Divided UN extends arms embargo on South Sudan as fears of renewed civil war grow
UNITED NATIONS: A divided UN Security Council voted Friday to extend an arms embargo on South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have led the UN to warn that the country could again plunge into civil war.
A US-sponsored resolution to extend the embargo and other sanctions was approved by the narrowest margin — the minimum nine 'yes' votes required. Six countries abstained – Russia, China, Algeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Pakistan.
The arms embargo, and travel bans and asset freezes on South Sudanese on the UN sanctions blacklist, were extended for a year until May 31, 2026.
There were high hopes for peace and stability after oil-rich South Sudan gained independence from Sudan in 2011, becoming the world's newest nation.
But the country slid into civil war in December 2013 when forces loyal to President Salva Kiir, who is from the largest ethnic group in the country, the Dinka, started battling those loyal to Riek Machar, who is from the second-largest ethnic group, the Nuer.
A 2018 peace deal that brought Machar into the government as first vice president has been fragile, and implementation has been slow. A presidential election has been postponed until 2026.
Last month, the UN envoy to South Sudan, Nicholas Haysom, warned that the escalating rivalry between Kiir and Machar had degenerated into direct military confrontation between their parties and led to Machar's arrest.
A campaign of misinformation, disinformation and hate speech is 'fueling political and ethnic tensions — particularly on social media,' he warned. And 'these conditions are darkly reminiscent of the 2013 and 2016 conflicts, which took over 400,000 lives.'
US Minister Counselor John Kelley thanked the council after the vote, saying the arms embargo 'remains necessary to stem the unfettered flow of weapons into a region that remains awash with guns.'
'Escalating violence in recent months has brought South Sudan to the brink of civil war,' he said, urging the country's leaders to restore peace.
Russia's deputy UN ambassador Anna Evstigneeva countered by saying the easing of Security Council sanctions on South Sudan is long overdue. She said the arms embargo and other sanctions are restricting implementation of the 2018 peace agreement.
She accused the resolution's supporters of 'putting a brake on a successful political process unfolding in Sudan, as well as complicating the deployment and proper equipping of the national armed forces.'
South Sudan's UN ambassador, Cecilia Adeng, expressed 'deep disappointment' at the extension of the arms embargo and other sanctions.
'The lifting of the sanctions and the arms embargo is not only a matter of national security or sovereignty, but also a matter of economic opportunity and dignity,' she said. 'These measures create barriers to growth, delay development, discourage foreign investment, and leave the state vulnerable to non-state actors and outlaws.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
An African credit rating agency? Easier said than done
Africa's sovereign debt crisis is not merely a story of fiscal mismanagement or external shocks. It is amplified by a systemic anomaly: The continent pays more to borrow than its peers with comparable economic indicators. This penalty, often termed the 'African premium,' costs the region an estimated $24 billion annually in excess interest payments, and has deprived it of more than $46 billion in potential lending. With 20 low-income African nations in or near debt distress, and 94 percent of rated African sovereigns downgraded over the past decade, the search for solutions appears to be culminating in the establishment of an African Credit Rating Agency, or AfCRA for short. For now, the move is being framed as both a corrective measure and a symbol of financial sovereignty. Yet while politically sound, it faces profound operational and philosophical challenges. Even if the ambition to establish the agency is framed as a bold act of sovereignty, the terrain it seeks to conquer is littered with the wreckage of similar aspirations in richer, better-equipped regions. Granted, the financial logic behind the move is well-established: Africa's sovereign debt is routinely mispriced, with subjective and often opaque assessments by the 'Big Three' credit rating agencies — Moody's, Fitch and S&P — inflating risk perception and pushing average borrowing costs ever higher. As a result, total annual lending losses and excess interest payments exceed annual official development aid to the continent. That Africa is being 'penalized' beyond its macroeconomic fundamentals is no longer a niche theory among a few experts, policymakers or scholars at poorly attended conferences, it is a measurable economic hemorrhage. But attempting to correct this through AfCRA introduces a dilemma. Can a continent hobbled by thin capital markets, erratic fiscal transparency, and a fragmented political economy build a ratings agency that would be perceived as credible by the very investors it seeks to court? The evidence so far is not encouraging. Europe, despite its institutional depth and capital abundance, has failed to create a viable alternative to the Big Three, even after sinking more than €300 million ($346 million) into various experiments, all of which ended in regulatory quagmires or strategic surrender. The most successful nonaligned agencies, such as Scope in Europe or Morningstar DBRS in Canada, only survived by serving niche markets and accepting that they could not displace the incumbents. Africa's task is even tougher. Most of the continent's 21 Eurobond issuers are repeat borrowers, yet their ratings have on average worsened since their inaugural issuances. This contradicts the usual pattern in emerging markets, where familiarity tends to reduce pricing premiums. Even the most prominent issuers — Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa — have faced frequent downgrades, often based on models that lack local granularity or fail to consider governance heterogeneity. Furthermore, agencies frequently do not send analysts to the countries they rate; Fitch has no office at all on the continent, and both S&P and Moody's operate out of a single office in Johannesburg, covering dozens of vastly different economies. Meanwhile, unsolicited ratings, those issued without government request or input, are both more common in Africa and more damaging. Moody's leads the way in such unsolicited assessments, despite objections by African governments to their inherent opacity. It is not surprising, therefore, to see a resurgent push for an independent agency, given the cost of delays. Between 2021 and 2024, for instance, the average coupon on African Eurobonds nearly doubled to just under 11 percent, even as fundamentals remained stable. The continent pays more to borrow than its peers with comparable economic indicators. Hafed Al-Ghwell Moreover, the absence of localized assessment left 22 African countries unrated, starving them of institutional capital. When Botswana and Mauritius secured investment-grade ratings, they accessed financing at 300-400 basis points below regional peers. At a continental level, each one-notch upgrade in a rating could unlock more than $15 billion in much-needed capital. The cost of waiting is clear and unambiguous. Yet, the creation of AfCRA cannot be reduced to a matter of injustice alone. The economics of operating a credit rating agency are ruthless. Even the most optimistic forecasts suggest that the launch of a credible African agency would require $400–500 million in capital, an amount that dwarfs the annual budget of the African Union itself. A very familiar, and suffocating, dependency loop swiftly kicks in; the AU's own programs remain more than 60 percent funded by the EU and other external partners, and if these same entities are now expected to bankroll an 'African-owned' ratings apparatus, the concept begins to cannibalize its own purpose. Beyond the matter of funding, AfCRA would also find itself confronted by the same structural hurdles that felled its European predecessors. Regulatory legitimacy, for one thing, cannot be assumed. In many global markets only ratings from the Big Three are recognized, particularly among institutional investors bound by prudent regulation. Even with improvements in rating models, the acceptance of new agencies into the portfolios of pension funds or sovereign wealth funds hinges on an arduous and opaque process of validation by regulators located far outside Africa. Without international regulatory recognition, AfCRA risks becoming an advisory service masquerading as an agency; technically useful but irrelevant where it matters. Even if credibility can somehow be established, the pipeline of rating activity might not justify the operating costs. Government debt issuance in Africa remains sporadic and constrained. Moreover, much of the domestic debt, particularly in Francophone Africa, is already absorbed by regional banks under arrangements that do not require third-party ratings. Corporate appetite for ratings is growing but still shallow. GCR Ratings, once Africa's most promising homegrown agency, did not consider government bond ratings a serious business line, and it has since been acquired by Moody's, effectively reversing the localization effort. And then there is the governance risk. Africa's existing national and regional agencies have not been free from scandal. Recent cases, such as West African agency DataPro's withdrawal from a local firm because of a fraudulent rating that was exposed by a US research organization, highlight the fact that domestic proximity does not immunize against error or, worse, complicity. Creating an agency without a ferociously independent mandate, transparent methodology, and hard, legal accountability would not reduce bias, it would simply substitute one form of distortion for another. Ultimately, the issue is not whether Africa deserves better ratings; it certainly does. However, establishing an agency without first fixing the deficits in data integrity, fiscal reporting, macroeconomic coherence, and regulatory independence might produce only a costly mirror image of the very system it seeks to escape. A credible alternative cannot be built on grievance alone, but it could be a catalyst for data reform, methodological innovation, and investor dialogue, which might finally ensure that finance costs reflect Africa's true risk and not perceived ghosts from the past. However, such an undertaking must emerge as a result of discipline, innovation and, above all, proof of its usefulness to markets. Otherwise, AfCRA runs the risk of being filed away in the continent's growing archive of initiatives that were politically resonant but financially futile.
Asharq Al-Awsat
4 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Tens of Thousands of Pro-Palestinian Protesters March in London
Tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters marched in London on Saturday calling for an end to the war in Gaza, amid concerns that the Iran-Israel conflict could spark wider regional devastation. Protesters waved Palestinian flags, donned keffiyeh scarves and carried signs including "Stop arming Israel" and "No war on Iran" as they marched in the sweltering heat in central London. "It's important to remember that people are suffering in Gaza. I fear all the focus will be on Iran now," said 34-year-old Harry Baker, attending his third pro-Palestinian protest. "I don't have great love for the Iranian regime, but we are now in a dangerous situation," he added. There have been monthly protests in the British capital since the start of the 20-month-long war between Israel and Hamas, which has ravaged Gaza. Saturday's march comes amid heightened global tensions as the United States mulls joining Israel's strikes against Iran. Cries of "Palestine will be free" rang out as protesters carried signs saying, "Hands off Gaza" or "Stop starving Gaza". Gaza is suffering from famine-like conditions according to UN agencies in the region following an Israeli aid blockade. Gaza's civil defense agency has reported that hundreds have been killed by Israeli forces while trying to reach the US- and Israeli-backed aid distribution sites. "People need to keep their eyes on Gaza. That's where the genocide is happening," said 60-year-old protester Nicky Marcus. "I feel frustrated, angry because of what's happening in Gaza," said 31-year-old data analyst Jose Diaz. "It's in everyone's eyes. It's still on after so many months," Diaz added. The overall death toll in Gaza since the war broke out has reached at least 55,637 people, according to the health ministry. Israel has denied it is carrying out a genocide and says it aims to wipe out Hamas after 1,219 people were killed in Israel by the group's October 7, 2023, attack. A 31-year-old Iranian student who did not want to share her name, told AFP she had family in Iran and was "scared". "I'm worried about my country. I know the regime is not good, but it's still my country. I'm scared," she said. Tehran said over 400 people have been killed in Iran since Israel launched strikes last week claiming its arch-foe was close to acquiring a nuclear weapon, which Iran denies. Some 25 people have been killed in Israel, according to official figures.
Arab News
7 hours ago
- Arab News
Saudi Arabia supports refugees with 357 aid projects
JEDDAH: Saudi Arabia has strengthened its humanitarian role in refugee issues worldwide through KSrelief, which has carried out 3,438 projects in 107 countries, costing more than $7.9 billion. Among these, 357 projects support refugees, with nearly $497 million spent in Yemen, Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic, Myanmar, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, focusing on food security, health, shelter, education, and protection. Refugee numbers have risen globally, with 52 percent originating from Syria (6.5 million), Afghanistan (5.7 million), and Ukraine (5.7 million). At least 76 percent of displaced people live in low- or middle-income countries, increasing the humanitarian challenge, according to the SPA. Saudi Arabia hosts refugees from Syria, Yemen, and Myanmar, about 5.5 percent of its population, offering free education, healthcare, and work opportunities under a policy respecting human rights and promoting charity. These efforts reflect the Kingdom's humanitarian commitment, highlighted on World Refugee Day on June 20, established by the UN to raise awareness of global displacement. Saudi Arabia continues to enhance its humanitarian role through partnerships and initiatives focused on human rights and dignity, the SPA reported.
