Category World News

The Rapid Support Forces’ control of the Heglig oilfield means that the most important functioning oil facility in Sudan has fallen outside the control of the central government, with production halted and workers evacuated towards neighbouring South Sudan.

The importance of this event is not merely symbolic; Heglig is a strategic hub on three levels:

Economically:

The Heglig field processes between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels per day for the benefit of Sudan and South Sudan, and the pipeline to Port Sudan passes through it. This means that its loss delivers a direct blow to what remains of the Port Sudan government’s cash revenues – including fees from the transit of South Sudanese oil.

Militarily:

Heglig represents the last major strategic position for the army in West/South Kordofan after the fall of el-Fasher, the capital of Darfur, and Babnusa in West Kordofan. The army’s withdrawal from the field – even if justified as being for the “protection of facilities” – reflects a shift in the balance of power in the region in favour of the RSF and their allies.

Geopolitically:

The Heglig field is highly sensitive as it is part of a shared oil network with South Sudan.  And historically, it has been a point of dispute between Khartoum and Juba (the 2012 crisis being an example). Now, it has become the subject of a new contention between Sudan’s army and the RSF, with a third harmed party being the government of Juba.

In this sense, the fall of Heglig will raise the cost of continuing the war for the government to an unprecedented level since April 2023, as it strikes at the last “economic pillar” on which the army’s authority in the east and north could rely.

A strategic shift, no end to the war in sight 

From a politico-military perspective, the effect of losing the Heglig oilfield can be read in three overlapping directions:

First: strengthening the RSF’s ability to impose new negotiating realities. After the fall of el-Fasher in October, talk began that the RSF was working to consolidate a semi-autonomous “Darfur/Kordofan region” as a base for later pressure on Khartoum. Control of Heglig will undoubtedly give the RSF economic weight and allow its leader Hemedti to claim that he controls not only territory but also a strategic resource equivalent to a “state card”.

Second: The control of Heglig restricts the army’s ability to finance its operations and maintain local loyalties, confirming that this loss comes after losing most of Darfur’s and western Sudan’s gold to the RSF and its networks. This now means that the army’s resources will rely on foreign support, seeking war funding and procuring weapons and equipment from abroad. In the future, Khartoum will also have to depend on internal taxation in the east and north – namely, what remains of South Sudan’s oil transit fees, if they continue. This places a major challenge before the army’s ability to sustain a long war of attrition with the same momentum.

Third: The possible shift of the main battlefront between the army and the RSF to the “el-Obeid – Kadugli – Dilling” axis. Field analyses reported in recent news coverage suggest the RSF will use its momentum in Heglig to advance towards Dilling and Kadugli, and possibly Abu Jubeiha, in preparation for strangling el-Obeid. This would mean that the Battle of el-Fasher was the “battle of the west” and the Battle of Heglig could be the “gateway to the south-central battle”.

However, it is important to note that holding Heglig does not mean the RSF can immediately exploit the oil, given the evacuation of the technical staff to South Sudan. The technical complexities of operating the entire pipeline mean that, for now, control is more of a disruption and pressure card than a stable production asset.

In the short term, the greater effect will be depriving Khartoum of revenue, not efficiently transferring it into the RSF’s coffers.

Will the fall of Heglig force al-Burhan to negotiate?

All indicators suggest that the cost of continuing the war for the government is rising both economically and politically, but this does not automatically mean an immediate readiness for settlement, for the following reasons:

The military leadership’s discourse in Port Sudan is still based on the idea that any early settlement with the RSF would mean rewarding a “rebel militia” and possibly the end of the historical army. Therefore, the decision tends towards continuing the fighting despite the high economic cost, in the hope of greater external support or internal shifts within the opponent’s camp.

The army is also betting on clearer support from certain regional countries, such as Egypt, and some international powers that see the RSF as a threat to their own regional security. Meanwhile, the RSF is betting that control over territory and resources will make many capitals deal with it as a reality that cannot be ignored.

The fall of the city of el-Fasher militarily, followed by the fall of the Heglig oilfield into RSF hands, may not yet push both sides to a serious negotiating table; rather, violations and massacres may increase. This suggests that Heglig alone will not be enough to pivot towards a settlement, but it does accelerate the exhaustion process that could make regional and international players more insistent on negotiations.

There is no doubt that the battle of Heglig, which was decided in the RSF’s favour, will increase economic pressure on General Burhan’s government and weaken its position, but the shift towards accepting serious negotiations depends on the accumulation of such defeats combined with external pressure from sponsoring states, rather than on this single event.

How will the balance of power be redrawn?

If we place the fall of the Heglig oilfield on a timeline alongside the fall of el-Fasher, a broader picture emerges: El-Fasher was the last major army stronghold in Darfur; its fall after a siege lasting more than 500 days made it difficult to imagine the army’s return to the region in the foreseeable future, and opened the door to the emergence of a de facto entity led by the RSF.

Human rights reports and United Nations monitoring referred to large-scale massacres, forced displacement, and the intensive use of drones by both sides, with attacks on medical facilities and schools.

The RSF’s decisive victory in el-Fasher accelerated the shift of confrontation to Kordofan, which acts as a “bridge” between the west and the centre. The RSF’s movements in West and South Kordofan, allied in some areas with the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (al-Hilu), have turned the region into a knot of three-way conflict: The army, the RSF, and an armed movement with a longstanding political project.

Redrawing the map of control remains highly complex; some media reports suggest that the possibility of dividing Sudan into a north and east under army control, and a west, most of Darfur, and wide parts of Kordofan under RSF control and its allies, has become increasingly noticeable.

This scenario means the war has entered a phase of “regional geopolitics” rather than merely being a battle over Khartoum. In this context, Heglig is not just an oil target, but a link in a project of regional expansion parallel to the central state.

What is the significance of Trump’s role and his talk of “personal intervention”?

In recent weeks, multiple indications of the new United States administration’s role have emerged, stated more than once by the president, especially during his meeting at the White House with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who invited President Trump to intervene personally to help end the war in Sudan, within a four-party coordination framework (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, US).

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Trump “is personally overseeing efforts to end the war in Sudan”, along with a warning to Sudan against allowing Russia to have a naval base on the Red Sea.

International newspapers reported last week that the Sudanese government in Port Sudan offered Russia a 25‑year agreement to establish its first naval base in Africa, granting Moscow access to the Red Sea, in addition to gold mining benefits. These reports suggest that the base would give Russia a strategic foothold to monitor navigation to and from the Suez Canal, a development that worries the US, which is competing with Moscow and Beijing for military influence in Africa. In return, Sudan would receive Russian weapons and air defence systems at preferential prices to confront the RSF. However, Sudanese officials warn that the deal could expose the country to problems with Washington and the European Union. US officials and military experts believe a Russian base in Port Sudan would enhance Moscow’s ability to project power in the region and raise its international standing.

It seems clear that President Trump’s administration will not take any decisive steps to intervene to end the war unless the Russian base project is completely frozen. Washington sees the proposed agreement as a direct threat to its interests in the Red Sea and to its strategic superiority in global trade routes, and considers allowing Moscow a permanent foothold on Sudan’s coast as a development that shifts the balance of power in the region in favour of Russia and China.

A new trend: war economy

The battle of Heglig and its surroundings reveals a more dangerous reality: The rise of the “war economy” logic in Sudan.

The RSF now control gold resources and informal trade routes, and are extending towards oil, while the army dominates ports and taxes in the east and north, and other armed movements retain local resources in their areas of influence. This fragmentation of resources deepens the model that feeds and sustains war, in which natural wealth becomes a tool of negotiation, a weapon, and a source of legitimacy. In this context, control of Heglig seems to be another step in the path of “commodifying the state” – turning oil and gold into an institutional substitute for the state itself.

Even if a ceasefire is imposed under international pressure, or an overarching political deal is reached, the persistence of these armed‑economic networks will leave Sudan vulnerable to repeated rounds of violence whenever disputes arise over revenue distribution. The state is in retreat, resources are turning into spoils, and militias are becoming parallel economic structures. Therefore, any peace path that does not fundamentally deal with the war economy – through dismantling, regulation, and restructuring – will only lead to a temporary truce preceding a new explosion.

In conclusion, the advance of the RSF and their control of Heglig represents a decisive turning point that deepens the imbalance of power and weakens the last pillars of the government’s economy, thereby increasing the cost of war for Khartoum and bringing closer the moment of negotiation – although the event alone is insufficient without cumulative gains on the ground and simultaneous international pressure. Between the fall of el-Fasher and Heglig, it becomes clear that Sudan is heading towards a spatial fragmentation into spheres of influence rather than experiencing a traditional war targeting the capital. This reality imposes a new approach to peace that goes beyond the binary of the two generals: al-Burhan and Hemedti. In this context, the involvement of President Trump in the crisis could be a catalyst for a new negotiation track, but its success will remain dependent on his ability to support a broader internal Sudanese process that engages civilians and addresses the roots of the conflict, foremost among them dismantling the war economy that spurs the continuation of the dispute.

Deadly fighting has erupted between Thailand and Cambodia, weeks after the two sides signed a ceasefire deal in Malaysia presided over by United States President Donald Trump.

Now the Trump-brokered peace agreement is on the brink of collapse after soldiers from the two Southeast Asian neighbours clashed again on Monday. At least 12 people have been killed and thousands displaced from both sides as clashes continued for the second day.

Nearly 50 people were killed and 300,000 displaced during the five-day fighting in July before Trump intervened to broker a ceasefire.

Trump has claimed to have stopped at least eight wars since he took office in January. But several of the conflicts he claimed to have resolved continue to fester.

Since the multi-phase Gaza ceasefire deal was announced by the US president in October, Israel has killed more than 400 Palestinians in violation of the deal. He mediated a deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda in October, but that has not ended the fighting.

What was the Kuala Lumpur joint agreement for peace?

The latest clashes have threatened to shatter Cambodia and Thailand’s delicate truce, which was first agreed in July before an expanded version was signed in October in a meeting attended by President Trump.

“I am pleased to announce that, after the involvement of President Donald J Trump, both Countries have reached a CEASEFIRE and PEACE,” Trump had posted in July. “Congratulations to all! By ending this War, we have saved thousands of lives.”

Below are the main points about the ceasefire:

• In the deal brokered by Malaysia and the US, both countries agreed to military de-escalation, including removing heavy weaponry and landmines from the border under ASEAN supervision.
• They also agreed to stop engaging in online information warfare, spurring the conflict.
• Since October, however, several rounds of renewed clashes and mutual accusations have threatened the ceasefire.
• Last month, Thailand said it would suspend its implementation of the deal after one of its soldiers was wounded in a landmine explosion.

An analyst told Al Jazeera that the fragile ceasefire was “forced” under threat of Trump tariffs.

“For all of us who are keen observers, the ceasefire was forced by the Trump administration and Trump’s involvement,” Virak Ou, the founder of Cambodian think tank Future Forum, told Al Jazeera.

When Trump got involved, Ou said, the Thai military – a powerful player in Thailand’s political landscape – was “not happy”. He added that ASEAN monitoring observation teams have not been empowered with enough resources to enforce the truce, while rising nationalism in both countries has also fanned the flames of the conflict. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a group of 11 regional nations.

“What I fear is that we’re now going to see, potentially, much longer, much deeper fighting – and that could last longer and have far deeper consequences,” Ou said.

Which wars has Trump claimed to have stopped? Have some of the truce deals survived?

The US president has claimed to have played a role in stopping or resolving wars or conflicts as follows:

• Thai-Cambodia border clashes
• Armenia and Azerbaijan deal
• Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo agreement
• Israel and Iran ceasefire
• Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza
• India and Pakistan truce
• Egypt and Ethiopia tensions
• Serbia and Kosovo conflict.

Some of the wars Trump claims to have ended are ones he participated in himself. His role in some other ceasefires is disputed. Still, there are other conflicts where the involved parties do credit him with playing a key role as mediator.

Trump said he deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the wars.

While US weapons and the country’s ironclad diplomatic support for Israel have been critical in Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Trump is also widely believed to have pressured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu more than his predecessor, Joe Biden, to end the Gaza war.

The war between Iran and Israel in June ended with a ceasefire brokered by Trump. But the bout of fighting, which started with Israel striking Iranian nuclear facilities, killing scientists and bombing residential neighbourhoods, also included the US as an active participant.

Trump took part in it by ordering his military to strike three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran struck back by hitting the largest US military base in the Middle East, in Qatar, before the ceasefire was announced.

In May, India and Pakistan waged an aerial war, bombing each other’s military bases. India said it also hit “terrorist” bases in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, while Pakistan claimed India killed dozens of civilians.

Ultimately, Trump announced a ceasefire after four days of fighting. But while Pakistan credits the US president for helping halt the fighting, India insists he had no role.

The hostilities between Cambodia and Thailand ended after phone calls from not only Trump, but also mediation from Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and a delegation of Chinese negotiators. So far, only Cambodia has thanked Trump for his role.

Relations between Serbia and Kosovo have been tense since the early 2000s. The European Union and NATO have always been key mediators in this region. Kosovo and Serbia signed a deal in 2020 under Trump during his first term. While relations remain tense, the two have not been involved in a full-blown war since Trump’s return to power.

Trump says he ended a war between Egypt and Ethiopia. But while the two nations have had tense relations, especially over a hydroelectric dam which opened on a tributary of the Nile River, they have not been in any war.

Rwanda and the DRC signed a peace deal in June, brokered by Trump. The ceasefire is fragile and tensions between the two countries remain high. DRC on Tuesday accused Rwanda of violating the peace deal.

Australia will introduce the world’s first outright ban on social media for under-16s on Wednesday.

The move marks the first time a country has imposed a blanket age-based ban on social media platforms of this scale, raising questions over how it will work and whether it will protect young people.

What ban is Australia introducing?

From December 10, children below 16 years of age will be barred from opening or using accounts on popular social media platforms under new federal rules announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government.

The policy requires platforms to block new underage accounts and to remove existing ones belonging to users younger than 16. Companies must also introduce systems to detect minors who attempt to access their services. It does not include video gaming platforms, however.

The measure comes after amendments to the Online Safety Act, overseen by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, were announced last year. The government says the policy is its response to rising concerns about cyberbullying, sexual exploitation, self-harm content and mental health risks.

Why is Australia doing this?

Research commissioned by the Australian government in 2023 found four out of five children aged eight to 16 use social media, often beginning between the ages of 10 and 12. That report was led by former National Australia Bank CEO Andrew Thorburn, who recommended age restrictions.

The government says the ban is necessary to “keep children safe” amid rising concerns about online harms.

The eSafety Commissioner has also reported a sharp rise in the number of complaints related to child exploitation, cyberbullying and exposure to self-harm content in recent years.

The government has framed the policy as part of efforts to “lead globally” on online safety.

 How will this ban be implemented and enforced?

The eSafety Commissioner said it will issue specific standards that platforms wishing to operate in Australia must follow, including age-verification systems such as ID checks, which could include uploading an image of a user’s face, regular audits, and compulsory reporting on how platforms identify underage users.

Penalties for platforms which do not comply may include fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($31.95m). Penalties will apply to the companies, not children or parents.

But experts have warned that enforcing the ban will be extremely difficult.

Joanna Orlando, a researcher in digital wellbeing and the author of Generation Connected: How to Parent in a Digital World, told Al Jazeera: “Tech-savvy teens simply use VPNs, fake birth photos for face scans, or migrate to less regulated platforms like Lemon8, or to platforms not part of the ban like video games. Enforcement is proving to be difficult in the days leading up to the ban.”

Louise La Sala, senior research fellow in suicide prevention at Orygen – Australia’s National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health – said, “Ultimately, reducing online harm would be a great outcome; however, we know from evidence that ‘banning’ anything from young people won’t work on its own.”

Aaron Mackey, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s free speech and transparency litigation director, agreed that the ban is “quite impractical to enforce at scale”, noting that some verification methods “are often inaccurate” while others “are easily circumvented”. So, while some children below 16 will get around the restrictions, some adults may find themselves mistakenly barred.

He added inaccuracy by biometric systems can also “discriminate against people of colour and people with disabilities”.

What implications does this have for users’ privacy?

Mackey said all forms of age-gating are “a privacy nightmare that burdens the civil liberties of people both young and old”.

He explained that age verification, whether via ID uploads or biometrics, requires people “to share sensitive information about themselves that could then be abused or hacked”.

“Kids are popular targets of identity theft,” he warned.

Orlando added: “Age verification requires collecting sensitive data, including government IDs, biometrics, creating risk in terms of hackers. It is also normalising surveillance for young people.”

Leading platforms, including Meta – which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, in addition to WhatsApp and Messenger, which are outside the purview of the new regulation – TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube and X have all indicated that they intend to comply with the new law.

Meta said it supported efforts “to create safer online spaces for young people”, while TikTok said it was still reviewing the requirements issued by the government.

According to Meta, which is banning new accounts for under-16s, it has already begun removing underage minors from its Facebook, Instagram and Threads platforms.

What do critics of the ban say?

Supporters, including some youth mental health organisations, say social media platforms have so far failed to enforce their own age limits and that early exposure to social media can heighten the risk of bullying and being exposed to harmful content.

Australian groups such as mental health foundation Headspace and Orygen, therefore, largely welcome stronger protections for some young people who are likely to benefit from delaying social media use during vulnerable developmental stages in childhood and adolescence.

They also warn, however, that a blanket ban could pose a risk for children. “Many young people are impacted in various ways. For example, those using platforms for legitimate support networks, education, or creative expression lose access,” said Orlando.

La Sala, of Orygen, said as the ban covers only social media platforms and not video gaming, it may not work. “It’s important to recognise that harms occur on platforms not currently included in this policy. This age delay does not prevent young people from accessing content available on these platforms without an account, and we need to support young people who use these platforms to seek help or connection.

“We also cannot forget those who are 16 and older. The platforms that they use also need to be safe. Reducing exposure to harmful content and other online harms needs to be a core element of social media use for everyone.”

Critics also say the ban could end up harming the very children it aims to protect, as social media access can be life-saving for many young people.

“We’ve surveyed young people and found that access to social media can be not only beneficial but life-saving to some. Censoring such access can shut off their ability to find community and engage in self-discovery, to pursue artistic education and opportunities, and to express themselves freely and receive valuable information,” Mackay told Al Jazeera.

Young people, he added, could become “cut off from communities and information that help them grow and develop, or even that help them preserve their own domestic safety”.

“A number of young people use social media platforms to chat with their friends, stay connected, meet others, and seek support for their mental health,” said La Sala. “This is particularly true for young people from marginalised communities. It’s important that alternative places for support and connection are shared with these young people so that we do not risk further isolating them or cutting off important supports.”

Research undertaken in Australia and other countries has shown that the impact of social media on young people is complex and varies widely. Some studies link heavy use to distress and mental health problems, while others show that online platforms can provide connection and support, especially for teenagers.

Orlando said there is no research which shows social media use directly causes mental health problems. “There is no research showing that removing social media will directly improve mental health. Instead, the research shows that social media may exacerbate existing mental health issues or exploit teenagers’ vulnerabilities.

“Removing social media will likely help, but it will not cure mental health issues. Many factors influence these, such as cost of living issues, family breakdown, stress, as we know, mental health is impacted by many factors.”

However, in Australia, studies by the eSafety Commissioner have found that children who use social media frequently are more likely to be exposed to harmful content.

It found that almost three in four children aged 10 to 15 have viewed content associated with harm, including hateful material, violent videos and body-image pressure.

The regulator has also found high levels of cyberbullying, with boys and girls saying they were targeted online in the past year.

Internationally, organisations such as UNICEF have highlighted the benefits social media can offer. UNICEF’s research shows that online platforms can help young people stay connected, explore their identities and access support, especially those who live far from their peers.

Are other countries likely to follow suit?

In the United States, several states, including Utah and Arkansas, have passed laws in recent years to restrict minors’ access to social media, though many have been blocked by courts on constitutional grounds.

Malaysia has indicated it is planning to introduce a ban similar to Australia’s next year.

In the United Kingdom, the 2023 Online Safety Act imposes strict obligations on platforms to protect users below the age of 18, but does not ban them. People are required to upload proof of their age before they can view certain material deemed harmful to children.

In October, Denmark announced that it plans to ban children under the age of 15 from holding social media accounts. Those aged 13 and 14 would be allowed access with the permission of their parents. There is no timetable for this to take effect as yet.

Denmark has been jointly testing an age-verification app from the European Commission alongside France, Spain, Italy, and Greece since July this year.

In Germany, children aged 13 to 16 are only permitted to access social media with consent from their parents. However, critics say this rule is not well enforced.

In France, a 2023 law requires parental consent before children under the age of 15 can obtain social media accounts, however technical challenges mean this has not been enforced yet.

Nigeria has rescued 100 children who were abducted by gunmen from St Mary’s Catholic School in Niger state last month. The students were handed over to state officials and will undergo medical checks, while authorities continue efforts to free around 150 others still held captive.