The Irish Times view on the crisis in Sudan and Chad: a distracted world looks away
Since April 2023, 150,000 people have died in Sudan's bitter civil war between two heavily armed, pitiless militias funded by regional powers. Twelve million have now been displaced from their homes. Eight million are at risk of starvation. Of the displaced, 760,000 have crossed the border into the Ouddai province in east Chad and turned the small border town of Adre and its unofficial transit camp into Chad's third largest city, about the size of Cork, with a population estimated at 237,000.
The refugees are mostly Masalit people, an ethnic group who have been murdered and raped by the RSF militia which dominates Sudan's West Darfur state. Men are not being allowed to cross the border. Many are butchered on sight by the group, which has its origins in the Janjaweed militia, responsible for the worst atrocities of the Darfur crisis of 2003-2008. Eighty per cent of those
in the nearby official Aboutengue refugee camp
are widows and children.
The grim testimony from the two camps
, recorded by Irish Times journalists Patrick Freyne and Chris Maddaloni over the past two weeks, is harrowing: graphic stories of rape and bloody killing, of torture and amputees, of starving emaciated children, of desert camps of straw huts, sweltering heat, parched land.
READ MORE
'We have lost so many people,' Mariaha Abdelkareem told them, describing her journey into exile. 'The people dead in the street,' shot by the RSF. 'There were violations for the girls and the women. If you were a man, they were killing you... It's too difficult to describe this as 'war'. We lost our community and our sense of being human beings.'
Meanwhile, preoccupied by the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, the world is largely silent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Ireland faces 15% tariff reality as EU-US deal takes shape
The EU and US are edging closer to a trade deal revolving around tariffs of 15% imposed on European goods. The details of any agreement will be critical. Recent discussions have come close to an agreement only to be derailed at the last minute by the White House - and that could happen again. Based on what is known so far, the EU-US deal would include a baseline tariff of 15%. Some existing tariffs would be folded into that 15% meaning it would be an all-in tariff. For example, it would include the existing "most favoured nation" duties of 4.8% which exist currently under World Trade Organisation rules. However, there would be some exceptions. The punitive 50% rate on steel and aluminum, introduced by US President Donald Trump on exports from the EU, would remain in place. It is understood that what may emerge is an agreement between the two sides that sees the threatened 1 August cliff edge of 30% tariffs on EU goods removed. It is now long past time to strike a deal. Tánaiste Simon Harris says he remains "cautiously optimistic" a deal could be reached for a "positive future EU-US trading relationship within the coming days". He adds: "It is now long past time to strike a deal." Under the framework, which is being negotiated, the US would have some immediate implementation steps, but some aspects would still need further negotiations. In a boost for Irish exporters, it is expected aircraft, medical devices and spirits would be covered by a zero for zero tariff arrangement. The critical part for Ireland is what would happen to exports of pharmaceuticals and computer chips to the US. At present, there are no tariffs on either sector while the US holds an investigation on national security grounds into imports of those goods. However, indications are that the investigation may result in the EU seeing a 15% tariff imposed on both pharmaceuticals and computer chips once the process concludes. If that rate is introduced, it would have significant consequences. Pharmaceuticals are Ireland's biggest export to the US and were valued at €44bn last year. Any company faced with a new tariff is going to have to figure out how it will be paid. Exporters will be asking whether they can make internal savings, adjust supply chains or pass it on to customers? Donald Trump told Taoiseach Micheál Martin on St Patrick's Day that Ireland "took" American pharmaceutical companies. But despite Mr Trump's comments, no US drug manufacturer with an operation in Ireland has so far threatened to relocate to America. The baseline tariff of 15% for many companies would have significant effects. Simon McKeever, CEO of the Irish Exporters Association, said his organisation would be looking for a "tariff adjustment fund" largely based on the Brexit Reserve Fund of €1bn, which was introduced to help companies when the UK left the EU. While there may be relief if a deal is agreed it would be a much worse trading environment than Irish companies faced last year. Tariffs are fundamentally bad for an export-led economy such as Ireland. Globally, the removal of trade barriers over recent decades has lifted millions of people in developing countries out of poverty. But perhaps the most damaging aspect of the trade war is that it has created enormous uncertainty and put many investments on hold in Ireland and elsewhere. If a deal is agreed companies will know the future landscape. And that is likely to unlock investments which had been put on hold.
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
A lesson from The Godfather as Wall Street backs crypto assets it once dismissed as a ‘fraud'
One of the joys of writing a weekly column is the unusual tributaries explored, often sparked by real-world events. Today I've been watching old clips of The Godfather, in particular Marlon Brando's extraordinary performance as Don Vito, head of the Corleone family. In one of the film's subplots, Vito shuns the narcotics trade, preferring the steady vice of gambling. From a moral position, he rejects family involvement in the more lucrative but dirtier business of drug dealing. Despite the old man's misgivings, eventually his sons get the family into drugs because that is where they'll find new and apparently easy money. Easy money has always been a powerful financial aphrodisiac. Scenes from The Godfather come to mind as we see yet another member of the Wall Street establishment embrace what they had previously shunned: cryptocurrency . This week, one of the world's most important bankers, Jamie Dimon , chief of JPMorgan , who once described crypto as a 'fraud', suggested the bank might use clients' crypto holdings as collateral for loans in dollars. This is a massive U-turn. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, who also previously dismissed cryptocurrencies, has increased his attacks on the Federal Reserve, the institution charged with preserving the integrity of the dollar, the very currency that the crypto enthusiasts see as the problem. For the more extreme advocates of cryptocurrencies the death of the dollar (the world's most successful state-sponsored public money) is the ultimate aim. But for the elected US president, the strength of the dollar – and its institutions – should be the ultimate prize. [ If you want to understand America and politics, read The Godfather Opens in new window ] The prospect of easy money has got in the way, affecting Wall Street's judgment and the president's back pocket. Now they are on a collision course with one of the few, previously immutable signs of American power, the dollar and its custodians. Once more, the lure of quick and easy money is proving too much. READ MORE Cryptocurrencies and the future of money are fascinating topics. A useful way to look at crypto's growth is not as some new form of money, but as a well-financed lobby group. If there is easy money to be made, the quickest way to do this is attack regulators, and ultimately enlist them, while spreading the new gospel. In the beginning, crypto was the ultimate anti-Wall Street phenomenon. Crypto capitalised on an era – after the 2008 crash – when public trust in democratic institutions and markets reached a new low. The promise of crypto was a new democratic, egalitarian and honest form of money, and its manifesto involved a kind of revolutionary appeal – smashing the establishment's hold on finance and opening up the world of money beyond Wall Street. At least, that was the spin. Rather than being issued by allegedly corrupt governments, some cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are governed by incorruptible algorithms, underpinned by a new technology called blockchain, made possible by the data revolution. Bitcoin in particular, and crypto currencies in general, were supposed to be used to buy stuff – that old 'money as a medium of exchange' thing – but this has not transpired. Instead, it has come to be seen as a store of wealth that many millions of people believe in – which is fair enough if that's what they want to put their financial faith in. Most crypto is nothing more than a private printing press for the TikTok age. Bitcoin has a fixed quantity issued, but it is still nothing more than a financial Pokémon card backed by nothing except hype As its price rises, more people will be attracted to it, despite it having no fundamental value or income accruing to it. How can this be sustained? Well, the best way to keep an asset price inflated is to have more and more people with a stake in it. In time, there will be a significant group of people with an interest in maintaining its value, talking it up. They will lean on regulators to bolster, protect and disseminate it and ultimately drive up or at least maintain its price. The best way to do this is through extended distribution channels. To protect their own wealth, the Bitcoiners have conscripted Wall Street to market Bitcoin to the masses via exchange traded funds, a mechanism that allows investors to buy and sell Bitcoin in greater numbers, and more transparently. Bitcoiners have got into bed with the very firms they once lambasted as corrupt. The original alternative protest investment has gone mainstream. Allying with Wall Street and lobbying regulators is a long way from Bitcoin's original impetus. This was a bet on the complete collapse of the western political order and the end of money. Early adopters were part of a doomsday cult, believing regimes were about to collapse under hyperinflation that would devalue all major currencies. Bitcoin would then emerge as the great saviour. These Armageddonist tendencies mean Bitcoin's more extreme promoters tended to cheerlead political forces that might undermine the West. Finding them on social media applauding regimes such as Putin's Russia is not a surprise. Don't get me wrong – I am not offering financial advice. People can do what they want with their money. My point is that Bitcoin is not money in any definition I understand. Bitcoin is more a financial lobby group than a new form of money. Like most lobby groups, the game is to force its agenda on the authorities to enhance the interests of owners who stand to benefit most. Alarm bells should ring when very rich people – in this case, early adopters who bought Bitcoin for pennies and have therefore become astronomically wealthy – lobby the state to legitimise something intended to be illegitimate, and seek to enlist and enrich Wall Street in the process. [ Bitcoin's real value is based on the greater fool theory Opens in new window ] Never in their wildest dream could crypto promoters have imagined the US president and his sons would become the biggest promoters of a token that sought to undermine the dollar. But that is where we are. In recent months the Trump family has increased its wealthdue to the surge in crypto valuations. The lobby group is running policy. Remember most crypto is nothing more than a private printing press for the TikTok age. Bitcoin is different as it has a fixed quantity issued, but it is still nothing more than a digital token – a financial Pokémon card – backed by nothing except hype. Where the president goes, Wall Street follows: profits drive everything and we get to a point where major investment banks, funds and finance houses are getting behind digital tokens which they once, rightly, dismissed as a fraud. The history of money tells us such episodes rarely end well. See The Godfather. Life imitates art, imitating life. In Trump's America, what is fact and what is fiction have blurred before our very eyes.
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Amazon is not the only multinational losing confidence in Ireland. Will a €102bn plan fix it?
This week we got a State investment plan with no list of projects and a pre-budget document with no estimate of the likely position of the public finances next year. Economic nerds like me felt short-changed. The first document was all uppy stuff about boosting investment and securing the future. The second doubled down on the scary backdrop provided by a changed world and the unpredictable actions of Donald Trump . The Government has clearly made a political decision to 'go for it' on State investment. But the document published this week was more a manifesto for the multinationals than a plan. It was a pitch to foreign investors, who have become increasingly outspoken about Ireland's energy and water infrastructure and the lack of housing for their staff . And it was a bid to try to allay public concern – on housing in particular. The head-wrecking details, including how to deliver it all – most notably in housing – are still being worked out. The decision by Amazon to abandon a project in northwest Dublin because of problems getting an electricity connection is by no means a first. There has been a building crisis of confidence in corporate headquarters in the US about Ireland's ability to deliver on these areas – and this week's plans are an attempt to send a message to these American boardrooms, who are central to our economic wellbeing. They will also look for evidence that Ireland can actually make this happen - reassurances over the years that the key infrastructure areas were being addressed have not been delivered on. READ MORE And so we have a €102 billion, five-year investment plan. It is, for sure, heading in the right direction. The Fiscal Council has estimated that Ireland's infrastructure is 20 per cent to 25 per cent behind other richer EU countries. In this context, the recent growth rate of the economy has been remarkable. But Ireland is now running hard into the infrastructural buffers. Turning this investment manifesto into a fully coherent plan and then implementing it will be a big task. Ireland has struggled to deliver on the scale of promised investment in recent years; Covid was factor, for sure, but the State missed opportunities to cash in on a time of fiscal plenty. Now, it plans to boost investment plans just as the outlook is getting uncertain. It is necessary – but it also carries some risk. It looks like a turning point may be approaching in the national finances, when more difficult decisions await and trade-offs have to be faced up to. The State has been swimming in cash in recent years – but the budget surplus is being eaten away. And this means some politically difficult choices, which have yet to be squarely faced. Corporate tax is still funding a spending rise across the board. The Government plans to increase current spending by almost 6.5 per cent next year, well ahead of inflation. However, the combination of a big investment plan and Donald Trump's policy decisions are changing Ireland's fiscal arithmetic. In the spring, the forecast budget surplus of revenue over spending for next year was €6.3 billion. And that was before any tariffs. This week's document does not update that figure. But on the basis of what we now know from this week's documents, economists have cut this forecast to around €2 billion. [ Taoiseach to 'delve into' Amazon's scrapping of Dublin plant over failure to secure power supply Opens in new window ] As Goodbody stockbroker economist Dermot O'Leary pointed out, this is a small margin for error in the light of the tariff threats and the hugely concentrated nature of our tax base. And the gamble is not so much that the State might have to borrow a bit for a few years to ramp up investment. It is that a bigger hole might appear, because such a large part of our corporate tax is potentially transitory – based on multinational tax planning rather than economic activity here – and that policy changes in the US could lead to some of this cash leaving. The Fiscal Council estimates that subtracting the tax planning froth, the public finances would be heading for a deficit next year of €13 billion. [ Corporation tax surge a sign investors have not been put off by economic uncertainty just yet Opens in new window ] Now we are, of course, into 'crying wolf' territory here. The council, Central Bank, Department of Finance and most of us who write about economics have been warning about this risk for years. In the meantime, the tax paid by multinationals has just kept heading higher. And this may not be over yet. The Fiscal Council has said that corporate tax may again outperform this year compared to forecasts, which could give the Government some leeway in 2026. But that does not remove the risk of hanging on to a tax pile which has grown so large than it has now attracted jealous eyes not only from the rest of the EU but from Washington DC. And the State investment plans lower the room for manoeuvre if something goes wrong. If you plan to spend another €34 billion over the next five years, it has to come from somewhere, and using an expected budget surplus each year to help pay is part of the plan. Already, there are signs of the budget scope tightening. We are seeing the potential juggling in Budget 2026, with the hospitality VAT rate possibly deferred until midyear to leave scope for an income tax package. But that is a bet that the cash will be there to pay for a full-year VAT cut in 2027. And this is really only budgetary small beer, if the Government is to really slow the growth of day-to-day spending to leave room for more State investment. If it does not, then any fall-off to corporate tax will leave tricky decisions. For example, the Government is committed to putting money into two State funds for the future. It is legally obliged to do so, though can stop if there is a downturn. But if the numbers do get tight, does the State borrow cash to then invest in these funds – which would look very strange? Or does it divert money from other cash holdings? Sitting watching will be the National Treasury Management Agency, which was set up to borrow on behalf of the State. It has had a quiet time on this front in recent years, with the budget in surplus and a requirement just to keep things ticking over and refinance maturing debt. Now, as the State finances tighten, it may soon be back in business.
