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
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump is turning the US into an electric vehicle laggard
President Donald Trump's efforts to unravel policies supporting electric vehicles threatens to turn the US into a laggard for years to come, according to a new report. BloombergNEF reduced both its near- and long-term EV outlook for the first time, cutting 14 million battery-powered cars from its sales projections through 2030 due to the US rollback. The researcher now sees the country trailing not only China and Europe, but also the global average adoption rate until 2040. 'Global EV sales are growing, but the national picture is more varied than ever,' BNEF analysts write in the report released Wednesday. Whereas China is expected to account for nearly two-thirds of the almost 22 million plug-in vehicles sold globally this year, in part thanks to government incentives, 'all major EV policies in the US are under fire.' Trump ordered the elimination of subsidies and other measures boosting electric vehicles during his first day back in the White House in January. His administration and the Republican-controlled Congress are heeding his directive by moving to ease national fuel-economy standards, phase out EV tax credits and strip California's ability to set its own emissions limits. BNEF's outlook assumes national gas-mileage and tailpipe regulations will revert back to where they were during Trump's first term, and that the up-to-$7,500 consumer tax credit will end for most EVs after this year. There's potential for further downside to the researcher's outlook for EV sales in the US, depending on the ultimate fate of waivers allowing states to impose more stringent clean-air rules. A coalition of states led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued last week to challenge the administration's move to scrap state-level policies. 'If this attempt at revoking the waiver is successful, it would have dire consequences for EV sales in California, and because of the state's oversized influence on the EV market in the country, in whole of the US,' BNEF says. 'Removing all of the supply-side mandates in the country, at the same time as demand incentives, would push down EV sales in the US sharply.' China, by contrast, is expected to keep up its momentum in transitioning to plug-in vehicles, largely due to simple economics: It's the only large market where EVs are cheaper, on average, than comparable combustion cars. Demand also is getting a boost from the government extending subsidies that encourage consumers to trade in older cars for new EVs and hybrids. BNEF predicts the country's electric vehicle market will be larger than the total US car market within the next year. 'China is emerging as a major electric vehicle manufacturing powerhouse,' BNEF says in its report, estimating that the country accounted for just shy of 70% of worldwide EV production last year. China's dominance of EV manufacturing and the battery supply chain contributed to rising trade tensions and increased tariffs since BNEF last published its annual outlook. The European Union imposed duties on imports of battery-electric vehicles from China for five years starting in October, with added tariffs ranging from 35% for MG maker SAIC Motor Corp. to 7.8% for Tesla Inc. 'Policymakers face growing tension between environmental targets and other competing policy priorities, and as a result many automakers have reduced previously announced EV goals or quietly shelved them,' BNEF says in its report, citing walk-backs by manufacturers including Toyota, Ford, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo. In addition to taking measures to protect domestic manufacturers from cheaper EVs imported from China, the EU relaxed its CO2 emissions standards by sparing manufacturers from likely fines this year and allowing companies to meet tougher targets more gradually. As a result of the change, BNEF cut its forecast for electric vehicle sales in affected markets from this year through 2027 by about 19%, or roughly 2.6 million cars. The UK — which left the EU in 2020 and has maintained relative openness to Chinese imports — has emerged as the leading major market for electric vehicles after China. BNEF expects plug-in cars to reach 40% share of the UK market by next year. Trudell writes for Bloomberg News.
Miami Herald
4 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Modi disputes Trump's version of India-Pakistan ceasefire
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi disputed President Donald Trump's claims that trade deals were used to clinch a recent ceasefire with Pakistan, the latest sign of possible strain in the relationship between New Delhi and Washington. Modi held a 35-minute call with Trump on Tuesday night in the U.S. after the two leaders failed to meet in person at the Group of Seven meeting in Canada, India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said in a video statement. It was their first conversation since the four-day military strikes between India and Pakistan last month that brought the two neighbors close to war. Trump has consistently said the U.S. helped broker a ceasefire and that he used trade deals as a negotiating tool, comments that Indian officials have disputed. Modi clarified India's position to Trump during the leaders' call, Misri said Wednesday. "PM Modi clearly told President Trump that during this entire incident, at no time, at any level, were there any talks on issues like India-U.S. trade deal or mediation between India and Pakistan through America," he said. "PM Modi stressed that India has never accepted mediation, does not accept it, and will never accept it." The Indian leader's forthright comments come amid growing frustration in New Delhi over Trump's repeated claims of defusing tensions between the nuclear-armed South Asian rivals. Modi's rebuttal coincides with a tougher Indian stance in trade talks with the U.S., though analysts say the sharper tone is unlikely to affect negotiations or long-term ties with Washington. "By outlining the events and India's position, Prime Minister Modi was setting the record straight with President Trump," Harsh Vardhan Shringla, former Indian foreign secretary and envoy to the U.S. said. "The India-U.S. relationship is very comprehensive and will continue to grow." Still, the underlying discontent in New Delhi over what it sees as Trump's attempts to place India and Pakistan on equal footing - and undermine its long-standing foreign policy - is far from resolved. Modi echoed that frustration in a speech at the G-7 summit on Tuesday, where he criticized inconsistent global standards on terrorism, without naming any country specifically. "On the one hand, we are quick to impose various sanctions based on our own preferences and interests," he said during a session held after Trump had left Canada. "On the other hand, nations that openly support terrorism continue to be rewarded. I have some serious questions for those present in this room." New Delhi has said it won't hold talks with Pakistan unless that country takes action to prevent terrorist attacks. The recent military conflict between the two countries was triggered by an April 22 deadly attack on mainly Indian tourists in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir. India called it a terrorist attack and blamed Pakistan, accusations that Islamabad have denied. In contrast to India, Pakistan has credited Trump's role in helping negotiate a peace deal and is open to mediation. In an unusual move, Trump is expected to meet with Pakistan's army chief, Asim Munir, at the White House on Wednesday. Modi's remarks during the phone call may also have been intended to clear up some of the domestic confusion. "The PM needed to clarify this because the confusion that was caused by President Trump," said Indrani Bagchi, chief executive officer at Ananta Centre, a Delhi-based think tank. "It was good that the prime minister made that clear to President Trump at his level." India's opposition groups said additional measures may be needed to address the diplomatic fallout from Trump's version of the truce. Modi remained "silent" for too long, and the U.S. president's assertions went unchallenged, Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh told ANI on Wednesday. He asked the prime minister to "say the same things that you have supposedly told President Trump on the phone" at a special session of the parliament. Trump asked Modi to visit him in the U.S. following his trip to Canada, but "due to prior engagements, Prime Minister Modi expressed his inability to do so," said Misri. Modi has a scheduled stop in Croatia for a state visit before he returns to India from the G-7. Misri said Trump accepted Modi's invitation to visit India for the annual Quad meet scheduled for later in the year. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Factbox-Major differences between House and Senate versions of Trump's tax and spending bill
By Andy Sullivan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Senate Republicans have unveiled their version of President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill that is broadly similar to the legislation that narrowly passed the House of Representatives last month. The Senate still must debate the bill and pass it, and then the two Republican-controlled chambers will have to resolve their differences before they can send it to Trump to sign into law. Here are some of the biggest differences between the two bills: TEMPORARY VS. PERMANENT TAX BREAKS The House bill, which would add $2.8 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, includes an array of tax cuts, but many of them would expire after a few years. The Senate version would make some of those tax breaks permanent. TAX CURRENT HOUSE VERSION SENATE BREAK LAW VERSION Child $2,000 Raised to Permanent tax per $2,500 increase to credit child, through 2028, $2,200, drops to then reverts indexed to $1,000 to $2,000, inflation. in 2026 indexed for inflation. Standard $30,000 Temporary Permanent deductio for increase to increase to n married $32,000 $32,000 couple, through 2028, starting in drops by back to 2026 about $30,000 after half in that. 2026 Business Amortize 100% 100% research d over 5 expensing for expensing for and years, domestic domestic developm 15 years research research ent for through 2029, permanently costs foreign then reverts research Bonus 40% this 100% through 100% deprecia year, 2029, then permanently tion for 20% in phases out business 2026, 0% equipmen after t that purchase s Business Up to Expands this Expands this interest 30% of break to break to expenses earnings include include before depreciation EBITDA interest and permanently and amortization taxes (EBITDA) (EBIT) through 2029 STATE AND LOCAL TAX DEDUCTION The House version would increase the maximum deduction for state and local tax payments from $10,000 to $40,400 starting in 2026. The Senate version would keep the $10,000 SALT cap in place. DEDUCTION FOR OLDER AMERICANS The House would provide a deduction of up to $4,000 for people over 65; the Senate would provide a $6,000 deduction. Both would end after 2028. NO TAX ON TIPS Both chambers would provide a deduction for tipped income through 2028. The Senate version caps that deduction at $25,000 while the House does not include a cap. RETALIATORY (SECTION 899) TAX Both the House and Senate would allow the U.S. to impose new taxes on residents, businesses and other entities from countries that are found to impose "unfair foreign taxes." The Senate version would take effect in 2027, one year after the House version would take effect. CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS Both the House and Senate versions would roll back clean-energy incentives created by President Joe Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, but they differ in their timing. For example, under the House bill, a tax credit for wind, solar and other clean energy projects would not apply to any project that begins operation after 2028. Projects that began construction after 60 days after the bill became law also would not qualify, even if they were completed before the end of 2028. The Senate bill, by contrast, would phase out that credit for wind and solar projects through 2027, and phase it out starting in 2033 for hydro, nuclear and geothermal projects. MEDICAID Both the House and the Senate would clamp down on "provider taxes," which states levy on Medicaid providers as a way to boost federal funding. The Senate version adds specific language that closes loopholes and prevents states from designing workarounds, which is absent in the House bill. SPORTS TEAMS The House bill would cut a tax break for sports-team owners in half. The Senate version does not include that language. DEBT CEILING The House bill would raise the U.S. debt ceiling, currently at $36 trillion, by $4 trillion. The Senate bill would raise it by $5 trillion. Congress must act on this by sometime this summer or risk triggering a default on the nation's $36.2 trillion in debt. COURTS Both the House and Senate bills seek to limit U.S. judges' power to block federal policies nationwide, a key tool for the federal court system as it considers dozens of challenges to the Trump administration's activities. The House version would curtail the ability of judges to enforce orders holding administration officials in contempt if they violate these injunctions. The Senate version would limit their ability to issue those injunctions in the first place if the party challenging the government does not post a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned.
