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.

Sudanese government and rebel attacks on civilians in Darfur have
dramatically increased in recent weeks without signs of abating, Human
Rights Watch said today. The government of Sudan, its allied forces, and
rebel factions should end abuses against civilians, and concerned
governments - still focused on South Sudan's referendum - should press
for an end to unlawful attacks and accountability for abuses, Human
Rights Watch said.
"While the international community remains focused on South Sudan,
the situation in Darfur has sharply deteriorated," said Daniel Bekele,
Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "We are seeing a return to past
patterns of violence, with both government and rebel forces targeting
civilians and committing other abuses."
On January 25, 2011, Sudanese government air and ground forces fought
rebel troops in and around the town of Tabit, North Darfur. The
fighting reportedly destroyed eight villages and caused thousands of
civilians to flee the area.
At Tabit, and in other clashes in Darfur since early December 2010,
both government and rebel forces carried out targeted attacks on
civilian populations based on their ethnic affiliations, Human Rights
Watch said. The fighting has caused civilian deaths and injuries,
destruction and looting of civilian property, and mass displacement of
tens of thousands of people to displaced persons camps and safe havens.
The renewed fighting began after the Sudanese government severed ties
with the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) rebel faction loyal to Minni Arko
Minawi, who signed the Darfur Peace Agreement in 2006 and was appointed
special adviser to President Omar al-Bashir and head of the Darfur
Transitional Regional Authority. Relations between the government and
Minawi soured in late 2010, resulting in Minawi's dismissal from
government in early December.
According to the United Nations, the violence in December alone
caused 40,000 people to flee their homes. Many are taking refuge near
African Union/United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) bases in Khor
Abeche, Shearia, and Shangil Tobayi.
Sudan has continued to restrict UN and humanitarian agencies from
accessing conflict-affected areas, including Tabit, the site of the
January 25 clash. The government also still bars access to much of
eastern Jebel Mara where, since early 2010, government forces and militias have clashed with the SLA faction led by Abdel Wahid al-Nur,
and attacked civilians from the majority Fur ethnicity. Humanitarian
agencies have also been denied access from the Wada'a and Khazan Jedid
areas, between North and South Darfur.
December Clashes and Attacks in North-South Corridor
Fighting in the corridor between North and South Darfur started
on December 8, when rebels from the Minni Minawi faction of the SLA
ambushed a convoy containing the governor of North Darfur at Shangil
Tobayi on the road to El Fasher, North Darfur's capital. Two government
soldiers and three rebel fighters were killed.
The ambush was possibly in retaliation for comments made by the
North Darfur governor, Youssif Kibir, in a speech delivered at the
graduation ceremony of a group of Popular Defense Forces (PDF) - a
government paramilitary force that fought alongside the Sudanese army
during Sudan's long civil war and throughout the Darfur conflict.
The corridor is strategic for its transport route linking the
North and South Darfur state capitals and for its access routes to the
mountainous region of Jebel Mara, a rebel stronghold dominated by the
Fur ethnic group where there was heavy fighting in 2010 between
government and SLA forces loyal to Abdel Wahid.
In response to the ambush, on December 10 the government began
large-scale attacks on the SLA-controlled area of Khor Abeche and
surrounding villages in South Darfur. The attacks included aerial
bombing by Antonov aircraft, followed by ground attacks led by
government soldiers in more than a dozen military vehicles and hundreds
of militia members on camels and horseback. The attacks killed at least
two civilians, injured dozens, and caused massive damage to civilian
property, particularly that of ethnic Zaghawa, who the government treats
as being linked to the SLA.
Villagers told Human Rights Watch that SLA forces were not in the
area during the government attacks. Under international humanitarian
law, which is applicable in Darfur, armed forces must take all feasible
precautions to ensure that targets of attack are military objectives and
not civilians. Civilians and civilian property may never be
deliberately attacked - those responsible are committing war crimes,
Human Rights Watch said.
A Khor Abeche resident told Human Rights Watch that he saw
government soldiers looting the town's market and beating civilians with
sticks. Among the victims were the man's wife, who sustained injuries
to her head, as well as many other women and children. He said that on
December 11, he saw soldiers shooting into populated areas with mounted
machine guns, injuring more than a dozen civilians and killing two.
A 30-year-old mother of four gave a similar account: "The
soldiers went to the market and started beating the people, including
women and old men, with sticks and the butts of their guns. I was able
to take my children and some clothes and flee. All our remaining things
were completely burned."
The government's looting of the town resulted in more than 60
homes being burned and caused thousands of people to flee the area. Many
sought refuge at the United Nations/African Union mission's compound,
and government forces shot at civilians moving toward the compound,
presumably to prevent them from entering. Government troops positioned
themselves in front of the camp, also in an apparent effort to block
civilians seeking safety.
Attacking civilians and preventing them from seeking safe haven
are serious violations of international humanitarian law. Blocking
civilians from entering the UNAMID compound is also a violation of the
Status of Forces Agreement between the Sudanese government and the UN.
Human Rights Watch urged UNAMID to press Sudan to guarantee the security
of peacekeepers and the civilians who seek their assistance.
Following the attacks on Khor Abeche, the government and various
rebel factions clashed throughout December in numerous areas, causing
further civilian displacement. In mid-December, government forces began a
series of attacks on the town of Shangil Tobayi, which is host to large
displaced populations, and surrounding villages, displacing thousands
more. On December 26, government forces in Land Cruisers and on camels
and horses attacked the ethnic Zaghawa section of the town, killing at
least two civilians. The soldiers also harassed civilians and raped one
16-year-old girl, which required her to seek medical treatment.
At the same time, SLA forces carried out attacks on the ethnic
Birgid communities, whose members are in the Sudanese army and PDF
paramilitary, and are seen as pro-government. Rebel attacks on Jaghara
and surrounding villages caused numerous civilian casualties, said
Birgid and government sources interviewed by Human Rights Watch. In one
incident on December 18, rebel fighters attacked Nigaa and Jaghara,
killing at least eight civilians.
Attack on Displaced Persons Camp
On January 23, heavily armed government forces surrounded and
entered the Zamzam displaced persons camp in North Darfur. They rounded
up and detained 37 people; at least 27 men remain in detention
facilities. Human Rights Watch received reports that the government
forces entered civilian homes, looted properties and beat several
people, killing one man.
The government publicly stated that the operation aimed to
retrieve arms and drugs, and arrest "criminal elements." It did not give
notice to the UN mission, despite requirements in the Status of Forces
Agreement between Sudan and the peacekeeping mission that require
consultation on actions related to displaced persons camps.
Background
The peace process for Darfur has stalled, with government and
rebel factions unable to agree on key terms. In early December 2010, the
SLA's Minawi, who signed the Darfur Peace Agreement in 2006, formally
broke ties with the government after the federal minister of defense,
Ibrahim Mohammed Hussein, said that SLA fighters were "a legitimate
military target." Government forces arrested several of Minawi's cadres
in North and South Darfur, and President al-Bashir dismissed Minawi from
his position in government.
Meanwhile, the government has pursued a new strategy for Darfur,
calling for "domestication" of the peace process, development and
reconstruction, accelerated returns of displaced persons, and
government-provided security across the region. Rebel movements and the
vast majority of displaced communities oppose the plan based on the
continued conflict and lack of security on the ground.
Despite the recent surge in fighting and attacks on civilians,
the head of the UN humanitarian operation in Sudan, Georg Charpentier,
on January 23 said that the security situation in Darfur was improving.
The UN Security Council met on January 26 to discuss peace and security
in Sudan.
The Sudanese government has not carried out its commitments to
disarm militias or improve accountability for past and ongoing human
rights violations. It has yet to prosecute anyone who participated in a
brutal attack on Tabrat, North Darfur in early September that killed
more than 37 civilians. The government has also not taken concrete steps
to carry out the justice recommendations of High-Level Panel of the African Union on Darfur
- the so-called Mbeki panel - which recommended the establishment of
hybrid courts and promoted legal reforms to bring justice to this
troubled region of Sudan.
"President Bashir and the people of Sudan should be congratulated
for holding a peaceful referendum on southern secession, but that
smooth process does not exonerate Sudan's leaders for ongoing abuses in
Darfur," Bekele said. "Concerned governments should urgently and
forcefully press both Khartoum and rebel movements to end their abuses
of civilians in Darfur, grant humanitarian access to affected areas, and
ensure accountability for war crimes."
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 may have enough votes to pass a war powers resolution before the two-week recess, but party leaders have still not committed to doing so, even as the president appears ready for a ground invasion.
Backlash is continuing to grow after US House Democratic leaders made the decision to push off a war powers vote on President Donald Trump's Iran war for more than two weeks, even though they may have the votes to pass it immediately.
With Trump appearing poised to make the deathly unpopular decision to deploy ground troops into Iran within days, momentum around an act to restrict his warmaking capabilities only continues to grow.
Most of the Democrats who killed the last war powers resolution are now reportedly on board. So is Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who emerged from a closed-door House Armed Services Committee briefing on Wednesday saying she was “even more” opposed to boots on the ground than when she entered.
But despite having introduced the resolution himself, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, appeared to get cold feet about bringing it to the floor for a vote before next week's recess, a move which was met with anger and confusion from progressive critics.
A spokesperson for Democrats on the committee told Common Dreams on Wednesday that Meeks was very much committed to passing a bill to "hold President Trump accountable for his reckless war of choice," but that one could not be pursued until April 13, after the recess, because some of the necessary "yes" votes had left Washington.
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim described this as a "pathetic" excuse. "As Trump threatens a ground invasion, Democratic members of Congress are saying they won’t do the one thing they are elected to do: Show up and vote," he wrote on social media.
Additionally, Grim reported on Thursday that Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) had since returned to town. The only Democrat not currently in DC, he said, was Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), who said on Wednesday that his wife was undergoing a routine surgery.
Axios reported on Thursday afternoon that Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) is also absent due to the recent death of his father, and Rep. Jared Golden (Maine), one of the Democrats who opposed the last war powers vote, was still wavering as of Wednesday.
Even with some absences, Republicans are also not at full strength. Assuming that Republican Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Warren Davidson (Ohio) plan to vote yes, as they did in February, there may still be enough votes for the resolution to pass.
When asked by Drop Site reporter Lily Franks on Thursday whether there were enough votes to pass the resolution, Meeks insisted, "We can't win the vote."
"When you see me put the bill on the floor, that means we're going to win," Meeks said sharply. "I know how to count. I know how to do my job."
When Franks pointed out that enough Republicans appeared to be on board, Meeks—continuing to interrupt—told her to "go find out" herself if there were enough votes.
"If only there were some mechanism on the House floor to find out how somebody might vote," Grim quipped in response.
The Democratic spokesperson could not be reached for comment when asked by Common Dreams whether Meeks was now planning to push for a resolution vote before the recess, given that some Democrats have returned to Washington.
Nathan Thompson, a senior policy adviser for Just Foreign Policy, argues that even if Democrats do not have the votes to pass the resolution now, there is no reason not to bring it to a vote.
"Forcing a vote will make House Republicans own an increasingly likely ground invasion," he said in a letter sent to House Democrats on Thursday morning, which was shared with Common Dreams. "Even a vote that falls short will be painful for House Republicans and put real pressure on the Trump administration."
"The attendance excuse doesn't hold," he said. "Members can return by tomorrow to vote, and Republicans aren't at full strength either... An unfortunate scheduling error should not prevent Congress from weighing in at a critical moment in history."
Calls for a war powers resolution on Capitol Hill continued to grow after reports that the Trump administration is mulling several potential ground operations in Iran, potentially as early as Friday.
Axios reported on Thursday that the Pentagon is considering "invading or blockading" Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export hub—and sending American forces “deep inside the interior of Iran” in an effort to seize the country’s enriched uranium.
The concerns about the repercussions of a prolonged war—even for just another two weeks—are broadly shared. Speaking on MS NOW on Thursday, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta warned that serious dangers exist that a short extension of the war could lead to a much more intractable situation.
"If we continue the war," Panetta said, "if we go another 16 days of war and we incur casualties, or they incur serious casualties, then the likelihood is that you're planting the seeds for a more permanent war."
As the risk of a more protracted conflict was magnified on Wednesday, Trump insisted that the US is not at war at all, but is simply waging a "military operation" against Iran.
This has heightened the urgency among many Democrats on Capitol Hill, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
"If it looks like a war, sounds like a war, and costs like a war… It’s probably a war," the former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote on social media Thursday. "Trump is admitting to violating the Constitution. No amount of doublespeak can change that."
"Congress must vote on another war powers resolution," she added.
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios that there was "absolutely" frustration among progressives that Democrats were planning to punt the vote to next month.
Meanwhile, critics are increasingly raising suspicion that Meeks—whom The Lever noted received more than $2.2 million from pro-Israel lobbying groups according to the watchdog group TrackAIPAC—is intentionally dragging out the vote.
A prolonged war and the resulting economic turmoil are brutally unpopular, including among Republicans, and the theory goes that Democrats may seek to let it become an albatross around their opponents' necks in this fall's midterms.
Independent journalist Aída Chávez has emphasized that Meeks held up the previous war powers vote by overinflating the number of Democrats likely to defect, and may have attempted to do so again.
But with Democratic stragglers on board and more Republicans "starting to break," Chávez said: "Democratic leadership can’t keep hiding behind process.
"Bring the Iran war powers resolution to the floor right now," she said.
Thompson of Just Foreign Policy warned Democrats that "failing to force a vote will be noticed and covered in the media," and that "the Democratic base is watching and expects their party to put up a real fight."
"Even if the vote falls short by a couple votes, the members who voted yes will have a powerful record to champion to their constituents," he said. "The members who voted no will have a very difficult record to explain if troops end up being killed and injured on the ground in Iran."
"We hope that in the United States, if justice truly exists, a trial will be held that will lead to President Maduro’s freedom," said one supporter of the Venezuelan leader.
Supporters of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro gathered in both New York and the Venezuelan capital of Caracas on Thursday to demand his release.
Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were abducted by the US military in January and brought to the US to face narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges. The couple have pleaded not guilty to all charges.
As reported by The Associated Press, many demonstrators picketed outside a federal courthouse in Manhattan ahead of a scheduled status hearing for Maduro and Flores, and called for all charges against them to be dropped. A group of counterprotesters, meanwhile, demonstrated in support of the couple's prosecution.
"In a noisy scene, protesters and supporters chanted, blew horns, and beat drums and cowbells," reported the AP. "Among the anti-Maduro contingent, one person waved a sign reading 'Maduro rot in prison.' On the other side of a metal barrier, people held signs reading 'Free President Maduro.'"
Hundreds of demonstrators also gathered in Caracas for a government-sponsored rally demanding Maduro and Flores' return to Venezuela, which has been governed in his absence by acting President Delcy Rodríguez.
One attendee at the demonstration, an 80-year-old retiree named Eduardo Cubillan, told the AP that he hoped for a speedy acquittal of the deposed Venezuelan leader.
"We hope that in the United States, if justice truly exists, a trial will be held that will lead to President Maduro’s freedom," Cubillan said, "because this kidnapping violated international legal principles, and we want justice to be served."
In a social media message, the Embassy of Venezuela to Trinidad and Tobago also expressed solidarity with Maduro and Flores.
"Today, court day, we demand with strength and determination, the immediate release of Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and MP Cilia Flores," the embassy wrote.
During Thursday's court hearing, reported ABC News, Judge Alvin Hellerstein said that he would not dismiss the charges against Maduro and Flores, although he "appeared to wrestle with how to assure Maduro had access to sufficient counsel."
The genetic testing put forward by the committee "fuels suspicion, invites public scrutiny, and puts already vulnerable athletes at risk," said one advocate.
A new policy unveiled Thursday by the International Olympic Committee was presented as a ban on transgender athletes from participating in women's sports—but considering just one transgender woman has participated in the international games since they have been eligible to, critics said the new rules would likely have a greater impact on cisgender women with natural variations in hormones, who have already faced degrading treatment and exclusion in the sports community for years.
IOC president Kirsty Coventry, who campaigned to lead the organization with calls to "protect" women's sports in the Olympics, said that starting with the 2028 Summer Games in Los Angeles, athletes will be required to take a one-time genetics test with the screening using a cheek swab, blood test, or saliva sample.
"Eligibility for any female category event at the Olympic Games or any other IOC event, including individual and team sports, is now limited to biological females," said Coventry, adding that the new policy “is based on science and has been led by medical experts."
The IOC worked with experts to determine how to approach the issue of transgender women in sports, which in recent years has become the subject of talking points for the Republican Party in the US and other right-wing leaders. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last year barring transgender women from competing on women's college sports teams.
The committee conducted a review not just of transgender athletes but of those who have differences in sexual development (DSD), such as being intersex, and compete in women's sports. The review has not been publicly released, but the IOC said it found athletes born with male sexual markers had physical advantages even if they were receiving treatment to reduce testosterone.
The IOC had previously allowed transgender athletes to participate in the Olympic Games if they were reducing their testosterone levels. In 2021, a weight lifter from New Zealand, Laurel Hubbard, became the first transgender women to compete at the Olympics after transitioning.
Boxers including Lin Yu-Ting of Taiwan and Imane Khelif of Algeria have been subject to scrutiny and genetic testing regarding their sex; Lin was recently cleared to participate in World Boxing events in the female category. Both competed in the 2024 Olympics in Paris and won gold medals.
Khelif has said she naturally has the SRY gene that the IOC's screening would test for, and that she has naturally high levels of testosterone.
Under the IOC ruling, athletes who do not have the typical female XX sex chromosomes and have DSD will also be banned from competing. People with DSD are not always aware of their status.
South African runner Caster Semenya, who has a rare genetic trait giving her elevated levels of testosterone, was subjected to genetic testing after her fellow competitors complained about her appearance when she won a gold medal in a world championship in 2009.
Genetic screening for Olympic athletes "is not progress—it is walking backward," she told The New York Times. "This is just exclusion with a new name.”
Payoshni Mitra, executive director of the advocacy group Humans of Sport, told the Times that the new policy simply "polices women’s bodies."
“It fuels suspicion, invites public scrutiny, and puts already vulnerable athletes at risk," she said.