Latest news with #Masalit
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Marco Rubio Makes Wild Claim About Trump's Shady Business Deals
Two years after they led an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden on allegations that the forty-sixth president benefited from his son's business dealings in Ukraine and China, MAGA Republicans have decided that conflicts of interest are no longer worth mentioning—at least with regard to Donald Trump. Testifying before Congress Wednesday, state secretary turned joint national security adviser Marco Rubio claimed that the Trump family's business in the Middle East wasn't anything out of the ordinary for a sitting president, despite the fact that Trump and his relatives appear to be making money hand over fist, thanks to Trump's power over the White House. 'I don't think this is a complicated question. President Trump is personally profiting from a deal with a foreign government while selling weapons to that same government who's enabling a genocide,' said California Representative Sara Jacobs, referring to the United Arab Emirates' 'complicity' in the genocide of the Masalit community in West Darfur. 'Policy aside, do you really think this isn't a conflict of interest?' 'No you're making claims—the president's family owns a business, and they can conduct business anywhere in the world they want,' Rubio said. 'The president never once raised business deals in UAE when talking about—any president would have to have a relationship with the UAE.' But Jacobs pointed out that Trump's business dealings in the Middle East are not passive, as the forty-seventh president has 'retained his ownership' of the companies. He has also continued to intertwine his image with his brands: On his cryptocurrency World Liberty Financial's website, Trump's image is plastered alongside text urging investors to 'shape a new era of finance.' 'It literally says on the website that Mr. Trump and his family members own a 60 percent stake in this company. That's silly,' Jacobs said. 'I'm asking you a very simple question: Do you believe it's a conflict of interest to have a president personally profiting from a deal with a foreign government while selling weapons to that same government who's enabling a genocide?' 'I don't accept the premise of your question,' Rubio replied. 'I think this has nothing to do with personally benefiting from anything. This has to do with the fact that in order to conduct foreign policy in the Middle East, you have to deal with the UAE.' Trump and his businesses have a huge financial stake in the Middle East, especially the UAE. Some of his real estate plans include a Trump-branded golf course in Qatar (as part of a $5.5 billion development project) and a $1 billion Trump hotel and residence in Dubai. Other investments include a $2 billion cryptocurrency stake by an Abu Dhabi firm in World Liberty Financial Coin. The family also revealed in December that it would be expanding its presence in Saudi Arabia, announcing Trump Tower Jeddah. The price tag for the building has not been made public, but one of the developers on the project, Dar Global, compared it to another $530 million Trump Tower in the city, reported Reuters. The president has also come under intense recent scrutiny for accepting a super luxury jumbo jet from Qatari leadership, in an act that was widely interpreted as a foreign bribe, including by longtime supporters of the president's agenda, such as far-right influencers Ben Shapiro and Laura Loomer. It was one of the most lavish gifts ever bestowed on a U.S. president. Accepting gifts from foreign governments is a blatant violation of the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause, so in an effort to circumvent that, Trump has claimed that the plane is instead a donation to the Department of Defense. But his reported plans to shift ownership of the aircraft to his presidential library shortly before exiting office would effectively make that excuse null and void.
L'Orient-Le Jour
08-05-2025
- Politics
- L'Orient-Le Jour
How the Sudanese army reached a breaking point with the Emirates
Entering the third year of a brutal civil war involving numerous foreign actors, Sudan reached a breaking point with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), accused of arming and financing the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). This week, Khartoum took its most decisive action in this regard, having already expelled 15 Emirati diplomats in December 2023, a few months after the war began. On Tuesday, May 6, the Sudanese Sovereignty Council announced it was breaking diplomatic relations with Abu Dhabi, citing the Emiratis' "direct support" to paramilitary forces and labeling the country as an "aggressor state." This decision came just one day after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared itself incompetent to hear Sudan's complaint against the United Arab Emirates for complicity in genocide against the Masalit...
Straits Times
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
World court says lacks jurisidiction to rule on Sudan's genocide case against UAE
Delegates attend a hearing at the International Court of Justice for a case brought by Sudan to the World Court demanding emergency measures against the UAE and accusing the Gulf state of violating obligations under the Genocide Convention by arming paramilitary forces, in The Hague, Netherlands, April 10, 2025. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw/File Photo THE HAGUE - The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Monday said it can not rule on Sudan's case accusing the United Arab Emirates of fueling genocide in Darfur by supplying weapons to paramilitary forces, saying it lacked jurisdiction. Sudan had argued before the U.N.'s top court last month that the UAE was violating the Genocide Convention by supporting paramilitary forces in Darfur, but the UAE said the case should be thrown out. The court on Monday said it could not judge the case against the UAE, rejected Sudan's request for emergency measures and ordered the case be removed from its docket. Due to the lack of jurisdiction "the court is precluded by its statute from taking any position on the merits of the claims made by Sudan," a summary of the ruling said. Sudan said on Tuesday that the ruling of a lack of jurisdiction does not absolve the UAE of genocide allegations and pledged to pursue all legal avenues to protect its people and state. The UAE hailed the ruling as a legal victory. "This decision is a clear and decisive affirmation of the fact that this case was utterly baseless. The court's finding that it is without jurisdiction confirms that this case should never have been brought," Reem Ketait, deputy assistant minister for political affairs at the UAE's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. "The facts speak for themselves: the UAE bears no responsibility for the conflict in Sudan. On the contrary, the atrocities committed by the warring parties are well-documented." By a vote of 14-to-two, the court threw out Sudan's request for emergency measures to prevent genocidal acts against the Masalit tribe, which has been the focus of intense ethnic-based attacks by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces and allied Arab militias. Sudan accuses the UAE of arming the RSF, which has been fighting the Sudanese army in a two-year-old civil war. The UAE denies the charge but some U.N. experts and U.S. lawmakers have found it credible, citing evidence in reports by human rights organisations on the supply of weapons. The latest report by a U.N. panel of experts published in April did not mention the UAE except to refer to its involvement in peace talks in Sudan. The ICJ is the U.N.'s highest court that deals with disputes between states and violations of international treaties. Sudan and the UAE are both signatories of the 1948 Genocide Convention. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Saudi Gazette
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Saudi Gazette
Top UN court rejects Sudan's bid to sue UAE for genocide
THE HAGUE — The UN's top court has dismissed Sudan's case against the UAE accusing the Gulf state of complicity in genocide. Sudan alleged the UAE supported the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the Sudanese civil war, in which tens of thousands of people have died, forced millions from their homes and left many facing famine. The UAE categorically denied the accusations, branding the case "political theatre" and "a cynical publicity stunt". The International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the case could not proceed because the UAE had opted out Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, which means that it cannot be sued by other states over genocide allegations. The court said that it lacked jurisdiction and was therefore "precluded by its statute from taking any position on the merits of the claims made by Sudan". The case was thrown out in a 14-2 vote. Sudan case had claimed that the UAE's alleged military, financial and logistical backing of the RSF — including weapons shipments and mercenary recruitment — enabled systematic attacks against non-Arab communities, particularly the Masalit, in Darfur. The allegations included mass killings, forced displacement and the use of sexual violence as a weapon. Reem Ketait, the UAE's deputy assistant minister for political affairs, said the court's decision was "clear and decisive". "The international community must focus urgently on ending this devastating war and supporting the Sudanese people, and it must demand humanitarian aid reaches all those in need," she said. Both the Sudanese army and the RSF have been accused of committing atrocities, including ethnically targeted killings, obstruction of humanitarian relief and looting. Sudan's case at the ICJ was unusual because it targeted an alleged sponsor of atrocities, not the direct perpetrators. The case was seen as a test of whether states can be held responsible for fuelling atrocities abroad. While the ICJ's judges found they did not have the power to rule in the case, it nevertheless serves as a powerful illustration of how international courts are becoming diplomatic battlegrounds. — BBC
Qatar Tribune
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Qatar Tribune
ICJ dismisses Sudan's case against UAE
The top United Nations court has dismissed a case brought by Sudan accusing the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of breaching the UN Genocide Convention by arming and funding the rebel paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in Sudan's deadly civil war. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) said on Monday that it 'manifestly lacked' the authority to continue the proceedings and threw out the case. While both Sudan and the UAE are signatories to the 1948 Genocide Convention, the UAE has a carveout to the part of the treaty that gives The Hague-based court jurisdiction. In March, Sudan asked the ICJ for several orders, known as provisional measures, including telling the UAE to do all it can to prevent the killing and other crimes targeting the Masalit people in Darfur. The UAE called the filing a publicity stunt and, in a hearing last month, argued the court had no jurisdiction. The court on Monday agreed with the UAE's arguments, rejected Sudan's request for emergency measures and ordered the case be removed from its docket. Due to the lack of jurisdiction, 'the court is precluded by its statute from taking any position on the merits of the claims made by Sudan', a summary of the ruling said. The UAE hailed it as a legal victory. (Agencies)
