UN fact-finding mission says Sudan conflict escalating, aid weaponised
The UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for Sudan has warned that both sides in the country's civil war have escalated the use of heavy weaponry in populated areas while weaponising humanitarian relief, amid devastating consequences for civilians.
'Let us be clear: the conflict in Sudan is far from over,' said Mohamed Chande Othman, chair of the Fact-Finding Mission, which presented its latest findings to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday.
'The scale of human suffering continues to deepen. The fragmentation of governance, the militarisation of society, and the involvement of foreign actors are fuelling an ever-deadlier crisis.'
The brutal conflict, now in its third year, erupted in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and has killed tens of thousands of civilians and displaced more than 13 million Sudanese, according to United Nations data.
The UN has previously said that Sudan is experiencing the world's 'worst humanitarian crisis'.
The mission found that both sides escalated the use of heavy weaponry in populated areas. In May, an RSF drone strike on Obeid International Hospital in North Kordofan killed six civilians, while earlier this month, an SAF bombing in Al Koma killed at least 15 civilians.
Aid was also being weaponised by the SAF, which imposed bureaucratic restrictions, as well as by the RSF, which looted convoys and blocked aid, the group said.
The mission also documented a sharp rise in sexual and gender-based violence, including gang rape, abduction, sexual slavery, and forced marriage, mostly in RSF-controlled displacement camps.
Member of the Fact-Finding Mission Mona Rishmawi said what began as a political and security crisis has become 'a grave human rights and protection emergency, marked by international crimes that stain all involved'.
'It is unconscionable that this devastating war is entering its third year with no sign of resolution,' she said.
Sudan has seen growing instability since longtime President Omar al-Bashir was removed from power in 2019 after months of anti-government protests.
In October 2021, the Sudanese military staged a coup against the civilian government of Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, leading to his resignation in early 2022.
Sudan's army chief, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and rival Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who leads the RSF, had shared power after the coup but then started fighting for control of the state and its resources in April 2023.
Last week, the Sudanese Army accused the forces of eastern Libyan military commander Khalifa Haftar of attacking Sudanese border posts, the first time it has charged its northwestern neighbour with direct involvement in the civil war.
Egypt, which has also backed Haftar, has long supported the Sudanese Army. Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the United Arab Emirates of backing the RSF, which it denies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
5 hours ago
- CNBC
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who has said he supports assault weapons bans. If the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. Democratic Rep. Rebecca Kislak described the bill during floor debates Friday as an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states. "I am gravely disappointed we are not doing more, and we should do more," she said. "And given the opportunity to do this or nothing, I am voting to do something." Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. "This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens," said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. Republican Rep. Michael Chippendale, House minority leader, predicted that if the legislation were to become law, the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually deem it unconstitutional. "We are throwing away money on this," he said. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the "weakest assault weapons ban in the country." "I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety," Hogg said in a statement. Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. "The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons," Ryan said. "This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all." Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case "in the next term or two."
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
If he wages war unilaterally, Trump will only be the latest of many presidents to do so
Twenty-four years ago this week, I represented a group of bipartisan members of Congress in challenging the Obama administration's decision to attack Libya without a declaration of war. It is a curious anniversary of the litigation, because many of the politicians and pundits who supported (or remained silent on) the action of President Barack Obama are now appalled that President Trump is considering an attack on the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, which is buried deep in a mountain. Later, some Democratic members would move to expand presidential powers to launch attacks without approval. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the drafter of the current legislation to limit Trump's authority, drafted legislation in 2018 to put the authorization for use of military force on virtual autopilot. That was during the first Trump administration, and I testified against that legislation as a virtual authorization for 'endless war.' In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign that not only attacked Libya's capital city but also armored columns of the Libyan military. The clear intent was regime change supported by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also rejected the need to consult with Congress, let alone secure approval before launching a massive attack on another nation. Today, Trump is contemplating the use of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or 'bunker buster' bomb, to destroy the facility. It may be the only weapon that can reach the underground enhancement areas, and it can only be delivered by American B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. It takes courage to oppose such actions by a president of your own party or against an unpopular foe. Notably, among my clients 24 years ago was Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the father of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who also believes that a president should secure approval of Congress before any such attack occurs. The other group that would demand such approval was the Framers themselves. They saw foreign entanglements and military interventions as the markings of despots and tyrants. At the Constitutional Convention, delegate Pierce Butler insisted that a president should not be able to 'make war but when the nation will support it.' Nevertheless, he did not even receive a second to his motion because the Framers demanded real checks on this power. They imposed that limit by only allowing the nation to go to war with the express declaration of Congress. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 states that the 'sole' authority to declare war rests with Congress. In 1793, George Washington supported the denial of this power to a president as a clear and binding promise that 'no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.' The Framers thought that they had solved the problem. In the Pennsylvania ratification convention, James Wilson explained the need for congressional approval as a guarantee that no one will 'hurry us into war [since] it is calculated to guard against it.' The purpose of such approval is not just to limit foreign wars but to secure the support of the people before such wars are commenced. After all, presidents get the glory of wars, but citizens pay the cost in lives and treasure. Politicians, however, quickly became leery of taking such ownership over wars. Congress became increasingly passive in the face of popular military engagements, using ambiguous 'authorizations' to preserve the ability to later insist that they were never really in support of wars. While some of us opposed the Iraq War, politicians like then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) were all-in on the invasion. Yet, when he ran for president, Biden insisted that he had opposed the long, drawn-out war. Then there was Sen. John Kerry. During the Democratic primary in 2004, Kerry portrayed himself as against the Iraq War, even though he had also voted for it. Later, when confronted by George Bush in the general election over his vote against spending $87 billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, he offered his notorious response that 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.' Despite the clear text of the Constitution, courts have repeatedly allowed this circumvention of Article I. Congress has only declared 11 wars while allowing more than 125 military operations, including Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan. Congress has not declared war in the 80 years since World War II. In my case, the Obama administration would not even refer to an attack on another nation as a 'war.' It insisted that it was a 'time-limited, scope-limited military action,' or a 'kinetic action.' The court allowed the war to proceed. Both Congress and the courts have effectively amended the Constitution to remove the requirement of war declarations. As a result, the precedent favors Trump in arguing for his right to commit troops unilaterally. Whereas Kaine and others insist that there has been no attack by Iran on the U.S., Trump can cite the fact that Iran has killed or wounded thousands of Americans directly or through surrogates, including attacks on U.S. shipping through its Houthi proxy forces in Yemen. More importantly, he can cite decades of judicial and congressional acquiescence. For my part, I think the Framers were right then and they are right now. We have shown just how right they were with decades of undeclared wars and so little accountability. The fact that these actions are presumptively unconstitutional is an inconvenient fact buried in decades of war hype and hypocrisy. That is why Trump is unlikely to go to Congress and, as a matter of precedent, he does not have to. He will assume the same power his predecessors enjoyed, including recent Democratic presidents. With that history and politics on his side, Trump could turn Fordow into the most expensive hole in history. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
Business Insider
8 hours ago
- Business Insider
10 African countries where press freedom is on the decline
The year 2025 continues to witness an alarming escalation of threats to press freedom across the globe, with several African countries experiencing some of the worst crackdowns on independent journalism and press freedom. Business Insider Africa presents 10 African countries with declining press freedom The list is courtesy of the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders African countries like Cameroon, Rwanda, and Somalia remain hostile environments for journalists due to ongoing conflicts and restrictive laws. At the core of this attack on press freedom as seen in some African countries is a complex interplay of factors, including political regimes tightening control over information, inaccessible legal systems, and the exertion of state and corporate influence to coerce the media into compliance, particularly in conflict-ridden or authoritarian states. According to the latest World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), press freedom in several African countries has deteriorated significantly, marked by some of the lowest global scores and a rising toll of detained and killed journalists. This decline is attributed to state censorship, legal crackdowns, insecurity, and financial pressures, which ultimately compromises media independence and economic viability. Notably; RSF's global ranking and scoring system assesses 180 countries based on five key indicators: political context, legal framework, economic situation, sociocultural conditions, and safety. Business Insider Africa highlights 10 African Countries where Press decline have reached alarming heights, based on their latest rankings, press freedom scores, and the number of journalists killed or detained this year: Country Index Score Global Rank No. of Journalists Killed or Detained Eritrea 11.32 180 14 detained Egypt 24.74 170 20 detained Rwanda 35.85 146 3 detained Ethiopia 36.92 145 6 detained Libya 40.42 137 1 detained Somalia 40.49 136 5 detained DR Congo 42.31 133 1 killed / 4 detained Cameroon 42.75 131 4 detained Tunisia 43.48 129 4 detained Nigeria 46.81 122 5 detained The 2025 RSF Press Freedom Barometer reveals the scale of the crisis: A Continental Crisis Eritrea remains at the bottom of the global rankings, characterized by a complete absence of a functioning press and the prolonged detention of at least 14 journalists without trial. Notable cases include Dawit Isaak and Seyoum Tsehaye, who have been imprisoned for decades. Egypt follows closely, maintaining a harsh grip on its media environment through military and political control. Currently, 20 journalists are detained under anti-terror and state security laws, while many independent media outlets have been shut down or forced out of the country. In Ethiopia, ongoing conflict and rising authoritarianism have reversed years of press reform. Six journalists, including Dawit Begashaw, are currently detained. Cameroon, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Somalia are consistently ranked among the most perilous for press freedom, plagued by ongoing conflicts and draconian laws that instill fear in reporters. The Democratic Republic of Congo has tragically lost one journalist, Patrick Adonis Numbi of Pamoja TV, this year, underscoring the precarious environment in conflict zones like eastern DRC. Nigeria, Africa's largest democracy, has dropped 10 places in the global ranking this year. According to RSF, five journalists are currently detained, and media independence is being undermined by financial dependence on state and corporate advertisers. As Reporters Without Borders (RSF) continuously collects global information on abuses against journalists, updating its press freedom barometer daily, it highlights the need for increased protection and support for media professionals worldwide due to ongoing threats and violence against journalists, In Africa and beyond.
