UN urges warring sides in South Sudan to ‘pull back from the brink'
GENEVA: The UN rights chief has urged warring sides in South Sudan to pull back from the brink, warning that the human rights situation risks further deterioration as fighting intensifies.
'The escalating hostilities in South Sudan portend a real risk of further exacerbating the already dire human rights and humanitarian situation, and undermining the country's fragile peace process,' said the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk.
'All parties must urgently pull back from the brink,' he added.
Since May 3, fighting has intensified, with OHCHR citing reports of indiscriminate aerial bombardment and river and ground offensives by the South Sudan People's Defense Forces SSPDF on Sudan People's Liberation Army positions in parts of Fangak in Jonglei State and in Tonga County in Upper Nile.
Clashes between South Sudan's army and fighters backing the rival to President Salva Kiir have killed at least 75 civilians since February, the UN human rights chief said on Friday.
Dozens more have been injured and thousands forced to flee their homes, said the commissioner.
He expressed concern over arbitrary detentions and a rise in hate speech since February.
South Sudan, the world's youngest country after gaining independence from Sudan in 2011, was plunged into a violent civil war between 2013 and 2018 that claimed around 400,000 lives.
South Sudan, which gained independence from Sudan in 2011, was plunged into a civil war between 2013 and 2018 that left around 400,000 dead and 4 million displaced.
A 2018 power-sharing agreement between the warring parties had allowed for a precarious calm.
But for several months, violent clashes have set President Kiir's faction against supporters of his rival, Vice President Riek Machar, who was arrested in March.
Civilian-populated areas have been struck, including a medical facility operated by medical charity Doctors Without Borders or MSF, Turk said.
According to a UN estimate in mid-April, around 125,000 people have been displaced since the escalation of tensions.
Turk said dozens of opposition politicians linked to the SPLM-IO had been arrested, including Machar, ministers, MPs and army officers, as had civilians.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
5 hours ago
- Arab News
Pro-Palestinian protest leader defiant despite US deportation threat
NEWARK, United States: Mahmoud Khalil, one of the most prominent leaders of US pro-Palestinian campus protests, pledged Saturday to keep campaigning after he was released from a federal detention center. 'Even if they would kill me, I would still speak for Palestine,' Khalil said as he was greeted by cheering supporters at Newark airport, just outside New York City. Khalil, a legal permanent resident in the United States who is married to a US citizen and has a US-born son, had been in custody since March facing potential deportation. He was freed from a federal immigration detention center in Louisiana on Friday, hours after a judge ordered his release on bail. The Columbia University graduate was a figurehead of student protests against US ally Israel's war in Gaza, and the Trump administration labeled him a national security threat. 'Just the fact I am here sends a message — the fact that all these attempts to suppress pro-Palestine voices have failed now,' said Khalil, who is still fighting his potential expulsion from the United States. He spoke alongside his wife Noor Abdalla, who gave birth to the couple's first child while Khalil was in detention, as well as Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 'Mahmoud Khalil was imprisoned for 104 days by this administration, by the Trump administration, with no grounds and for political reasons, because Mahmoud Khalil is an advocate for Palestinian human rights,' Ocasio-Cortez said. 'This is not over, and we will have to continue to support this case,' she added. Khalil, who was born in Syria to Palestinian parents, is not allowed to leave the United States except for 'self-deportation' under the terms of his release. He also faces restrictions on where he can travel within the country. President Donald Trump's government has justified pushing for Khalil's deportation by saying his continued presence in the United States could carry 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.' Beyond his legal case, Khalil's team fears he could face threats out of detention. 'We are very mindful about his security, and the irony is that he is the one being persecuted,' Baher Azmy, one of his lawyers, told AFP. 'But he is committed to peace and because he is rejecting US government policy he is under threat,' Azmy added, without elaborating on any security measures in place for Khalil and his family.
Arab News
9 hours 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.
Al Arabiya
15 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Israel says struck military infrastructure in southwest Iran
Israel's military said Saturday it was conducting strikes on 'military infrastructure' in Iran's southwest, on the ninth day of the war sparked by Israel's attack on the Islamic Republic.
