renewed

Nov. 6 (UPI) — The Trump administration has moved to end deportation protections for those from South Sudan as the United Nations warns the country is on the brink of war.

Amid President Donald Trump‘s crackdown on immigration, the Department of Homeland Security has targeted countries that have been given Temporary Protected Status, which is granted to countries facing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters or other extraordinary conditions.

TPS enables eligible nationals from the designated countries to live and work in the United States legally, without fear of deportation.

DHS announced it was ending TPS for South Sudan on Wednesday with the filing of a Federal Register notice.

The termination will be in effect Jan. 5.

“After conferring with interagency partners, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem determined that conditions in South Sudan no longer meet the TPS statutory requirements,” DHS said in a statement, which explained the decision was based on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services review of the conditions in South Sudan and in consultation with the Department of State.

South Sudan was first designated for TPS in November 2011 amid violent post-independence instability in the country, and the designation has been repeatedly renewed since.

The Trump administration has sought to end TPS designations for a total seven countries: Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, Venezuela and now South Sudan. Court challenges have followed, with decisions staying, at least for now, the terminations for all of the countries except for Afghanistan and Cameroon, which ended July 12 and Aug. 4, respectively.

The move to terminate TPS for South Sudan is also expected to be challenged in court.

The announcement comes a little more than a week after the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan warned the General Assembly that the African nation is experiencing escalating armed conflict and political crisis, and that international intervention is needed to halt mounting human rights violations.

A civil war erupted in South Sudan in December 2013, just two years after the country gained independence — a conflict that came to an end with a cease-fire in 2018.

Barney Afako, a member of the human rights commission in South Sudan, said Oct. 29 that the political transition spearheaded by the cease-fire agreement was “falling apart.”

“The cease-fire is not holding, political detentions have become a tool of repression, the peace agreement’s key provisions are being systematically violated and the government forces are using aerial bombardments in civilian areas,” he said.

“All indicators point to a slide back toward another deadly war.”

The DHS is urging South Sudanese in the United States under TPS to voluntarily leave the country using the U.S. Customs and Border Protection smartphone application. If they do, they can secure a complimentary plane ticket, a $1,000 “exit bonus” and potential future opportunities for legal immigration.

The United Nations Security Council voted on Thursday to extend the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, until the end of 2026 and then to begin an “orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal” over the course of 2027.

The winding down of UNIFIL has been pushed heavily by Israel and the United States, who accuse the group of providing political cover for Hezbollah since the 2006 war and failing to work to disarm Hezbollah, despite that not being the UN body’s stated mission.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to occupy at least five points on Lebanese territory following its invasion of south Lebanon last October. A ceasefire agreement reached in November stipulated that Israeli troops should withdraw from south Lebanon, but that has not yet happened.

So what does the end of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) mean for the border area between Lebanon and Israel? Here’s what you need to know.

What happens now?

UNIFIL will stay in south Lebanon until December 31, 2026.

After that, it will have a year to withdraw its troops and hand over control of the area to the Lebanese Army.

The development seems to be in Israel’s favour, considering Israel’s disproportionate advantage in military power, technology, and US support. Israel regularly hits Lebanon with military attacks, and even before October 2023, when Hezbollah entered the war with Israel, Israel’s air force regularly violated Lebanon’s airspace with surveillance flyovers.

With UNIFIL gone, there will be no international body to monitor these violations.

In a statement in advance of the vote, UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti questioned how UN Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted at the end of the 2006 war to stop hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah,  could be implemented with Israeli forces still in Lebanon.

“The commitment of the Lebanese government is there, but how can they be deployed everywhere in the south if the [Israeli military] are still present in the south?” he asked.

“So these are the things that are very difficult to comprehend.”

What is UNIFIL?

Founded in 1978, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops after Israel invaded southern Lebanon earlier that year. Israel would reinvade in 1982 and occupy south Lebanon until 2000, when Israeli forces were expelled by Hezbollah.

UNIFIL is a peacekeeping mission of more than 10,000 peacekeepers from 47 countries, with the highest number of them coming from Indonesia and Italy.

It monitors the entire border region and reports violations of UN Resolution 1701.

Its headquarters are in Naqoura, a coastal town that Israel has focused its attacks on. Al Jazeera found earlier this year that Israel destroyed most of the town after the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon in November 2024, not during fighting.

UNIFIL’s operations take place across 1,060sq km (409 square miles) of the south, where it has 50 positions on Lebanese territory.

Can UNIFIL use force?

Only in self-defence or to protect civilians under attack.

As a peacekeeping force, UNIFIL does not typically fire on either Israel or Hezbollah.

In recent cases where its vehicles have been attacked, UNIFIL used nonlethal force to defend itself.

How do the Israelis feel about UNIFIL?

They’re not fans.

Israel has attacked UNIFIL peacekeepers in the past, and during the war last year, UNIFIL accused Israel of deliberate and direct attacks on its peacekeepers.

Unlike in Gaza, where the only voices to report on Israeli attacks or killings of civilians are Palestinian voices, UNIFIL is a body with an international mandate and legitimacy that reports on Israeli attacks and violations in southern Lebanon.

For its part, the US sees UNIFIL as a waste of money that doesn’t directly confront Hezbollah’s influence in south Lebanon.

Under President Donald Trump, the US has increasingly adopted Israel’s position on UNIFIL.

“This will be the last time the United States will support an extension of UNIFIL,” said Dorothy Shea, acting US ambassador to the UN. “The United States notes that the first ‘i’ in UNIFIL stands for ‘interim’. The time has come for UNIFIL’s mission to end.”

What’s wrong with Hezbollah?

Israel and the US view Hezbollah as a “terrorist” organisation.

Hezbollah was formed in the 1980s as a response to Israel’s occupation of Lebanon and eventually drove the occupiers out of south Lebanon. The two parties fought a war to a stalemate in 2006, though most of the casualties and destruction were incurred by Lebanon.

Between 2006 and last year, Israel viewed Hezbollah as a primary threat, and its weapons as a deterrence to military action. Since November’s ceasefire, Israel’s military has attacked southern Lebanon, and occasionally struck closer to Beirut, without restraint, despite an agreement that hostilities would cease.

Israel claims it is attacking Hezbollah targets, though civilians were regularly killed during the war last year and continue to die in Israeli strikes.

What about the Lebanese?

The current Lebanese government supported UNIFIL’s renewal.

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam welcomed the vote to renew UNIFIL’s mandate, saying it “reiterates the call for Israel to withdraw its forces from the five sites it continues to occupy, and affirms the necessity of extending state authority over all its territory”.

But the Lebanese government aside, there is a wider spectrum of views on UNIFIL in south Lebanon.

While some Lebanese locals support the peacekeepers’ presence, many have been vocally critical of them.

In May, civilians wielding axes and rods attacked a UN vehicle in south Lebanon. Many southerners who cannot return to their homes in south Lebanon, either because their villages have been razed to the ground by Israel or because there is still a threat of Israeli attacks, have taken out their frustration against UNIFIL troops. Others reportedly view them with suspicion.

Viral videos have shown confrontations between Lebanese civilians and UNIFIL troops. In one, a local smacks a Finnish UNIFIL peacekeeper across the face after an argument.

Qatar’s foreign ministry said delegations were meeting in Doha to review the implementation of a truce signed in July.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the M23 armed group have resumed negotiations in Qatar as violence deepens in the country’s mineral-rich eastern provinces in spite of a recently signed an agreement to reach a full peace deal.

Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Majed al-Ansari said delegations from Kinshasa and the M23 were meeting in Doha to review the implementation of a truce signed in July. “We’ve received the two parties here in Doha to discuss the earlier agreement,” Ansari said at a news briefing on Tuesday.

The deal, brokered by Qatar, committed both sides to a ceasefire and a path to a final settlement. Under its terms, talks were supposed to begin on 8 August and conclude by 18 August. Both deadlines passed without progress, and the agreement has faltered amid accusations of violations from both sides.

Ansari said the current discussions include plans to create a mechanism for monitoring the truce, as well as an exchange of prisoners and detainees. He added that the United States and the International Committee of the Red Cross were closely involved in supporting the talks.

The Qatar-led initiative followed a separate ceasefire agreement signed in Washington between Rwanda, who back M23, and DRC in June. But the M23 rejected that deal, demanding direct negotiations with Kinshasa to address what it called unresolved political grievances.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he ended the conflict, and several others, describing DRC as the “darkest, deepest” part of Africa and asserting that he “saved lots of lives.” On Monday, Trump claimed that nine million people were “killed with machetes” during the decades-long war, insisting, “I stopped it.”

Rights groups have dismissed Trump’s claims as misleading. “It is far from the reality to say that he has ended the war,” said Christian Rumu of Amnesty International. “People on the ground continue to experience grave human rights violations, and some of these amount to crimes against humanity,” he added, calling on Washington to accelerate efforts to secure peace.

Despite multiple ceasefire attempts, fighting has intensified in North and South Kivu provinces, forcing more than two million people from their homes this year. Human Rights Watch last week accused the M23 of carrying out ethnically targeted “mass killings,” while United Nations experts have said Rwandan forces played a “critical” role in supporting the group’s offensive.

Rwanda denies involvement, but the M23’s capture of vast areas, including the regional capital Goma earlier this year, has fuelled fears of a wider regional conflict.

The DRC’s eastern region, home to some of the world’s richest deposits of gold, cobalt, and coltan, has been devastated by years of armed conflict, with civilians bearing the brunt of atrocities despite repeated international mediation efforts.

Iran and European countries agree to resume nuclear talks next week despite threats of unilateral sanctions.

Iran and three major European powers have agreed to resume nuclear talks next week, even as the threat of revived sanctions looms.

Iranian state media reported on Friday that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held a call with his French, British and German counterparts, during which they agreed deputy ministers would meet on Tuesday.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul confirmed the talks, warning that Europe was prepared to re-impose United Nations sanctions under the so-called “snapback” mechanism unless Iran committed to a verifiable and lasting deal. “Time is very short and Iran needs to engage substantively,” he said.

According to Iranian outlets, Araghchi rejected the threat, accusing the European trio of lacking “legal and moral competence” to trigger snapback sanctions and warning of consequences if they did so.

The three European governments, backed by the United States, have accused Tehran of advancing uranium enrichment in violation of international commitments and say its programme could be used to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran has said its work is strictly for civilian purposes, and Western governments have not provided any evidence that Tehran is weaponising its nuclear programme.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, has said Iran remains far from building a nuclear weapon. In March, US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard testified that intelligence agencies had found no evidence of Iran moving towards a bomb.

Talks between Iran and the US collapsed in June after Washington and Israel attacked Iranian nuclear sites during a 12-day conflict.

Since then, IAEA inspectors have not been allowed into Iran’s facilities, despite the agency’s chief, Rafael Grossi, stressing that inspections are essential.

President Masoud Pezeshkian has warned the IAEA to abandon its “double standards” if it hopes to restore cooperation over the country’s nuclear programme, amid an acute mistrust following Israeli and US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, and the UN nuclear watchdog’s refusal to condemn the strikes.

In July, Pezeshkian signed a law suspending Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, with Tehran making it clear that it no longer trusts the agency to act impartially.

Negotiations between Tehran and the Europeans last took place in Geneva on June 20, while the fighting was still under way. Little progress was reported at the time.

Iran’s state broadcaster said an Iranian delegation would travel to Vienna on Friday to meet IAEA officials, but offered no further details.