Neighboring country affected by refugee flows and returnee movement from Sudan.
The latest edition of our World News in Brief bulletin includes updates on an aid convoy attacked in South Sudan, the impact of the Ebola outbreak on poverty and the UN’s continued commitment to ending the death penalty. https://t.co/cUKKCjUkvC
@NickKristof @elonmusk @NickKristof when, when did it become the responsibility of US taxpayers to fund diesel in Liberia, provide HIV supplies to Sierra Leone, medicines to South Sudan, et al? Utter bullshit. What a wanker
@Alonso_GD Sounds kinda like a South Sudan problem.
NO, ELON MUSK DID NOT MURDER THIRD WORLD PEOPLE WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE’S FAILURES: Let’s review @NickKristo’s morally illiterate assertion about who @elonmusk “killed” these people who may or may not be any more real than Nick’s fanciful rape dog victims: “Yamah Freeman was a 23-year-old woman who died in childbirth because you stopped paying for the diesel for ambulances in her part of Liberia.“ What is the name of someone who didn’t kill Yamah? Because no one else in the world paid for her diesel. Also, where did the obligation to pay for ambulance diesel arise such that the failure to pay for it makes Elon responsible for the consequences of their lack of diesel? Why would the United States be responsible to buy Liberia diesel? Isn’t that Liberia job? “Gbessey Kiadu, age 1, died of malaria because of your cuts in Liberia.“ How exactly is Elon responsible for a kid dying of malaria? If there was a moral obligation to provide him medicine, and his own country won’t do it, isn’t the entire world responsible for the death? Why is it uniquely America’s responsibility, and specifically Elon’s? “Ibrahim Koroma, an infant, died of AIDS in Sierra Leone after you interrupted HIV supplies…Achol Deng was an 8-year-old girl with HIV in South Sudan who died when you cut funding for the health care worker who provided her medicines.” Did Elon Musk cause their parents to have the unprotected sex that we’ve spent billions educating people like the parents not to have? Again, hasn’t literally everyone else on earth not bought the AIDS supplies referenced here? Why is it Elon who killed them? Does anyone else have joint or several responsibility for these deaths, like, I don’t know, the parents who had unprotected sex despite decades of education and free prophylactics we paid for? In this moral construction, there’s no limiting principle. Apparently, we are directly responsible for ameliorating the consequences of people in the Third World's actions. No, there is no such liability in law. There’s no such liability in any common-sense moral construction. This is a rhetorical ploy designed to appeal to stupid people. There is no moral obligation for the United States to save every Third World person. The United States must make choices about its spending, recognizing that every dollar it spends is borrowed from future American generations. Note also that @NickKristof expects absolutely nothing from the people of the Third World. They are helpless and without agency. Sounds pretty racist to me. In any case, if Nicholas wanted to help support my view, which is that we must cut foreign aid dramatically, I couldn’t ask for more. His insistence that any help we provide be provided in perpetuity and that we assume moral responsibility for anyone we help is the best possible way I can think of to convince people not to help at all in the future, because once they do, they can never stop or change, no matter what the circumstances are for themselves. They are permanently responsible for foreign people, who, incidentally, continue to do many of the things that cause their own problems, such as having unprotected sex despite endless dollars spent to teach them not to. Way to go, Nick. Thanks for the help.
@Alonso_GD When will it be up to South Sudan to take care of their own people? Maybe they were stealing aid...ya think? https://t.co/QKyXRANOJI
@Alonso_GD You confirmed this yourself in South Sudan? Did Elon give him AIDS?
Reported Costs and Travel Route Used by Some South Sudanese Migrants Journeying Through Sudan, Chad, and Libya Toward North Africa and Europe By Deng Bol Aruai Bol Information has recently circulated online among South Sudanese migrants describing the route and transportation costs reportedly paid by some individuals traveling from South Sudan through Sudan, Chad, and Libya. Although these figures cannot be independently verified and may differ from one traveler to another, they provide insight into the costs associated with this migration route. According to the information shared, the journey begins in South Sudan. Travel from Juba to Wau reportedly costs approximately 200,000 South Sudanese Pounds. The journey from Wau to Abyei reportedly costs another 200,000 South Sudanese Pounds, while transportation from Abyei to Amiet reportedly costs approximately 10,000 South Sudanese Pounds. The reported transportation cost within South Sudan therefore totals approximately 410,000 South Sudanese Pounds. After crossing into Sudan, transportation from Amiet to Nyala reportedly costs approximately 400,000 Sudanese Pounds. The journey from Nyala to Al Junaynah reportedly costs approximately 65,000 Sudanese Pounds. Travel from Al Junaynah to Adikong reportedly costs approximately 15,000 Sudanese Pounds, while transportation from Adikong to Adré near the Chadian border reportedly costs approximately 100,000 Sudanese Pounds. The reported transportation cost within Sudan therefore totals approximately 580,000 Sudanese Pounds. In Chad, transportation from Adré to Abéché reportedly costs approximately 1,000 CFA Francs. The journey from Abéché to Kouri reportedly costs approximately 12,000 CFA Francs. The reported transportation cost within Chad therefore totals approximately 13,000 CFA Francs. The final stage takes place in Libya. Transportation from Kouri to Qatrun reportedly costs approximately 400 Libyan Dinars, while transportation from Qatrun to Sabha reportedly costs approximately 350 Libyan Dinars. The reported transportation cost within Libya therefore totals approximately 750 Libyan Dinars. Based on prevailing exchange rates, these reported transportation expenses represent a total cost of more than one thousand United States Dollars before accounting for food, accommodation, communication expenses, medical costs, unofficial payments, or other expenditures that may arise during the journey. The information is notable because it demonstrates that migration through multiple countries requires significant financial resources. Individuals undertaking such journeys must arrange transportation across long distances and through several international borders before reaching North Africa. International organizations have documented that migration movements toward North Africa and Europe are influenced by a range of factors, including armed conflict, insecurity, political instability, economic hardship, unemployment, family considerations, and access to opportunities elsewhere (International Organization for Migration [IOM], 2024; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2024). The route described above passes through areas that have experienced armed conflict, criminal activity, human trafficking, smuggling networks, and other security risks. For this reason, governments and international organizations have repeatedly warned against irregular migration through the Sahara Desert and across the Mediterranean Sea (IOM, 2024). Disclaimer This article is provided solely for informational, educational, research, and public awareness purposes. The information referenced herein is based on accounts publicly shared by individuals familiar with the route described and has not been independently verified by the author. Nothing contained in this article shall be interpreted as advice, instruction, encouragement, facilitation, or endorsement of irregular migration or any activity that may violate the laws of any country. The author does not encourage irregular migration and recognizes the significant legal, humanitarian, and security risks associated with such journeys.
#Opinion: Civil War in Sudan By Deng Mayik Atem As I write this, members of the South Sudanese army are hunkered down in Heglig/Panthou in South Sudan. Caught between the Sudanese army and the RSF, our soldiers are there to preserve our country’s rights to what little oil is left. The government in Juba has not taken sides in the civil war currently raging in its northern neighbor. The hope is that, however and whenever that civil war ends, oil production and export will resume, and some cash will again flow to Juba. Is that the best policy for South Sudan? Should we be taking a side in that civil war and, if so, which side? Is the shiny lure of possibly moderate-term income the best long-term objective for our people? First, let’s be clear. For many years, long before I was a boy, long before even the oldest of our leaders were children, the Darfurian Arabs have systematically raided the villages in Northern Bahr El Ghazal and Unity State, stolen all the property, and killed the people of our various tribes. Be we Dinka, Nuer, or something else, they have swooped down upon us. To this day, those raids continue, perhaps not across the border, but certainly against those tribal members who were left behind in Sudan when we gained our independence. During the current civil strife, many of those tribal members have been killed. Many have taken refuge in Chad. And, of course, a considerable number crossed into South Sudan in search of sanctuary. Therefore, history tells us that if the RSF wins or if it attains equality in the Sudanese government, our people will be at risk. Forget our claims to that oil; will we be able to survive their onslaught? My concerns rest on more than the historical antipathy of the Arabs of Darfur towards our people. The biggest issue is rooted in colonial history. When the British took control of Egypt, they realized one thing: the stability of Egypt rested on the Nile River. Without the river, Egypt could not feed itself. That was why the British moved south to Khartoum, where the two major branches of the Nile combine. The Arabs fought valiantly to overcome the British. The Mahdist soldiers, most of whom had come from Darfur, did take Khartoum. However, the superior British weapons ultimately won the war. The British then continued south. Why? Because they wanted to control one of those two branches of the Nile, the one that is navigable all the way to Juba. Control of the White Nile is paramount, especially as Ethiopia increases its control of the Blue. That is why the RSF has turned such bloody attacks towards Khartoum. That is why, if they do not win the current war, they will inevitably head south to conquer our nation and take control of the White Nile from Juba and then move downriver. To protect our primary link with the world and to safeguard ourselves from attack, South Sudan needs to establish an alliance with the government in Khartoum. Beyond that, our people need to connect and build alliances with the Arab world. They are our natural trading partners and the best potential source for investment as we work to grow our agricultural sector and become a source of sustenance for the desert lands. For us to build such connections, our government must be an active participant in the region, rather than taking a passive and dependent role. We need to offer ideas and solutions. To achieve this, we need other nations to take us seriously and trust our words and commitments. The world is a complex place. The path forward is fraught with difficulties and tests. It is time for the government of South Sudan to think beyond the next oil royalty, especially as those royalties and that petroleum supply are dwindling. ~Deng Mayik Atem Publisher of Ramciel Magazine and currently studying leadership and Ethics at Harvard Kennedy School of Government He is reachable at [email protected]
#🔴 BREAKING NEWS | UN VOTE ON SOUTH SUDAN SANCTIONS China and Russia have called for a review of the long-standing UN sanctions on South Sudan, saying the measures are “unbalanced” and should be eased or lifted gradually. Both countries abstained during the Security Council vote, criticizing the arms embargo and urging a more flexible approach toward Juba. Despite growing calls for reform, the UN has renewed the sanctions regime without major changes. 📌 A major global debate is now unfolding over the future of sanctions on South Sudan. #SS24 #SouthSudan #UN #BreakingNews
Daily mention volume.
