

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

States convening at the United Nations for a high-level meeting on
Sudan on September 24, 2010, should press Sudanese authorities to ensure
that the forthcoming referendum on southern independence is free of the
human rights violations that marred the April elections, Human Rights
Watch said today.
More than 30 nations and international organizations are expected to
attend the meeting, convened by the UN secretary-general to coincide
with the annual General Assembly meetings. Delegates are expected to
express their support for the January 2011 referendum, which will
determine whether Southern Sudan remains part of Sudan or secedes and
becomes an independent nation.
"The delegates at the Sudan meeting should do more than confirm that
the referendum will happen on time," said Rona Peligal, Africa director
at Human Rights Watch. "This is also a prime opportunity for them to
insist on better human rights conditions in Sudan."
The April elections and the upcoming referendum for southern
independence are milestones in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement,
which ended 22 years of civil war in which an estimated 2 million people
lost their lives.
Human Rights Watch remains concerned about impunity for human rights
violations by security forces across Sudan, restrictions on civil and
political rights, and the treatment of minority groups throughout Sudan.
The two parties to the peace agreement - the ruling National Congress
Party (NCP) and the southern ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement
(SPLM) - should state publicly that they will not expel each other's
minorities in the event of secession, Human Rights Watch said.
The delegates to the September 24 UN meeting should also address the deteriorating situation in Darfur.
"Focus on the southern referendum should not shift attention away
from the ongoing crises in Darfur," Peligal said. "The nations concerned
about the situation in Sudan need to press Khartoum now to end impunity
for ongoing human rights violations in Darfur."
Election-Related Violations
As Human Rights Watch has extensively documented, the national elections in April 2010
were deeply flawed. They were marred by human rights violations,
including restrictions on free speech and assembly, particularly in
northern Sudan. The elections also occasioned widespread intimidation,
arbitrary arrests, and physical violence against election monitors and
opponents of the ruling parties by Sudanese security forces across the
country.
In the period following the elections, the human rights situation
deteriorated further as the ruling party, using the National
Intelligence and Security Services, cracked down on opponents,
activists, and journalists in Khartoum and northern states. Human Rights
Watch documented additional cases of arbitrary arrests of activists in
August and September.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly called on the Sudanese national
government to enact key human rights reforms required under the peace
agreement, such as reforming the repressive national security apparatus.
In Southern Sudan, election-related disputes sparked clashes between
the southern government army, the SPLM, and aggrieved candidates and
other opponents of the southern ruling party. In Jonglei state, for
example, General George Athor, who unsuccessfully ran for governor,
clashed with the southern army on multiple occasions. As of September,
large numbers of the southern army's soldiers were still deployed in
northern Jonglei state where civilians continue to report rape and other
abuses. Soldiers have also conducted violent operations against armed
groups aligned to opponents of the southern ruling party in Upper Nile
state, resulting in human rights violations there.
Both national and Southern Sudanese authorities should hold their
security forces accountable for human rights violations that occurred
during and after the elections, Human Rights Watch said.
Civil and Political Rights Threatened
Although the head of the national security service in early August
lifted pre-print censorship, other restrictions on political expression
remain in place. During research in Sudan in August, Human Rights Watch
found that both in the northern states, where authorities support the
continued unity of Sudan, and in Southern Sudan, where authorities
support southern secession, journalists and civil society are not free
to speak openly about any opposition to the prevailing sentiment.
Human Rights Watch also found increased anxiety over the citizenship
rights of southerners living in Khartoum and elsewhere in northern
states. Southerners living throughout Sudan will be eligible to vote in
the referendum. The vast majority of them live in Southern Sudan, but an
estimated 1.5 million live in Khartoum and other northern towns, many
in settlements for displaced persons.
In recent months, officials in the northern ruling party have
publicly threatened that southerners may not be able to stay in the
north in the event of a secession vote. Both southerners in the north
and northerners living in Southern Sudan told Human Rights Watch that
they feared retaliation, even expulsion, if secession were approved.
International standards protect people from arbitrary or
discriminatory removal or deprivation of their nationality. The Sudanese
authorities should publicly pledge that no one will be at risk of
statelessness, or risk losing enjoyment of other basic rights, as a
result of the outcome of the referendum.
"The UN meeting provides a perfect opportunity for the parties to
declare there will be no expulsions of southerners from the north, or
northerners from the south," Peligal said.
Impasse at Abyei
Delegates at the UN meeting this week should also press the two parties
to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to make it an urgent priority to
resolve the political impasse over Abyei, the oil-rich area along the
north-south border where northern and southern forces clashed in 2008. The issue remains a key flashpoint for further conflict and human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said.
"The situation in Abyei could easily deteriorate and lead to more
conflict without a concerted effort to protect civilians and defuse
tensions on the ground," Peligal said.
Under the peace agreement, the area is to hold its own parallel
referendum in January 2011 to decide whether it will belong to the north
or south, but the parties have made no progress in agreeing on the
arrangements for this vote or in taking steps to resolve differences
between local populations and protect their rights, as Human Rights
Watch documented in August.
The United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), which has a mandate to
protect civilians, should increase its patrols throughout Abyei and
other key volatile areas along the north-south border, and Sudanese
authorities should ensure peacekeepers' access to these areas, Human
Rights Watch said.
Abuses by Soldiers in Southern Sudan
The Sudanese government and international supporters should not ignore
human rights violations by security forces in Southern Sudan, where
election-related grievances have provoked human rights violations by the
southern government's soldiers in the months following the April vote,
Human Rights Watch said.
In northern Jonglei and Upper Nile states, for example, Human Rights
Watch documented killings and rapes committed by these soldiers in June
and July. The soldiers targeted civilians whom they accused of
supporting "renegade" commanders and local militia groups who opposed
the southern ruling party.
In Upper Nile state, the governing party's troops conducted
particularly violent operations against a militia group allegedly linked
to SPLM-DC, a breakaway political party led by Lam Akol. In one
village, a 60-year-old woman told Human Rights Watch that soldiers had
rounded up her son and three friends, tied their hands behind their
backs, and shot them dead.
"These incidents underscore the urgent need for the southern
government to instruct soldiers on their human rights obligations and to
hold them accountable for all violations," Peligal said.
Human Rights Watch also urged human rights personnel for the UN
mission to monitor and report on these abuses and to press the southern
armed force to strengthen its accountability mechanisms before the
referendum. International donors engaged in reforming the security
sector in Southern Sudan should include accountability and human rights
in their programs.
The Government of Southern Sudan has, appropriately, put the southern
police forces in charge of referendum security, rather than soldiers
who have been responsible for abuses, Human Rights Watch said.
Protect Civilians and Insist on Justice for Crimes in Darfur
Human Rights Watch also urged the international delegates to ensure
stronger protection of civilians from ongoing violence and rights abuses
in Darfur, Human Rights Watch said.
The delegates should insist that those wanted by the International
Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
genocide allegedly committed in Darfur appear in The Hague to face the
charges against them. President Omar al-Bashir; Ahmed Haroun, the
country's former minister for humanitarian affairs and current governor
of Southern Kordofan state; and Ali Kosheib, a "Janjaweed" militia
leader whose real name is Ali Mohammed Ali, are all subject to arrest
warrants by the ICC.
The situation in Darfur has deteriorated in recent months, and the Sudanese government continues to carry out armed attacks on rebel factions and civilians.
In early September, for example, armed militias (some wearing
military uniforms) on camels and horses and in vehicles mounted with
guns killed 37 people in an attack on a market in North Darfur. The
UN-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID), which is
charged with protecting civilians and has a base 15 kilometers away at
Tawila, turned back in its first effort to reach the site on the advice
of a pro-government armed group and did not reach the market until
nearly a week after the attack.
The incident underscores the need for the peacekeeping operations to
interpret its protection mandate robustly and to insist on immediate
access to areas where violations occur, Human Rights Watch said.
Violence has also increased inside camps for people who have been
displaced by the conflict. At Kalma camp in South Darfur and at Hamadiya
camp in West Darfur, tensions in July between supporters and opponents
of peace talks, known as the Doha peace process, led to violence,
killing 11 people.
The impact of the fighting between armed groups in Darfur and of
government attacks on civilians has not been fully documented, in part
because the government and rebels have repeatedly denied peacekeepers
and humanitarian aid groups access to affected areas. Following violence
in Kalma camp, for example, the Sudanese government blocked
humanitarian organizations from the camp for several weeks.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly urged leaders of the peacekeeping
operation to increase human rights monitoring and public reporting and,
where necessary, issue statements pressing Sudanese authorities to end
specific abuses.
In September, the Sudanese government endorsed a new security and
development strategy for Darfur, which the peacekeepers have publicly
supported. The plan envisions the return of displaced people to their
homes, but it does not contain clear measures to ensure their returns
are voluntary, or that militias are disarmed and soldiers held
accountable, Human Rights Watch said.
"Darfur cannot be developed unless there is real security," Peligal
said. "The international actors need to press the Sudanese government to
immediately end attacks on civilians, let humanitarian groups and
peacekeepers operate effectively, and send people home only when they
want. The government also needs to bring to justice those who have
committed abuses in Darfur, including by cooperating with the
International Criminal Court."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Democrats have no obligation to support a bill that not only funds the dystopian scenes we are seeing in Minneapolis but will allow DHS to replicate that playbook of brutality in cities all over this country."
As congressional negotiators on Tuesday released a proposed spending bill for the US Department of Homeland Security, with the January 30 funding deadline rapidly approaching, critics of President Donald Trump's deadly immigration operations renewed calls for Democrats to oppose any new money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"You can't count on Dem leadership to do much, but you can for sure trust these warriors for democracy to hustle like hell to pass a bipartisan deal to fully fund the Gestapo currently attacking our cities, rather than using this one moment of leverage to try to stop them. Bravo!" quipped progressive organizer Aaron Regunberg on social media.
Since an immigration agent fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis earlier this month, congressional Democrats have faced mounting pressure to significantly rein in DHS and its agencies, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). While some progressive lawmakers have embraced such calls, neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has shown serious interest in using the appropriations process to that end.
Both Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) tried to frame the DHS bill released on Tuesday as taking "several steps in the right direction," in the words of DeLauro, who also acknowledged that "it does not include broader reforms Democrats proposed."
"I understand that many of my Democratic colleagues may be dissatisfied with any bill that funds ICE. I share their frustration with the out-of-control agency," DeLauro said, while also stressing that the bill "is more than just ICE." She specifically pointed to funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security Administration, and the US Coast Guard.
As a bill summary from Murray's office states, the legislation funds those and "other critical programs Americans count on" while cutting "funding for CBP by $1.3 billion relative to fiscal year 2025, providing $18.3 billion in total."
It also "flat-funds ICE at $10 billion, preventing any growth to ICE's annual budget, and it cuts ICE's enforcement and removal budget," the document details. "The bill provides $949 million (-15%) less in funding for ICE enforcement and removal operations than House Republicans' and $708 million (-11%) less than Senate Republicans’ proposed bills—and $114 million less than the fiscal year 2025 level."
After the murder of Renee Nicole Good, some influential Democrats seem to finally be willing to throw down. They're saying they'll vote NO on the upcoming DHS funding bill.Email and call your Senators right now. Tell them to block funding for ICE!!!www.fightforthefuture.org/actions/no-f...
[image or embed]
— Evan Greer (@evangreer.bsky.social) January 20, 2026 at 11:20 AM
Taking aim at the DHS secretary, Murray said in a statement that "what we have seen from Kristi Noem's Department of Homeland Security is frankly sick and un-American. ICE is out-of-control, terrorizing people, including American citizens, and actively making our communities less safe."
Sometimes, when members of Congress can't strike a deal before a funding deadline, they'll pass a continuing resolution that provides short-term funding to prevent a federal government shutdown and keep up negotiations. However, Murray suggested in a Tuesday statement that a CR is not a viable option because of the $75 billion for ICE included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Trump signed last July.
"ICE must be reined in, and unfortunately, neither a CR nor a shutdown would do anything to restrain it, because, thanks to Republicans, ICE is now sitting on a massive slush fund it can tap whether or not we pass a funding bill," Murray said. "The suggestion that a shutdown in this moment might curb the lawlessness of this administration is not rooted in reality: Under a CR and in a shutdown, this administration can do everything they are already doing—but without any of the critical guardrails and constraints imposed by a full-year funding bill."
Murray also nodded to Republican control of Congress that the November midterms, arguing that "the hard truth is that Democrats must win political power to enact the kind of accountability we need... "If you believe that we should be putting more of our taxpayer dollars towards healthcare and that our immigration enforcement should be focused on actual criminals instead of tear-gassing American children, then we need to speak up again and again—and we must take our fight to the ballot box."
Other Democrats in Congress swiftly rejected the proposal. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said that it "puts no meaningful constraints on the growing lawlessness of ICE, and increases funding for detention over the last appropriations bill passed in 2024."
"I understand Democrats in these negotiations had a hard job—no new budget for DHS is going to cure all the rampant illegality happening within the department. But this bill doesn't put CBP agents back at the border where they belong and doesn't put checks on ICE’s out-of-control arrest and enforcement operations," he explained. "Democrats have no obligation to support a bill that not only funds the dystopian scenes we are seeing in Minneapolis but will allow DHS to replicate that playbook of brutality in cities all over this country."
The leadership of the nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus last week vowed to "oppose all funding" for US immigration enforcement in any upcoming appropriations bills without substantial reforms. CPC Chair Emerita Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) made her personal opposition to Tuesday's proposal clear, declaring that "it simply does not meet the moment we face in this country with the lawlessness" of ICE and CBP agents.
"We have seen ICE and DHS descending on cities across this country, racially profiling, and rounding up immigrants and US citizens alike—many of whom have committed no crimes," said Jayapal, an immigrant herself. "We have watched in horror as they have dragged people out into the snow and as they have shot and killed US citizens. As they foment this terror and chaos on our streets, 37 people have died in ICE custody since Trump came back to office."
"Meanwhile, across the country, over 70,000 people are being incarcerated in immigration jails run by private, for-profit prison contractors and being denied due process and bond hearings in Trump's mass detention effort that dozens of judges have said is not lawful," she stressed. "All of this is dangerous—not just for immigrants but for every single American worried about the erosion of Constitutional rights."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one of several Democrats expected to run for president in 2028, also spoke out against the bill, telling NBC News that "it is a surrender to Trump's lawlessness. I will be a strong no and help lead the opposition to it."
The progressive group Indivisible has urged voters across the country "to light a fire under Democrats to demand they use their leverage on the DHS appropriations bill to rein in ICE and deny the Trump regime one penny more for its mass deportation machine."
"While most Republicans continue to rubber-stamp Trump's atrocities, some are becoming bolder in criticizing ICE's lawlessness and pattern of shredding constitutional protections," notes the group's webpage on reining in ICE. "The louder we are and the more we organize our communities to take action, the harder it will be for Republicans to continue backing Trump's terror campaign."
"Democrats need to stop whining about the limits of minority power and start fighting as hard as their constituents are to stop this regime’s mounting atrocities," the Indivisible page adds. "We're not accepting excuses, and we will hold every member of Congress accountable who chooses complicity and cowardice over courage."
Some critics of recent immigration actions have suggested that any Democrat who still supports funding ICE should be primaried. Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch made that case Tuesday, writing that "the lack of appetite for utterly dismantling the DHS regime—despite its culture of violence and disrespect for law-abiding refugees—reminds too many voters of the cowardice that branded the Dems as losers in the first place."
"Dismantling the ICE regime needs to be the floor, not the ceiling" he added, "and any Democrat in Congress who doesn't get with the program can—and should—be replaced in the primaries to avoided another debacle with alienated or apathetic voters in November."
The MV Sagitta is at least the second Chinese-owned tanker seized during Trump's nearly monthlong "quarantine."
US forces on Tuesday seized a seventh oil tanker in the Caribbean Sea linked to Venezuela as President Donald Trump's military campaign to control the source of the world's largest petroleum reserves continued.
According to US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), troops boarded and seized the MV Sagitta Tuesday morning "without incident."
"The apprehension of another tanker operating in defiance of President Trump’s established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean demonstrates our resolve to ensure that the only oil leaving Venezuela will be oil that is coordinated properly and lawfully," SOUTHCOM said.
The Sagitta is a Liberian-flagged vessel owned and managed by a company in China. It is at least the second Chinese-owned tanker taken by US forces since Trump's announcement last month of a "quarantine" on Venezuelan oil exports. Regional and world leaders have condemned the seizures as acts of "piracy."
International law experts contend that the blockade, sanctions, and strikes on boats allegedly transporting drugs—which have killed more than 120 people—are all illegal, as are the US bombing and invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
The US Department of Justice indicted Maduro for alleged conspiracy to commit narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices, and possession of such weapons. Maduro has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and has called himself a “prisoner of war.”
Actor and activist Mark Ruffalo said that “extreme wealth inequality enabled” President Donald Trump, “and is the root cause of the trend towards authoritarianism we’re witnessing in the US and around the world.”
For years, progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have made the case that the world's richest people wield a dangerous level of influence over US politics—and it turns out that many millionaires agree.
New polling conducted on behalf of Patriotic Millionaires surveyed 3,900 millionaires across the world and found that 77% of them believe that extremely wealthy people are able to buy political influence, with 62% believing that extreme wealth is a threat to democracy itself.
Furthermore, 82% of millionaires surveyed endorsed limits from how much politicians and political parties can receive from individual contributors, while 65% supported higher taxes on the highest earners to invest in public services.
President Donald Trump's second term also received low marks from the millionaires surveyed, with 59% saying he has had a negative impact on global economic stability, and 58% saying that he's hurt US consumers' ability to afford basic necessities.
The poll's release coincided with the sending of an open letter signed by hundreds of millionaires across 24 countries asking world leaders gathered in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum to increase taxes on the ultrawealthy in the name of rescuing global democracy. Trump is set to speak at the event on Wednesday.
"A handful of global oligarchs with extreme wealth have bought up our democracies; taken over our governments; gagged the freedom of our media; placed a stranglehold on technology and innovation; deepened poverty and social exclusion; and accelerated the breakdown of our planet," states the letter. "What we treasure, rich and poor alike, is being eaten away by those intent on growing the gulf between their vast power and everyone else."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, a signatory of the letter, argued that the extreme dangers posted by Trump and his political movement were the direct result of global wealth inequality that has gone unaddressed for decades.
"Donald Trump and the unique threat that he poses to American democracy did not come about overnight," Ruffalo explained. "Extreme wealth inequality enabled his every step, and is the root cause of the trend towards authoritarianism we’re witnessing in the US and around the world."