that he is a paedophile.

Universal filed to dismiss the case last month, calling it an "illogical" attempt to "silence" Lamar's creative expression.

It also asked for a pause in the evidence-gathering process, known as discovery, while that request was considered.

However, on Wednesday, Judge Jeannette A Vargas, ordered that discovery should continue.

Michael Gottlieb, Drake's lead lawyer, celebrated the decision in a statement to the BBC.

"Now it's time to see what UMG was so desperately trying to hide," he said.

According to a court filing, Drake's team is seeking documents including "all contracts between UMG and Kendrick Lamar" and the salaries and incentive plans for senior record label staff, going back to 2020.

UMG had objected to the request, saying that the "costly and time-consuming" process of gathering the "commercially sensitive" information was an "undue burden" when the case could still be dismissed.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for 30 June.

Drake's lawsuit marks the latest chapter in his long-running feud with Lamar.

The pair butted heads on a series of rap tracks last year. In one, Drake accused Lamar of domestic abuse.

Lamar responded with Not Like Us, in which he characterised Drake and his entourage as "certified paedophiles" who should "be registered and placed on neighbourhood watch".

In court documents, Drake claimed that Universal knew that Lamar's lyrics were false but "continued to fan the flames" of the controversy for profit.

The lawsuit also accused Universal of colluding with Spotify to falsely inflate streaming numbers for Not Like Us, a claim that both companies denied.

In response, Universal, which has been Drake's label for more than a decade, said: "Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist - let alone Drake - is illogical."

"Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth 'rap battles' to express his feelings about other artists."

In addition, the label claimed that Drake had "lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated".

"He now seeks to weaponise the legal process to silence an artist's creative expression and to seek damages from [Universal] for distributing that artist's music," the company concluded.

Not Like Us has become the biggest hit of Kendrick Lamar's career. In the UK, it became his first number one single, shortly after he performed it during the Super Bowl Half Time Show in February.

French officials investigating the deaths of a British couple in their home in south-west France have said it was murder followed by suicide.

The bodies of Andrew and Dawn Searle, who previously lived in East Lothian, were found on 6 February at their home in Les Pequies, about a hour north of Toulouse.

Mrs Searle's body was found in the garden with severe wounds to her head, while her husband's body was found hanging inside.

The prosecutor in charge of the case has told the BBC there is no evidence that another person was involved in their deaths.

Mrs Searle grew up in Eyemouth in the Scottish Borders, and Mr Searle was originally from England.

They previously lived in Musselburgh and married in France in 2023.

Prosecutors said they had lived in the Aveyron region for five years.

According to his LinkedIn page, Mr Searle previously worked in financial crime prevention at companies including Standard Life and Barclays Bank.

Dawn Searle's son, the Hollyoaks actor Callum Kerr, issued a statement on social media at the time of the deaths

He said: "At this time, Callum Kerr and Amanda Kerr are grieving the loss of their mother, Dawn Searle (née Smith, Kerr) while Tom Searle and Ella Searle are mourning the loss of their father, Andrew Searle."

He requested that the family's privacy be respected during this "difficult period".

Mr Kerr, 30, walked his mother down the aisle when she married Mr Searle at a ceremony in France in 2023.

Myanmar's junta chief Min Aung Hlaing will travel to Thailand for a regional summit as his country reels from an earthquake that killed thousands and left cities in ruins.

The earthquake in central Myanmar last Friday killed 3,085 people and injured 4,715, the junta has said. Hundreds more are missing and the toll is expected to rise.

A spokesman for the Myanmar army said Min Aung Hlaing is scheduled to fly to Bangkok on Thursday, on the eve of a summit that will gather leaders of the seven countries that border the Bay of Bengal.

His attendance will be unusual as sanctioned leaders are typically barred from these events.

Host Thailand, where the earthquake was felt and killed 21 people, has proposed that the leaders issue a joint statement on the disaster. Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka are also part of the summit.

Countries around the world have sent aid and rescue teams to Myanmar since the quake, but poor infrastructure and an ongoing civil war has complicated relief efforts.

The junta announced a temporary ceasefire late on Wednesday to expedite these efforts, after earlier rejecting proposals from armed ethnic rebel groups.

Before this, the military had continued its airstrikes in rebel-held areas, including those badly hit by the earthquake.

On Tuesday night, troops opened fire at a Chinese Red Cross convoy carrying relief supplies. The junta said the troops fired after the convoy refused to stop despite being signalled to do so.

Myanmar has been gripped by a bloody civil war since the military seized power in 2021, which led to the rise of an armed resistance that has been fighting alongside armed ethnic groups, some of which have been fighting the military for decades.

Years of violence have crippled the economy, supercharged inflation, and plunged the country into a humanitarian crisis.

Now, the earthquake has worsened the crisis. Humanitarian groups have urged the junta to lift any remaining obstructions to aid.

The UN has also urged the global community to ramp up aid before the monsoon season hits in about a month.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said US tariffs on European Union imports are "wrong", after US President Donald Trump announced he would begin charging a 20% rate on EU goods.

Meloni is one of the many world leaders reacting to Trump's "liberation day" announcements, which include a universal 10% baseline tariff on all imports into the US from 5 April.

Around 60 countries - including the EU - will be hit with steeper tariffs from 9 April. Some of the highest rates will be levied on smaller countries, such as Lesotho, which has been hit with a 50% levy.

Trump said the measures would "make America rich again", adding that he had been "very kind" in his decisions.

• Trump tariffs live updates

Meloni, a Trump ally, said the EU tariffs would "not suit either party" - referring to the EU and the US - but that she would work towards a deal with the US to "prevent a trade war".

Her Spanish counterpart Pedro Sánchez said Spain would protect its companies and workers and "continue to be committed to an open world."

Irish trade minister Simon Harris said he was ready to negotiate with the US, calling it the "best way forward", while Taoiseach Micheál Martin said Trump's decision was "deeply regrettable" and benefitted "no-one".

Outside of the EU, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Americans would end up paying the biggest price for what he called "unjustified tariffs", but said his government would not impose reciprocal measures.

"We will not join a race to the bottom that leads to higher prices and slower growth", he added.

Latin America's biggest economy, Brazil, approved a law in congress on Wednesday - the Economic Reciprocity Law - to counter the 10% tariff imposed by Trump. There was no immediate reaction from the president, but last week Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said his country "cannot stand still" in face of the tariffs.

Shortly after Trump's announcement, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned countries not to "retaliate" and "sit back, take it in".

"Because if you retaliate, there will be escalation", he told Fox News.

Noticeably, the US's two biggest trade partners, Canada and Mexico, were not mentioned in Wednesday's announcements.

The White House said it would deal with both countries according to previous executive orders, which imposed 25% tariffs on the two nations as part of efforts to address fentanyl and border issues.

Regardless, Canada will still be impacted by the tariffs, Prime Minister Mark Carney said. Measures such as the 25% tariff on automobiles starting at midnight on Thursday would "directly affect millions of Canadians", he added.

He vowed to "fight these tariffs with counter measures", adding that the US levies would "fundamentally change the global trading system."

Outrage is a precious political currency and France's far right has spent this week attempting, furiously and predictably, to capitalise on the perceived injustice of a court's decision to block its totemic leader, Marine Le Pen, from standing in the 2027 presidential election.

The airwaves have been throbbing with indignation.

"Be outraged," said one of Le Pen's key deputies, on French television, in case anyone was in doubt as to what their reaction should be.

But it remains unclear whether Le Pen's tough sentence will broaden support for her party, the National Rally (RN), or lead to greater fragmentation of the French far right. Either way, it has created a feverish mood among the nation's politicians.

Le Pen and her allies have boldly declared that France's institutions, and democracy itself, have been "executed", are "dead", or "violated". The country's justice system has been turned into a "political" hit squad, shamelessly intervening in a nation's right to choose its own leaders. And Marine Le Pen has been widely portrayed, with something close to certainty, as France's president-in-waiting, as the nation's most popular politician, cruelly robbed of her near-inevitable procession towards the Élysée Palace.

"The system has released a nuclear bomb, and if it is using such a powerful weapon against us, it is obviously because we are about to win the elections," Le Pen fumed at a news conference, comparing herself to the poisoned, imprisoned, and now dead Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny.

As France assesses its latest political tremors, an uneven pushback has begun.

No clear frontrunner for president

Nervous about the impact the judgement may have for the country's frail coalition government, the Prime Minister François Bayrou has admitted to feeling "troubled" by Le Pen's sentence and worried about a "shock" to public opinion.

But other centrist politicians have taken a firmer line, stressing the need for a clear gap between the justice system and politics.

An early opinion poll appears to show the French public taking a calm line, bursting – or at least deflating – the RN's bubble of outrage. The poll, produced within hours of the court's ruling, showed less than a third of the country – 31% - felt the decision to block Le Pen, immediately, from running for public office, was unjust.

Tellingly, that figure was less than the 37% of French people who recently expressed an interest in voting for her as president.

In other words, plenty of people who like her as a politician also think it reasonable that her crimes should disqualify her from running for office.

And remember, French presidential elections are still two years away – an eternity in the current political climate.

Emmanuel Macron is not entitled to stand for another term and no clear alternative to Le Pen, from the left or centre of French politics, has yet emerged. Le Pen's share of the vote has consistently risen during her previous three failed bids for the top job but it is premature, at best, to consider her a shoo-in for 2027.

Le Pen's crime and punishment

Anyone who followed the court case against her and her party colleagues in an impartial fashion would struggle to conclude that the verdicts in Le Pen's case were unreasonable.

The evidence of a massive and coordinated project to defraud the European Parliament and its associated taxpayers included jaw-droppingly incriminating emails suggesting officials knew exactly what they were doing, and the illegality of their actions.

That the corruption was for the party, not for personal gain, surely changes nothing. Corruption is corruption. Besides, other parties have also been found guilty of similar offences.

Regarding the punishments handed out by the court, here it seems fair to argue that Le Pen and her party made a strategic blunder in their approach to the case.

Had they acknowledged the facts, and their errors, and cooperated in facilitating a swift trial rather than helping to drag the process out for almost a decade, the judges – as they've now made clear – might have taken their attitude towards the case into consideration when considering punishments.

"Neither during the investigation nor at the trial did [Le Pen] show any awareness of the need for probity as an elected official, nor of the ensuing responsibilities," wrote the judges in a document explaining, often indignantly, why they'd delivered such a tough sentence.

They berated Le Pen for seeking to delay or avoid justice with "a defence system that disregards the uncovering of the truth".

Hypocrisy among the elite

It is worth noting, here, the wider hypocrisy demonstrated by elites across France's political spectrum who have recently been muttering their sympathy for Le Pen. It is nine years since MPs voted to toughen up the laws on corruption, introducing the very sanctions - on immediately banning criminals from public office - that were used by the judges in this case.

That toughening was welcomed by the public as an antidote to a judicial system stymied by an indulgent culture of successive appeals that enabled – and sometimes still enables - politicians to dodge accountability for decades.

Le Pen is now being gleefully taunted by her critics online with the many past instances in which she has called for stricter laws on corruption.

"When are we going to learn the lessons and effectively introduce lifelong ineligibility for those who have been convicted of acts committed while in office or during their term of office?" she asked in 2013.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about the court's sentencing decisions in Le Pen's case. But the notion – enthusiastically endorsed by populist and hard-right politicians across Europe and the US – that she is a victim of a conspiratorial political plot has clearly not convinced most French people.

At least not yet.

Future of France's far right

So where does this verdict – clearly a seismic moment in French politics – leave the National Rally and the wider far-right movement?

The short answer is that no one knows. There are so many variables involved – from the fate of Le Pen's fast-tracked appeal, to the RN's succession strategy, to the state of France's precarious finances, to the broader political climate and the see-sawing appetite for populism both within France and globally – that predictions are an even more dubious game than usual.

The most immediate question – given the slow pace of the legal appeal that Le Pen has vowed to initiate – is whether the RN will seek prompt revenge in parliament by attempting to bring down the fragile coalition government of François Bayrou.

That could lead to new parliamentary elections this summer and the possibility that the RN could capitalise on its victim status to increase its lead in parliament and perhaps, even, to push the country towards a deadlock in which President Macron might – yet another "might" – feel obliged to step down.

One person who will now be facing extra scrutiny is Le Pen's almost but not quite anointed successor, 29-year-old Jordan Bardella, who could be drafted in as a replacement presidential candidate if Le Pen's own "narrow path" towards the Élysée remains blocked on appeal.

If social-media-savvy Bardella's popularity among French youth is any indication of his prospects, he could well sweep to victory in 2027. He has found a way to tap into the frustrations of people angry about falling living standards and concerns about immigration.

But turning youthful support into actual votes is not always straightforward, and other, more experienced and mainstream figures on the right may well be sensing an opportunity too.

The Interior Minister, Bruno Retailleau, is widely seen to be emerging as a potential contender. Some even wonder if the provocative television personality, Cyril Hanouna, might become a serious political force on the right of French politics.

Meanwhile, Bardella, like the RN in general, has been on a highly disciplined mission to detoxify the party's once overtly racist and antisemitic brand. In February, for instance, he abandoned plans to speak at America's far-right CPAC event after Donald Trump's former advisor Steve Bannon made a Nazi salute.

But this week's events have revealed that the RN is enthusiastically committed to the distinctly Trump-ian and populist strategy of blaming its misfortunes on a "swamp" of unelected officials. Bardella, meanwhile, complained about the recent closure of two right-wing media channels alongside his party's own legal struggles.

"There is an extremely serious drift today that does not reflect the idea we have of French democracy," he said.

It's the sort of language that goes down well with the RN's core constituency, but its broader appeal may be limited in a country that remains, in many ways, deeply attached to its institutions.

To frame it another way, will French voters be more motivated by the belief that Le Pen was unfairly punished, or by concern that the judges involved have since been the victims of death threats and other insults?

As for Marine Le Pen, she has vowed that she will not be sidelined. But her destiny is not entirely in her own hands now. At the age of 56 she has become a familiar figure, fiery at times, but personally approachable, warm and, in political terms, profoundly influential and disciplined. So what next for her?

France has had one Le Pen or other (Marine's father, Jean-Marie ran four times) on their presidential ballot paper since 1988. Always unsuccessfully.

History may well look back on this week as the moment Marine Le Pen's fate was sealed, in one of three ways: as France's first female and first far-right president, swept to power on a tide of outrage. As the four-time loser of a French presidential election, finally denied power by the taint of corruption. Or as someone whose soaring political career was brought to an early and shuddering halt by her own miscalculations over a serious embezzlement scandal.

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said US tariffs on European Union imports are "wrong", after US President Donald Trump announced he would begin charging a 20% rate on EU goods.

Meloni is one of the many world leaders reacting to Trump's "liberation day" announcements, which include a universal 10% baseline tariff on all imports into the US from 5 April.

Around 60 countries - including the EU - will be hit with steeper tariffs from 9 April. Some of the highest rates will be levied on smaller countries, such as Lesotho, which has been hit with a 50% levy.

Trump said the measures would "make America rich again", adding that he had been "very kind" in his decisions.

• Trump tariffs live updates

Meloni, a Trump ally, said the EU tariffs would "not suit either party" - referring to the EU and the US - but that she would work towards a deal with the US to "prevent a trade war".

Her Spanish counterpart Pedro Sánchez said Spain would protect its companies and workers and "continue to be committed to an open world."

Irish trade minister Simon Harris said he was ready to negotiate with the US, calling it the "best way forward", while Taoiseach Micheál Martin said Trump's decision was "deeply regrettable" and benefitted "no-one".

Outside of the EU, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Americans would end up paying the biggest price for what he called "unjustified tariffs", but said his government would not impose reciprocal measures.

"We will not join a race to the bottom that leads to higher prices and slower growth", he added.

Latin America's biggest economy, Brazil, approved a law in congress on Wednesday - the Economic Reciprocity Law - to counter the 10% tariff imposed by Trump. There was no immediate reaction from the president, but last week Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said his country "cannot stand still" in face of the tariffs.

Shortly after Trump's announcement, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned countries not to "retaliate" and "sit back, take it in".

"Because if you retaliate, there will be escalation", he told Fox News.

Noticeably, the US's two biggest trade partners, Canada and Mexico, were not mentioned in Wednesday's announcements.

The White House said it would deal with both countries according to previous executive orders, which imposed 25% tariffs on the two nations as part of efforts to address fentanyl and border issues.

Regardless, Canada will still be impacted by the tariffs, Prime Minister Mark Carney said. Measures such as the 25% tariff on automobiles starting at midnight on Thursday would "directly affect millions of Canadians", he added.

He vowed to "fight these tariffs with counter measures", adding that the US levies would "fundamentally change the global trading system."

President Donald Trump has unveiled plans for sweeping new import taxes on all goods entering the US, in a watershed moment for global trade.

The plan sets a baseline tariff on all imports of at least 10%, consistent with a proposal Trump made on the campaign last year.

Items from countries that the White House described as the "worst offenders", including the European Union, China, Vietnam and Lesotho, would face far higher rates for what Trump said was payback for unfair trade policies.

Trump's move breaks with decades of American policy embracing free trade, and analysts said it was likely to lead to higher prices in the US and slower growth in the US and around the world.

The White House said officials would start charging the 10% tariffs on 5 April, with the higher duties starting on 9 April.

"It's our declaration of economic independence," Trump said in the White House Rose Garden against a backdrop of US flags.

• Live updates and reaction to Trump tariffs

The Republican president said the US had for years been "looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike".

"Today we are standing up for the American worker and we are finally putting America first," he said, calling it "one of the most important days, in my opinion, in American history."

On the campaign trail last year, Trump called for new tariffs that he said would raise money for the government and boost manufacturing, promising a new age of American prosperity.

He has spent weeks previewing Wednesday's announcement, which follows other orders raising tariffs on imports from China, foreign cars, steel and aluminium and some goods from Mexico and Canada.

The White House said the latest changes would not apply to Mexico and Canada, two of America's closest trading partners.

Goods from the UK are set to face a new 10% tariff, while import taxes on items from the European Union would go to 20%.

The charge for goods imported from China will be 34%, while it will be 24% for Japan, and 26% on India.

Some of the highest rates will be levied on smaller countries, with goods from the southern African nation of Lesotho facing 50%, while Vietnam and Cambodia will be hit with 46% and 49% respectively.

The latter two have both seen a rush of investment in recent years, as firms shifted supply chains away from China following Trump's first term.

Together the moves will bring effective tariff rates in the US to levels not seen in decades.

Trump also confirmed that a 25% tax on imports of all foreign-made cars, which he announced last week, would begin from midnight.

Outrage is a precious political currency and France's far right has spent this week attempting, furiously and predictably, to capitalise on the perceived injustice of a court's decision to block its totemic leader, Marine Le Pen, from standing in the 2027 presidential election.

The airwaves have been throbbing with indignation.

"Be outraged," said one of Le Pen's key deputies, on French television, in case anyone was in doubt as to what their reaction should be.

But it remains unclear whether Le Pen's tough sentence will broaden support for her party, the National Rally (RN), or lead to greater fragmentation of the French far right. Either way, it has created a feverish mood among the nation's politicians.

Le Pen and her allies have boldly declared that France's institutions, and democracy itself, have been "executed", are "dead", or "violated". The country's justice system has been turned into a "political" hit squad, shamelessly intervening in a nation's right to choose its own leaders. And Marine Le Pen has been widely portrayed, with something close to certainty, as France's president-in-waiting, as the nation's most popular politician, cruelly robbed of her near-inevitable procession towards the Élysée Palace.

"The system has released a nuclear bomb, and if it is using such a powerful weapon against us, it is obviously because we are about to win the elections," Le Pen fumed at a news conference, comparing herself to the poisoned, imprisoned, and now dead Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny.

As France assesses its latest political tremors, an uneven pushback has begun.

No clear frontrunner for president

Nervous about the impact the judgement may have for the country's frail coalition government, the Prime Minister François Bayrou has admitted to feeling "troubled" by Le Pen's sentence and worried about a "shock" to public opinion.

But other centrist politicians have taken a firmer line, stressing the need for a clear gap between the justice system and politics.

An early opinion poll appears to show the French public taking a calm line, bursting – or at least deflating – the RN's bubble of outrage. The poll, produced within hours of the court's ruling, showed less than a third of the country – 31% - felt the decision to block Le Pen, immediately, from running for public office, was unjust.

Tellingly, that figure was less than the 37% of French people who recently expressed an interest in voting for her as president.

In other words, plenty of people who like her as a politician also think it reasonable that her crimes should disqualify her from running for office.

And remember, French presidential elections are still two years away – an eternity in the current political climate.

Emmanuel Macron is not entitled to stand for another term and no clear alternative to Le Pen, from the left or centre of French politics, has yet emerged. Le Pen's share of the vote has consistently risen during her previous three failed bids for the top job but it is premature, at best, to consider her a shoo-in for 2027.

Le Pen's crime and punishment

Anyone who followed the court case against her and her party colleagues in an impartial fashion would struggle to conclude that the verdicts in Le Pen's case were unreasonable.

The evidence of a massive and coordinated project to defraud the European Parliament and its associated taxpayers included jaw-droppingly incriminating emails suggesting officials knew exactly what they were doing, and the illegality of their actions.

That the corruption was for the party, not for personal gain, surely changes nothing. Corruption is corruption. Besides, other parties have also been found guilty of similar offences.

Regarding the punishments handed out by the court, here it seems fair to argue that Le Pen and her party made a strategic blunder in their approach to the case.

Had they acknowledged the facts, and their errors, and cooperated in facilitating a swift trial rather than helping to drag the process out for almost a decade, the judges – as they've now made clear – might have taken their attitude towards the case into consideration when considering punishments.

"Neither during the investigation nor at the trial did [Le Pen] show any awareness of the need for probity as an elected official, nor of the ensuing responsibilities," wrote the judges in a document explaining, often indignantly, why they'd delivered such a tough sentence.

They berated Le Pen for seeking to delay or avoid justice with "a defence system that disregards the uncovering of the truth".

Hypocrisy among the elite

It is worth noting, here, the wider hypocrisy demonstrated by elites across France's political spectrum who have recently been muttering their sympathy for Le Pen. It is nine years since MPs voted to toughen up the laws on corruption, introducing the very sanctions - on immediately banning criminals from public office - that were used by the judges in this case.

That toughening was welcomed by the public as an antidote to a judicial system stymied by an indulgent culture of successive appeals that enabled – and sometimes still enables - politicians to dodge accountability for decades.

Le Pen is now being gleefully taunted by her critics online with the many past instances in which she has called for stricter laws on corruption.

"When are we going to learn the lessons and effectively introduce lifelong ineligibility for those who have been convicted of acts committed while in office or during their term of office?" she asked in 2013.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about the court's sentencing decisions in Le Pen's case. But the notion – enthusiastically endorsed by populist and hard-right politicians across Europe and the US – that she is a victim of a conspiratorial political plot has clearly not convinced most French people.

At least not yet.

Future of France's far right

So where does this verdict – clearly a seismic moment in French politics – leave the National Rally and the wider far-right movement?

The short answer is that no one knows. There are so many variables involved – from the fate of Le Pen's fast-tracked appeal, to the RN's succession strategy, to the state of France's precarious finances, to the broader political climate and the see-sawing appetite for populism both within France and globally – that predictions are an even more dubious game than usual.

The most immediate question – given the slow pace of the legal appeal that Le Pen has vowed to initiate – is whether the RN will seek prompt revenge in parliament by attempting to bring down the fragile coalition government of François Bayrou.

That could lead to new parliamentary elections this summer and the possibility that the RN could capitalise on its victim status to increase its lead in parliament and perhaps, even, to push the country towards a deadlock in which President Macron might – yet another "might" – feel obliged to step down.

One person who will now be facing extra scrutiny is Le Pen's almost but not quite anointed successor, 29-year-old Jordan Bardella, who could be drafted in as a replacement presidential candidate if Le Pen's own "narrow path" towards the Élysée remains blocked on appeal.

If social-media-savvy Bardella's popularity among French youth is any indication of his prospects, he could well sweep to victory in 2027. He has found a way to tap into the frustrations of people angry about falling living standards and concerns about immigration.

But turning youthful support into actual votes is not always straightforward, and other, more experienced and mainstream figures on the right may well be sensing an opportunity too.

The Interior Minister, Bruno Retailleau, is widely seen to be emerging as a potential contender. Some even wonder if the provocative television personality, Cyril Hanouna, might become a serious political force on the right of French politics.

Meanwhile, Bardella, like the RN in general, has been on a highly disciplined mission to detoxify the party's once overtly racist and antisemitic brand. In February, for instance, he abandoned plans to speak at America's far-right CPAC event after Donald Trump's former advisor Steve Bannon made a Nazi salute.

But this week's events have revealed that the RN is enthusiastically committed to the distinctly Trump-ian and populist strategy of blaming its misfortunes on a "swamp" of unelected officials. Bardella, meanwhile, complained about the recent closure of two right-wing media channels alongside his party's own legal struggles.

"There is an extremely serious drift today that does not reflect the idea we have of French democracy," he said.

It's the sort of language that goes down well with the RN's core constituency, but its broader appeal may be limited in a country that remains, in many ways, deeply attached to its institutions.

To frame it another way, will French voters be more motivated by the belief that Le Pen was unfairly punished, or by concern that the judges involved have since been the victims of death threats and other insults?

As for Marine Le Pen, she has vowed that she will not be sidelined. But her destiny is not entirely in her own hands now. At the age of 56 she has become a familiar figure, fiery at times, but personally approachable, warm and, in political terms, profoundly influential and disciplined. So what next for her?

France has had one Le Pen or other (Marine's father, Jean-Marie ran four times) on their presidential ballot paper since 1988. Always unsuccessfully.

History may well look back on this week as the moment Marine Le Pen's fate was sealed, in one of three ways: as France's first female and first far-right president, swept to power on a tide of outrage. As the four-time loser of a French presidential election, finally denied power by the taint of corruption. Or as someone whose soaring political career was brought to an early and shuddering halt by her own miscalculations over a serious embezzlement scandal.

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

In the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, there is a 72-hour "golden window" when those trapped under rubble are most likely to survive.

But in the 72 hours after a 7.7 magnitude quake struck Myanmar on Friday, rescue and relief workers seeking access to some of the worst-hit areas were blocked by military authorities, multiple aid and human rights groups told the BBC.

This was despite a rare plea for international humanitarian assistance by junta chief Min Aung Hlaing.

"I would like to invite any country, any organisation, or anyone in Myanmar to come and help," he said in a speech shortly after the disaster, claiming he had "opened all ways for foreign aid".

On the ground, things moved less freely.

"I've talked to a few people now that were part of the rescue efforts in both Sagaing and Mandalay, and they said that [the military] imposed a curfew… the roads were blocked, the checkpoints were really long, and there was a huge checking of goods and services going in and a lot of questioning," John Quinley, director of international human rights group Fortify Rights, told the BBC.

"It could have just been a lot easier to allow those people in," he added. "Obviously the Myanmar junta said it was for safety reasons, but I don't believe that's totally legitimate."

Meanwhile, the golden window closed.

At the time of writing, more than 2,886 people in Myanmar are confirmed dead as a result of the earthquake.

On Tuesday night, an attack on an aid convoy further exacerbated concerns.

At 21:21, a convoy of nine Chinese Red Cross Society vehicles carrying earthquake relief supplies was attacked by the military, according to Ta'ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), a resistance group in Shan State.

The convoy was traveling toward Mandalay when it was fired upon by soldiers with machine guns, forcing it to turn back, the TNLA said in a Telegram post late on Tuesday.

A junta spokesperson later confirmed that soldiers had shot at the vehicles, saying they had not been notified that the convoy would be passing through and fired warning shots after it failed to stop.

But this is not the first time the junta has attacked aid workers, Mr Quinley said.

"They pick and choose when aid can go in, and if they can't monitor it and they can't use it how they want, they restrict it," he said. "They definitely also, on top of that, actively target humanitarian workers."

The junta, which began fighting a civil war with resistance forces in Myanmar after it seized control of the country in 2021, has a history of weaponising aid and humanitarian assistance: funnelling it towards areas that are under its control and restricting it in areas that are not.

The BBC assessed the power balance in more than 14,000 village groups as of mid-November last year, and found the military only has full control of 21% of Myanmar's territory, nearly four years on from the start of the conflict.

In previous natural disasters, such as Cyclone Mocha in 2023 and Typhoon Yagi in 2024, which left hundreds dead, the military obstructed relief efforts in resistance-held areas by refusing to release supplies from customs, authorise travel for aid workers or relax restrictions on lifesaving assistance.

"It's a worrying trend that happens in times of crisis, like the earthquake," Mr Quinley said. "The junta is blocking any aid to what they see as groups that are aligned with the broader resistance."

James Rodehaver, head of the Myanmar team at the Office for the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, further suggested that the junta deprives Myanmar's population of aid as a form of punishment.

"They do that because the local population, by and large, does not support them, so by depriving them of humanitarian aid, they are both punishing them but also cutting off their ability to support themselves and be resilient," he told the BBC.

There are already signs the junta may be repeating this tactic in Sagaing.

Although central Myanmar, which includes the cities of Sagaing and Mandalay, is nominally run by the junta - meaning aid can only be delivered to the area with their co-operation - large parts of the broader Sagaing and Mandalay regions are considered resistance strongholds.

The likelihood that the junta might tactically deprive these areas of aid has prompted outcry from hundreds of human rights and civil society organisations, who have urged the international community to ensure relief efforts get to where they're most needed, and aren't channelled through the military government.

One such statement, signed by 265 civil society organisations and released on Sunday, notes that most of the worst-hit areas are under the effective control and administration of pro-democracy resistance groups.

"Myanmar's history provides stark warnings about the dangers of channelling aid through the military junta," it reads.

In Sagaing, the impact of aid shortfalls can already be seen in troubling ways, according to relief agencies.

They speak of shortages of food, water and fuel, while trucks carrying aid are stranded at military checkpoints around the city. Hundreds of residents, suddenly homeless, are sleeping outside on the street. Rescue volunteers who were forced to dig through the rubble with their bare hands have run out of body bags for those they couldn't save.

Other community members seeking to respond to the earthquake are being forced to get authorisation from junta authorities by submitting lists of volunteers and items to be donated, local media reported.

This tactic – of bombarding responders with lengthy bureaucratic checklists and processes – is routinely deployed by the junta to restrict the activities of international aid organisations in Myanmar, humanitarian sources told the BBC.

According to a registration law imposed in 2023, such organisations must attain a registration certificate, and often sign a memorandum of understanding with relevant government ministries, to legally operate inside the country.

One source, who spoke to the BBC on condition of anonymity, said aid groups are often required to remove certain activities, areas or townships from their proposals, with no room for negotiation. Areas where the junta doesn't have oversight or control over the aid work are typically those that are disallowed, they added.

Aid agencies have found ways to navigate the junta's restriction, however: a lot of humanitarian assistance in Myanmar happens underground, via local groups that can bypass checkpoints and distribute aid without attracting the attention of the authorities.

Many financial transactions in humanitarian aid also happen outside of Myanmar's banking system, so that actors can avoid scrutiny and potential investigation from the country's central bank, a source told the BBC. In some cases, humanitarian organisations open bank accounts in Thailand so that they can privately receive aid funds, then carry the money over the border into Myanmar in cash.

Such covert methods take time, however, and could lead to potentially fatal delays of days or weeks.

Some aid workers are hopeful that, given the scale of Friday's earthquake and the international appeal for assistance by Min Aung Hlaing, it may be easier to overcome barriers and provide aid more efficiently.

"In the past we have faced some challenges," said Louise Gorton, an emergency specialist based in Unicef's East Asia and Pacific Regional Office.

"The scale of this emergency, though, is significantly higher… I think there will be pressure on the regime to ensure unfettered and unimpeded humanitarian access - and we'll continue to repeat the same need and find ways, sometimes low-key ways, to deliver aid."

Cara Bragg, country manager for the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) team in Myanmar, said that while it's too early to tell whether the junta will truly "open all ways for foreign aid", her team is prepared to navigate the complex humanitarian situation to deliver assistance.

"It's certainly a concern that they [the military] may direct the aid in specific places, and not based on need," said Ms Bragg, who is based in Yangon.

"But as humanitarian actors CRS works under a humanitarian mandate, and will be very focused on getting aid to the places it needs to go - to the hardest-hit areas, regardless of who controls them."

Early indications suggest that, despite Min Aung Hlaing's plea to the international community, the embattled junta leader is unlikely to prioritise the unfettered flow of humanitarian aid.

Shortly after the earthquake, military jets launched a series of airstrikes on affected areas, killing more than 50 civilians, according to the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC).

Then, on Tuesday, Min Aung Hlaing rejected ceasefire proposals that were put forward by resistance groups in a bid to facilitate aid. Military operations would continue as "necessary protective measures", he said.

The junta changed its mind a day later, agreeing to 20-day ceasefire to help relief efforts. But it remains to be seen whether the pause in hostilities holds – the military stressed it would "respond accordingly" if rebels launched attacks.

For many onlookers, this seeming contradiction - of asking for aid with one hand while conducting military strikes with the other - chimes with Min Aung Hlaing's history of duplicity.

John Quinley, from Fortify Rights, suggested that the recent appeal for foreign aid is more likely an appeal for international recognition.

Speaking before the military's ceasefire announcement, he noted that the junta leader had "lied on numerous occasions about ceasefires and the gross violations he's commanded".

Against that backdrop, Mr Quinley added, it's critical to ensure earthquake relief gets to where it is most needed.

"I'm not hopeful when it comes to taking what Min Aung Hlaing says with any hint of truth," he said.

"I think as a human rights group we need to monitor: OK, [Min Aung Hlaing] allows aid in - but is it actually reaching people in need? Or is he weaponising the aid? Is he blocking the aid from getting to communities in need?"