- A new report from the Central Committee of Sudanese Doctors (CCSD) said that 108 people were killed and more than 500 were injured during a paramilitary attack on Sudanese protestors on June 3.
- The Sudanese government contradicted the CCSD report on Thursday when a Health Ministry official told Reuters that the death toll was at 61.
- International leaders have condemned the paramilitary forces that attacked the protestors.
- They have also expressed concern about stalled negotiations and clashes between the Sudanese military and protest leaders, who have been battling over who will lead the country’s transitionary government.
Central Committee of Sudanese Doctors Report
The Central Committee of Sudanese Doctors (CCSD), an opposition-linked doctors’ union, reported that 108 people were killed and more than 500 others were injured in a violent attack on Sudanese protestors in Khartoum on Monday.
Earlier this week, paramilitary security forces attacked a weeks-long demonstration staged by Sudanese protestors who have been camped outside the military’s headquarters since early April.
The security forces entered the camp, opening fire at civilians and torching their tents. It was also reported the security forces used live ammunition inside a hospital where wounded protestors were being treated.
After several hours, the paramilitary forces were successful in gaining control over most of the camp, having effectively dispersed the protestors and sealing off nearly a square mile area that the sit-in had previously occupied.
Since the attack, the reported death toll has been steadily rising. The CCSD first posted the recent information on their Facebook page late on Wednesday, and then provided more information in an updated post on Thursday.
However, there is a discrepancy between the doctor’s field report and the numbers given by the government. On Thursday, the director general of Sudan’s Health Ministry, Suleiman Abdel Jabbar, told Reuters that the death toll was at 61 people.
While Monday’s attack was especially violent and lethal, Sundanese demonstrators have been clashing with security forces since anti-government protests first broke out in December.
Ever since a military coup overthrew the long-time Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir on April 11, civilians and the military have been grappling for control of power.
Following the coup, the military installed the Transitional Military Council (TMC) to oversee a transition of power that they said will last at most two years.
However, demonstrators have demanded that the military ruler hand over power to a civilian-led government immediately.
Military leaders agreed to negotiate with protest leaders to form a transitional government, but the military and the opposition protesters have not been able to agree on the role of the military in that transition.
Over the last month or so, Sudan’s political climate has been defined by on-and-off negotiations as well as continued protests and demonstrations, some of which have reportedly been met with violence from security forces.
Following the attacks, numerous foreign leaders and government officials responded by condemning the violence.
U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton referred to the attack as “abhorrent” in a tweet.
That was also echoed in a statement from a U.S. State Department Spokesperson that said: “The United States condemns the recent attacks on protesters in Sudan.”
U.K. Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt condemned the incident in a tweet and said that the security forces’ actions would “only lead to more polarisation and violence.”
The following day the U.S., Norway, and the U.K. issued a joint statement condemning the security forces for attacking civilians, and calling for “an agreed transfer of power to a civilian-led government as demanded by the people of Sudan.”
The African Union, Egypt, Germany, and Qatar also issued separate statements calling for protest leaders and the TMC to return to negotiations, and the European Union called for a peaceful transition to a civilian government, according to Al Jazeera.
A number of international organizations responded to the attack too, like Human Rights Watch, which referred to the attack in a statement as “egregious rights violations” that “require urgent international action to halt further violations.” The group also called for the U.N. to launch an official investigation.
On that note, the U.N. Secretary General’s office released a statement following the attack. “The Secretary-General strongly condemns the violence and reports of the excessive use of force by security personnel on civilians, that have resulted in the deaths and injury of many,” the statement said.
However, on Tuesday, China and Russia blocked an effort by the U.N. Security Council to formally condemn the killing of civilians and call on world powers to stop the violence.
Additionally, on Thursday, the U.N. announced that it will be pulling all its personnel from Sudan, Al Jazeera reported.
The African Union also issued a more formal response on Thursday, announcing in a tweet. that they will suspend Sudan’s membership from the union.
With everything that has happened this week, it’s unclear how Sudan will proceed. Following the attack, the TMC said they would no longer negotiate with the protestors and called for snap elections in nine months.
Then on Wednesday, military leaders went back on that decision and said they wanted negotiations, but were rebuked by the protest leaders, who refuse to negotiate with them after the attack.
Meanwhile, demonstrators are still protesting and the military has said they will investigate the attack.
See what others are saying: (Al Jazeera) (The Washington Post) (BBC)
Egypt Seizes Ship That Blocked Suez Canal Until Owners Pay Nearly $1 Billion
- Egyptian authorities seized the Ever Given, a mega-ship that blocked the Suez Canal for nearly a week last month, after a judge ruled Wednesday that the owners must pay $900 million in damages.
- The ship was seized just as it was deemed fit to return to sea after undergoing repairs in the Great Bitter Lake, which sits in the middle of the Suez Canal.
- The vessel’s owners said little about the verdict, but insurance companies covering the ship pushed back against the $900 million price tag, saying it’s far too much for any damage the ship actually caused.
Ever Given Still in Egypt
An Egyptian court blocked the mega-ship known as the Ever Given from leaving the country Wednesday morning unless its owner pays nearly $1 billion in compensation for damages it caused after blocking the Suez Canal for nearly a week last month.
The Ever Given’s ordeal started when it slammed into the side of the canal and became lodged, which caused billions of dollars worth of goods to be held up on both sides of the canal while crews worked round the clock to free the vessel. An Egyptian judge found that the Ever Given becoming stuck caused not only physical damage to the canal that needed to be paid for but also “reputational” damage to Egypt and the Suez Canal Authority.
The ship’s Japanese owner, Shoei Kisen Kaisha, will need to pay $900 million to free the ship and the cargo it held, both of which were seized by authorities after the ship was transported to the Great Bitter Lake in the middle of the canal to undergo now-finished repairs. Shoei Kisen Kaisha doesn’t seem to want to fight the judgment in court just yet. It released a short statement after the ruling, saying that lawyers and insurance companies were working on the claims but refused to comment further.
Pushing Back Against The Claim
While Shoei Kisen Kaisha put in a claim with insurers, those insurance companies aren’t keen on just paying the bill. One of the ship’s insurers, UKP&I, challenged the basis of the $900 million claim, writing in a press release, “The [Suez Canal Authority] has not provided a detailed justification for this extraordinarily large claim, which includes a $300 million claim for a ‘salvage bonus’ and a $300 million claim for ‘loss of reputation.’”
“The grounding resulted in no pollution and no reported injuries. The vessel was re-floated after six days and the Suez Canal promptly resumed their commercial operations.”
It went on to add that the $900 million verdict doesn’t even include payments to the crews that worked to free the ship, meaning that the total price tag of the event could likely be far more for Shoei Kisen Kaisha and the multiple insurance companies it works with.
See what others are saying: (Financial Times) (CNN) (The Telegraph)
Treated Radioactive Water From Japanese Nuclear Power Plant Will Be Released Into Ocean
- The Japanese government confirmed Tuesday that it will officially move forward with plans to dump millions of gallons of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.
- The government spent a decade decontaminating the water, only leaving a naturally occurring isotope in it that scientists recognize as safe for people and the environment.
- Despite the safety claims, protesters took to the streets in Tokyo to show disapproval of the decision. Local business owners, in particular, have expressed fears that more municipalities worldwide could ban Fukushima products, including fish, because of distrust in the water.
- Meanwhile, officials have insisted that the dump is necessary as the water takes up a massive amount of space, which is needed to store highly radioactive fuel rods from the remaining cores at the now-defunct nuclear facility.
Editor’s Note: The Japanese government has asked Western outlets to adhere to Japanese naming conventions. To that end, Japanese names will be written as Family Name followed by Given Name.
Radioactive or Bad Publicity?
After years of discussions and debate, the Japanese government announced Tuesday that it will dump radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.
Government officials consider the move necessary, but it’s facing backlash from local businesses, particularly fisheries, over potential consequences it could have. Many are especially concerned that the decision will create bad press for the region as headlines about it emerge. For instance, a headline from the Guardian on the issue reads, “Japan announces it will dump contaminated water into sea.”
While the water is contaminated and radioactive, it’s not nearly what the headlines make it out to be. The government has spent the last decade decontaminating it, and now it only contains a trace amount of the isotope tritium. That isotope is common in nature and is already found in trace amounts in groundwater throughout the world. Its radiation is so weak that it can’t pierce human skin, meaning one could only possibly get sick by ingesting more than that has ever been recorded.
According to the government, the decontaminated water at Fukushima will be diluted to 1/7 of the WHO’s acceptable radiation levels for drinking water before being released into the ocean over two years.
Something Had To Eventually Be Done
Over the last decade, Japan has proposed this plan and other similar ones, such as evaporating the water, which the International Atomic Energy Agency said last year met global standards.
The water has been sitting in containers for years, so why is there a push to remove it now? Space and leakage seem to be the primary reasons.
The water containers are slowly being filled by groundwater, and the government expects to run out of space relatively soon. Space is sorely needed, as Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide has pointed out in the past that the government wants to use the space to store damaged radioactive fuel rods that still need to be extracted from the plant. Unlike the water, those rods are dangerously radioactive and need proper storage.
Regardless, Suga reportedly recognizes that removing the water is going to end up as a lose-lose situation.
“It is inevitable that there would be reputational damage regardless of how the water will be disposed of, whether into the sea or into the air,” he said at a press conference last week. As expected, the government’s decision did trigger backlash, prompting many demonstrators to take to the streets of Tokyo Tuesday in protest.
To this day, eleven countries and regions still ban many products from the Fukushima prefecture despite massive clean-up efforts that have seen people returning to the area to live.
Greta Thunberg To Skip U.N. Climate Change Conference, Citing Vaccine Inequality
- Young environmental activist Greta Thunberg will not attend the U.N.’s climate change conference set to take place in Glasgow, Scotland this November.
- “Inequality and climate injustice is already the heart of the climate crisis. If people can’t be vaccinated and travel to be represented equally that’s undemocratic and would worsen the problem,” the 18-year-old tweeted Friday, adding, “Vaccine nationalism won’t solve the pandemic. Global problems need global solutions.”
- Since rollouts began late last year, 40% of vaccines have been administered in wealthy and Western countries, according to The Washington Post.
- Scientists have warned that the longer the virus continues to circulate widely, the more chances it will have to change and potentially develop vaccine resistance.
Thunberg Points To Vaccine Inequality
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has said she is skipping the UN’s climate change conference.
The COP26 summit is set to take place in Glasgow, Scotland in November, but 18-year-old Thunberg told BBC she won’t attend because she’s concerned about the impact COVID-19 will have on attendance.
In a Twitter thread Friday, she responded to a headline about her plans to miss the summit.
“Of course I would love to attend…But not unless everyone can take part on the same terms. Right now many countries are vaccinating healthy young people, often at the expense of risk groups and front line workers (mainly from global south, as usual…),” she wrote.
“Inequality and climate injustice is already the heart of the climate crisis. If people can’t be vaccinated and travel to be represented equally that’s undemocratic and would worsen the problem.”
“Vaccine nationalism won’t solve the pandemic. Global problems need global solutions,” the teen continued.
Thunberg went on to say that if the summit is delayed, it doesn’t mean urgent action should too.
“We don’t have to wait for conferences nor anyone or anything else to dramatically start reducing our emissions. Solidarity and action can start today,” she added before noting that digital alternatives for the conference would also be insufficient.
“High speed internet connection and access to computers is extremely unequal in the world. In that case we would lack representation from those whose voices need to be heard the most when it comes to the climate crisis,” she wrote.
Data on Global Vaccine Distribution Efforts
According to The Washington Post, nearly 20% of people in the United States are now vaccinated, but many other countries are unlikely to hit that same metric by the end of the year, even with international assistance through the Covax program.
Current projections predict it could be years before developing countries distribute enough doses to come close to herd immunity, which scientists say requires inoculating around 70-80% of a population.
Since rollouts began late last year, enough shots have been distributed to fully vaccinate about 5% of the world’s population, but The Post reported that the vast majority have been administered in wealthy and Western countries.
Around 40% of vaccines have been given in 27 wealthy nations that include only 11% of the world’s population, according to the Bloomberg Vaccine Tracker.
That’s pretty concerning because scientists also warn that the longer the virus continues to circulate widely, the more chances it will have to change and potentially develop vaccine resistance.
Thunberg’s comments are a blow for U.K. organizers, who have already postponed the conference once from last November because of the pandemic. Even now, there has been speculation that it could be delayed again this year.
Thunberg would not play a formal role at the conference but her decision not to attend is a significant symbolic moment.
At COP25, the young climate change activist gave a headline speech and she typically attends major climate events of this nature. On top of that, reports say this summit was slated to be one of the most consequential climate conferences since the 2015 Paris accord.
On the agenda for this year’s conference discussions were country-level plans for cutting carbon emissions, along with progress on the Paris agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.