UN aid workers killed in ambush in African state
The convoy, jointly operated by the World Food Program (WFP) and UNICEF, was en route to the war-torn North Darfur city of Al Fashir when it came under fire while parked 80 kilometers away, awaiting clearance, the agencies said in a statement on Tuesday.
'The convoy, made up of 15 trucks, was attempting to reach children and families in famine-affected Al Fashir with life-saving food and nutrition supplies,' they reported.
According to the statement, several trucks were burned and vital humanitarian supplies damaged.
The five victims were Sudanese contractors employed by the UN agencies.
'The United Nations condemns this horrendous attack in the strongest possible terms,' UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric on Tuesday.
The convoy had traveled more than 1,800 km from Port Sudan, which itself has endured drone strikes, in what the UN said would have been the first aid delivery to Al Fashir in over a year.
The ambush follows recent escalations in violence, including a bombing of WFP premises in the city last week and a deadly drone strike on a hospital in the North Kordofan capital, El Obeid.
The African country has been mired in conflict since April 2023, when fighting broke out between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Over 9 million people have been displaced by the war, and humanitarian groups warn that famine and disease are spreading rapidly. According to the UN, at least 1.5 million people are trapped in Al Fashir and its surrounding camps, cut off from sustained aid delivery.
On Tuesday, the UN food agency and UNICEF warned that hundreds of thousands of people in the region, many of whom are children, face a 'high risk of malnutrition and starvation if supplies do not urgently reach them.'
The WFP and UNICEF said that while their teams remain on the ground despite the insecurity, Sudan's warring parties must uphold international humanitarian law and ensure the safety of aid workers.
'Both agencies demand an immediate end to attacks on humanitarian personnel, their facilities and vehicles,' they stated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky should ‘make a deal'
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky should 'make the deal' to settle Kiev's conflict with Moscow, US President Donald Trump has said following three-hour talks in Anchorage with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, their first summit since Helsinki in 2018. In an interview with Fox News on Friday, Trump reflected on 'a very warm meeting,' adding that the sides are 'pretty close' to resolving the conflict. He stressed that Kiev should be on board with the push for peace, for it to have any chance of success. When asked what advice he would give Zelensky, Trump replied: 'Make the deal', adding that he believes that Putin 'wants to see it done.' 'It's really up to President Zelensky to get it done. And I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit,' the US president added. Trump said that he was ready to mediate direct talks between Putin and Zelensky. 'If they'd like, I'll be at that next meeting… Not that I want to be there, but I want to make sure it gets done. And we have a pretty good chance of getting it done.' Both leaders described the meeting as productive, although no agreement on Ukraine was announced. Putin earlier did not rule out direct talks with Zelensky, but stressed that it must be preceded by significant progress on settling the conflict. Moscow has also voiced concerns about Zelensky's right to sign any binding agreements, given that his presidential term expired last year, and that the Ukrainian leader has refused to call a new election, citing martial law. Ukrainian troops have been on the back foot for months, with Moscow making advances in Donbass and elsewhere. Moscow has insisted that any settlement should see Ukraine commit to bloc neutrality, demilitarization and denazification, as well as recognize the new territorial reality on the ground, including the status of Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye Regions, all of which have voted to become parts of Russia.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
War hawk senator threatens US with divine retribution
US Senator Lindsey Graham has spoken out against any weakening of American aid to Israel, claiming the country would face punishment from God if it did so. The Republican senator made the remarks at the 58th annual Silver Elephant Gala, a major party fundraiser held in South Carolina over the weekend. Graham shared his speech on social media on Wednesday, in which he showered praise on Israel for purportedly abstaining from committing 'genocide' in Gaza. 'Israel is our friend. They are the most reliable friend we have in the Middle East. They are a democracy, surrounded by people who would cut their throats if they could,' Graham claimed. He added that weakening support to Israel would result in divine punishment for the US. If America pulls the plug on Israel, God will pull the plug on us. The remarks come shortly after Israel announced a plan to occupy Gaza City, one of the few areas of the Palestinian enclave that the Israeli military does not control. The scheme, touted by Israel as a roadmap to 'concluding the war' with the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which has been dragging on for nearly two years, has received an overwhelmingly negative reaction in the West. The occupation plan has been condemned by multiple international organizations and countries, although the US has effectively provided no reaction to the announcement. Shortly before the plan was unveiled, US President Donald Trump said it was 'pretty much up to Israel' whether to fully occupy the enclave. Graham, a strong longtime backer of Israel, had previously called for a full occupation of Gaza, insisting that there was no other resolution to the hostilities to satisfy West Jerusalem. 'They're going to do in Gaza what we did in Tokyo and Berlin: take the place by force and start over again,' Graham said in late July, suggesting that Washington, a mediator in the stalled Israel-Hamas peace process, actually believed that there was no way 'to negotiate an end of this war' either.
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Russia Today
Why Putin and Trump had to talk in person
The meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States in Alaska is not an end point, but the beginning of a long journey. It will not resolve the turbulence that has gripped humanity – but it matters to everyone. In international politics, there have been few moments when meetings between the leaders of major powers have decided questions of universal importance. This is partly because situations requiring attention at such a level are rare. We are living through one now: since the start of Russia's military operation against Ukraine, Washington has declared its aim to be the 'strategic defeat' of Russia, while Moscow has challenged the West's monopoly over world affairs. Another reason is practical. Leaders of the world's most powerful states do not waste time on problems that can be solved by subordinates. And history shows that even when top-level meetings do occur, they rarely change the overall course of international politics. It is no surprise, then, that the Alaska meeting has been compared to famous encounters from the past – notably the 1807 meeting between the Russian and French emperors on a raft in the Neman River. That summit did not prevent Napoleon from attacking Russia five years later – an act that ultimately brought about his own downfall. Later, at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, Russia was the only power represented by its ruler on a regular basis. Tsar Alexander I insisted on presenting his personal vision for Europe's political structure. It failed to win over the other great powers, who, as Henry Kissinger once noted, preferred to discuss interests rather than ideals. History is full of high-level talks that preceded war rather than preventing it. European monarchs would meet, fail to agree, and then march their armies. Once the fighting ended, their envoys would sit down to negotiate. Everyone understood that 'eternal peace' was usually just a pause before the next conflict. The 2021 Geneva summit between Russia and the US may well be remembered in this way – as a meeting that took place on the eve of confrontation. Both sides left convinced their disputes could not be resolved at the time. In its aftermath, Kiev was armed, sanctions were readied, and Moscow accelerated military-technical preparations. Russia's own history offers parallels. The most famous 'summit' of ancient Rus was the 971 meeting between Prince Svyatoslav and Byzantine Emperor John Tzimiskes, following a peace treaty. According to historian Nikolay Karamzin, they 'parted as friends' – but that did not stop the Byzantines from unleashing the Pechenegs against Svyatoslav on his journey home. In Asia, traditions were different. The status of Chinese and Japanese emperors did not permit meetings with equals; such encounters were legally and culturally impossible. When the modern European 'world order' was created – most famously in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia – it was not through grand encounters of rulers but through years of negotiations among hundreds of envoys. By then, after 30 years of war, all sides were too exhausted to continue fighting. That exhaustion made it possible to agree on a comprehensive set of rules for relations between states. Seen in this historical light, top-level summits are exceedingly rare, and those that produce fundamental change are rarer still. The tradition of two leaders speaking on behalf of the entire global system is a product of the Cold War, when Moscow and Washington alone had the ability to destroy or save the world. Even if Roman and Chinese emperors had met in the third century, it would not have transformed the fate of the world. The great empires of antiquity could not conquer the planet in a single war with each other. Russia – as the USSR before it – and the United States can. In the last three years, they have often stood on the brink of a path from which there would be no return. This is why Alaska matters, even if it does not yield a breakthrough. Summits of this kind are a creation of the nuclear age. They cannot be treated as just another bilateral meeting between important states. The very fact of direct negotiations is a measure of how close or far we are from catastrophe. The United States will arrive at the summit as the leader of a Western bloc whose members – even nuclear powers such as Britain and France – defer to Washington on strategic questions. Russia, for its part, will be watched closely by what is often called the 'global majority': dozens of states across Asia, Africa, and Latin America that resent Western dominance but cannot overturn it alone. These countries know that US mediation in local conflicts will not change the fact that the structure of that dominance remains unjust. Could Alaska lay the foundation for a new international order? Probably not. The very concept of a fixed 'order' is fading. Any order requires an enforcing power – and none exists today. The world is moving toward greater fluidity, to the frustration of those who crave neat arrangements and predictable futures. Even if a new balance of power emerges, it will not come from one meeting. The wartime summits of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin are not a fair comparison. Those were preceded by the most destructive battles in human history. Fortunately, we are not in that situation now. The likely outcome in Alaska is the start of a long and difficult process, rather than an immediate settlement. But it is still of fundamental importance. In today's world, only two states possess vast nuclear arsenals capable of ending human civilization. This alone means that the leaders of Russia and the United States have no more important duty than to speak directly to one another – especially when they are, for now, the only invincible powers at the edge of the article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.
