When Shreya Mishra Reddy was admitted to Harvard University in 2023, her parents were “ecstatic”.

It is “the ultimate school that anybody in India wants to get into,” she tells the BBC.

Now, with graduation around the corner, she has had to break the bad news to her family: she may not graduate in July from the executive leadership programme after the Trump administration moved to stop Harvard from enrolling international students “as a result of their failure to adhere to the law”.

“It has been very difficult for my family to hear. They’re still trying to process it,” she said.

Ms Reddy is one of around 6,800 international students at Harvard, who make up more than 27% of its enrolments this year. They are a crucial source of revenue for the Ivy League school. About a third of its foreign students are from China, and more than 700 are Indian, such as Ms Reddy.

All of them are now unsure of what to expect next. Harvard has called the move “unlawful”, which could lead to a legal challenge.

But that leaves the students’ futures in limbo, be it those who are waiting to enrol this summer, or are halfway through college, or even those awaiting graduation whose work opportunities are tied to their student visas.

Those who are already at Harvard would have to transfer to other American universities to remain in the US and retain their visas.

“I hope Harvard will stand for us and some solution can be worked out,” Ms Reddy says.

The university has said it is “fully committed to maintaining [its] ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University – and this nation – immeasurably”.

The move against Harvard has huge implications for the million or so international students in the US. And it follows a growing crackdown by the Trump administration on institutes of higher learning, especially those that witnessed major pro-Palestinian protests on campus.

Dozens of them are facing investigations, as the government attempts to overhaul their accreditation process and reshape the way they are run.

The White House first threatened to bar foreign students from Harvard in April, after the university refused to make changes to its hiring, admissions and teaching practices. And it also froze nearly $3bn in federal grants, which Harvard is challenging in court.

Still, Thursday’s announcement – which Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said came because they were allegedly “fostering violence” and “antisemitism” – left students reeling.

Chinese student Kat Xie, who is in her second year in a STEM programme, says she is “in shock”.

“I had almost forgotten about [the earlier threat of a ban] and then Thursday’s announcement suddenly came.”

But she adds a part of her had expected “the worst”, so she had spent the last few weeks seeking professional advice on how to continue staying in the US.

But the options are “all very troublesome and expensive”, she says.

Harvard has been given 72 hours to comply with a list of demands to have an “opportunity” to regain its ability to enrol these students, including providing the government with all disciplinary records for non-immigrant students enrolled at Harvard over the past five years.

Noem also demanded Harvard turn over electronic records, videos, or audio of “illegal” and “dangerous or violent” activity by non-immigrant students on campus.

But the Trump administration also appeared to single China out when Noem also accused Harvard of “coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party” in her statement.

Beijing responded on Friday by criticising the “politicisation” of education.

It said the move would “only harm the image and international standing of the United States”, urging for the ban to be withdrawn “as soon as possible”.

“None of this is what we’ve signed up for,” says 20-year-old Abdullah Shahid Sial from Pakistan, a very vocal student activist.

A junior majoring in applied mathematics and economics, he was one of only two Pakistani undergraduate students admitted to Harvard in 2023.

He was also the first person in his family to study abroad. It was a “massive” moment for them, he says.

The situation he now finds himself in, he adds, is “ridiculous and dehumanising”.

Both Ms Reddy and Mr Sial said foreign students apply to go to college in the US because they see it as a welcoming place where opportunities abound.

“You have so much to learn from different cultures, from people of different backgrounds. And everybody really valued that,” Ms Reddy says, adding that this had been her experience at Harvard so far.

But Mr Sial says that has changed more recently and foreign students no longer feel welcome – the Trump administration has revoked hundreds of student visas and even detained students on campuses across the country. Many of them were linked to pro-Palestinian protests.

Now, Mr Sial adds, there is a lot of fear and uncertainty in the international student community.

That has only been exacerbated by the latest development. A postgraduate student from South Korea says she is having second thoughts about going home for the summer because she fears she won’t be able to re-enter the US.

She did not want to reveal her name because she is worried that might affect her chances of staying in the US. She is one year away from graduating.

She said she had a gruelling semester and had been looking forward to “reuniting with friends and family” – until now.

The anxiety among foreign students is palpable, says Jiang Fangzhou, who is reading public administration in Harvard Kennedy School.

“We might have to leave immediately but people have their lives here – apartments, leases, classes and community. These are not things you can walk away from overnight.”

And the ban doesn’t just affect current students, the 30-year-old New Zealander says.

“Think about the incoming ones, people who already turned down offers from other schools and planned their lives around Harvard. They’re totally stuck now.”

myjoyonline.com

Prof. Kwesi Aning, Head of the Office for International Cooperation at the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPTC), has asserted that Burkina Faso’s President, Ibrahim Traoré, is disliked by the West because he is using his country’s resources to benefit its citizens.

Speaking on The Point of View on Channel One TV with Bernard Avle, the Security Analyst argued that Traoré, along with other Sahelian leaders, is reshaping the narrative around governance and development in West Africa.

READ ALSO: Why Burkina Faso’s Junta Leader Has Captured Hearts And Minds Around The World

He likened Traoré’s ideology to that of Ghana’s first President, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, and other pan-Africanist leaders, noting that the current generation of Sahel leadership is reviving long-held aspirations for African self-determination.

“The only problem of Ibrahim Traoré and the Nigerien leader is that they are using their resources for their people. So, when I talk about two epochs in Africa’s history that have conflated to give Traoré, the pan-Africanist stance that he’s enjoying. It is because Nkrumah and other earlier leaders have all become the [saviours] of what could have been.

READ ALSO: VIDEO: Vladimir Putin Welcomes Burkina Faso’s Ibrahim Traoré to Russia for Victory Day Celebrations

“Traoré suddenly encapsulates all these epochs driving together, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger to raise critical questions and to bring a different and new understanding to what development and security means,” he noted.

Prof. Aning also criticised Western countries for their failure to curb violent extremism in the region despite decades of involvement.

READ ALSO: Burkina Faso immortalizes Rawlings as son Kimathi rallies Africa for unity

“All these western countries who are making noise about terrorism and extremism, they have been in these three countries for decades, they couldn’t bring the issues under control.

“Overnight, when these guys took over, the terrorists have become much more powerful, with better equipment, more mobile, with great intelligence access, and where is it coming from?”

citinewsroom.com

US President Donald Trump says Russia and Ukraine will “immediately” start negotiating towards a ceasefire and an end to the war after a two-hour phone call with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

Trump, who described the conversation as having gone “very well”, also said conditions for peace would need to be negotiated between the two parties.

Putin said he was ready to work with Ukraine on a “memorandum on a possible future peace agreement”, but did not address demands from the US and European countries for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire.

Trump also spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who said “this is a defining moment”, and urged the US not to distance itself from talks.

While Trump has expressed positivity towards his conversation with Putin, there was no indication about when peace negotiations would take place, or if Moscow is prepared to make any concessions on its demands for a ceasefire.

After his one-on-one call with Trump, Zelensky reaffirmed Ukraine’s desire for a “full and unconditional ceasefire”, and warned if Moscow is not ready, “there must be stronger sanctions”.

Speaking earlier before Trump’s conversation with Putin, Zelensky said he had asked that any decisions about Ukraine not be made without his country, calling them “matters of principle” for Ukraine.

He added he did not have any details on a “memorandum” but said once they have received anything from the Russians, they will “be able to formulate their vision accordingly”.

Writing on his Truth Social page after the call, Trump said: “Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations toward a Ceasefire and, more importantly, an END to the War,” adding he had informed Zelensky of this in a second call, which also included other world leaders.

He added: “The conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be, because they know details of a negotiation that nobody else would be aware of.”

Zelensky said the negotiation process “must involve both American and European representatives at the appropriate level”.

“It is crucial for all of us that the United States does not distance itself from the talks and the pursuit of peace, because the only one who benefits from that is Putin,” he explained.

Talking at a White House event later in the day, Trump said the US would not be stepping away from brokering talks between Russia and Ukraine, but that he has a “red line in his head” on when he will stop pushing on them both.

He also denied that the US was stepping back from its negotiating role.

In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly warned that the US would step away from negotiations as he became increasingly frustrated at the lack of developments from both Moscow and Kyiv in the way of peace.

When asked what he believes about Russia, he said he thinks Putin has had enough of the war and wants it to end.

Meanwhile, Putin, who described the call with Trump, which he took from a music school on a visit to the city of Sochi, as “frank, informative and constructive”, also spoke of the potential for a ceasefire.

“We have agreed with the US president that Russia will offer and is ready to work with Ukraine on a memorandum on a possible future peace agreement,” he said.

This, he added would define “a number of positions” including “principles of the settlement and a timeline for concluding a possible peace agreement…including a possible ceasefire for a certain period of time, should relevant agreements be reached”.

Yury Ushakov, an aide to the Russian president, said a ceasefire timeframe was not “discussed… although Trump, of course, emphasises his interest in reaching one or another agreement as soon as possible”.

Zelensky held a second call with Trump after the US president spoke to Putin, which also included President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and the leaders of France, Italy, Germany and Finland.

“I want to thank President Trump for his tireless efforts to bring a ceasefire to Ukraine,” von der Leyen said, adding: “It’s important that the US stays engaged.”

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said Pope Leo’s offer to host potential peace talks was a gesture welcomed by the US and the other leaders in the call, and “judged positively”.

Earlier this month, the new Pope offered the Vatican as a venue for possible peace talks after Putin turned down Zelensky’s offer to meet face-to-face in Turkey for negotiations.

Kyiv has previously said Putin’s comments saying he desires peace are hollow.

“Putin wants war,” Andriy Yermak, a top aide to the Ukrainian president, said after Russia on Sunday launched what Ukraine said was its biggest drone attack since the full-scale invasion began.

Ukraine says at least 10 people have been killed in Russian strikes in recent days – including nine people in an attack on a civilian minibus in north-eastern Ukraine. Russia says it has also intercepted Ukrainian drones.

The strike on the bushappened just hours after Russia and Ukraine held their first face-to-face talks in more than three years. A prisoner swap was agreed but there was no commitment to a ceasefire.

Trump had offered to attend the talks in Turkey if Putin would also be there, but the Russian president declined to go.

Russia has declared ceasefires before – but only temporary ones. It declared one for 8-11 May – which coincided with victory celebrations to mark the end of World War Two – but Kyiv would not sign up to it, saying Putin could not be trusted and that an immediate 30-day ceasefire was needed.

The Kremlin announced a similar, 30-hour truce over Easter, but while both sides reported a dip in fighting, they accused each other of hundreds of violations.

Russia and Ukraine have been at war since Moscow launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

myjoyonline.com