Sudan accuses UAE of May 4 drone attacks on Port Sudan
The UAE denied the allegations in a statement and said it condemned the attack.
"It is deeply regrettable that the Port Sudan authorities continue to perpetrate violence against their own citizens, yet seek to deflect blame from their own responsibility for Sudan's internal conflict by making unfounded allegations against others," a UAE official said.
Speaking in New York on Monday, Sudanese ambassador to the United Nations al-Harith Idriss alleged that the May 4 strike on the army's wartime capital Port Sudan was carried out by MQ-9 or MQ-9B warplanes and kamikaze drones launched from an Emirati base on the Red Sea with the aid of Emirati ships.
Idriss alleged that the strike on Port Sudan was revenge for an army attack a day earlier on an alleged Emirati warplane in the RSF-controlled city of Nyala, which he said had killed 13 foreigners including "Emirati elements."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
7 hours ago
- The South African
Mali kills 80 militants after al-Qaeda-linked raids escalate
The Malian Armed Forces (FA Ma) responded to coordinated attacks on military targets in seven cities on 1 July 2025. The targeted areas were Nioro du Sahel, Diboli, Kayes, Sandere, Gogoui, Molodo, and Niono. As a result, the attack affected Nioro, Kayes, Sandere and Gogui, deeply alarming residents and local officials. Near the governor's residence, Kayes residents reported heavy gunfire and smoke. The attacks occurred near the borders with Mauritania and Senegal, raising concerns about regional security. The al-Qaeda-affiliated Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) claimed responsibility for the attacks. Moreover, JNIM declared that it had acquired numerous army installations, including three barracks. According to reports from Al Jazeera, quoting JNIM statements, the group described the operation as 'coordinated and high-quality.' The assault marks the third major JNIM attack in the past month. In addition, the militants had earlier killed 30 troops in central Mali and attacked the airport in Timbuktu. Mali's army declared the death of 80 rebels during counteroffensive operations. Insurgents suffered casualties in every combat zone, according to Army spokeswoman Souleymane Dembele. Weapons, motorcycles, and vehicles used in the attacks were among the confiscated items. Images of dead insurgents were broadcast on national television by the military. Official figures for the number of Malian soldiers' fatalities remained unreleased as of 2 July. For over ten years, Mali has struggled with Islamist insurgencies, including branches of ISIL and al-Qaeda. The country's continued military rule following the 2020 coup hinders international cooperation. In May 2025, the US Africa Command issued a warning about the growth of militants along West Africa's coastline. Furthermore, General Michael Langley emphasised the increasing risks of weapon trafficking and smuggling in the Sahel region. As a result, the attacks highlight growing insecurity in Mali and its neighbouring countries. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
9 hours ago
- IOL News
Zohran Mamdani's victory is a Barack Obama moment
New York Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's could reignite hope and transform local governance in a country in which Islamophobia is rife. Zaid Jilani When I found out about New York Democratic Assembly member Zohran Mamdani's upset victory in New York City's mayoral Democratic primary, an old memory popped into my head. It was the day after Barack Obama trounced John McCain in 2008's presidential election. A friend of mine who was running his student chapter for the state of Georgia greeted me at the student center of the University of Georgia, where we both went to school. His face was gleaming. He was the son of Liberian immigrants, and Obama's victory had special resonance for him. America - the same country built off the backs of enslaved Africans - was capable of electing a Black man. 'Now you could be elected president,' I told him. Not missing a beat, he replied, 'Now you could!' Let's not get carried away, I thought. This was still the United States of America. Seven years earlier, a group of fanatics who committed the 9/11 attacks had made Muslim Americans such as me synonymous with terrorism in the eyes of millions. Heck, Obama had to swear up and down over and over that he wasn't Muslim just to get elected. And, in my years working in and around politics since then, my cynicism about this was unchanged. Recall that then-Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison - the first Muslim elected to Congress - had to prove to a CNN host that he wasn't 'working with our enemies.' Then Ellison's bid to run the Democratic Party was derailed nine years later in part because of a handful of critical comments he had made about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. This came only months after Donald Trump was elected in part on a promise to ban Muslims from entering the United States entirely. Just like our parents had slapped American flags on everything they owned after 9/11, Muslim American politicians and staffers across Capitol Hill and Washington more broadly were counseled to always demonstrate our patriotism first and foremost because it was constantly being questioned by everyone around us. When I worked at progressive think tanks or left-wing political action committees, my superiors were terrified of coming across as too sympathetic to Muslim American concerns about the Middle East or American foreign policy more broadly. They didn't want to get called antisemitic or be accused of sympathizing with terrorists. The war in Gaza compounded this sense of feeling besieged. Two presidents in a row have signed up to support what appears to be an endless war against Palestinian sovereignty itself, going far beyond what was necessary to defend against Hamas militancy. As they watched tens of thousands of civilians killed on their TV screens and social media feeds by a military backed to the hilt by American taxpayer support, many Muslims I knew felt like the country had accepted these Palestinian deaths so easily because America simply will never allow Muslims to be coequals. But Mamdani's victory set off a vibe shift among my Muslim friends, family and colleagues like nothing I've ever seen before. People I know who believed that America would never accept Muslims for who they were now believe that anything is possible. Maybe my friend at UGA all those years ago wasn't wrong. Maybe there could be a Muslim president in my lifetime. In that sense, Mamdani's victory is an Obama moment for us. A young and principled Muslim faced off with the beating heart of the local Democratic establishment, which held nothing back as it sought to tar him as an antisemitic extremist. There is no more politically inflammatory charge in New York, which has the largest Jewish population of any city in America. And yet not only did he win, he won handily. By breaking this glass ceiling, Mamdani restored faith in the American experiment among millions of American Muslims. The way he did it mattered, too: Watching Mamdani run what was essentially a joint ticket with Comptroller Brad Lander, a Jewish progressive, I saw a vision of mutual respect and admiration across cultural lines that felt like the best of America. That it happened in the same city targeted on 9/11 made it all the more poignant as well. The national trauma that defined American life in my childhood did not have to define it in my future. If New Yorkers could give Mamdani a chance, they could give the rest of us one, too. None of this is to say that I endorse the idea of voting for someone just because they share your faith or ethnicity. I agree with then-Sen. John F. Kennedy, who said in 1960: 'I want no votes solely on account of my religion.' I think people should vote for the best candidate based on their experience, values and ideas - not based on religious or ethnic tribalism. I worry that Mamdani's relative inexperience could be an issue as he is likely set to govern America's most populated city, and some of his ideas might be too radical. Scrutinizing him on these grounds is warranted. But I also want to live in a country where a Muslim candidate for office will be scrutinized based on their record, not their religion. And with Mamdani's victory on Tuesday, America showed Muslim Americans that despite all our cynicism over the past 20 years, this continues to be the best country in the world for minorities - a place where prejudices cannot and will not hold back progress.
IOL News
14 hours ago
- IOL News
Reclaiming the United Nations from Western Decline
In the lead-up to the United Nations' 80th anniversary, voices from the West declare the organisation obsolete, but this critique masks deeper anxieties about shifting global power dynamics, writes Gillian Schutte. Image: IOL In 2025, on the eve of the United Nations' 80th anniversary, a growing chorus of Western voices is declaring the organisation obsolete. The critique, echoed uncritically in South African liberal media, laments the 'ineffectiveness' and 'paralysis' of the UN, suggesting that its time has passed in a rapidly shifting world order. What is striking, however, is that this apparent concern for global governance is being deployed at the moment when the West is losing its grip on that governance. The narrative, rather than being rooted in a desire for democratisation, is shaped by anxiety over the collapse of Western exceptionalism. The Russian Federation has responded by reaffirming its support for the UN, but with a clear call for reform. This reform is not cosmetic. It involves expanding the power of the Global Majority while resisting the return to a world dictated by NATO coalitions and closed-door Western interests. This position, presented in the liberal press as opportunistic, is in fact grounded in both history and realpolitik. It recognises the UN's contradictory nature. It was born from anti-fascist resistance and post-war consensus, but later hijacked by unipolar ambitions during the Cold War and the consolidation of neoliberalism. The UN then presents a dual legacy - both emancipatory and compromised. The United Nations was founded as a post-war mechanism to prevent another global catastrophe. It embodied the hope for international law, collective responsibility, and the protection of sovereignty. The "decolonisation" of Africa and Asia in the mid-20th century was legitimised in part by the UN Charter. It offered, however imperfectly, a platform for the dispossessed to speak. Yet from its inception, the UN was structurally skewed. The Security Council's composition, with five permanent members holding veto power, enshrined the hierarchy of "victors" from World War II - an imbalance that meant that while former colonies could speak in the General Assembly, they could never dictate terms in the Security Council. This imperial architecture was later exploited during the Cold War, most aggressively by the United States in the post-Soviet era. What the Russian critique acknowledges, and what many African analysts echo, is that the UN became a tool of unipolar domination in the 1990s and early 2000s. Humanitarian interventions became a euphemism for regime change. UN bodies were captured to serve neoliberal agendas. Development was reduced to IMF diktats, and peacekeeping mandates protected Western economic interests over local sovereignty. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Western Hypocrisy: From Champion to Saboteur The West's current disillusionment with the UN stems from the erosion of its ability to control the narrative. When the UN fails to rubber-stamp NATO interventions or US foreign policy, it is deemed ineffective. When Russia or China exercise their veto rights, it is labelled as paralysis. Yet the same veto was tolerated, even ignored, when it was used by the United States to shield Israel from accountability or to justify illegal wars. This hypocrisy has reached fever pitch in the context of Ukraine and Gaza. The UN's attempts at consensus have been sabotaged by US-led bloc politics. When the General Assembly condemns Israeli aggression, the US invokes its veto. When Russia challenges NATO expansion, it is accused of imperialism. This takes place while NATO continues its own undeclared wars through economic sanctions, proxy forces, and disinformation. In this climate, the Western call for reform rings false. While pretending to seek democratisation, it seeks the removal of obstacles to Western domination instead. The push to abolish or dilute the veto is less about accountability and more about ensuring that no counter-hegemonic bloc can halt the Western agenda. Russian Advocacy: Reform from Below The Russian position does not reject reform. On the contrary, it calls for a more representative UN. This includes reforming the Security Council to reflect the multipolar realities of the 21st century. Russia has consistently backed the inclusion of African, Asian, and Latin American nations as permanent members of the Security Council. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has emphasised that African nations must not only have a seat at the table. They must also have permanent status that reflects their role in global politics and history. Unlike the Western reformers, Russia does not call for the dismantling of the veto. It calls for its preservation as a stabilising mechanism. This is not regressive. It is a brake on militarism and economic coercion. Without the veto, the world would already have seen direct NATO engagement in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and beyond. Additionally, Russia's call to reform the UN is consistent with its broader doctrine of multipolarity. It rejects the notion of a single rules-based order imposed from Washington or Brussels. It champions a world of sovereign civilisations with diverse pathways to development, governance, and culture. This resonates with the Global South, which has suffered under the homogenising violence of liberalism presented as democracy. South African Liberal Media and the Betrayal of Sovereignty In this context, the repetition of Western anti-UN narratives in South African media is not only disappointing. It is dangerous. To declare the UN obsolete without interrogating whose interests that serves is to function as a mouthpiece for empire. It is to forget the role the UN played in challenging apartheid, in opposing colonialism, and in advocating for non-aligned voices. South African liberal media, shaped by donor money and Western ideological assumptions, has long been complicit in constructing narratives that align with global capital and undermine African agency. Its attack on the UN is another example of its alignment with elite global interests masquerading as progressive critique. It ignores the broader movement in the Global South for a reformed but preserved multilateral order. It ignores the desire for sovereignty to be restored without returning to the logic of Western-led governance. The Real Battle: Collapse or Coexistence The question is not whether the UN is flawed. It is flawed. The question is whether we abandon multilateralism and return to a world of unilateral coercion. That world is shaped by coalitions of the willing, where bombing precedes dialogue and sanctions replace diplomacy. Russia's position, whether one agrees with its geopolitical strategy or not, represents a clear alternative. It calls for the preservation of multilateralism, the reform of international structures, and the restoration of a world order grounded in sovereignty and pluralism. The Global South, and Africa in particular, must not be tricked into dismantling the very platform that once helped to free it. The call to render the UN irrelevant is not liberation. It is surrender. Let us not be fooled into thinking that Western editorial fatigue is a sign of moral clarity. It is the sound of hegemony cracking. The response must not be to join the wrecking crew. The response must be to rebuild the UN into an institution that speaks for the Global Majority. That is the only reform worth fighting for. * Gillian Schutte is a writer, filmmaker and social critic. She challenges liberal orthodoxy, donor-driven journalism, and Western hypocrisy through a lens rooted in African sovereignty and counter-hegemonic critique. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
