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.

Iranian diplomats are meeting their counterparts from Germany, the United Kingdom and France for renewed nuclear talks, amid warnings that the three European powers could trigger “snapback” United Nations sanctions outlined under a previous 2015 deal.

The meeting, which is under way in Turkiye’s Istanbul on Friday morning, is the first since Israel’s mid-June attack on Iran, which led to an intensive 12-day conflict, with the United States militarily intervening on Israel’s behalf and attacking key Iranian nuclear sites.

Israel’s offensive – which killed top commanders, nuclear scientists and hundreds of civilians, as residential areas were struck, as well – also derailed US-Iran nuclear talks that began in April.

Iran said on Friday that the meeting is an opportunity for the so-called E3 group of Germany, UK and France to correct their positions on Iran’s nuclear issue. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said in an interview with state news agency IRNA that Iran considers the talk of extending UN Security Council Resolution 2231 to be doubly “meaningless and baseless”.

The resolution, which cemented the 2015 deal Iran reached with world powers, under which it curbed enrichment in return for much-needed sanctions relief, is due to expire in October. It enshrines the big powers’ prerogative to restore UN sanctions.

Since then, the E3 have threatened to trigger the “snapback mechanism”, which would reinstate the sanctions on Iran by the end of August, under the moribund 2015 nuclear deal which US President Donald Trump unilaterally torpedoed in 2018 during his first term.

The option to trigger the snapback expires in October, and Tehran has warned of consequences should the E3 opt to activate it.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who is attending the talks Friday, alongside senior Iranian diplomat Majid Takht-Ravanchi, warned this week that triggering sanctions “is completely illegal”.

He also accused European powers of “halting their commitments” to the deal after the US withdrew from it.

“We have warned them of the risks, but we are still seeking common ground to manage the situation,” said Gharibabadi.

Warning from Tehran

Iranian diplomats have previously warned that Tehran could withdraw from the global nuclear non-proliferation treaty if UN sanctions are reimposed.

Restoring sanctions would deepen Iran’s international isolation and place further pressure on its already strained economy.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has urged European powers to trigger the mechanism. Israel’s June 13 attack on Iran came two days before Tehran and Washington were scheduled to meet for a sixth round of nuclear negotiations.

On June 22, the US struck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz.

Before the conflict, Washington and Tehran were divided over uranium enrichment, which Iran has described as a “non-negotiable” right for civilian purposes, while the US called it a “red line”.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran is enriching uranium to 60 percent purity – far above the 3.67 percent cap under the 2015 deal, but well below the 90 percent needed for weapons-grade levels.

Tehran has said it is open to discussing the rate and level of enrichment, but not the right to enrich uranium.

A year after the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal, Iran reportedly began rolling back its commitments, which had placed restrictions on its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Israel and Western powers accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons – a charge Tehran has consistently denied. Both US intelligence and the IAEA said they had seen no evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon in the build-up to the June conflict.

Enrichment is ‘stopped’

Iran insists it will not abandon its nuclear programme, which Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called a source of “national pride”.

The full extent of the damage sustained in the US bombing remains unclear. Trump has claimed the sites were “completely destroyed”, but US media reports have cast doubt over the scale of destruction.

Araghchi has noted that enrichment is currently “stopped” due to “serious and severe” damage to nuclear sites caused by US and Israeli attacks.

In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired on Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran is prepared for another war and reiterated that its nuclear programme will continue within the framework of international law, adding the country had no intention of pursuing nuclear weapons.

Since the 12-day conflict, Iran has suspended cooperation with the IAEA, accusing it of bias and of failing to condemn the attacks.

Inspectors have since left the country, but a technical team is expected to return in the coming weeks, after Iran said future cooperation would take a “new form”.

Israel has warned it may resume attacks if Iran rebuilds facilities or moves towards weapons capability. Iran has pledged a “harsh response” to any future attacks.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday that America “does not seek war” with Iran in the aftermath of a surprise attack overnight on three of that country’s nuclear sites while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran a renewed chance of negotiating with Washington.

The mission, called “Operation Midnight Hammer,” involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance, Hegseth and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news conference.

“This mission was not and has not been about regime change,” Hegseth added.

Caine said the goal of the operation — destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had been achieved.

“Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,” Caine said.

Vance said in a television interview that while he would not discuss “sensitive intelligence about what we’ve seen on the ground,” he felt “very confident that we’ve substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon.”

Pressed further, he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “I think that we have really pushed their program back by a very long time. I think that it’s going to be many many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon.”

The vice president said the U.S. had “negotiated aggressively’ with Iran to try to find a peaceful settlement and that Trump made his decision after assessing the Iranians were not acting “in good faith.”

“I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be a threat to its neighbors, not to a threat to the United States and if they’re willing to do that, the United States is all ears,” Vance said.

He added: “The Iranians can go down the path of peace or they can go down the path of this ridiculous brinkmanship of funding terrorism, of trying to build a nuclear weapon and that’s just not something the United States can accept.”

Much of the world is absorbing the consequences of the strikes and the risk that they could lead to more fighting across the Middle East after the United States inserted itself into the war between Israel and Iran. Airstrikes starting on June 12 by Israel that targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities and generals prompted retaliation from Iran.

While U.S. officials urged for caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticized the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Sunday that Washington was “fully responsible” for whatever actions Tehran may take in response.

“They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities,” he said at a news conference in Turkey. “I don’t know how much room is left for diplomacy.”

Both Russia and China condemned the U.S. attack. Araghchi said he would travel to Moscow later Sunday to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading beyond the Middle East to “a global level.”

The Pentagon briefing did not provide any new details about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Hegseth said the timeline was the result of a schedule set by President Donald Trump for talks with Iran about its nuclear ambitions.

“Iran found out” that when Trump “says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation,” Hegseth said. “Otherwise, that nuclear program, that new nuclear capability will not exist. He meant it.”

That statement was complicated as the White House had suggested last Thursday that Trump could take as much as two weeks to determine whether to strike Iran or continue to pursue negotiations. But the U.S. benefited from Iran’s weakened air defenses as it was able to conduct the attacks without resistance from Iran.

“Iran’s fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran’s surface to air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission,” Caine said.

Hegseth said that a choice to move a number of B-2 bombers from their base in Missouri earlier Saturday was meant to be a decoy to throw off Iranians. He added that the U.S. used other methods of deception as well, deploying fighters to protect the B-2 bombers that dropped 14 bunker-buster bombs on Iran’s site at Fordo.

The strikes occurred Saturday between 6:40 pm and 7:05 pm in Washington, or roughly 2:10 am on Sunday in Iran.

Pesoli and Boak write for the Associated Press.

Despite the order for a ceasefire aimed at facilitating the Doha peace talks between the government forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC) and various armed groups, heavy fighting has persisted in South Kivu. Since June 18, 2025, clashes have intensified between M23/AFC rebels and the Wazalendo militia, particularly in Kabare, Kalehe, and Walungu territories.

On June 18, reports from several local sources indicate that heavy and light arms detonations occurred in the Walungu territory, particularly in Nyangezi and its surrounding areas. A local informant mentioned that a similar situation is unfolding in Walungu territory, with clashes reported in Lurhala and nearby regions; however, the casualty figures remain unknown.

Intense combat has been reported in the Kabare territory, particularly in Cirunga, Mumosho, and Katana. According to a local source in Cirunga who spoke to HumAngle early this morning, “the Wazalendo attempted to drive out M23/AFC rebels in Cirunga, which led to the deaths of two people.”

Local civil society sources report widespread panic in Mumosho and Katana and conflicts around Kigabi. The clashes in Mumosho extended to Nyantende, where gunshots were heard, causing panic in the Panzi area.

“I heard at least four gunshots, but they were rather far away from where I was,” said one student, adding that “we were in class and we heard gunshots and were forced to seek shelter”. The situation in Kahele remains tense. Yesterday, inhabitants reported hearing gunshots around 3:30 a.m., forcing them to stay indoors.

The recent clashes violate the ceasefire intended to support various peace talks to establish peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo). The DR Congo government is currently conducting peace negotiations in Doha, Qatar’s capital.

In April, representatives from the DR Congo government and the M23/AFC affirmed their commitment to an immediate cessation of hostilities and categorically rejected hate speech and intimidation. They urged all communities to adhere to these commitments.

SEOUL, June 18 (UPI) — South Korean President Lee Jae-myung and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba held their first bilateral summit Tuesday on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada,-marking a cautious but notable step toward resetting long-strained relations between the two neighboring countries.

While bilateral ties had improved significantly under the previous South Korean administration through closer security and diplomatic coordination, this meeting was closely watched as an early signal of of how President Lee might approach the relationship going forward.

Lee, whose prior remarks on Japan drew criticism from Japanese conservatives, signaled a shift toward a more pragmatic diplomatic posture during the meeting. His tone in Kananaskis suggested a willingness to move forward with Japan despite longstanding tensions.

While both leaders expressed optimism about building a “future-oriented partnership,” concrete outcomes may emerge as talks continue.

Historical grievances, particularly unresolved matters such as wartime forced labor, continue to cast a shadow over the relationship.

Lee reaffirmed South Korea’s stance on these issues, emphasizing the importance of national sentiment and historical accountability. At home, his administration must also navigate a politically divided landscape, as public opinion in South Korea remains deeply sensitive to issues related to historical disputes with Japan.

While the meeting carried clear symbolic weight, the path forward will depend on whether the two governments can translate goodwill into sustained diplomatic progress. The coming months will reveal whether this summit marks the continuation of recent momentum or simply a fleeting moment of diplomatic engagement.

The latest attacks come as the African Union rejects any ‘interference’ in the civil war, which has killed more than 20,000 people.

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have said the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) killed seven people in artillery shelling on el-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur state in western Sudan.

A statement from the military-aligned government said on Monday that the RSF shelling that began late on Sunday targeted residential neighbourhoods, killing seven people, including women and children, and wounding at least 15, who were taken to hospitals.

On Sunday, the army also said the RSF shelling in the city killed nine people.

El-Fasher has witnessed intense fighting between SAF and RSF since May 2024, despite international warnings about the risks of violence in a city that serves as a key humanitarian hub for the five Darfur states.

For more than a year, the RSF has sought to wrest control of it, located more than 800km (500 miles) southwest of the capital, Khartoum, from the Sudanese army, launching regular attacks on the city and two major famine-hit camps for displaced people on its outskirts.

The RSF and the SAF have been locked in a brutal power struggle since April 2023, resulting in thousands of deaths and pushing Sudan into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, according to the United Nations.

More than 20,000 people have been killed and 15 million displaced in the brutal civil war now in its third year, according to UN and local figures. However, some United States-based researchers estimate the actual death toll to be as high as 130,000.

Won’t accept ‘any interference’

Meanwhile, the African Union (AU) said on Monday it would not accept “any interference” in Sudan after the RSF was accused of receiving weapons from the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Last week, the Sudanese government severed diplomatic relations with the UAE, accusing it of supplying weapons to the RSF.

Amnesty International has also accused the UAE of supplying weapons to the RSF, in violation of a UN arms embargo.

The UAE has rejected the claims as “baseless”.

“The Commission’s position is that member states are sovereign states, and the AU Commission will not accept any interference in the internal affairs of Sudan,” said AU Chairperson Mahamoud Ali Youssouf.

“We will not support any intervention, any interference in the crisis in Sudan,” he said.

However, Youssouf declined to comment on the UAE’s possible role in the conflict. “It is not the role of the AU. Sudan has accused the Emirates; it is up to Sudan to provide this evidence,” he said.

The foreign minister of Djibouti was elected head of the pan-African organisation in February, inheriting multiple conflicts and a record of ineffectual statements.

Among the top of his priorities coming into the post was the Sudan civil war, which has effectively cleaved the country in two.

Both sides have been accused of committing war crimes.

In recent days, drone attacks attributed by the army to the RSF have increased, marking a turning point in the two-year conflict.

Drone attacks have also notably targeted strategic sites in Port Sudan, the temporary seat of government and the logistical humanitarian epicentre.

In February, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged a halt to the “flow of arms” into Sudan.