Category World News

The United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates only released a joint peace initiative for Sudan on Friday, but its viability is already uncertain.

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) fighting has left approximately 40, 000 people dead, according to the UN, but the death toll could be much higher. In Khartoum state alone, according to a research group from last November, 60, 000 people died as a result of the war, either directly from starvation or indirectly from starvation and disease.

According to UN data, almost 13 million people have been displaced in Sudan. And about half of those who remain are suffering from acute food insecurity, with some regions experiencing famine that has been predicted by government agencies to spread.

There have already been numerous failed attempts to put an end to the fighting. The most recent plan might have something different.

What exactly is in the most recent peace proposal?

The so-called “Quad” countries, which include the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE, have proposed a three-month humanitarian truce in the conflict, followed by a permanent ceasefire, and a nine-month transitional period during which a broad-based civilian-led government would assume power.

The statement read, “The status quo causes unacceptable suffering and risks to peace and security, and there is no viable military solution to the conflict.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is also at the center of the proposal, which states that Sudan’s future cannot be “dictated by violent extremist groups belonging to or allegedly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Some SAF members’ groups are viewed as having a loose relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members reject claims that they are violent or extremist. The Muslim Brotherhood is regarded as a “terrorist” group by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE.

What has the conflict between Sudan’s two countries been like?

A parallel government supported by the RSF has welcomed elements of the Quad’s peace plan, despite the RSF having yet to formally respond to it.

The army-established Khartoum’s government has criticized it, though.

The government said in a statement from its foreign ministry that it would not support “interventions that violate the sovereignty of the Sudanese state and its legitimate institutions, which are supported by the Sudanese people, and its right to defend its people and its land,” despite its welcome efforts to end the conflict.

Have previous attempts been made to put an end to the fighting?

Yes, but they have all failed. Nearly the entire conflict has been discussed in conversation. The ceasefires that were reached have been opulent, despite widespread mistrust and widespread accusations of violations.

A number of brief ceasefires and truces followed, all of which failed to hold up until almost the time the fighting started in April of that year.

Saudi Arabia and the US made one of the first significant efforts to put a stop to the fighting when they attempted to reach a ceasefire through the Jeddah Platform, which ran from May 20 to June 2023. Despite some gains, negotiations broke down as a result of conflicting information regarding access to humanitarian aid and allegations of reciprocal violations.

In a later year, the group of East African States known as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) announced that neither party had consented to a ceasefire pending direct negotiations, allowing either party to reject or contest the claim.

Saudi Arabia made another attempt in August 2024 through negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland. Negotiations should lead to a nationwide ceasefire, the intention was to. The SAF, however, criticized the UAE’s use of observers and claimed that it supported the RSF, and the negotiations stalled.

The UAE has refuted claims that it funds and finances the RSF, stating that its involvement in Sudan is solely for humanitarian purposes.

What is in question?

Sudan, one of Africa’s largest nations, had a 50 million population before the SAF and RSF’s conflict.

The UN notes that there are daily instances of “executions, torture, and rape” occurring in many communities where the spread of diseases, such as cholera, is already being spread through a depressed infrastructure, in addition to the tens of thousands of killed and millions of people who have been left.

The UN has identified the RSF as a “crime against humanity” that includes “large-scale killings, sexual and gender-based violence, looting, and the destruction of livelihoods – occasionally leading to persecution and extermination” despite the accusations of both sides.

A total of 24.6 million people, or roughly half of the population, are suffering from acute food insecurity, according to the World Food Programme, while 637, 000 others are suffering from starvation.

A bill that critics say could muzzle free speech and the media has sparked an outcry in the Maldives after the government of President Mohamed Muizzu pushed it through parliament, where it enjoys a supermajority.

A prominent union of journalists pledged on Wednesday to defy the bill, while the main opposition party called for protests and a global press freedom group urged Muizzu to veto the legislation.

“The Maldivian parliament has passed a draconian bill that seeks to muzzle dissent online and offline, both on traditional media and social media,” said Ahmed Naaif, the secretary general of the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA), the country’s biggest union of media workers.

“We journalists will stand together in defiance against this takeover of the media by the executive branch,” he told Al Jazeera.

Muizzu’s government, however, says the legislation, known as the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill, only seeks to create a unified body to oversee broadcast and online media and to “safeguard the constitutional right to freedom of expression”.

“Personal social media accounts used in a private capacity are not regulated under this legislation,” Foreign Minister Abdulla Khaleel said in a statement on X. He added that it will establish “clear standards and a code of conduct” and will also “address the challenges of misinformation, disinformation and coordinated manipulation of content”.

The controversy has ratcheted up tensions in the Maldives, an island nation of 500,000 people that has struggled to consolidate its democracy since it ended 30 years of one-man rule at the ballot box in 2008.

It comes months after the president’s allies in parliament and the judicial watchdog overhauled the country’s Supreme Court, suspending a judge and firing two others on allegations of abuse of power. The former judges say the charges were manufactured to influence the outcome of several cases, including one challenging constitutional amendments that strip legislators of their seats if they switch political parties.

The government denies the accusations.

Censorship

Muizzu’s party, the People’s National Congress (PNC), and its allies control 79 of the parliament’s 93 seats.

On Tuesday, the PNC called an extraordinary session in the evening, while parliament was in recess, to push the new media bill through. Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim ignored protests inside and outside parliament, expelling seven legislators of the main opposition, to go ahead with the vote.

The approved bill envisions the creation of a commission comprised of seven members, three of whom will be appointed by parliament and four elected by registered media groups. All members can be dismissed by the parliament, which is formally called the People’s Majlis of Maldives.

The bill also grants the commission sweeping powers to fine, suspend and shutter news outlets. These include for coverage that the commission deems contrary to religious norms, national security or public order.

The initial version of the bill had said it would not be parliament but the president who appointed three of the members of the commission, which some advocates and critics alike acknowledged showed the PNC had listened to some concerns to withdraw those provisions.

However, Naaif, the secretary-general of the MJA, said the bill still places the media “under government control” as the president’s party controls parliament and has the power to dismiss any member who is elected by journalists.

“The PNC has ignored our calls for the media to be regulated through a self-regulatory mechanism, without government interference. Instead, it is giving these regulatory powers to a politicised commission,” he said. “This bill is all about penalising journalists and media groups for their coverage rather than safeguarding the freedom of the press.”

Naaif also claimed a provision in the bill – which states that electronic media would be subject to the same rules as traditional media – puts anyone who publishes content online at risk. The bill defines electronic media as channels that broadcast news and information using audio, video, tape, and the internet.

“This bill will enable censorship of the internet to a whole new level,” he said.

The government, however, vehemently denies the claim.

“Let’s look at how ‘media’ is interpreted. It is interpreted as registered media. This bill will not apply to people who are not part of the media,” Minister of Youth Ibrahim Waheed, a former journalist, told the PSM public broadcaster on Wednesday.

“This bill will not apply to young people who are creating content for social media.”

Waheed also told reporters later that the provision on electronic media refers to channels run by registered media outlets on social platforms.

‘Sad day for democracy’

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has meanwhile declared the passage of the bill a “sad day for democracy in the Maldives” and called for the public to “join us to protest this draconian control bill”.

Former President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih said that the bill “signifies the end of press freedom in Maldives” and that the “underhanded manner in which it was forced through parliament, despite protests by journalists, opposition parties, media organisations, civil society, and the public, lays bare the government’s disregard for Maldivians’ democratic rights”.

Former Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid said that the government has “declared war on free speech” and that “instead of fixing the crises our nation faces, they are trying to censor the voices that hold them accountable”.

The United States Embassy in the Maldives, following the bill’s passage, urged Muizzu’s government to “uphold the freedoms of expression, including dissenting and opposition voices” while the Bar Council of the Maldives (BCM), which represents the country’s legal profession, called on the president to reconsider enacting the bill.

“The BCM believes the bill requires substantial revision and reconsideration to align with constitutional principles and international best practices,” Hussein Siraj, the council’s president, told Al Jazeera.

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) echoed the call.

“CPJ is deeply concerned that the Maldives Parliament has passed a bill that would undermine the work of independent journalists and place the media under government control,” the group said in a statement on X.

Tesla shares jumped 6 percent on Monday after CEO Elon Musk disclosed that he had bought $1bn worth of the company’s stock. The move reinforces Musk’s push for greater control over Tesla and comes a week after the company’s board offered him a $1 trillion pay package over the next decade.

Musk’s stock purchase – his first open-market buy-up of shares since 2020 – comes at a critical time for Tesla, as it races to transform into an artificial intelligence and robotics firm whilst also grappling with falling sales of electric vehicles (EVs).

But Musk’s pay packet has come in for intense criticism. Last weekend, Pope Leo decried the widening pay gap between corporate bosses such as Elon Musk – whose estimated wealth now stands at $367bn – and ordinary working people, which he said was a major factor in growing global unrest.

Why is Musk buying up Tesla shares?

On September 12, Musk, 54, purchased 2.57 million shares (which represents less than one percent of Tesla’s market capitalisation), paying between $372 and $397 per share as the price varied through the day, according to regulatory filings. He now owns almost 20 percent of Tesla, which seemingly pleases its investors.

Tesla’s share price rose to around $422 on Monday – still 12 percent lower than its all-time high of $479 (reached in December 2024). Following his recent move, Musk posted on X that the increase in Tesla’s value was “foretold in the prophecy”.

While Musk wasn’t an original founder of Tesla – he invested in the company one year after it was established – he became chairman in 2004. The South African entrepreneur has consistently demanded a bigger stake and more voting power at Tesla, having previously said he would prefer to build AI products and robots outside of Tesla if he cannot control 25 percent voting power in the firm.

Musk sold more than $20bn of Tesla’s stock (or 4.6 percent of its market cap) in 2022 to fund his acquisition of Twitter, now X, for $44bn. He also owns private holdings in SpaceX, Neuralink and The Boring Company.

Is Musk really being paid $1 trillion?

The Tesla CEO will have to meet certain performance-related criteria first. To unlock the full $1 trillion payout, Musk will have to raise the company’s valuation from roughly $1 trillion today to $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years. He will also have to sell one million autonomous taxis and one million robots and increase Tesla’s profits by more than 24 times what it earned last year.

Tesla currently operates a few dozen autonomous taxis in a limited area in the city where it is headquartered, Austin, Texas in the US. Known as “robotaxis“, they are self-driving vehicles but are accompanied by human “safety supervisors”, who can intervene if problems occur.

On the robotics side, the company unveiled its first humanoid robot – Optimus – in 2022. In 2024, Musk claimed that Tesla would deploy robots for “internal use [ie for use inside its own factories]” in 2025, and that it would have produced 5,000 units by then. Neither pledge has been met so far.

Musk also recently said that “80 percent of Tesla’s [future] value will be Optimus”.

How has Musk’s pay at Tesla risen over time?

After Musk joined Tesla in 2004, he took very little cash pay. Instead, he chose to be paid in equity. Then, in 2018, shareholders approved a landmark 10-year pay package for Musk – linked to various operational targets – estimated at $2.6bn.

As Tesla’s market value surged after the start of 2020 (when it was trading at just $29.50 a share), many of those pay objectives were met, and Musk received a large number of additional Tesla shares. Due to broad stock market gains since the COVID-19 pandemic, Musk’s earnings are estimated to have climbed by $40bn-$60bn.

Though Musk’s pay windfall at Tesla has attracted regulatory scrutiny for overcompensation, especially from Delaware’s Court of Chancery, most of the company’s shareholders have repeatedly ratified the CEO’s payment packages.

How do CEOs’ pay packets compare to those of average US workers?

Tesla doesn’t disclose non-executive salaries, so it is hard to say how Musk’s income compares to that of the average worker there.

However, corporate pay in the US has generally rallied in recent decades compared to that of workers. According to the Economic Policy Institute, average pay for CEOs at S&P 500 companies  – the 500 biggest listed firms in the US – rose by almost 1,000 percent over the 50-year period leading up to 2024.

By contrast, a typical worker at an S&P 500 company has seen his or her pay packet rise by just 27 percent (adjusted for inflation) over the same period. Stated differently, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased from 30:1 to 350:1 over the past five decades.

In an interview last week with Crux, a Catholic news website, Pope Leo singled out Elon Musk as an example of the kind of wealth he said was corroding “the value of human life, of the family, of the value of society”.

Asked about Tesla’s proposed $1 trillion pay packet, Leo responded: “What does that mean, and what’s that about? If [personal wealth accumulation] is the only thing that has any value any more, then we are in big trouble.”

Is Tesla in trouble?

Despite its recent uptick, so far this year, Tesla’s stock market performance has been among the worst of the “Magnificent 7” group of tech giants – which also includes Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft and Nvidia – having lost around 2 percent of its value this year so far.

Tesla’s most recent quarterly results showed profit losses amid falling demand for electric vehicles and increased import production costs associated with US President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs. Looking ahead, earnings look set to continue falling.