

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.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."