U.K. to Transfer Sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius in Historic Agreement

The British government announced its decision to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, a long-disputed archipelago in the Indian Ocean, to Mauritius. The agreement, reached after two years of negotiations, secures the future of the strategically important U.K.-U.S. military base at Diego Garcia while addressing decades of colonial injustices.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy emphasized the agreement’s role in safeguarding global security, particularly through the U.S. base used for operations in the Middle East and Africa. Diego Garcia will remain under U.K. sovereignty for 99 years, ensuring the continuity of defense operations essential to both nations.

This resolution also marks a significant step in correcting historical wrongs. In the 1960s and 1970s, approximately 1,500 indigenous Chagossians were forcibly displaced from their homeland to accommodate the military base. While the current agreement creates a resettlement fund for those exiled, many within the Chagossian community have criticized their exclusion from negotiations, viewing the deal as insufficient in addressing the full scale of past abuses.

Mauritius Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth hailed the agreement as the completion of his country’s decolonization, a symbolic victory for post-colonial justice. He expressed hope for the eventual return of displaced Chagossians, many of whom reside in Mauritius, the U.K., and Seychelles. However, activists continue to demand full inclusion in shaping the future of the islands and the well-being of the remaining diaspora.

The international response has been largely positive, with U.S. President Joe Biden applauding the move as a “historic agreement” that solidifies the critical role of Diego Garcia in global security. Nevertheless, dissent within the U.K., particularly from Conservative Party members, signals ongoing debates about the broader geopolitical ramifications. Critics, like MP Tom Tugendhat, warn of potential security risks, particularly concerning fears of Chinese influence in the region.

The finalization of this agreement marks a new chapter for the Chagos Islands, underscoring the deep, intertwined legacies of colonialism and modern geopolitics. It reflects both the complexities of strategic military interests and the enduring fight for justice by displaced communities.

Denmark’s incoming envoy to Ethiopia highlights the nation’s key role in stabilizing the Horn of Africa and promoting peace across the continent.

Ethiopia’s leadership in advancing peace and security in Africa, particularly in the Horn of Africa, remains vital to stabilizing the region, according to Denmark’s Ambassador-Designate to Ethiopia, Sune Krogstrup underscored Ethiopia’s longstanding commitment to fostering regional stability and its distinguished record in international peacekeeping missions.

“Ethiopia plays a very important role when it comes to peace and security on the continent, particularly in the Horn of Africa,” Krogstrup stated. He noted that Ethiopia’s proactive engagement with neighboring countries is essential in creating an environment marked by peace and stability.

Ethiopia has been a cornerstone of peace initiatives in the volatile Horn of Africa region, where it has often paid a high price in its efforts to restore stability. Over the years, Ethiopia’s commitment to regional peace has produced tangible successes, including counterterrorism gains that have strengthened the security of the entire region.

This leadership extends beyond the continent. Ethiopia’s contributions to global peacekeeping operations are among the most notable in the world, as the country has been a consistent participant in United Nations (UN)-authorized missions since 1951, beginning with its involvement in the Korean War.

Ethiopia’s contributions to UN peacekeeping missions are extensive, with more than 180,000 Ethiopian peacekeepers having served across various conflict zones since the country first engaged in UN peace operations. Ethiopia’s long-standing dedication to peacekeeping reflects its deep-rooted belief in collective security and multilateralism.

“Ethiopian men and women have played a critical role in supporting the UN’s mission to advance peace in the world’s most challenging hotspots,” Krogstrup noted, lauding Ethiopia’s global and regional efforts.

As one of the top troop-contributing nations, Ethiopia’s commitment to peacekeeping continues to underscore its influence in the maintenance of international peace and security.

Acknowledging the complex challenges facing the Horn of Africa, Krogstrup expressed optimism about Ethiopia’s continued leadership. “This region has been challenged by differences in opinions on critical issues, but we are hopeful that Ethiopia will play its part in ensuring the Horn of Africa moves towards a more secure and peaceful environment,” he said.

The Danish envoy also reaffirmed Denmark’s long-standing support for peace and security initiatives on the continent, particularly through partnerships with the African Union (AU) and other regional organizations.

“We will continue to be a close partner, not just to Ethiopia, but to broader efforts on the continent,” Krogstrup emphasized, reiterating Denmark’s commitment to supporting peace and stability in Africa.

As Ethiopia continues to navigate the challenges of regional conflict and security, its role as a key player in both African and global peace efforts remains indispensable. Through collaboration with international partners, including Denmark, Ethiopia is poised to sustain its contributions to peace and stability in the years to come.

Addis Ababa emphasizes regional development goals while Somalia and Egypt express concerns over territorial and security implications.

Ethiopia’s recent agreement with Somaliland has drawn strong reactions from neighboring countries, particularly Somalia and Egypt, as it stirs debate over regional sovereignty, economic partnerships, and geopolitical stability. At the United Nations General Assembly, Ethiopian Foreign Minister Taye Atske-Selassie defended the pact, portraying it as a regional development initiative in line with Ethiopia’s broader goals of fostering growth in the Horn of Africa. However, his remarks were met with sharp criticisms from Somalia and Egypt, each highlighting different concerns about Ethiopia’s expanding regional footprint.

Ethiopia’s Defense: A Push for Regional Development

Ethiopia’s foreign minister, in his speech, characterized the memorandum of understanding with Somaliland as a legitimate and strategic effort aimed at shared prosperity. Addis Ababa views this deal as an extension of its economic goals, especially as a landlocked country seeking greater access to regional maritime trade routes. According to Taye, the agreement does not infringe on Somalia’s territorial integrity but is in line with ongoing efforts to enhance regional cooperation and development.

In stressing the importance of unity against common threats, particularly terrorism, Ethiopia appealed to Somalia to prioritize collective security concerns over territorial disputes. Ethiopia’s role in supporting anti-terrorism operations in Somalia, particularly against al-Shabaab, was also highlighted as evidence of its commitment to regional stability.

Somalia’s Rebuttal: Accusations of Territorial Violation

In a firm counterpoint, Somalia’s Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre accused Ethiopia of encroaching on Somali territory under the guise of securing access to the sea. Barre framed Ethiopia’s actions as a direct threat to Somali sovereignty, stating that Addis Ababa’s moves were unnecessary and unlawful.

This diplomatic friction signals growing unease in Somalia about Ethiopia’s expanding influence in the Horn of Africa, particularly in relation to its need for maritime access, which Somalia perceives as a strategic encroachment.

Egypt’s Concern: Linking the Nile and Regional Politics

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty also weighed in on Ethiopia’s actions, although his primary focus was on the contentious issue of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). By linking Ethiopia’s deal with Somaliland to its unilateral actions regarding the Nile, Egypt painted a picture of a country disregarding the interests of its neighbors for national gain. Cairo’s concern lies in what it perceives as Ethiopia’s overreach in both regional water management and now territorial negotiations.

The Nile River dispute has long strained relations between Ethiopia and Egypt, with the latter fearing the GERD will restrict its access to vital water resources. Egypt’s intervention in the Somaliland issue appears aimed at reinforcing its broader concerns about Ethiopia’s growing assertiveness in the region.

A Regional Leader Under Scrutiny

Ethiopia’s defense of its policies comes at a time when the Horn of Africa is grappling with several challenges, from terrorism to humanitarian crises. Addis Ababa seeks to assert itself as a regional leader, but this ambition is increasingly met with pushback from neighboring countries wary of its growing influence.

The diplomatic rift at the UN reflects the complex interplay of national interests, security concerns, and regional development aspirations. Ethiopia’s emphasis on partnership and growth is contrasted by Somalia’s territorial fears and Egypt’s broader geopolitical worries, setting the stage for continued tensions in the Horn of Africa.

Navigating Diplomatic Tensions

Ethiopia’s Somaliland deal highlights its strategic push for economic expansion and regional cooperation, but it has sparked concerns among neighboring nations about sovereignty and regional security. Somalia and Egypt’s objections, while grounded in different issues, point to a growing diplomatic challenge for Ethiopia as it seeks to balance its domestic ambitions with regional stability.

As Ethiopia defends its actions on the international stage, the broader regional dynamics will continue to evolve, with significant implications for peace, security, and development in the Horn of Africa.

Tensions between Algeria and Morocco have hit a new high as Algeria accuses its neighbor of using “Zionist intelligence agents” to destabilize the country. The Algerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the immediate reinstatement of a visa regime for all foreign nationals holding Moroccan passports, signaling a significant escalation in the already strained relations between the two North African nations.

In a blunt statement, Algeria claimed that Morocco had exploited the existing visa exemption regime to allow these agents free access to Algerian territory, carrying out actions described as direct threats to national security. Algiers didn’t hold back, laying full responsibility for the deteriorating relations on Morocco’s alleged “hostile actions,” which it says are part of a broader destabilization campaign.

This accusation comes on the heels of the severing of diplomatic relations between the two countries in August 2021. At that time, Algeria cited a range of grievances, from Morocco’s normalization of ties with Israel to its stance on the Western Sahara dispute, and Rabat’s alleged support for the Kabylia independence movement, which Algiers deems a terrorist organization. Morocco, in response, dismissed these accusations as “completely unjustified.”

Morocco’s diplomatic maneuvers have only intensified since securing U.S. recognition of its sovereignty over the Western Sahara—a move it achieved in exchange for normalizing relations with Israel. Emboldened by this recognition, Rabat has aggressively pursued international backing for its territorial claims, leaving a trail of diplomatic tension with Algeria, which staunchly opposes Morocco’s stance on the Western Sahara.

The latest allegations by Algeria, invoking the specter of Israeli intelligence, introduce another layer of complexity to this already volatile relationship. Morocco’s deepening ties with Israel, part of a broader wave of Arab-Israeli normalization, seem to have exacerbated Algeria’s fears of external interference. The introduction of “Zionist intelligence agents” into this equation raises the stakes, further entrenching the hostilities between these two regional powers.

With Algeria accusing Morocco of nothing less than an assault on its national stability, the situation could escalate further, potentially drawing in other regional and international actors. The ongoing rivalry over Western Sahara, now fused with broader geopolitical shifts involving Israel, promises to keep the Maghreb on edge. The question is: will this latest diplomatic volley between Algeria and Morocco tip the scales towards greater confrontation, or will external pressure force a recalibration of their long-hostile relationship?

A motion to oust Foreign Minister Ahmed Macalin Fiqi ignites political warfare in Somalia as MPs accuse him of turning his ministry into a personal empire and misusing state resources.

Somalia’s political landscape is on fire as members of the People’s Assembly take a bold stand, launching a high-stakes motion that could spell the end for Foreign Minister Ahmed Macalin Fiqi. In a dramatic move, lawmakers have united in dissatisfaction, accusing the minister of running his ministry like a personal empire—where decisions, power, and authority all revolve around him. And this is not just about political gamesmanship; the stakes are much higher, cutting deep into the core of transparency, governance, and Somalia’s future on the international stage.

The allegations are as explosive as they come. At the center of it all is the claim that private companies have somehow gained access to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ official seal—a symbol of the state’s authority, now allegedly being wielded by commercial interests. Worse yet, MPs argue that the money collected through these dealings never made its way to the federal government’s coffers. It’s a direct accusation of financial mismanagement, and the implications are dire. If true, it casts a shadow not just over Fiqi but over the very institution he leads.

This isn’t just about a single minister’s fate; it’s about accountability, integrity, and whether those in power can be trusted to act in the country’s best interest. As whispers of corruption grow louder, the momentum is building. Parliament is gearing up for what promises to be a fierce and unrelenting debate, and there’s no question: Fiqi’s seat is getting hotter by the minute. Behind the scenes, MPs opposed to Fiqi are reportedly mounting a massive campaign to remove him, making it clear they are ready for a political showdown.

The question everyone is asking: Will the Foreign Minister be able to survive this storm? Or is this the moment his political career crumbles under the weight of scandal? What happens next will undoubtedly shake Somalia’s political foundations and send ripples across the nation’s governance.

The future of Minister Ahmed Macalin Fiqi now rests in the hands of Parliament. Every meeting, every speech, every vote will be scrutinized. This is not just another motion—it’s a battle for the soul of Somali politics.

Sudan’s Silent Suffering: Sexual Violence Weaponized as Conflict Rages On

In the shadows of Sudan’s bloody conflict, a heinous weapon has been unleashed—sexual violence. Since the eruption of war in April 2023, sexual violence has more than doubled, according to a new report from U.N. Women. This grim reality is just one of the many devastating consequences of the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, as the country descends deeper into chaos.

Hodan Addou, U.N. Women’s regional director for East and Southern Africa, minced no words when she addressed journalists on the crisis. “Sexual violence is being used as a weapon of war throughout this conflict,” she declared, speaking from South Sudan via video link. Her statement exposed the tragic increase in conflict-related sexual exploitation and abuse, particularly in war-torn regions like Khartoum, Darfur, Al Jazeera, and Kordofan.

The U.N. Women’s report issued a dire “Gender Alert,” drawing attention to the catastrophic impact the conflict has had on women and girls, especially the 5.8 million internally displaced. The horrors these women face often remain unspoken, with many victims too afraid to report the crimes due to fear of stigma, retribution, and a lack of adequate support. But the silence doesn’t erase the trauma.

“Rape and sexual violence are being used to break communities, to tarnish the social fabric,” Addou explained. “It is despicable, a human rights violation.” For those on the frontlines of this war, the toll has been unbearable. Women and children are not only witnessing the brutal deaths of loved ones but are also experiencing violence firsthand. The report paints a chilling picture of communities shattered by sexual violence, children and women bearing the brunt of the trauma.

As the conflict grinds on, over 6.7 million people have required services related to gender-based violence. “This figure is estimated to be much higher today,” the report emphasizes, a sobering reminder that the scale of this crisis is far greater than even official numbers suggest.

Though men and boys are also victims of gender-based violence, the majority of cases involve women and girls. Their suffering is compounded by Sudan’s broader humanitarian collapse. Sudan, now classified as one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, has seen 20,000 lives lost, 10.8 million displaced internally, and 2 million forced to flee to neighboring countries. The violence has transformed Sudan into the largest displacement crisis in the world—and the largest hunger crisis, with nearly 26 million people facing acute hunger.

As hunger tightens its grip on the war-torn nation, women and girls are disproportionately affected. “Women and girls are eating least and last,” Addou revealed. An alarming 64% of female-headed households are experiencing food insecurity compared to 48% of male-headed households. The everyday struggle for survival—access to food, clean water, sanitation, and hygiene—is hardest for the country’s women and children.

The health system is on the brink of collapse. According to the World Health Organization, 70% to 80% of hospitals across Sudan are non-functional, leaving women without essential health services. Maternal and child health care have been decimated, increasing pregnancy-related deaths. Whether due to gender-based violence or otherwise, pregnant women are dying from complications that could easily be prevented with proper medical care.

Dr. Margaret Harris, spokesperson for the WHO, stressed the scale of the health disaster: “Women are not getting the standard care that saves your life and your child’s life during childbirth or before childbirth.” Childhood vaccinations, disease surveillance, and vector control have all been disrupted, creating ideal conditions for deadly disease outbreaks to thrive.

In the face of this worsening crisis, U.N. Women is calling for immediate action to protect the women and girls of Sudan. “We are calling for protection for all women and girls,” Addou urged, advocating for access to food, clean water, and essential health services. Beyond protection, U.N. Women is demanding accountability and justice for the countless victims of sexual violence and exploitation.

The situation is dire, but there is hope that the world will not turn its back. “We cannot let Sudan become a forgotten crisis,” Addou declared, her words a reminder that while the conflict continues to ravage the nation, the global community must not stay silent.

Sudan’s women and girls, facing the dual horrors of war and systemic violence, deserve more than to be collateral damage in a forgotten war. They need justice. They need protection. And above all, they need the world to care.

The United States’ call for African representation at the U.N. Security Council sparks fresh global competition, with China poised to gain from U.S. missteps. 

This week at the United Nations, the United States made a landmark proposal to grant two African countries permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council (UNSC). While this gesture seems like a long-awaited acknowledgment of Africa’s growing role in global affairs, it comes with a significant caveat: the new African members would not have veto power.

For many African leaders, this condition undermines the entire proposition, turning what could have been a watershed moment into a symbolic move with limited real-world impact. This nuance opens up a larger conversation, not just about Africa’s representation at the highest levels of global governance, but about the broader geopolitical contest between the U.S. and China—one that is increasingly playing out in Africa.

Since World War II, the U.N. Security Council has remained dominated by five permanent members with veto power: the U.S., France, the UK, Russia, and China. African leaders have long argued that this arrangement reflects an outdated post-war order, one that fails to represent the continent’s 1.4 billion people or its geopolitical importance. When U.S. President Joe Biden voiced support for African seats on the UNSC, it should have been a moment of triumph. But the lack of veto power—essentially the main source of influence for permanent members—casts a shadow over the proposal.

Kenyan analyst Cliff Mboya sums up the sentiment: “What is the point in joining the Security Council if you don’t have veto powers? What are you going to do there?” For many, this condition feels like a half-measure, further exposing what Mboya calls the West’s “hypocrisy.”

This frustration among African leaders could, paradoxically, bolster China’s influence on the continent. Beijing has long portrayed itself as a champion of the Global South and a critic of Western neo-colonialism. While China’s rhetoric often positions it as a more genuine partner to developing nations, the U.S. proposal, with its significant limitations, risks reinforcing perceptions that Washington is not willing to fully support African empowerment.

China has played a delicate game when it comes to UNSC reform. On the surface, Beijing has expressed support for Africa’s “legitimate interests” in gaining representation, but it has been notably vague when it comes to specific commitments, particularly regarding African countries having veto power. This ambiguity allows China to maintain a favorable position without committing to a plan that might disrupt its strategic interests at the U.N.

Paul Nantulya, a research associate at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, believes that China’s ambivalence is intentional. While rhetorically backing Africa, China hasn’t clarified whether it supports giving African nations the same veto power that it enjoys. This strategic vagueness allows China to appear aligned with African interests without risking any substantive changes that might weaken its own influence on the UNSC.

Beijing’s approach could allow it to capitalize on any backlash against the U.S. proposal. By keeping its support for Africa’s U.N. ambitions broad but non-committal, China avoids alienating African leaders while waiting to see how the situation evolves. In the long run, this might deepen African countries’ pivot toward China, especially if they feel disillusioned by the limitations of the U.S. offer.

Despite the controversy, some analysts argue that the U.S. proposal is still a win for American diplomacy. Nantulya views it as a significant step forward that opens the door for further negotiations. Even without veto power, African representation on the UNSC would still be a considerable leap from the current status quo.

However, skepticism remains. The lack of a clear timeline for implementing the proposal raises concerns that this might be yet another diplomatic overture without teeth. Any real change to UNSC membership would require a two-thirds vote from the General Assembly and the consent of all five current permanent members, a tall order in the current geopolitical climate. Critics argue that the U.S. might be using this proposal to score points with African nations without any real intention to push it through.

This uncertainty plays into China’s hands. If the U.S. is seen as making empty promises, it could further erode its credibility in Africa, while China, with its track record of infrastructure investment and economic partnerships, could continue to deepen its ties on the continent.

Many African leaders aren’t satisfied with partial solutions. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and other leaders have called for comprehensive U.N. reform, pointing out that Africa’s exclusion from key decision-making bodies like the UNSC is a glaring injustice in today’s world. Some African nations are even advocating for the total abolition of veto power, a radical move that could fundamentally reshape how the UNSC operates.

If the U.S. and its allies want to remain relevant in this conversation, they may need to offer more than just symbolic gestures. The growing influence of African nations in global economics and politics demands more than a seat at the table—it demands real power.

If Africa does eventually gain two permanent seats on the UNSC, the question remains: who will fill them? South Africa, the continent’s largest economy, Nigeria, its most populous nation, and Egypt, a North African heavyweight, are all top contenders. But the process of selecting these representatives could create new divisions on the continent. As Nantulya points out, the competition for these seats might drive a wedge between African countries, with regional rivalries threatening to overshadow the broader goal of securing more influence at the U.N.

This internal competition could further complicate Africa’s path to permanent UNSC membership. Additionally, the very structure of the U.N. makes reform an arduous process, and with the need for agreement among the current permanent members, there’s no guarantee that the U.S. proposal will ever come to fruition.

As the U.S. and China vie for influence across the globe, Africa is emerging as a crucial battleground. The continent’s resources, growing economies, and strategic importance make it a prime target for both powers. The U.S. proposal to grant Africa permanent seats on the UNSC can be seen as part of a broader strategy to win over African leaders in the face of China’s growing presence. But if Washington’s efforts are perceived as insincere or inadequate, they could backfire.

China, with its long-standing ties to Africa through the Belt and Road Initiative and other economic ventures, is positioning itself as the continent’s more reliable partner. If the U.S. wants to counter this narrative, it will need to offer more than partial solutions. African nations are increasingly asserting themselves on the global stage, and they won’t settle for half-measures.

The People’s United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) has alleged that its leader, Mlungisi Makhanya, was poisoned in an assassination attempt in South Africa. This claim brings renewed attention to the southern African kingdom, one of the world’s last remaining absolute monarchies, where authorities have long been accused of suppressing pro-democracy efforts.

Makhanya, a vocal pro-democracy leader, was reportedly poisoned just as he was preparing to lead new protests against King Mswati III’s regime next month. The poisoning has drawn condemnation from opposition groups across the region, including South Africa’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, which denounced it as an act of repression by Eswatini’s monarchy.

Makhanya’s alleged poisoning comes in the wake of other high-profile incidents, such as the assassination of human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko in 2022, which opposition leaders also blamed on the government. Although the government has consistently denied involvement in these incidents, they have fueled further unrest and calls for reform in Eswatini.

Eswatini, previously known as Swaziland, is ruled by King Mswati III, who wields extensive control over all branches of government. Since ascending the throne in 1986, Mswati has maintained a tight grip on power, with political parties banned since the 1970s, though some opposition movements like PUDEMO have been allowed limited operation. However, despite these restrictions, pro-democracy movements have grown stronger in recent years, culminating in widespread protests in 2021, which were met with violent repression by security forces.

The alleged poisoning of Makhanya, which occurred as he was organizing new demonstrations, highlights the ongoing tension between the monarchy and opposition groups. The king’s regime has long been accused of stifling dissent through force and intimidation. This latest incident could further inflame tensions, especially as Eswatini prepares for another wave of protests.

Makhanya’s alleged poisoning is likely to draw more international attention to Eswatini’s political situation. South Africa, which has been a haven for exiled opposition leaders, could face pressure to intervene diplomatically. South African political parties like the EFF have already condemned the attack and accused the Eswatini government of orchestrating it.

At the international level, human rights organizations have condemned Eswatini for its handling of pro-democracy protests, accusing the government of serious human rights violations, including the killing of protesters. The growing unrest and the government’s harsh response may prompt further scrutiny from bodies like the African Union and the United Nations.

King Mswati III has ruled Eswatini for nearly four decades, presiding over a monarchy known for its lavish displays of wealth amidst widespread poverty. He has faced growing criticism from his citizens and international observers for his extravagant lifestyle and the state’s failure to address basic social and economic needs. With poverty levels high and political freedoms severely restricted, calls for democratic reforms have gained momentum, particularly after the deadly crackdown on protesters in 2021.

The assassination of Thulani Maseko, a prominent human rights lawyer and PUDEMO member, and now the alleged poisoning of Makhanya are seen as part of a broader pattern of political repression under Mswati’s rule. The government’s denial of involvement in these incidents has done little to ease tensions, as no one has been held accountable for these violent acts.

The poisoning allegations against Makhanya have further escalated the already tense political climate in Eswatini. If the planned protests proceed, they could lead to a renewed crackdown by the government, resulting in further violence and repression. With opposition leaders increasingly under threat, the international community may need to engage more forcefully to prevent further bloodshed and support a peaceful transition toward democracy.

King Mswati’s continued refusal to engage with opposition groups or enact significant political reforms suggests that the country’s political impasse will persist, potentially destabilizing the nation. The actions taken in the coming months, both by Eswatini’s government and international actors, will likely determine whether the pro-democracy movement can gain ground or be suppressed once again.