September, 14 2009, 03:21pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
James L. Phelan, Senior External Relations Officer, ACF-USA
James Phelan
Direct: 212-967-7800 x108
Flooding in Burkina Faso Leaves Tens of Thousands Homeless
ACF responds to assist displaced, restore water and sanitation facilities
OUAGADOUGOU, Burkina Faso
International humanitarian organization Action Against Hunger | ACF International has mounted an emergency response after the heaviest rainfall in almost a century destroyed major parts of Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso. The flooding has affected more than 150,000 people, a third of whom have sought refuge in dozens of temporary shelters throughout the city.
Earlier this month, more than 10 inches of rainfall fell over a 12-hour period, flooding half the capital and leaving tens of thousands of people homeless. The displaced have sought refuge at 88 temporary sites across the city, each housing between 200 and 1500 individuals. Authorities are concerned about outbreaks of disease due to inadequate water and sanitation facilities in the shelters, as the country's current systems are not equipped to deal with an emergency of this proportion.
Action Against Hunger, in collaboration with local authorities and other humanitarian actors, has begun to improve sanitation and provide basic hygiene for 6,000 people affected by the flooding in 12 temporary shelters. With funding from the City of Paris and the French Foreign Ministry, the humanitarian organization will construct latrines, washing areas, and showers, and distribute hygiene kits to the displaced. Action Against Hunger will also monitor water distribution to ensure the availability of a minimum of 15 liters of safe water per person per day, according to international minimum standards in disaster response.
Burkina Faso has experienced the worst torrential rainfall since 1914. The situation is also precarious in neighboring countries, where flooding has affected some 600,000 people.
Action Against Hunger / Action Contre la Faim (ACF), an international relief and development organization committed to saving the lives of malnourished children and families, provides sustainable access to safe water and long-term solutions to hunger. For nearly three decades, ACF has pursued its vision of a world without hunger by combating hunger in emergency situations of conflict, natural disaster, and chronic food insecurity.
LATEST NEWS
Israel's 'Weaponization' of Food Is a 'War Crime': UN
"It is weaponized hunger. It is forced displacement," said one U.N. human rights official. "All combined, it appears to be the erasure of Palestinian life from Gaza."
Jun 24, 2025
After more than 20 months of Israel using a blockade on humanitarian aid as a "method of war," as one leading human rights group said earlier this month, the United Nations human rights office said Tuesday that Israel-backed aid operations have also amounted to a "weaponization of food"—and constitute a war crime.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said at least 410 Palestinians have now been killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) while trying to retrieve food aid from distribution points set up by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a U.S.- and Israel-backed group staffed by U.S. security forces.
The GHF has been opposed by the U.N. and humanitarian groups that have long served Palestinians in Gaza, with advocates warning the group's plan to require civilians to travel on foot across the war-torn enclave to retrieve food boxes at hubs guarded by the IDF violates basic principles of neutrality in humanitarian aid.
Thameen Al-Keetan, spokesperson for the OHCHR, said that after nearly a month in operation, the U.N. has determined that the "militarized humanitarian assistance mechanism is in contradiction with international standards on aid distribution."
"The weaponization of food for civilians, in addition to restricting or preventing their access to life-sustaining services, constitutes a war crime and, under certain circumstances, may constitute elements of other crimes under international law," said Al-Keetan.
The statement came after at least 51 Palestinians were killed at aid sites in the IDF's latest attacks on Tuesday. The killings were among those that brought the total death toll of Israel's assault on Gaza, which has been called a genocide by leading experts and human rights groups, past 56,000.
"Desperate, hungry people in Gaza continue to face the inhumane choice of either starving to death or risk being killed while trying to get food."
While the GHF's food boxes are "leaving unaddressed the critical needs of those who have so far survived," according to the latest update from the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), hundreds of Palestinians have been either "shelled or shot" by the IDF while trying to reach GHF hubs.
Numerous reports have surfaced of Israeli soldiers shooting at crowds of Palestinians when they have deviated from "designated access routes" or moved toward the IDF at GHF distribution points.
At least 3,000 Palestinians have also been injured in attacks while trying to access aid.
"Desperate, hungry people in Gaza continue to face the inhumane choice of either starving to death or risk being killed while trying to get food," said the OHCHR.
Meanwhile, Jonathan Whittall, the head of office in the occupied Palestinian territories for the OCHA, noted that the U.N. and other experienced aid agencies stand ready to provide sufficient humanitarian aid to the enclave's more than 2 million people—1 in 5 of whom were facing imminent starvation last month when the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification released its latest assessment.
"It is weaponized hunger," said Whittall of the current conditions inflicted on Gaza by the Israeli government. "It is forced displacement. It's a death sentence for people just trying to survive. All combined, it appears to be the erasure of Palestinian life from Gaza."
The U.N. and other aid providers currently rely on Israel to facilitate all humanitarian relief missions, and over the weekend, said the OHCHR, only eight out of 16 operations were approved.
"Half of [the missions] were denied outright, hindering the tracking of water and fuel, the provision of nutrition services, and the retrieval of the bodies," said Alessandra Vellucci, director of information services at U.N. Geneva.
Al-Keetan toldReuters that the legal determination regarding whether Israel is guilty of a war crime related to its reported targeting of civilians at aid sites "needs to be made by a court of law."
South Africa has a case pending at the International Court of Justice regarding its allegation that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, as well as as a Hamas commander who is now dead, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The U.N.'s statements on Tuesday came a day after 15 rights groups wrote to the GHF, warning the privatized group that its contractors working with the IDF risk "aiding and abetting or otherwise being complicit in crimes under international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide," and could be liable in a court of law in the U.S. or internationally.
"By obliging starving, exhausted Palestinians to walk long distances through militarized zones, or by effectively forcing them to relocate in order to obtain food and aid under a system overseen by Israeli forces and U.S. private military contractors, the scheme creates an immediate risk of forced displacement that may violate the prohibition on forcible displacement of civilians," said the groups, including Al Haq, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.
"By instrumentalizing humanitarian aid for political or military ends," said the groups, "the scheme risks rendering its participants complicit in collective punishment, the starvation of civilians, and other acts prohibited under customary international law, the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the Genocide Convention."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Haven't Taken a Look at It': Jeffries Blows Off Resolution to Limit Trump's Iran War
"Who is going to primary this guy?" said one critic. "Please. I am begging someone to step up."
Jun 24, 2025
U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries shocked war opponents Monday when he told reporters he had not looked at a bipartisan resolution that would require congressional approval for military action against Iran.
As U.S. President Donald Trump has beat the drums for war with Iran in recent weeks, Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced a resolution to invoke the War Powers Act of 1973, which would require the president to seek congressional approval before taking military action.
The resolution to put a check on Trump's war-making powers in Iran had 59 Democratic co-sponsors. A group of 12 House Democrats—all military veterans, most of whom had not been initial co-sponsors—also voiced their support for the resolution in a letter on Monday. A similar resolution, introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), has gained traction in the Senate.
In a press conference Monday, Jeffries (D-N.Y.) agreed that the Trump administration should "have to come before Congress and explain their justification" for its "offensive military strike" against Iran over the weekend. But when a reporter asked whether he supported Khanna and Massie's resolution, Jeffries brushed off the question.
"I haven't taken a look at it," Jeffries said, before quickly moving to the next question.
The resolution was released six days before Jeffries' comment and is less than 400 words long.
Conflict with Iran is extraordinarily unpopular with the public. A YouGov poll conducted Sunday—hours after Trump announced strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities—found that 85% of American adults, including 92% of Democrats, did not want the U.S. to be at war with Iran.
Jeffries was already facing criticism for what many viewed as a weak response to Trump's push to war. His failure to address the War Powers proposal only fueled that anger.
"Look at my opposition party dawg," wrote independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, who posted the viral clip on social media.
Jeffries' answer quickly drew more angry rebukes from war critics.
"Hey, not like this is an urgent matter with lives on the line. He'll get to it," quippedReason Magazine commentator Zach Weissmueller.
Krystal Ball, the left-wing co-host of the Breaking Points podcast, was dismayed, calling for new Democratic leadership.
"Who is going to primary this guy?" Ball tweeted. "Please. I am begging someone to step up."
She noted that even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—one of the Democratic Party's staunchest defenders of Israel—had also voiced support for using the War Powers Act following Trump's strikes.
Jeffries' response also reignited scrutiny on his support from the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has been one of the strongest advocates for Trump's aggressive actions against Iran.
Commenting on the video, the group Track AIPAC, which monitors donations by pro-Israel lobbyists, shared a graphic showing the large sums Jeffries has received from such groups.
According to OpenSecrets, Jeffries was the top recipient of money from pro-Israel lobbying groups in the House of Representatives during the 2023-24 election cycle, receiving more than $1.1 million. AIPAC was also Jeffries' top contributor.
As Michael Arria wrote for Mondoweiss Monday, many of Jeffries' comments have closely mirrored AIPAC's talking points, including reiterating that U.S. support for Israel is "ironclad" and his claim that Iran "poses a grave threat to the entire free world."
"Many prominent Democrats who have expressed concerns about Trump’s process have effectively endorsed his rationale," Arria wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Incomprehensible': Liberal Justices Blast SCOTUS Decision Allowing Trump to Resume Third Country Deportations
"The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard," wrote Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Jun 24, 2025
The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily lifted a lower court order that had required the Trump administration to give migrants the chance to challenge their deportation to a country other than their nation of origin, clearing the way for resumption of such removals and prompting a strongly worded dissent from the three liberal justices.
The conservative majority behind the ruling did not offer a rationale for the order, but said that the preliminary injunction handed down by a district court judge in April is stayed, pending appeal.
"Totally unexplained Supreme Court ruling on 3rd-country deportations will produce widespread confusion in lower courts. Did the court object to nationwide aspect? Think judges lacked jurisdiction? Something else? Who knows?" wrotePolitico's senior legal affairs reporter Josh Gerstein, offering a prediction of what's to come.
Trump administration efforts to deport immigrants to countries they are not from has become one of the most contentious aspects of U.S. President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration.
In May, the Trump administration put eight men, most of whom are not from South Sudan, on a flight said to be headed to South Sudan, though the flight instead landed in Djibouti. The men have been held in Djibouti since. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy told Trump administration officials that they "unquestionably" violated a court order he issued in April when it attempted to carry out those third-country deportations to South Sudan.
The Supreme Court's order stays that ruling from Murphy issued in April, which directed the Trump administration not to deport immigrants to countries other than their home countries without giving them adequate notice to raise concerns that they might face danger if sent there.
However, "in an order Monday, Murphy said the eight men in Djibouti remain protected from immediate removal despite the Supreme Court's ruling, referencing another order he had issued last month—separate from the one put on hold by the Supreme Court," according to ABC News.
In a blistering dissent, Sotomayor wrote that the ruling exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death" and comes down on the side of the Trump administration even though it had violated the lower court's order. Sotomayor was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson
"The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard," she wrote in her dissent.
"Apparently," she continued, "the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled. That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable."
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the ruling a victory on Monday. "DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them," she said in a statement. "Fire up the deportation planes."
"When you think it can't get worse, it does!" said Jill Wine-Banks, an MSNBC legal analyst, in response to the ruling.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular