Myanmar junta airstrike kills 22 at school: witnesses
The green school building was a shattered husk on Monday afternoon, its metal roof crumpled with gaping holes blasted through its brickwork walls.
Over a dozen abandoned book bags were piled before a pole flying the Myanmar flag outside, as parents chiselled small graves out of the hard earth to bury the shrouded bodies of their children.
"For now 22 people in total -- 20 children and two teachers -- have been killed," said a 34-year-old teacher at the school, asking to remain anonymous.
"We tried to spread out the children, but the fighter was too fast and dropped its bombs," she added. "I haven't been able to collect all the casualty data as parents are in a rush."
An education official from the area of the village in Sagaing region gave the same toll.
The junta information team said reports of the strike were "fabricated news".
"There was no airstrike on non-military targets," it said a statement.
Myanmar has been riven by civil war since the military deposed a civilian government in 2021, with the junta suffering stinging losses to a myriad of anti-coup guerillas and long-active ethnic armed groups.
But the military pledged a ceasefire throughout this month "to continue the rebuilding and rehabilitation process" after the magnitude 7.7 quake in Myanmar's central belt that killed nearly 3,800 people.
'Needs are immense'
Tens of thousands are still living outside after the catastrophic jolt demolished or badly damaged their homes, facing the prospect of the monsoon season starting in the coming weeks.
"The needs are immense," Jagan Chapagain, secretary general of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, told AFP on Monday.
"My worry is that time is not on our side."
The United Nations and independent conflict monitors say the junta has continued its campaign of aerial bombardment despite the armistice meant to alleviate suffering.
Last week, the UN said that since the earthquake more than 200 civilians had been killed in at least 243 military attacks, including 171 airstrikes.
In its ceasefire declaration, the military warned it would take "necessary defensive measures" if pressed by its opponents.
Numerous anti-coup and ethnic armed groups have made own pledges to pause hostilities.
However during the truce some residents in eastern Myanmar said they have been displaced as anti-coup forces besieged junta-held towns on a lucrative trade route towards Thailand.
The March earthquake saw the ground shear up to six metres (20 feet) in places according to NASA analysis -- levelling apartments, opening yawning holes in roads and collapsing one major bridge.
The relief response is also being hobbled by funding shortfalls after US President Donald Trump slashed Washington's international aid budget.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
18 minutes ago
- Euronews
Republican states to deploy hundreds of Guard troops to Washington
Three Republican-led sates said on Saturday that they were deploying hundreds of National Guard members to the nation's capital in an effort to bolster the Trump administration's initiative of overhauling policing in Washington through a federal crackdown on crime and homelessness. West Virginia said it will be deploying between 300 to 400 Guard troops. South Carolina pledged 200, while Ohio says it send 150 in the coming days, marking a significant escalation of the federal intervention. The move came as protesters pushed back on federal law enforcement and National Guard troops in the heavily Democratic city following US President Donald Trump's executive order federalising local police forces and activating about 800 of the capital's National Guard troops. By adding outside troops to the existing Washington Guard deployment and federal law enforcement presence, Trump is looking to exert even tighter control over the city in a power play he's justified as an emergency response to rising crime and homelessness. Local Washington area officials say the move is unjustified as they noted that violent crime is lower today than it was during Trump's first term in office. The Republican governors of West Virginia, South Carolina and Ohio say they're deploying the troops at the request of the Trump administration. West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey said he directed his Guard troops to head to Washington, adding that the state 'is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation's capital.' South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster said he authorised the deployment of his state's National Guardsmen to help law enforcement in Washington at the Pentagon's request. He noted that if a hurricane or other natural disaster strikes, they would be recalled. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said his troops will be sent to 'carry out presence patrols and serve as added security' and that they were expected to arrive in the coming days. His statement said Army Secretary Dan Driscoll requested the troops. Protesters push back on federal crackdown in Washington A protest against Trump's intervention gathered thousands of people on Saturday, who proceeded to march to the White House. Demonstrators rallied behind banners and placards which read 'no fascist takeover of DC'. Protesters were also heard yelling 'no to military occupation'. Morgan Taylor, one of the protest's organisers said they were hoping to spark enough backlash to Trump's actions to force the administration to pull back on its crime and immigration agenda. 'It's hot, but I'm glad to be here. It's good to see all these people out here,' she said. 'I can't believe that this is happening in this country at this time.' Trump's order, which he signed on Monday, declared an emergency due to the 'city government's failure to maintain public order'. The 47th US president said it impeded the federal government's ability to 'operate efficiently to address the country's broader interests without fear of our workers being subjected to rampant violence.'
Euronews
3 hours ago
- Euronews
What is de-banking? How EU, US & UK banks screen their risky customers
Imagine logging into your bank account one morning and finding everything frozen—cards declined, standing orders stopped and your savings untouchable. No fraud alert, no bounced cheque. Just a brief message: 'We are closing your account. Please make alternative arrangements.' This is not a rare nightmare. Around the world, more people and businesses are being 'de-banked'—cut off from basic banking services. In the financial industry, the practice is called 'de-risking' or when banks sever ties with clients or even whole sectors to avoid regulatory or reputational risk. While it might sound like a niche compliance issue, in reality, it sits at the intersection of financial crime prevention, political rights, trade flows and everyday access to money—and the UK, US and EU are taking sharply different approaches to it. The US: Concerns over "woke capitalism"? Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at preventing banks from denying services based on political or religious beliefs. The order bans the use of 'reputational risk' as a justification for closing accounts and directs banking regulators to review practices within 180 days. Supporters say the move protects freedom of political expression and stops discrimination against conservatives, who claim they have been disproportionately targeted. Critics warn it could force banks to keep serving clients engaged in activities that create genuine financial crime or security risks. As with many issues Trump is passionate about, the topic of de-banking in the US was spurred by his personal experiences. He repeatedly accused JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America of refusing his business after his first term as president because of his and his supporters' conservative views. He claims JPMorgan gave him 20 days to close his account and that Bank of America refused a large deposit even though both banks have denied politically motivated action. Another high-profile case was that of the National Council for Religious Freedom (NCRF), an organization founded in 2022 that explicitly backs politicians who support combining politics with religion and vote against bills such as the Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, "because it prohibits religious freedoms." Groups like these, especially if they rise to national prominence quickly and start depositing large sums into their accounts without providing sufficient background or donor transparency, can trigger automatic responses from banks worried about compliance with anti-money laundering regulation and are subject to enhanced monitoring. So when NCRF's accounts at JPMorgan Chase were suspended, it was probably not based on their clients political beliefs. Banks are profit-maximising institutions who aim to serve a wide yet reliable client base—drawing political attention to their work is the stuff of literal nightmares for them, especially banking behemoths like JPMorgan Chase. In a letter, the bank said the closure was due to incomplete compliance documentation—not religious or political reasons. Yet the NCRF used this decision to decry "woke capitalism" and launch a national campaign in the US to limit decisions, including reputational risk, and focus solely on quantifiable risks like credit, operational or compliance issues. The new executive order is cause for headaches for bankers. In practice, lenders may have to review thousands of past account closures, document decisions more extensively and possibly reinstate customers they previously cut off. The UK: Farage, Coutts and public outrage In Britain, the debate was turbo-charged by the 2023 Nigel Farage–Coutts affair. When the high-end bank closed the Brexit campaigner's account, internal documents later revealed the decision factored in his political views. The row became front-page news, prompting government promises to strengthen transparency. From a compliance and commercial standpoint, there are reasons why Coutts' decision may have been well within the norms of risk management. Farage's status as a politician makes him a Politically Exposed Person or PEP under anti–money laundering rules. UK banks are required to apply enhanced due diligence to PEPs, including detailed checks on sources of wealth, closer transaction monitoring and ongoing reassessment of any potential links to corruption or financial crime. That doesn't imply wrongdoing—but it does mean the account demands more resources and carries a higher regulatory burden. For a bank whose value proposition is built on discreet, low-risk relationships, this can tip the cost-benefit balance. Reports at the time suggested that Farage's account had fallen below Coutts' minimum financial thresholds for certain services. When a client no longer meets profitability benchmarks, but still demands high levels of compliance oversight and carries reputational sensitivities, a private bank has strong incentives to part ways. In that light, Coutts' choice looks less like a political purge and more like a calculated alignment of its client book with its risk appetite and commercial strategy. However, that was not the angle that dominated the headlines, and it ended up shaping de-risking and de-banking policy in a significant way in the UK. In 2024, complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service about account closures rose 44% to nearly 3,900, with a higher proportion upheld in favour of consumers. Meanwhile, over 140,000 business accounts were closed in 2023—raising concerns, especially for small businesses and non‑profits. Since then, UK banks must give customers at least 90 days notice before closure and provide more detail on why accounts are terminated. The conversation is still dominated by high-profile, politically sensitive cases—rather than the wider economic and trade implications of de-risking. The EU: Quiet, technical and high stakes By contrast, Brussels has treated de-risking as a long-standing, largely technical policy challenge. For years, EU institutions have issued guidance to safeguard financial inclusion while enforcing anti–money laundering and counter–terrorism financing (AML/CFT) rules. "European Banking Federation (EBF) member banks often find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place: they must comply with stringent AML/CFT requirements—they are required to end relationships with their riskiest clients—yet they are requested to ensure access to basic banking services for legitimate customers," the European Banking Federation told Euronews in a statement. "Hence their de-risking decisions should remain proportionate and risk-based, not indiscriminate bans on entire countries or customer groups," they continued. According to the EBF, most banks in Europe focus on individual, case-by-case de-risking and pay particular attention to 'red flags'. For example, situations where a customer's identity cannot be verified using secure, government-approved ID checks, or any transaction in which they cannot confidently confirm who the person or company really are or who the "beneficial owner" is. For member banks, it is a matter of weighing whether the risks can be reduced enough to comply with regulations and protect the bank's reputation, and whether managing that risk would require more time, money, and effort than the account is ultimately worth. "In the EU, de-risking is increasingly recognised as a significant consumer issue, though it is neither a new concern nor one that fully mirrors the priorities of the Trump Administration," the EBF statement continues. "For years, EU institutions—most notably the European Banking Authority—have issued guidance aimed at safeguarding financial inclusion and ensuring that legitimate customers are not unfairly excluded from the banking system."
LeMonde
7 hours ago
- LeMonde
Zelensky says Russia refusing ceasefire 'complicates the situation'
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia refusing to accept a ceasefire was complicating efforts to end Moscow's more than three-year-long conflict against his country. "We see that Russia rebuffs numerous calls for a ceasefire and has not yet determined when it will stop the killing. This complicates the situation," he said in a social media post late Saturday, August 16. "If they lack the will to carry out a simple order to stop the strikes, it may take a lot of effort to get Russia to have the will to implement far greater – peaceful coexistence with its neighbors for decades." Trump drops Ukraine ceasefire demand after Putin summit The comment comes after Donald Trump earlier on Saturday dropped his push for a ceasefire in Ukraine in favor of pursuing a full peace accord – a major shift announced hours after his summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin yielded no clear breakthrough. Prior to the high-stakes meeting in Alaska, securing an immediate cessation of hostilities had been a core demand of Trump – who had threatened "severe consequences" on Russia – and European leaders, including Zelensky, who will visit Washington on Monday. The shift away from ceasefire would seem to favor Putin, who has long argued for negotiations on a final peace deal – a strategy that Ukraine and its European allies have criticized as a way to buy time and press Russia's battlefield advances. Trump spoke with Zelensky and European leaders on his flight back to Washington, saying afterward that "it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement which would end the war." Ceasefire agreements "often times do not hold up," Trump added on his Truth Social platform. In the call, Trump expressed support for a proposal by Putin to take full control of two largely Russian-held Ukrainian regions in exchange for freezing the frontline in two others, an official briefed on the talks told AFP. Putin "de facto demands that Ukraine leave Donbas," an area consisting of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine, the source said. In exchange, Russian forces would halt their offensive in the Black Sea port region of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in southern Ukraine, whose main cities are still under Ukrainian control. Several months into its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia in September 2022 claimed to have annexed all four Ukrainian regions even though its troops still do not fully control any of them. "The Ukrainian president refused to leave Donbas," the source said. Trump notably also said the United States was prepared to provide Ukraine security guarantees, an assurance German Chancellor Friedrich Merz hailed as "significant progress." But there was a scathing assessment of the summit outcome from the European Union's top diplomat Kaja Kallas, who accused Putin of seeking to "drag out negotiations" with no commitment to end the bloodshed. "The harsh reality is that Russia has no intention of ending this war any time soon," Kallas said. Zelensky back in White House The main diplomatic focus now switches to Zelensky's talks at the White House on Monday. An EU source told AFP that a number of European leaders had also been invited to attend. The Ukrainian president's last Oval Office visit in February ended in an extraordinary shouting match, with Trump and Vice President JD Vance publicly berating Zelensky for not showing enough gratitude for US aid. Zelensky said Saturday after a "substantive" conversation with Trump about the Alaska summit that he looked forward to his Washington visit and discussing "all of the details regarding ending the killing and the war." In an interview with broadcaster Fox News after his sit-down with Putin, Trump had suggested that the onus was now on Zelensky to secure a peace deal as they work towards an eventual trilateral summit with Putin. "It's really up to President Zelensky to get it done," Trump said. "And I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit, but it's up to President Zelensky." European pressure The leaders of France, Britain and Germany are due to host a video call Sunday for their so-called "coalition of the willing" to discuss the way forward. In an earlier statement, they welcomed the plan for a Trump-Putin-Zelensky summit, but added that they would maintain pressure on Russia in the absence of a ceasefire. "We will continue to strengthen sanctions and wider economic measures to put pressure on Russia's war economy until there is a just and lasting peace," the statement said. Meanwhile, the conflict in Ukraine raged on, with Kyiv announcing Saturday that Russia had launched 85 attack drones and a ballistic missile during the night. Back in Moscow, Putin said his summit talks with Trump had been "timely" and "very useful." "The conversation was very frank, substantive, and, in my opinion, brings us closer to the necessary decisions," he said. In his post-summit statement in Alaska, Putin had warned Ukraine and European countries not to engage in any "behind-the-scenes intrigues" that could disrupt what he called "this emerging progress."
