Latest news with #ArmedConflictLocation&EventData
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Data fail to support Trump's justifications for latest travel ban
The Trump administration on Wednesday announced travel restrictions targeting 19 countries in Africa and Asia, including many of the world's poorest nations. All travel is banned from 12 of these countries, with partial restrictions on travel from the rest. The presidential proclamation, entitled "Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats," is aimed at "countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries." In a video that accompanied the proclamation, President Donald Trump said, "The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted." The latest travel ban reimposes restrictions on many of the countries that were included on travel bans in Trump's first term, along with several new countries. But this travel ban, like the earlier ones, will not significantly improve national security and public safety in the United States. That's because migrants account for a minuscule portion of violence in the United States. And migrants from the latest travel ban countries account for an even smaller portion, according to data that I have collected. The suspect in Colorado, for example, is from Egypt, which is not on the travel ban list. As a scholar of political sociology, I don't believe Trump's latest travel ban is about national security. Rather, I'd argue, it's primarily about using national security as an excuse to deny visas to non-White applicants. Terrorism and public safety In the past five years, the United States has witnessed more than 100,000 homicides. Political violence by militias and other ideological movements accounted for 354 fatalities, according to an initiative known as the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, which tracks armed conflict around the world. That's less than 1% of the country's homicide victims. And foreign terrorism accounted for less than 1% of this 1%, according to my data. The Trump administration says the United States cannot appropriately vet visa applicants in countries with uncooperative governments or underdeveloped security systems. That claim is false. The State Department and other government agencies do a thorough job of vetting visa applicants, even in countries where there is no U.S. embassy, according to an analysis by the CATO Institute. The U.S. government has sophisticated methods for identifying potential threats. They include detailed documentation requirements, interviews with consular officers and clearance by national security agencies. And it rejects more than 1 in 6 visa applications, with ever-increasing procedures for detecting fraud. The thoroughness of the visa review process is evident in the numbers. Authorized foreign-born residents of the United States are far less likely than U.S.-born residents to engage in criminal activity. And unauthorized migrants are even less likely to commit crimes. Communities with more migrants -- authorized and unauthorized -- have similar or slightly lower crime rates than communities with fewer migrants. If vetting were as deficient as Trump's executive order claims, we would expect to see a significant number of terrorist plots from countries on the travel ban list. But we don't. Of the 4 million U.S. residents from the 2017 travel ban countries, I have documented only four who were involved in violent extremism in the past five years. Two of them were arrested after plotting with undercover law enforcement agents. One was found to have lied on his asylum application. One was an Afghan man who killed three Pakistani Shiite Muslim immigrants in New Mexico in 2022. Such a handful of zealots with rifles or homemade explosives can be life-altering for victims and their families, but they do not represent a threat to U.S. national security. Degrading the concept of national security Trump has been trying for years to turn immigration into a national security issue. In his first major speech on national security in 2016, Trump focused on the "dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country." His primary example was an act of terrorism by a man who was born in the United States. The first Trump administration's national security strategy, issued in December 2017, prioritized jihadist terrorist organizations that "radicalize isolated individuals" as "the most dangerous threat to the Nation" -- not armies, not another 9/11, but isolated individuals. If the travel ban is not really going to improve national security or public safety, then what is it about? Linking immigration to national security seems to serve two long-standing Trump priorities. First is his effort to make American more White, in keeping with widespread bias among his supporters against non-White immigrants. Remember Trump's insults to Mexicans and Muslims in his escalator speech announcing his presidential campaign in 2015. He has also expressed a preference for White immigrants from Norway in 2018 and South Africa in 2025. Trump has repeatedly associated himself with nationalists who view immigration by non-Whites as a danger to White supremacy. Second, invoking national security allows Trump to pursue this goal without the need for accountability, since Congress and the courts have traditionally deferred to the executive branch on national security issues. Trump also claims national security justifications for tariffs and other policies that he has declared national emergencies, in a bid to avoid criticism by the public and oversight by the other branches of government. But this oversight is necessary in a democratic system to ensure that immigration policy is based on facts. Charles Kurzman is a pProfessor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
UPI
2 days ago
- Politics
- UPI
Data fails to support Trump's justifications for latest travel ban
A man sells U.S. flags and other national flags in Yangon, Myanmar, on Thursday. A day earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation banning travel from 12 countries, including Myanmar, to the United States. Photo by Nyein Chan-Naing/EPA-EFE The Trump administration on Wednesday announced travel restrictions targeting 19 countries in Africa and Asia, including many of the world's poorest nations. All travel is banned from 12 of these countries, with partial restrictions on travel from the rest. The presidential proclamation, entitled "Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats," is aimed at "countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries." In a video that accompanied the proclamation, President Donald Trump said, "The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted." The latest travel ban reimposes restrictions on many of the countries that were included on travel bans in Trump's first term, along with several new countries. But this travel ban, like the earlier ones, will not significantly improve national security and public safety in the United States. That's because migrants account for a minuscule portion of violence in the United States. And migrants from the latest travel ban countries account for an even smaller portion, according to data that I have collected. The suspect in Colorado, for example, is from Egypt, which is not on the travel ban list. As a scholar of political sociology, I don't believe Trump's latest travel ban is about national security. Rather, I'd argue, it's primarily about using national security as an excuse to deny visas to non-White applicants. Terrorism and public safety In the past five years, the United States has witnessed more than 100,000 homicides. Political violence by militias and other ideological movements accounted for 354 fatalities, according to an initiative known as the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, which tracks armed conflict around the world. That's less than 1% of the country's homicide victims. And foreign terrorism accounted for less than 1% of this 1%, according to my data. The Trump administration says the United States cannot appropriately vet visa applicants in countries with uncooperative governments or underdeveloped security systems. That claim is false. The State Department and other government agencies do a thorough job of vetting visa applicants, even in countries where there is no U.S. embassy, according to an analysis by the CATO Institute. The U.S. government has sophisticated methods for identifying potential threats. They include detailed documentation requirements, interviews with consular officers and clearance by national security agencies. And it rejects more than 1 in 6 visa applications, with ever-increasing procedures for detecting fraud. The thoroughness of the visa review process is evident in the numbers. Authorized foreign-born residents of the United States are far less likely than U.S.-born residents to engage in criminal activity. And unauthorized migrants are even less likely to commit crimes. Communities with more migrants -- authorized and unauthorized -- have similar or slightly lower crime rates than communities with fewer migrants. If vetting were as deficient as Trump's executive order claims, we would expect to see a significant number of terrorist plots from countries on the travel ban list. But we don't. Of the 4 million U.S. residents from the 2017 travel ban countries, I have documented only four who were involved in violent extremism in the past five years. Two of them were arrested after plotting with undercover law enforcement agents. One was found to have lied on his asylum application. One was an Afghan man who killed three Pakistani Shiite Muslim immigrants in New Mexico in 2022. Such a handful of zealots with rifles or homemade explosives can be life-altering for victims and their families, but they do not represent a threat to U.S. national security. Degrading the concept of national security Trump has been trying for years to turn immigration into a national security issue. In his first major speech on national security in 2016, Trump focused on the "dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country." His primary example was an act of terrorism by a man who was born in the United States. The first Trump administration's national security strategy, issued in December 2017, prioritized jihadist terrorist organizations that "radicalize isolated individuals" as "the most dangerous threat to the Nation" -- not armies, not another 9/11, but isolated individuals. If the travel ban is not really going to improve national security or public safety, then what is it about? Linking immigration to national security seems to serve two long-standing Trump priorities. First is his effort to make American more White, in keeping with widespread bias among his supporters against non-White immigrants. Remember Trump's insults to Mexicans and Muslims in his escalator speech announcing his presidential campaign in 2015. He has also expressed a preference for White immigrants from Norway in 2018 and South Africa in 2025. Trump has repeatedly associated himself with nationalists who view immigration by non-Whites as a danger to White supremacy. Second, invoking national security allows Trump to pursue this goal without the need for accountability, since Congress and the courts have traditionally deferred to the executive branch on national security issues. Trump also claims national security justifications for tariffs and other policies that he has declared national emergencies, in a bid to avoid criticism by the public and oversight by the other branches of government. But this oversight is necessary in a democratic system to ensure that immigration policy is based on facts. Charles Kurzman is a pProfessor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's justifications for the latest travel ban aren't supported by the data on immigration and terrorism
The Trump administration on June 4, 2025, announced travel restrictions targeting 19 countries in Africa and Asia, including many of the world's poorest nations. All travel is banned from 12 of these countries, with partial restrictions on travel from the rest. The presidential proclamation, entitled 'Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,' is aimed at 'countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries.' In a video that accompanied the proclamation, President Donald Trump said: 'The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted.' The latest travel ban reimposes restrictions on many of the countries that were included on travel bans in Trump's first term, along with several new countries. But this travel ban, like the earlier ones, will not significantly improve national security and public safety in the United States. That's because migrants account for a minuscule portion of violence in the U.S. And migrants from the latest travel ban countries account for an even smaller portion, according to data that I have collected. The suspect in Colorado, for example, is from Egypt, which is not on the travel ban list. As a scholar of political sociology, I don't believe Trump's latest travel ban is about national security. Rather, I'd argue, it's primarily about using national security as an excuse to deny visas to nonwhite applicants. In the past five years, the U.S. has witnessed more than 100,000 homicides. Political violence by militias and other ideological movements accounted for 354 fatalities, according to an initiative known as the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, which tracks armed conflict around the world. That's less than 1% of the country's homicide victims. And foreign terrorism accounted for less than 1% of this 1%, according to my data. The Trump administration says the U.S. cannot appropriately vet visa applicants in countries with uncooperative governments or underdeveloped security systems. That claim is false. The State Department and other government agencies do a thorough job of vetting visa applicants, even in countries where there is no U.S. embassy, according to an analysis by the CATO Institute. The U.S. government has sophisticated methods for identifying potential threats. They include detailed documentation requirements, interviews with consular officers and clearance by national security agencies. And it rejects more than 1 in 6 visa applications, with ever-increasing procedures for detecting fraud. The thoroughness of the visa review process is evident in the numbers. Authorized foreign-born residents of the U.S. are far less likely than U.S.-born residents to engage in criminal activity. And unauthorized migrants are even less likely to commit crimes. Communities with more migrants – authorized and unauthorized – have similar or slightly lower crime rates than communities with fewer migrants. If vetting were as deficient as Trump's executive order claims, we would expect to see a significant number of terrorist plots from countries on the travel ban list. But we don't. Of the 4 million U.S. residents from the 2017 travel ban countries, I have documented only four who were involved in violent extremism in the past five years. Two of them were arrested after plotting with undercover law enforcement agents. One was found to have lied on his asylum application. One was an Afghan man who killed three Pakistani Shiite Muslim immigrants in New Mexico in 2022. Such a handful of zealots with rifles or homemade explosives can be life-altering for victims and their families, but they do not represent a threat to U.S. national security. Trump has been trying for years to turn immigration into a national security issue. In his first major speech on national security in 2016, Trump focused on the 'dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country.' His primary example was an act of terrorism by a man who was born in the U.S. The first Trump administration's national security strategy, issued in December 2017, prioritized jihadist terrorist organizations that 'radicalize isolated individuals' as 'the most dangerous threat to the Nation' – not armies, not another 9/11, but isolated individuals. If the travel ban is not really going to improve national security or public safety, then what is it about? Linking immigration to national security seems to serve two long-standing Trump priorities. First is his effort to make American more white, in keeping with widespread bias among his supporters against nonwhite immigrants. Remember Trump's insults to Mexicans and Muslims in his escalator speech announcing his presidential campaign in 2015. He has also expressed a preference for white immigrants from Norway in 2018 and South Africa in 2025. Trump has repeatedly associated himself with nationalists who view immigration by nonwhites as a danger to white supremacy. Second, invoking national security allows Trump to pursue this goal without the need for accountability, since Congress and the courts have traditionally deferred to the executive branch on national security issues. Trump also claims national security justifications for tariffs and other policies that he has declared national emergencies, in a bid to avoid criticism by the public and oversight by the other branches of government. But this oversight is necessary in a democratic system to ensure that immigration policy is based on facts. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Charles Kurzman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Read more: 3 ways the government can silence opinions it disagrees with, without using censorship Who are immigrants to the US, where do they come from and where do they live? Removing Cuba from list of countries 'not fully cooperating' over terrorism may presage wider rapprochement – if politics allows Charles Kurzman has received funding for research on terrorism from the National Institute of Justice and the National Science Foundation.
The Guardian
29-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Hedging our bets: the existential questions facing Australia's next government in unpredictable times
The world is a more dangerous place. Global conflicts have doubled over the past five years, according to Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (Acled). In 2024 alone, one person in eight across the world was exposed to conflict: political violence increased by a quarter, by factors worse in countries that held elections. Australian political leaders of all stripes couch it in shared aphorism: the most 'challenging strategic circumstances since WWII'. Violence, of course, never went away. It ebbed in some periods, but the myth of the triumph of liberal democracies and the peace of the post-Cold War era was exactly that. Francis Fukuyama's 'end of history' was a mirage. The 90s, in particular, are sometimes sanctified as a halcyon era of stability and peace. They didn't feel that way if you lived in Rwanda, or in Sri Lanka, or what was then Yugoslavia. But conflict is worsening in 2025. The world is growing more dangerous. The risk of great power conflict - implausible for decades - is 'no longer unimaginable', Australia's intelligence agencies say. The world is more uncertain, more unpredictable. The global order of decades standing is irretrievably broken. Mistrust stalks across domains: defence - Australia's neighbours in the Asia Pacific are bolstering spending, arming themselves against an insecure world; trade - the IMF's world trade uncertainty index is seven times higher than it was six months ago; diplomacy - once-dependable alliances are faltering and fracturing; treaties have been ignored, multilateral institutions undermined and marginalised. Australia stands in the middle, caught between two competing global giants: its 'great and powerful friend' and security benefactor, the US; and an increasingly assertive military power that is also its largest trading partner, China. Whichever party wins government in Australia's federal election this Saturday will face existential questions on Australia's security, on the threats it faces, and on how it understands and navigates its place in an increasingly 'might-is-right' world. Dr Bec Strating, professor of international relations at La Trobe University, says terms like 'uncertain', and 'unprecedented' have been thrown around a little too loosely before. But they are justified now. 'These are really unheralded times for Australia: there are just so many things that we don't know at the moment. What makes this whole thing uncertain and unpredictable is that all options are on the table.' Donald Trump has returned to the White House positing himself as America's, the world's, dealmaker-in-chief. 'And if it's all about deal-making,' Strating queries, 'then is there a possibility that Xi and Trump might actually sit around a table and try to carve up a deal in Asia? A deal that might keep the United States at bay on some of the issues that China is most concerned about, Taiwan or the South China Sea?' Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter Trump's unpredictability, and his lack of a coherent ideological foundation, makes anticipating US actions and reactions all the more difficult, Strating says. It's hard to be an US ally right now. Trump's second administration is far more sycophantic than his first, decisions are dominated by the personality behind the Resolute Desk. 'The character of Trump is really important for thinking about US foreign policy,' Strating argues. 'Trump himself is much more important in the second administration, but he is also wildly unpredictable, you just don't know what he's going to say at any point … what does that unpredictability mean for Australia?' Australia is invested in, and has benefitted from the global rules-based order that emerged from the aftermath of the second world war, an order underpinned by US pre-eminence (even if America didn't always follow the rules). Those decades of predictability have given some parts of the Australian polity a 'romanticised … rose-coloured' view of the US and its beneficence. 'There are these deep assumptions in a lot of Australian thinking, that: one, the United States would continue to support an order based on rules; two, it would continue to be present in our region; and three, if we are a reliable and dependable ally … the US would also similarly be there for us.' Other countries in the region have been far more clear-eyed about the US, Strating says, 'much more realistic, much more skeptical' about US power, and its willingness to deploy it. Southeast Asia, but also Korea, Japan and Taiwan, should be priorities for the new Australian government. Bilateral and multilateral fora – especially those that can function without America – should also be pre-eminent. 'We want to hedge against a dependence on the United States,' Strating argues. 'It doesn't mean abandoning the US alliance, but it does mean avoiding over-reliance.' Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025 Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'If we want to get realistic about Australia's self-reliance, then that is going to require an increase in the defence budget. But at the same time, we can't just rely on defence. As a middle-sized country, it needs to be about knitting together all of the tools of statecraft, including diplomacy.' Aukus – Australia's decades-long $350bn submarine commitment – is a dangerous extension of that reliance on US hegemony, retired Major-General Michael Smith argues. A veteran of three decades in the Australian military, Smith wrote for the Australian Peace and Security Forum, that 'far from making Australia safer, Aukus raises the likelihood of external military threat against us. Rather than being 'protective' Aukus is 'provocative'.' The first pillar of the Aukus agreement, negotiated in secret in 2021, would see Australia buy between three and five nuclear-powered submarines from the US, before the arrival of the purpose-built Aukus submarines at the end of the 2030s. Smith argues Australia's agreement to the deal 'locks Australia in' to US military priorities and strategy, wedding Australian forces to American adventurism, even its self-confessed 'less-advisable wars'. 'It raises the chances of us becoming unnecessarily involved in a war between … two major powers, the United States and China. It's absolutely the worst outcome for Australia.' Aukus, Smith argues, is a dangerous extension of Australia hosting US joint bases on Australian territory: the Pine Gap signals intelligence base in the Northern Territory, the Harold Holt listening station near Exmouth, and Tindal Air base, currently being upgraded to host B-52 bombers, potentially carrying nuclear warheads onto Australian soil. These bases, Smith says, are already 'prime targets' because of their importance to the US capabilities in the region. 'Aukus increases the likelihood of Australia becoming 'collateral damage' in the event of conflict between the US and China. It embeds our force structure even further into US war plans, over which we have very little say.' South-east Asian nations with which Australia needs to deepen relations are ambivalent at best, but mostly hostile to Aukus as an inflammatory pact that will antagonise China and contribute to a regional 'arms race'. Aukus was a poor decision made in secret, absent parliamentary and public consultation, Smith argues. A new government should initiate a public review of the pact. Smith says Australia needs to create a national security strategy – a Coalition campaign commitment – to guide its navigation of an unfamiliar world order. 'We now have to realise that the world is a very different place than it was after World War II … we are now living in a multipolar world with two major powers – the United States and China – and China is the major power now in Asia. There's no getting away from that. 'We need to hedge our future just the way other countries in South-east Asia and the Pacific are hedging their bets. And that means we need to be far more independent rather than locking our Australian defence force into components of the US military.' Australia, in its relative continental isolation, is acutely sensitive to foreign military activity in its region: evident in the breathless political response to Chinese navy live-fire drills in the Tasman Sea, and to Russian overtures for airbase access in non-aligned Indonesia. An emphasis on regional diplomacy was apparent in Albanese's first term: within hours of being sworn in in 2022, Albanese flew to Japan for a meeting of the Quad security grouping (Australia, India, Japan and the US). His first bilateral trip was to Indonesia. But Smith argues Australia has run a 'diplomatic deficit', for a generation, undermining the country's influence and understanding of the region. Australia's new government should make its first overseas trip its four closest neighbours: 'New Zealand, Indonesia, Timor-Leste and PNG in that order'. 'The thing that we need to invest in most is diplomacy,' Smith tells the Guardian. 'By doing that, we're not threatening anybody, we're actually building bridges with everybody.' Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter
Al Jazeera
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Animated maps show two years of war in Sudan
Two years into the war in Sudan, the country remains engulfed in one of the world's largest and fastest-growing displacement crises. Since April 15, 2023, a brutal struggle for power between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commanded by Mohamed Hamdan 'Hemedti' Dagalo, has turned cities into battlegrounds and forced more than 14 million people to flee their homes. In recent weeks, the SAF has taken the capital, Khartoum, and forced the RSF to retreat. From April 15, 2023, to March 28, 2025, at least 11,292 attacks were recorded, averaging 16 per day, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) project. According to it, Sudan's army was behind 50 percent of all recorded attacks (5,615), while the RSF carried out 38 percent (4,291). The remaining 12 percent (1,386 attacks) were attributed to various other groups, including the Darfur Communal Militia, Darfur Arab Militia, Sudan People's Liberation Movement, Twic Clan Militia, and others. These attacks include armed clashes, air or drone strikes, shelling, artillery or missile attacks, looting or property destruction, and remote explosives or landmines. The map below shows the geographical spread and intensity of conflict incidents across Sudan's 18 three-quarters of all attacks have centred around three main regions: Sudan's capital has been the epicentre, with 5,519 attacks, or 49 percent of all recorded incidents. The army maintains its operations in and around the capital, saying it aims to dislodge the remaining RSF positions. Just south of Khartoum, Gezira - Sudan's key agricultural state - has recorded 1,485 attacks, which is 13 percent of total incidents. Once considered relatively stable, it became a key battleground as RSF forces expanded southwards. In North Darfur, the RSF has launched several attacks on displacement camps and local militias. The region has seen 1,388 attacks - 12 percent of the national total. The remaining 26 percent of the fighting has been spread across the country, including: According to ACLED, at least 32,973 people have been reported killed across Sudan, though the actual death toll is likely much higher, especially when accounting for deaths caused by indirect reasons such as the spread of disease, malnutrition, and lack of adequate healthcare. Half of the recorded deaths have occurred in Khartoum and North Darfur, which have the highest casualty rate. After months of rising tensions, on April 15, 2023, heavy gunfire and explosions erupted in Khartoum, a city of 10 million people. Gunfire was heard near key locations, including the army headquarters, the Ministry of Defence, the presidential palace, and Khartoum international airport. By the end of August 2023, attacks reached their highest intensity, with 675 combined attacks recorded. The United Nations reported that one million people had fled the country, and internal displacement had exceeded 3.4 million. Following a brief decline in attacks, violence again intensified in January 2024. By then, the UN reported that eight million people had been displaced by the war as famine loomed across the country. In September 2024, the SAF carried out air raids against RSF positions in Khartoum, its largest assault in months. A slight decline in the frequency of attacks was observed after January 2025. While violence remained concentrated in key regions, there was a brief respite from the intensity of earlier satellite imagery over the past two years, Al Jazeera's fact-checking agency, Sanad, has mapped extensive destruction at Khartoum international airport. Analysis reveals that the conflict has led to the destruction of at least 49 aircraft and severe damage to some 70 airport structures, including runways, infrastructure, and other facilities. The UN says Sudan is facing the world's worst displacement crisis, as the war continues with no end in sight. More than 14 million people have been forced to flee their homes due to the ongoing conflict. Of those, at least 11.3 million people have been displaced within Sudan, according to the latest figures from the International Organization for Migration (IOM). At least three million people have crossed international borders, placing immense strain on neighbouring countries, including Chad, South Sudan, and Egypt. Main regions of origin for displaced people: Main destinations for the internally displaced people:
