Evidence Supports War Crimes Allegations in Darfur, I.C.C. Prosecutor Says
'The humanitarian position has reached an intolerable state,' the court's deputy prosecutor, Nazhat Shameem Khan, told the United Nations Security Council on Thursday. 'People are being deprived of water and food. Rape and sexual violence are being weaponized. Abductions for ransom or to bolster the ranks of armed groups have become common practice.'
Among the court's worst findings was 'an inescapable pattern' of women and girls being raped or subjected to other sexual violence because of their gender and ethnicity, Ms. Khan said.
While Ms. Khan did not specify who had committed the war crimes in the court's findings, both of the warring parties in the civil war have previously been accused of atrocities by officials from the United States, the United Nations and human rights groups.
The determination that war crimes were being committed came after the prosecutor's office collected about 7,000 pieces of evidence, including the testimony of victims, Ms. Khan said. Investigators have made repeated trips to speak with victim groups and to interview witnesses in refugee camps in neighboring Chad, where many people from Darfur have fled.
Sudan's civil war erupted in April 2023 and the brutal fighting has killed tens of thousands of people, driven millions more from their homes and caused widespread famine.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A reckoning: Trump's attacks are inspiring self-reflection in higher ed
The Trump administration's attacks against colleges and universities, including its attempts to pull federal funding and bar foreign students from Harvard University in the name of fighting antisemitism, have alarmed many in higher education. But they have also spurred a degree of self-reflection among some leaders in the field. There's a 'kernel of truth' in many of the leading criticisms of universities and colleges — the price tag, the perceived liberal bent of many educators, and the rise of campus antisemitism and discrimination — said Ted Mitchell. Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, a nonpartisan association of 1,600 colleges across the country, said the Trump administration has 'called on higher education' to attend to these issues that have long lingered without sufficient action. The administration's pressure campaign comes at a time when public confidence in the nation's colleges is falling. Read more: Trump admin renews demand for Harvard foreign student info: 'We tried to do things the easy way' In the past decade, the share of Americans with high confidence in colleges and universities has fallen from 57% to 36%, primarily driven by concerns that colleges push a political agenda, don't teach necessary skills and cost too much, according to a Gallup survey last year. Meanwhile, the cost of attending college is growing. Adjusted for inflation, average tuition is up 30-40% over the past 20 years at public and private colleges, according to data gathered by U.S. News and World Report. While Mitchell agrees with some of the Trump administration's criticisms of higher education, the way the federal government has addressed those concerns — such as cutting off federal funding for research — is overblown, he said. 'His actions have been outrageous and dangerous and missed the point,' Mitchell said. A Department of Education spokesperson didn't respond to requests for comment for this story. A leading complaint: Colleges are too liberal The belief that college campuses have become bastions of a leftist ideology where conservatives are underrepresented has been a central feature in Trump's critiques of higher education. In an April letter to Harvard, the Trump administration demanded numerous reforms to campus admissions, hiring and management practices. The administration said Harvard must review programs and departments that 'fuel antisemitic harassment' and make changes to expand ideological diversity on campus. Among Americans dissatisfied with higher education, 41% believe colleges push a political agenda, Gallup's poll last year showed. It was the top issue, followed at 37% by those who said colleges focus on the wrong things and don't teach relevant skills. Those respondents were more than three times as likely to believe colleges were too liberal than too conservative. Read more: Here are 5 of the biggest effects on higher ed in the 'Big Beautiful Bill' Any 'clear-minded observer of higher education' would agree that academia has skewed further to the left, Mitchell said. 'Viewpoint diversity is always at risk in every discipline and it really comes home when departments become homogenous around any set of ideas,' he said. For instance, Mitchell said there are too few conservative academics championing free-market capitalism in economics departments and that there is excessive emphasis in the humanities on anticolonialism, a political and social movement seeking to end colonial rule across the globe. Robert Shibley, special counsel for campus advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, raised similar concerns about the lack of political diversity in higher education. 'It's a perennial complaint and I think lies behind a lot of the animosity toward Harvard and other schools,' he said. The nonpartisan free speech group based in Washington, D.C., has urged colleges and universities in recent years to take those concerns seriously. Yet adjusting the ideological diversity on campus is outside the government's purview, not to mention a tricky endeavor, Shibley said. For one, 'You can't just wave a wand' and generate 'a whole bunch of conservative academics waiting in the wings.' Academia may be politically left of the American public, yet in theory it should not matter, said Dr. Greg Weiner, president of Assumption University in Worcester. 'I've often said I don't know who our faculty votes for,' he said. 'For all I know, they 100% could have voted for Biden, 100% could have voted for Trump, and I would not care as long as they're excellent teachers and scholars.' But on many campuses, politics have increasingly seeped into lesson plans, he said. Read more: 'Devastating': 10 Harvard researchers detail 'essential' work set to be cut by Trump Educators would benefit from limiting 'extraneous material' from the classroom, even in subjects such as political thought — Weiner's area of expertise — with a connection to current events, he said. Doing so may help break the public perception that colleges have become overly political. 'Rather than locking into a position that would require us to persuade significant majorities of the American public that they're simply wrong, let's start by taking a hard look at ourselves,' he said. Antisemitism has been a longstanding issue In April, under intense pressure from Trump to address campus antisemitism, Harvard acknowledged it had failed to effectively combat discrimination against Jewish students and staff amid Israel's war in Gaza. Jews of varying political stripes were shunned, harassed, targeted in class discussions, and generally fearful to discuss their identity, a report released in April from a Harvard task force found. The same patterns existed on campuses across the country. Accompanying the report, Harvard President Alan Garber issued an apology: 'I am sorry for the moments when we failed to meet the high expectations we rightfully set for our community.' Antisemitism festered on campuses for years before the war began with Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, Jewish community leaders say. Read more: Trump admin threatens Harvard's accreditation over antisemitism response Discrimination of Jews steadily swelled on college campuses through the early 2000s and 2010s as the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians deteriorated and as campus advocacy around the conflict intensified, said Steven Schimmel, the executive director of the Jewish Federation of Central Massachusetts. By the time Hamas attacked Israel, the issue had already become 'precipitously worse' than in decades prior, he said. It has since only deteriorated further. It took pressure from the White House and Congress, Jewish organizations, alumni and students for college leaders to realize that antisemitism was rapidly escalating, Schimmel said. Much like their Jewish and Israeli peers, students of Muslim, Arab and Palestinian descent were also subject to a climate of 'fear and intimidation' as campus tensions flared, another report from Harvard found. The university did too little to combat discrimination or support students on both sides of the conflict, it said. While college leaders have largely grasped the need for action and taken it, important steps are still needed, Schimmel said. Universities must enforce their antidiscrimination rules effectively. And they should ensure that broader perspectives on issues related to Israel are taught in the classroom, he said. Read more: Trump's antisemitism probe mostly relies on Harvard's own report, Harvard claims Trump has made clear that failure from Harvard to act against antisemitism could have grave consequences. 'There are plenty of members of the Jewish community who welcome the added focus of combating antisemitism,' Schimmel said. Yet there is also trepidation, he added, over what the fallout of Trump's approach could be, and whether more targeted actions to combat antisemitism would be more effective. 'Tremendous room for improvement' A college degree still presents a clear pathway to financial mobility, yet higher education has 'tremendous room' to improve free speech, counter campus antisemitism and expand the political diversity of faculty, according to Beth Akers, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. College education has been 'over-celebrated,' she said, and the Trump administration's focus on the sector feels like a 'necessary correction,' even if it goes too far with cuts to funding. Read more: 'A day of loss': Boston University to lay off 120 people citing federal funding impacts The Trump administration's critiques of colleges could spur more people to question whether to pursue a degree, Akers said. 'Getting people to be more cautious about this investment, but not dismissing it entirely, I think, is actually a good innovation,' she said. Other higher education leaders don't see as much of an upside. Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities and a former president at Mount Holyoke College, said the federal government's characterization of colleges and universities is 'disconnected from the reality.' Pasquerella sees the Trump administration as taking advantage of a growing mistrust of higher education for its own political aims, such as attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion programs. At the same time, she acknowledges that the institution has its faults. 'I believe that the longstanding critiques of higher education — that it's too expensive, too difficult to access, doesn't teach students 21st century skills — need to be addressed and they need to be addressed directly,' she said. 'And it requires a reckoning around the fundamental mission and purposes of American higher education.' What that reckoning looks like, however, has yet to be realized, she said. More Higher Ed Harvard continues dismantling its DEI offices amid Trump attacks Pro-Israel website used to compile list of ICE targets, agent testifies Trump admin renews demand for Harvard foreign student info: 'We tried to do things the easy way' Trump admin threatens Harvard's accreditation over antisemitism response Here are 5 of the biggest effects on higher ed in the 'Big Beautiful Bill' Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Kenyan police arrest rights activist Mwangi over role in deadly protests
NAIROBI (Reuters) -Kenyan police have arrested prominent human rights activist Boniface Mwangi and plan to arraign him on Monday on suspicion of facilitating "terrorist acts" linked to deadly anti-government protests last month, police said on Sunday. The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) said on X that detectives had arrested Mwangi at his home in Machakos County on Saturday and had seized "two unused tear gas canisters and one 7.62mm blank round", along with two mobile phones, a laptop and notebooks. In addition to the terrorism charges, Mwangi is also due to be arraigned for unlawful possession of ammunition, the X post said. A representative for Mwangi could not immediately be reached for comment. Hundreds of Kenyans took to the streets last month following the death in police custody of political blogger Albert Ojwang - reigniting a protest movement fuelled by anger over the cost of living and what activists say is police brutality and corruption. The government-funded Kenya National Commission on Human Rights said 19 people were killed in the protests on June 25 that DCI referred to in its post about Mwangi. Another 31 people died when protests flared again on July 7, the commission said. The protesters are mostly young adults desperate for job opportunities who organise through social media channels. Mwangi is a well-known activist who once ran for parliament on an anti-corruption platform. In May, he was arrested and deported from neighbouring Tanzania, where he had travelled to observe a hearing in a treason case against detained opposition leader Tundu Lissu. He said afterwards that members of the Tanzanian security forces had sexually assaulted him during his detention, and on Friday he filed a complaint at the East African Court of Justice in connection with those allegations.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Will Israel ever get blowback for bombing its neighbours?
In the last two years, as well as its war on Gaza and increasingly violent occupation of the West Bank, Israel has launched attacks on Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. The most recent attacks on Syria were launched this week, going so far as to hit the country's Ministry of Defence. Of course, the Israelis point to their justifications for the attacks on Syria – principally, in Israel's telling, to defend the Syrian Druze minority. A US-brokered ceasefire has taken effect, but whether it holds remains to be seen. In Lebanon, Israel claimed it wanted to stop the threat posed by Hezbollah. The attacks on Iran, it said, were to end that country's attempt to build a nuclear bomb. And in Yemen, Israel's bombing was a response to attacks from the country's Houthi rebels. Explanations aside, the question becomes whether the Israelis can continue to act in a manner that has many around the world, and particularly in the Middle East, seeing them as the aggressor. Impunity over relationship-building The Israeli argument is that all these conflicts – and the more than 58,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza – are necessary because Israel faces an existential battle that it has no choice but to win. The Israeli government, in its current far-right makeup, at least, does not seem to care if its neighbours do not like it. Rather, it seems to care that they fear it. And as the most powerful military force in the region, with the backing of the most powerful military force in the world, the Israelis feel that they can largely do what they is taking advantage of a weakening international order and a moment of flux in the way the world is run, particularly with the United States under President Donald Trump openly moving towards a more transactional foreign policy. Western countries had previously attempted to maintain the idea of a liberal international order, where institutions such as the United Nations ensure that international law is followed. But Israel's actions, over decades, have made it increasingly hard to maintain the pretence. The world has been unable to stop Israel from continuing its occupation of Palestinian land, even though it is illegal under international law. Settlements continue to be built and expanded in the West Bank, and settlers continue to kill unarmed Palestinians. Human rights organisations and international bodies have found that Israel has repeatedly violated the rules of war in its conduct in Gaza, and have accused the country of committing genocide, but can do little more. Taking advantage No other power wants, or feels strong enough, to take on the mantle the US is arguably vacating. And until the rules get rewritten, it increasingly feels like might equals right. Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, is taking advantage. Supporters of Israel's actions in the past two years would also argue that those predicting negative consequences for its attacks have been proven wrong. The main perceived threat to Israel was the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance, and the argument was that these countries and groups would strike Israel severely if the latter went too far in its did escalate, and the reaction from Iran and its allies was, in many cases, to choose to stand down rather than risk the total devastation of their countries or organisations. Iran did attack Israel in a way that the country had not experienced before, with Tel Aviv being directly hit on numerous occasions. But some of the worst-case scenario predictions did not take place, and ultimately, the direct conflict between Israel and Iran lasted 12 days, without the outbreak of a wider regional war. In Lebanon, Israel can be even happier with the result. After an intensified bombing campaign and invasion last year, Hezbollah lost its iconic leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and much of its military capacity, as well as some of its power in Lebanon. It is now, at least in the short term, no longer much of a threat to Israel. Israeli hubris? Israel seems to believe weak neighbours are good for it. Much as in the case of Gaza and the occupied West Bank, the perception is that there is no real need to provide an endgame or next-day scenario. Instead, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demonstrated, Israel can maintain chaos as far away as possible from its borders, as long as it maintains security the current situation in Syria is an interesting example of what can go wrong, and when Israeli hubris may go too far. Netanyahu has maintained that Syria south of Damascus must remain demilitarised. His first argument was that this would ensure the safety of the Druze minority, thousands of whom also live in Israel and demanded that Israel protect their brethren following violence involving Bedouin fighters and government forces. The second argument was that the new authorities in Syria cannot be trusted because of the new leadership's past ties to groups such as al-Qaeda. After Israel's bombing and some US prodding, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa agreed to withdraw government security forces from the Druze-majority province of Suwayda on Thursday, warning that while Israel 'may be capable of starting a war', it would 'not be easy to control its consequences'. By Friday, it had become clear that thousands of Bedouin – and other tribal forces – were headed to support the Bedouins in Suwayda after reports of massacres against them. Al-Sharaa, presumably with the acquiescence of Israel, announced that Syrian government forces would deploy in Suwayda to end the ongoing clashes there, and a new ceasefire was declared on it happens, the presence of a strong state with control over its territory may be more effective than allowing anarchy to reign. Blowback If anything, Israel's actions in Syria will increase its regional isolation and raise eyebrows among countries that could have been seen as potential allies. Saudi Arabia has emphasised its support for the new Syrian government, and Israel's behaviour will add to Riyadh's feeling, post-Gaza, that any 'Abraham Accords' normalising ties cannot happen in the short term. For many countries in the Middle East, particularly in the Gulf, Israeli hegemony, especially with the rise of messianic far-right forces in its government, leads to war, expansionism, chaos, and security risks. And Israel's short-term military gains run the risk of blowback elsewhere. Iran's military capabilities may have been heavily damaged in its war with Israel, but Tehran will likely seek to shift tactics to undermine Israel in other ways in the years to come, while improving its defences and potentially focusing on achieving a nuclear weapon. As mentioned, the opinions of regional countries may not be the highest priority to the current crop of Israeli leaders, as long as they continue to have US support. But that does not mean that – in the long term – Israel will not increasingly face blowback for its actions, both diplomatically and in terms of its constant wars, even if beyond Israel's borders, do not provide a sense of long-term security for any populace. The percentage of military reservists answering call-ups has already reportedly been decreasing. In a country where the majority of the military personnel are reservists who have jobs, businesses and families to take care of, it is difficult to maintain a permanent military footing indefinitely. That has contributed to an increasing divide in Israel between a dominant ultranationalist camp that wants to fight first and ask questions later, annex Palestinian land, and force regional acceptance through brute force, and a more centrist camp that – while perhaps not prioritising alleviating Palestinian suffering – is more sensitive to international isolation and sanctions, while attempting to hold on to a 'liberal Zionist' image of Israel. Should current trends continue, and the ultranationalist camp retain its dominance, Israel can continue to use its military power and US backing to yield short-term successes. But by sowing chaos around its borders and flouting international norms, it is breeding resentment among its neighbours and losing support among its traditional allies – even in the US, where public support is slipping. A more isolated Israel can do what it wants today, but without a long-term strategy for peace, stability and mutual respect with its neighbours – including the Palestinians – it may not be able to escape the consequences tomorrow.
