logo
Divided UN extends arms embargo on South Sudan as fears of renewed civil war grow

Divided UN extends arms embargo on South Sudan as fears of renewed civil war grow

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A divided U.N. Security Council voted Friday to extend an arms embargo on South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have led the U.N. to warn that the country could again plunge into civil war.
A U.S.-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 U.N. 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 U.N. 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.'
U.S. 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 U.N. 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 U.N. 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.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ukrainian diplomat on US position at UN: Ceasefire must be unconditional and immediate
Ukrainian diplomat on US position at UN: Ceasefire must be unconditional and immediate

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Ukrainian diplomat on US position at UN: Ceasefire must be unconditional and immediate

Statements by the United States at the United Nations demonstrate the utmost clarity of their position on a ceasefire in Ukraine: it must be unconditional and immediate, First Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine Serhii Kyslytsia says. Source: Kyslytsia commenting on the shift in rhetoric of US diplomats regarding Russia during the last two UN Security Council sessions, as cited by Ukrinform Quote: "Two consecutive statements by the United States at the [UN] Security Council show that their position is absolutely clear: the ceasefire must be unconditional and immediate." Details: Kyslytsia reiterated that Ukraine had long declared its readiness to accept such a ceasefire, but Russia categorically rejected the possibility of an unconditional ceasefire during talks in Istanbul. Quote: "It is also important that Washington, through its representatives in New York, stated that Ukraine is not an obstacle to establishing a regime of unconditional ceasefire." Details: He noted that both US statements – on Thursday and Friday – are "important, particularly in the context of the expected meeting in Istanbul on 2 June". Kyslytsia emphasised that any statement made at the UN Security Council reflects the official position of the state, not the personal opinion of a diplomat. Background: Earlier, Kyslytsia revealed that on 16 May, Russian delegates, led by Vladimir Medinsky, made threatening and inflammatory remarks, including Medinsky's claim that the war against Ukraine is "Russians killing Russians". On 16 May, direct talks between Russia and Ukraine took place in Istanbul for the first time in more than three years. Media reports stated that during the talks, the Russians demanded the exclusion of US representatives from the negotiations with Ukraine and presented a number of unacceptable conditions. Russian representatives voiced several demands to the Ukrainian delegation during a closed meeting in Istanbul on 16 May, setting out the conditions under which Moscow was ready to cease fire. Among them were Ukraine's renunciation of territories and claims for reparations. Vladimir Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation in Istanbul, said during the talks that Russia was ready for an endless war against Ukraine and threatened to seize Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts. "We fought Sweden for 21 years. How long are you ready to fight?" he asked the Ukrainian side. Kyslytsia described the Russian delegates, particularly Medinsky, as behaving like "gangsters" and issuing direct threats to the Ukrainian side. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!

The past three years for Thungela Resources (JSE:TGA) investors has not been profitable
The past three years for Thungela Resources (JSE:TGA) investors has not been profitable

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The past three years for Thungela Resources (JSE:TGA) investors has not been profitable

For many investors, the main point of stock picking is to generate higher returns than the overall market. But its virtually certain that sometimes you will buy stocks that fall short of the market average returns. Unfortunately, that's been the case for longer term Thungela Resources Limited (JSE:TGA) shareholders, since the share price is down 64% in the last three years, falling well short of the market return of around 33%. And over the last year the share price fell 32%, so we doubt many shareholders are delighted. Furthermore, it's down 19% in about a quarter. That's not much fun for holders. With that in mind, it's worth seeing if the company's underlying fundamentals have been the driver of long term performance, or if there are some discrepancies. This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. While the efficient markets hypothesis continues to be taught by some, it has been proven that markets are over-reactive dynamic systems, and investors are not always rational. One imperfect but simple way to consider how the market perception of a company has shifted is to compare the change in the earnings per share (EPS) with the share price movement. During the three years that the share price fell, Thungela Resources' earnings per share (EPS) dropped by 23% each year. This fall in EPS isn't far from the rate of share price decline, which was 29% per year. So it seems like sentiment towards the stock hasn't changed all that much over time. Rather, the share price has approximately tracked EPS growth. The image below shows how EPS has tracked over time (if you click on the image you can see greater detail). This free interactive report on Thungela Resources' earnings, revenue and cash flow is a great place to start, if you want to investigate the stock further. When looking at investment returns, it is important to consider the difference between total shareholder return (TSR) and share price return. The TSR is a return calculation that accounts for the value of cash dividends (assuming that any dividend received was reinvested) and the calculated value of any discounted capital raisings and spin-offs. It's fair to say that the TSR gives a more complete picture for stocks that pay a dividend. We note that for Thungela Resources the TSR over the last 3 years was -30%, which is better than the share price return mentioned above. And there's no prize for guessing that the dividend payments largely explain the divergence! The last twelve months weren't great for Thungela Resources shares, which cost holders 23%, including dividends, while the market was up about 30%. However, keep in mind that even the best stocks will sometimes underperform the market over a twelve month period. Shareholders have lost 9% per year over the last three years, so the share price drop has become steeper, over the last year; a potential symptom of as yet unsolved challenges. We would be wary of buying into a company with unsolved problems, although some investors will buy into struggling stocks if they believe the price is sufficiently attractive. It's always interesting to track share price performance over the longer term. But to understand Thungela Resources better, we need to consider many other factors. For example, we've discovered 3 warning signs for Thungela Resources (1 is significant!) that you should be aware of before investing here. If you like to buy stocks alongside management, then you might just love this free list of companies. (Hint: many of them are unnoticed AND have attractive valuation). Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on South African exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

AP PHOTOS: Fishermen say a new natural gas project off Senegal's coast threatens their livelihoods
AP PHOTOS: Fishermen say a new natural gas project off Senegal's coast threatens their livelihoods

Associated Press

timean hour ago

  • Associated Press

AP PHOTOS: Fishermen say a new natural gas project off Senegal's coast threatens their livelihoods

SAINT LOUIS, Senegal (AP) — Fishermen say a new natural gas project off the coast of Senegal — a joint venture between British energy giant BP and U.S.-based Kosmos Energy — is threatening their livelihoods. The project, which started operations late last year, is meant to bring jobs to the densely populated fishing community. But residents say they are catching fewer fish because the fish are drawn to the project's platform, which fishermen cannot approach. They also say the price of cooking gas keeps rising, even after lower prices were a major selling point for the project. BP says talks with the community are ongoing. ___ This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store