During the high-level general debate, over 50 African heads of state, vice presidents, and foreign ministers mounted the podium and delivered remarks on UN Security Council reform, debt relief, value-adding to critical raw minerals, finance, and AI (artificial intelligence).

According to the news media and analysis platform Africa Briefing, African leaders have rarely sounded more aligned on the need to rebalance global power.

“That does not mean Africa suddenly agrees on everything. It plainly does not. But on Security Council reform, the cost of capital, critical minerals, climate finance and new technologies, the common ground is hard to miss,” reported Africabriefing.com.

According to the UN General Debate transcript, Kenya President William Samoei Ruto emphasized that the continent’s 54 nation-states comprised almost a quarter of the UN’s membership, and its people represent about one-fifth of humanity, yet the continent still has no permanent Security Council seat.

“That imbalance might have reflected the world of 1945; it does not reflect the world of today,” Ruto said, arguing that change cannot be managed through institutions that refuse to change themselves. “Reform must lead to equitable and permanent representation for Africa, with all the prerogatives and privileges of permanent Council membership,” he said.

“Political reform and financial reform are not separate projects,” he continued. Rather, they ask the same question: do global institutions reflect sovereign equality? Or do they preserve inequalities which go back to another era.”

Ruto then explained that, “In 2024, developing countries accounted for less than a third of the record $102 trillion in global public debt, yet they paid about $1 trillion in interest—money that would be put to better use in education, which he labeled ‘the infrastructure of opportunity.’”

Telling those members of the General Assembly that Africa is not coming to the podium asking for anything, he said, “We come to propose.” He then pointed to Africa’s mineral wealth and agricultural potential and renewable energy resources. He also pointed out the continent has the world’s youngest population.

Change is already happening in the cocoa, cotton and energy sectors, he said, adding that the “African Continental Free Trade Area must become a platform on which Africa makes more of what it now imports.”

Ghanaian President John Mahama, adding to Ruto’s remarks, said while addressing the General Assembly, “Security Council reform is not a favor to Africa; it is an imperative for the legitimacy, credibility, and survival of the United Nations.” He added, “African leaders are no longer talking only about getting a seat at the table. Increasingly, they want a say in writing the rules as well.”

South Africa’s Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola exposed the in-plain-sight secret that should shame into reality the permanent members of the UN Security Council. “Over the past decade, 70% of Security Council resolutions have concerned conflicts on the African continent.

We are the Council’s main business, and we have no permanent say in it,” he said. Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa, whose country will assume a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council during the 2027 to 2028 term, said..

“Multilateralism is a crucial equalizer—it ensures that all have an equal voice under international law and an equal role in shaping our shared future,” he said. Mnangagwa added that the UN Charter remains the common compass.

In directing his criticism at the permanent members of the Security Council, he declared, “International law cannot be a shield for some and their sword against others.” He underscored, stressing, that “The United Nations has a sacred duty to save succeeding generations from this scourge of war.”

Recalling that Zimbabwe has more than 40 critical and rare earth minerals, Mnangagwa gave voice to his country’s efforts to promote value addition and beneficiation at source, including exporting locally produced lithium sulfate, demonstrating that retaining value at the source is possible for shared prosperity.

He also said that Zimbabwe’s national development initiatives have continued to be undermined by unilateral coercive measures imposed by some Western countries and called for their immediate and unconditional removal.

Désiré Assogbavi is Advocacy Advisor for Africa at the Open Society Foundations and blogs at assodesire.com. He shared his analysis and insight in his recent post titled, “What Africa Told the World at the UN General Assembly 2026 (UNGA81).”

“None of this demand is new. What was new came from Sierra Leone’s Julius Maada Bio, who coordinates the AU’s Committee of Ten on reform. He said years of negotiations without results have tested the credibility of the process, and that member states should have a consolidated model before this session ends, as promised in the Pact for the Future. That is a deadline, and deadlines can be tracked,” he wrote.

In his commentary, Assogbavi said that in his view, Bio also gave the most useful sentence of the debate. “Representation becomes meaningful when it changes decisions and improves lives,” he wrote, quoting Bio.

Assogbavi added, “Let’s be honest about the obstacles, though. Any change to permanent membership needs a Charter amendment ratified by two-thirds of member states, including all five permanent members. And the AU has still not decided which African countries would take the proposed seats, while Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa are all eyeing the role.”

Follow Jehron Muhammad @africawatchfcn on X

The post Africa speaks with one voice at UN General Assembly appeared first on Final Call News.

Under the negotiated agreement mediated by the African Union (AU) by the AU High Representative for the Horn of Africa and former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, that the warring parties signed in Pretoria, the TPLF promised to disarm, and the parties agreed that Tigray would have an interim administration governing with the approval of both sides. 

The International Crisis Group noted on its website, crisisgroupl.org, that while the Pretoria agreement was welcomed for bringing the conflict to an end, “the Pretoria deal left a number of open wounds.”

Among these wounds, “The TPLF felt aggrieved by what it considered a lopsided settlement and, according to the (Ethiopian) government, it failed to honor its disarmament pledge.

Eritrea, which had overcome enmity with the federal government to join the anti-TPLF campaign, felt it had been inadequately consulted on the final deal and wished the government had pushed to achieve a full battlefield victory.

The status of   hotly contested territories that the Amhara region had seized from Tigray during the conflict was left unresolved—leaving Tigrayans displaced from these areas languishing in temporary camps,” the International Crisis Group, a Brussels, Belgium-based independent nongovernmental organization, explained.

According to Alemayehu Weldemariam, a professor of law at Indiana University, Ethiopia’s federal government bears partial responsibility for the collapse of the Pretoria  Agreement. He told Al Jazeera that “This war has been in the making for a while now.

Much of the provisions in the cessation of hostilities (in the 2022 agreement) were primarily sabotaged by the federal government itself.” He cited fuel, service, and cash restrictions imposed on Tigray, and the government’s failure to set up the interim administration the deal had promised.

The TPLF, which “dominated Ethiopian politics from 1991 until Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to power in 2018, has recently joined six other armed groups in a new opposition alliance, reported Radio France Internationale (Rfi), a prominent French public radio network.

The opposition groups formed an alliance to overthrow and remove Prime Minister Ahmed and his government from office. The coalition calls itself the Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival.

The loose coalition includes the Amhara Fano National Movement, the Oromo Liberation Army, the Ogaden National Liberation Front, the Afar Revolutionary Democratic Unity Front, the Benishangul Peoples’ Liberation Movement, the Gumuz Peoples’ Democratic Movement and the TPLF.  

In a joint statement issued by the Alliance for Survival, they stated in part, “… we, the peoples’ forces concerned with the survival of Ethiopia’s peoples, bear the historic responsibility of overthrowing this regime, safeguarding the survival of all nations, nationalities and peoples, and opening a new chapter.”

According to Agence France-Presse (AFP), army chief Field Marshal Brian Jula said, “We are fighting forces that are organized and allied to serve the interests of external forces. Neither Shaebia (Eritrea) nor the TPLF can achieve anything alone, even if they are allied, unless they are backed, supported and supplied by Sudan, Egypt and other external powers.”   

Regarding Sudan, according to reporting by the International Crisis Group, “Ethiopia’s leaders are furious at the Sudanese army for hosting thousands of Tigrayan fighters in territory under its control, whom they fear could attack Ethiopia from across the border or return to Tigray to join in battling the government.”

According to the crisis group, “Many of these fighters have aided Khartoum in its own civil war with the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Seeing the Sudanese army as part of a regional axis coordinating with Ethiopian opposition forces.

Addis Ababa has reportedly responded by allowing arms flows to the RSF and permitting it to operate from Ethiopian territory near Sudan’s Blue Nile state, where the paramilitary has made a series of gains.

Ethiopia is also a close ally of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is widely seen (despite its denials) as the RSF’s main backer. Meanwhile, the UAE’s Saudi rivals are aligned with the Sudanese army, as are Egypt and Eritrea, both arch foes of Ethiopia.”

Rfi reported the Alliance for Survival’s latest offensive into Afar also “threatens routes linking landlocked Ethiopia with Djibouti, through which the vast majority of the country’s international trade—including fuel supplies.”

According to Euroobserver.com, about 97% of Ethiopia’s trade goes through Djibouti’s port, and a series of regional chain reactions is possible, including the prospect of a civil war in northern Ethiopia.

Add to the above, theconversation.com explained the relationship between Ethiopia and Eritrea has “deteriorated sharply over the demand by Ethiopia, which is landlocked, to have access to the Red Sea. Statements from Ethiopian officials contemplating the acquisition of the Eritrean port of Assab by force have caused alarm in the Eritrean capital of Asmara.”

Abiy Ahmed government’s Ethiopian National Defense Force is recognized as one of Africa’s five most powerful militaries. It has over 503,000 active personnel, a multi-billion-dollar defense budget, and an advanced arsenal of combat aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones.

If these tensions between Ethiopia and Tigray continue escalating, coupled with fighting still happening in Sudan, concern is mounting that the Horn of Africa could become engulfed in war.

Follow Jehron Muhammad @africawatchfcn on X

The post Could expanding conflict in Ethiopia engulf the entire Horn of Africa? appeared first on Final Call News.

During his opening remarks he described Africa as a “double victim of colonialism,” noting that historic subjugation prevented African nations from having a voice or a permanent seat when post-World War II international institutions were created.

Addressing the “Unstoppable Africa 2026 forum on the margins of the 81st UN General Assembly” on Sept. 20, Guterres emphasized that the Security Council was designed in the aftermath of World War II when most of Africa was still under colonial rule.

He said the Security Council’s current configuration fails to reflect today’s fundamentally changed world and demographic realities. “Africa (the UNGA’s largest voting bloc) deserves permanent seats on the Security Council to reflect the current reality of the world,” he said, according to reporting by TRT Africa.

He later stated that, “This must change.” He urged permanent representation be granted to Africa as part of broader global governance and multilateral financial architecture reforms.

United States President Donald Trump, representing the host country spoke next. He again attacked the United Nations, which he believes is “imposing a radical-left wing agenda,” noted the BBC. The BBC noted that according to its “UN insiders” they describe first year of Trump’s second term as one of chaos for the international body, but that the UN is now in a marginally better position.

During Trump’s meandering 40-plus minute speech, where he didn’t mention Africa, at all but continued threats against Iran. He added, an agreement could be made between Iran and the U.S. after U.S. mid-term elections in November.

Giving substance to why the Secretary-General urged permanent representation on the Security Council be given to African countries, we must revisit the 64th UN General Assembly and to Libyan leader, Muammar Gadhafi’s 2009 speech. At the time the chairman of the African Union, the Libyan leader’s remarks took permanent members of the Security Council: United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, to task.  

Clad in copper colored African garb, with an emblem of Africa pinned to the front, while reading from a copy from the UN Charter, Colonel Gadhafi said, “The veto is against the charter, we do not accept it and we do not acknowledge it.”

He opened his remarks, stating: “As is known, the United Nations was founded by three or four countries against Germany at the time. The United Nations was formed by the nations that joined together against Germany in the Second World War. Those countries formed a body called the Security Council, made its own countries permanent members and granted them the power of veto.”

Col. Gadhafi continued that if, “one reads the Charter of the United Nations, one finds that the Preamble of the Charter differs from its Articles. How did it come into existence?

All those who attended the San Francisco Conference in 1945 participated in creating the Preamble, but they left the Articles and internal rules of procedures of the so-called Security Council to experts, specialists and interested countries, which were those countries that had established the Security Council and had united against Germany.”

During his talk Col. Gadhafi said, “Veto power should be annulled.”

He continued, “The Security Council did not provide us with security but with terror and sanctions,” he told leaders gathered for the opening of the 192-nation General Assembly, according to the transcript of the speech published on africanews.com. “The Preamble is very appealing, and no one objects to it.

But all the provisions that follow it completely contradict the Preamble. We reject such provisions, and we will never uphold them; they ended with the Second World War. The Preamble says that all nations, small or large, are equal. Are we equal when it comes to the permanent seats? No, we are not equal,” he said.

“The Preamble states in writing that all nations are equal whether they are small or large. Do we have the right of veto? Are we equal? The Preamble says that we have equal rights, whether we are large or small. That is what is stated and what we agreed in the Preamble. So, the veto contradicts the Charter. The permanent seats contradict the Charter. We neither accept nor recognize the veto.”

Col. Gadhafi who spoke just after then-President U.S. President Barack Obama, also said the only country that was democratically elected to the Security Council was China. He said the other seats held by the other countries were “imposed upon us undemocratically through a dictatorial procedure carried out against our will, and we should not accept it.”

Col. Gadhafi was correct. Veto power by the five permanent members of the Security Council has rendered the United Nations ineffective. A case in point is “forever wars.” The U.S. and Russia have used their veto power to nullify any recommendations for ending ongoing and increasing conflicts in Gaza, the West Bank, Iran and Ukraine. 

A new member state cannot receive permanent membership or veto status in the UN Security Council without a formal amendment to the United Nations Charter. According to the Carnegieendowment.org,

“Because changing the  Security Council’s composition requires the explicit consent of every current permanent member, any single existing P5 nation can block the entire expansion by refusing to ratify the change. This gives the current permanent members absolute control over whether any new country can join their ranks with equal veto power.”

Follow Jehron Muhammad @Africawatchfcn on X

The post UN Secretary-General says Africa should have permanent membership on Security Council appeared first on Final Call News.

In 2015, under the auspices of the African Union Commission of Inquiry, anthropologist and scholar Professor Mahmood Mamdani said South Sudan was not a “failed state; it was a failed transition.”

According to Mamdani, South Sudan’s mandated breakaway in 2011 to form a new independent nation-state was rushed and has also resulted into the recurring violence in the neighboring state of Sudan. Mamdani suggested that for peace to prevail in the world’s youngest nation-state, the current political class should step aside.

Mamdani was part of the African Union Commission of Inquiry panel on South Sudan which sought to inquire into the causes of the violence. He also says the United Nations must take responsibility for doing little or nothing to mitigate the violence when it first broke out in December of 2013.

On July 29, of this year, the Global Center Tracker published by the Washington Center for Peace and Security, released a report titled: “Instability in South Sudan,” on cfr.org.

A synopsis of the report also defines the conflict as ethnic and political rivalry between President Kiir and Vice President Machar. Despite a 2018 peace deal, “the agreement’s core reforms, including army unification, a permanent constitution, and elections, were never implemented,” the report notes.

According to the report, “Kiir’s arrest of Machar in 2025 collapsed the unity government entirely, reigniting conflict that has since displaced hundreds of thousands and pushed the country toward full-scale famine.”

To give substance to South Sudan as a failed state we review its history prior to the 2011 referendum. That history included Dr. John Garang, the prominent Sudanese rebel leader that championed the vision of a united, democratic, and pluralistic “new Sudan,” where he would serve as vice president. He did not support, as Salva Kiir did, the secession of the South.

A developmental economist by profession, Dr. Garang was one of the major influences on the movement that led to the foundation of South Sudan’s independence from the rule of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir. From 1983 to 2005, he led the Sudan People’s Liberation Army Movement (SPLA/M).

Dr. Garang achieved a core part of this vision when he successfully negotiated the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Under this historic power-sharing deal, he was officially sworn in as the first vice president of Sudan, July 2005, serving alongside President Omar al-Bashir.

He served as first vice president of Sudan for three weeks, from the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 until his death, in a July 30, 2005, helicopter crash under questionable circumstances.

His widow attributed his death to an assassination. According to a 2007 report published on sudantribune.com, Ms. Garang, at a public event said: “When my husband died, I did not come out openly and say he was killed because I knew of the consequences. At the back of my mind, I know my husband was assassinated.”

She gave no evidence to back her assertion. An investigation concluded that pilot error was to blame for the crash.

Years prior to the split of South Sudan from Sudan peace talks and negotiations to resolve conflict were taking place. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, who has always been an arbiter of peace and unity, participated in some of these efforts.

During the 1994 talks in Kampala, Uganda, that included Dr. Garang and President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Minister Farrakhan was initially involved. The talks were designed to help settle the longstanding conflicts between North and South Sudan.

As reported previously in Africa Watch, in a January 2020 article published in The Final Call, Minister Abdul Akbar Muhammad, International Representative of Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, said that Museveni and Garang both had very high regard for Minister Farrakhan and his ability to act as a “neutral arbiter.”

They were preparing for Intergovernmental Authority on Development-hosted peace talks in Kenya. But the American Ambassador to Sudan, Donald K. Peterson, “didn’t want Farrakhan involved,” said Minister Akbar Muhammad, in the Africa Watch column, titled, “Farrakhan’s African influence and the year of Return to the Motherland.”

“Minister Akbar Muhammad added it was ‘reported to me … the talks would actually discontinue unless Minister Farrakhan was removed from the discussion.’ IGAD members obviously had bowed to the wishes of the U.S. ambassador. Not wanting to be ‘where he was not wanted,’ Min. Farrakhan left the talks,” my 2020 column noted.

While appearing on May 7, 2006, on “The Open Line Show,” on 98.7 KISS FM, hosted by the late James Mtume, Minister Farrakhan shared his recollections of meeting in Uganda with Garang. Minister Akbar was also in the studio. Minister Farrakhan said he met with Museveni in Uganda, then he spoke on Garang.

“The most important meeting was the meeting with Brother John Garang, who for 20 years was fighting the government in Khartoum. Why was there a fight? Was it (the fight) over slavery? No time during our talk with John Garang, which was four hours in length, was there ever a mention of slavery. But when I mentioned the word justice John Garang’s wife broke down and cried. She said that I was the only person who came and talked about justice. Now what was the injustice?”

Ms. Garang later expressed deep appreciation for Minister Farrakhan’s willingness to openly address the core injustices and racial and ethnic dynamics at play during a turbulent time when international mediation struggled to bridge the divides in Sudan.

Discussing the history of racism in the region, Minister Farrakhan explained:

“The Arabs have mixed their blood with the Africans that lived in the North. They are Arabized and Islamic. And the same racist poison that has poisoned the bloodstream of Islam has made the Arab north feel superior to the Christian and animist African south. The south is Black, Black, Black … So Black until there is Blue in their color. So, when you have, like the enemy has done to us (race-mixing in U.S.). When you’re lighter, you think you’re better than your Black brother or sister.”

Minister Farrakhan in his divine guidance and insight also warned of the motives of those who want to continue fomenting disunity in Sudan and South Sudan. He also spoke on the power of a united Sudan.

Minister Farrakhan stated in an April 8, 2007, message, “The War of Armageddon: How Strong Is The Foundation, Can We Survive?” that America wanted “to set up a secular government in the Sudan and overthrow the Islamist regime.”

“The Sudan is so rich, potentially, that this area—if cultivated—could feed the whole of Africa. Sudan has oil in the South, oil in the West, and an Islamist regime in the North in the capital of Khartoum. America does not want an Islamist regime in Khartoum,” he said.

Before 2011, Sudan was Africa’s largest country. With Garang’s reconciliation and coalition government and Min. Farrakhan’s call for “justice” for Sudan’s disenfranchised Black population peace and unity could have been attained. Landlocked Southern Sudan—home of Sudan’s oil and mineral wealth, and arable land along with utilizing the North’s infrastructure, pipeline, and ports to ship oil to market, as a united and strong alliance would be good for the continent.

Follow Jehron Muhammad @Africawatchfcn

The post Reflecting on Sudan, South Sudan history amid today’s challenges facing both countries appeared first on Final Call News.

The Chairperson of the African Union (AU) Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, welcomed the UNGA resolution that encourages the use of the “Equal Earth cartographic projection” in maps globally to replace the widely used Mercator projection.

In a statement, the AU said adopting the resolution, sponsored by the West African country of Togo, marks an important step forward. According to reporting by the Chinese news agency Xinhua, the Mercator projection.

Which was designed in the 16th century primarily for navigation, does not accurately reflect the relative surface areas of different regions of the world and significantly understates the true size of the African continent. “A map is never merely a map.

It reflects how the world is imagined,” noted the article, headlined, “Opinion: The map was wrong, but the perception problem is real,” by Xinhua and published on English.news.cn.

The UNGA measure passed 164 to 1, with the United States, not surprisingly, casting the only vote against it. Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Moldova, Serbia, and Ukraine abstained, the UN reported.

“Every flat map lies because the Earth is a sphere and no projection can flatten it without distorting something: shape, area, distance or direction,” noted an article published on Al Jazeera.

“Gerardus Mercator, a cartographer and geographer who published the world map in 1569, chose to preserve angles and straight bearings, a trade-off that made sense for 16th-century ships but has kept shaping perceptions of the world for nearly 500 years since.

Equal Earth makes the opposite trade-off, preserving true area so continents can be compared honestly, at the cost of slightly bending their outlines,” according to aljazeera.com.

Equal Earth projection shows countries and continents in their true relative size. “Maps shape our understanding of the world,” Togolese Foreign Minister Robert Dussey said, reported UN News.

“A fair map does not change the geography of the world; it changes how we see the world,” he said, adding, “And when our perspective becomes more just, it paves the way for greater understanding, respect and peace among nations.”

In foreign affairs reporter Tim Marshall’s 2015 book, “Prisoners Of Geography: Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need To Know About Global Politics,” he writes, “The world’s idea of African geography is flawed.

Few people realize just how big (Africa) it is. He adds, “Africa is far, far longer than usually portrayed, which explains what an achievement it was (in past history) to round the Cape of Good Hope (South Africa).”

“Many Africans,” wrote Marshall, “are now partially the prisoners of the political geography the Europeans made … .”  He was referring to the divvying up of Africa by Europeans during the 1884-1885 Berlin Conference. The colonial powers drew artificial borders on paper, ignoring the region’s physical realities.

To show students how Europeans divided Africa, this writer once stood in front of my son Equiano’s sixth-grade class in Philadelphia. Armed only with a magic marker, I drew “artificial borders” on a map of Africa, devoid of its current nation-states. I projected it from the internet onto an erasable board.

According to the documentary “Scramble for Africa,” the 1885 Act of Berlin did the same thing—carve up Africa by simply drawing lines on a map. “Places where they had not even been yet. Between 6,000 and 10,000 political units were carved up. People … were just cut off from (water sources) … it was complete geographical madness,” the film noted.

Marshall explains that after fighting for and achieving independence from their colonial rulers, many African states “encompassed the same divisions they did when first drawn, and those formal divisions are some of the many legacies colonialism bequeathed the continent.” 

He also explained that “modern civil wars (in Africa) are partially because the colonialists told different nations (a product of artificial borders) that they were one nation in one state, and then after the colonialists were chased out, a dominant people emerged within the state who wanted to run it all, thus ensuring violence.”  

As the side effects of some medication, the aftereffects of imposing artificial borders, explained Marshall, “can lead to a weak and divided state, ravaged by internal conflict, and whose mineral wealth condemns it to being exploited by outsiders.”

The UNGA vote matters even though the resolution is nonbinding; it does not ban the Mercator projection but, according to UN News, “simply encourages wider use of the Equal Earth projection.”

As the Iraqi-based news site Kurdistan24.net noted, “the significance of correcting the centuries old map inaccuracy lies less in declaring one map universally correct than in challenging the assumption that a navigational projection should remain the default representation of the world in classrooms, media and digital platforms.

The vote gives broad international support to an argument African governments and campaigners have increasingly advanced: maps do more than show geography.” Follow Jehron Muhammad @africawatchf

The post Maps can shape how we understand the world appeared first on Final Call News.

Hunger has been another fallout from the current crisis. In Sudan, with a population of 51 million, more than 19.5 million are “acutely food insecure,” according to the World Food Program (WFP).

The death toll from direct violence, resulting from the conflict between General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, leader of the Sudan Armed Force (SAF), and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who leads the paramilitary Rapid Support Force (RSF), has been tracked at nearly 60,000. UN Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo warned that “the true death toll is likely in the hundreds of thousands,” and said that “13 million people have been displaced amid widespread atrocities, including mass killings, sexual violence, child recruitment, attacks on hospitals and drone strikes on civilian infrastructure.”

Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher said, “over two-thirds of Sudanese civilians desperately need life-saving aid but it is constrained by a lack of action and access. Meanwhile, Sudan’s Ambassador outlined his government’s action to protect civilians,” noted Globalissues.org.

During the briefing, several presenters warned that the war being waged between the SAF and the RSF is crossing regional borders, “fueling refugee flows, land cross-border insecurity and the proliferation of weapons.”

The United States encouraged the UNSC to renew the set to expire on September 12, 2026, arms embargo on Darfur. U.S. plans are to expand the arms embargo on the Sudanese region of Darfur to cover all of Sudan, saying the nation’s brutal conflict risks regional expansion. However, France 24 reported, Russia, with veto power, warned against new measures that would impact the “Sudanese army.”

UN News reported that there was a call to action that urged an immediate humanitarian truce, a permanent ceasefire, and “accountability for atrocities, unhindered aid access, and an inclusive Sudanese-led political process, while pressing external actors to stop fueling the conflict and use their influence to bring the parties to the negotiating table.”

According to reporting by Radiotamazuj.org, on Aug. 22-23 in a meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, officials from Sudan who oppose the war rejected an initiative by SAF military leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan for a “Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue,” saying they would neither participate in the process nor recognize its outcomes.

“The groups instead proposed an alternative peace roadmap built around three parallel tracks: humanitarian assistance, a permanent ceasefire and an exclusively civilian political process,” the outlet reported.

Participants in the meeting included representatives of the Sudanese Declaration of Principles, the Popular Congress Party founded by the late politician and former Attorney General Hassan al-Turabi, and headed by Ali al-Haj, the National Umma Party led by Mubarak al-Fadel. Other participants included civil society organizations, women’s and youth networks and independent public figures.

However, according to Middle-East-online.com, in a joint position paper by the non-aligned Sudanese anti-war forces, titled “The Peace Process We Want,” the group explicitly rejected Burhan’s call for dialogue from inside Sudan, reported Middle-East-online.com (MEO).

The coalition explicitly rejected dialogue held from territory controlled by either waring faction

According to MEO, “launching dialogue from areas controlled by one of the warring parties risked producing an unbalanced political process and could entrench Sudan’s existing geographical and political divisions, effectively turning military control on the ground into a permanent political reality.”

In a press statement published on The Middle East Media Research Institute’s website, the coalition warned that the “warring parties would not constitute a genuine peace process and could legitimize military rule.”

The outlet noted that the coalition also called for greater coordination among international mediation efforts and thanked Ethiopia for facilitating the meeting and supporting efforts to end Sudan’s war.

The press statement identified the Quad Roadmap issued on September 12, 2025 “as the best available framework for the peace process.”

That roadmap “affirmed the participants’ full readiness to engage constructively with the Quintet Mechanism and to share the observations and proposals advanced by the anti-war forces, in accordance with the principle of full Sudanese ownership of decision-making. It also called for the efforts of the Quad, the Quintet, and the Troika to be unified within a single coordinated framework capable of strengthening collective pressure to end the war.”

“The Quad” includes, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. “The Quintet” consists of five international and regional organizations, including the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the League of Arab States. “The Troika,” consists of Norway, the United Kingdom and the U.S.

The ongoing war in Sudan has various coalitions and groups scrambling as the humanitarian crisis impacting the Sudanese people continues claiming lives.

The coalition that authored “The Peace Process We Want” could be a breath of fresh air when it comes to resolving the war and saving lives. The Horn Review noted that the coalition members span a real ideological distance in their quest to address the conflict but that it could mean progress toward peace.

“What unites them is precisely what united the street six years ago. And it is a genuine precedent that Sudan’s civilian actors are right to reach for,” the outlet reported.

Follow Jehron Muhammad, @Africawatchfcn on X

The post Sudan, world’s largest humanitarian crisis, receives glimmer of hope appeared first on Final Call News.

Nigeria recently signed up for China’s “zero-tariff policy,” which, according to some analysts, could be strategic to Africa’s future and to the continent’s economic transformation. “The Zero-Tariff policy commenced in earnest on May 1, 2026, and it is instructive that the results so far have been impressive, with positive outcomes promising to change the fortunes of Africa for the better by facilitating open access for products into the Chinese market,” noted an article by Innocent Odoh on Leadership.ng, titled, “China’s Zero-Tariff Policy As New Dimension For Africa’s Prosperity.”

A 2025 panel discussion that included former British Prime Minister Liz Truss and Quincey Institute for Responsible Statecraft affiliate international relations scholar John Mearsheimer noted that the containment of China is being “notably analyzed” because of the Asian country’s unequaled “growth trajectory,” despite restraint efforts by the West.

The discussion was held on Global Impulse Media, an online digital content brand that focuses on global current events, technology developments and geopolitical shifts. The discussion exposed the fundamental hypocrisy of Western globalism.

During the panel discussion Chinese venture capitalist, political scientist and commentator Eric X. Li, gave substance to China as a global powerhouse. He challenged Mearsheimer’s claim, that, “We made China into a Godzilla, and it’s come back to haunt us.”

Li countered by explaining in the “beginning” that decades ago America and Western countries “were at the core of globalization” but that developing countries, including China were at the “periphery.” “… the division of labor was clear. The U.S. and western Europe were in charge of R&D (research and development) and finance and military. We were resigned to do cheap labor and sell natural resources, if we had them. China didn’t have them, but others had them,” Li said.

“China grew and moved up the value chain, meaning China left their designation of handling manufacturing and assembly,” he continued. According to Li, “Unfortunately the U.S. and certain Western countries thought, or perceived this as a threat. So, they didn’t want to do that anymore. So, globalization is in trouble.”

Former UK Prime Minister Truss claimed China’s development was enabled by allegedly being able to “cheat” the system. “We’ve moved into a multi polar world. What I think happened is the West actually enabled the rise of China by allowing China into the World Trade Organization (WTO), by allowing China to flout the rules of trade and cheat the system. And what I think we’re now seeing under President Trump is a push back,” she argued.

China joined the WTO in 2001. Li once again pushed back on Truss’ claim. “I’m not sure where that came from? When China signed up to the WTO it wasn’t told that it was signing up to the liberal international order. There was no such thing. It was made up in retrospect. It didn’t happen. This is the hubris of Western capitalism. Washington believed if you gave a country enough McDonald’s, it would automatically turn into a Western liberal democracy, let’s be honest, America and its Western cronies never cared about the liberal international order. When it came to trade it happily traded with Saudi Arabia, and for decades armed Arab Gulf monarchs without demanding they ever hold democratic elections. The democracy requirement was only retroactively applied to China when China became a peer competitor,” he countered.

As China grows stronger and its global position expands, the U.S. and its Western allies are threatened its growing influence in the Global South, including Africa.

The Chinese currency, the yuan, could soon be Africa’s most important currency. As China’s largest trading partner, it opens the possibility of making the yuan more important than the dollar on the continent.

Africa’s banks are signing up for China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), smoothing transactions and potentially avoiding sanctions.

“Africa is emerging as fertile ground for Beijing’s drive to make the yuan a major international currency and reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar, as an increasing number of financial institutions deepen their integration with China’s payment network,” South China Morning Post reported.

The outlet also reported that after talks in Beijing between Central Bank of Libya Governor Naji Issa and People’s Bank of China Governor Pan Gongsheng in July, the North African country’s banks were set to join CIPS.

“The move will facilitate direct yuan interbank payments for trade. According to the state-run Libyan News Agency, joining the network will streamline commercial transactions, accelerate cross-border transfers and boost trade flows. Libya also plans to tap into China’s capital market by issuing panda bonds—yuan-denominated debt sold by foreign entities in mainland China—which could help fund the country’s reconstruction following years of conflict,” explained the South China Morning Post.

China’s campaign to expand its global usage of its currency has gained another foothold in Africa after oil-rich Angola allowed commercial banks to use the Chinese currency to meet part of their mandatory foreign-currency reserve requirements.

China has stepped up initiatives to encourage the use of its currency in trade settlements, cross-border payments and reserve management, particularly across emerging markets where Chinese trade and investment have grown rapidly. Recently Beijing’s central bank authorized new Renminbi clearing arrangements on the continent through major banking partners, making it easier for businesses across the continent to settle transactions directly in yuan.

“The growing adoption of the Chinese currency is being driven not only by Beijing’s ambitions but also by efforts among some emerging economies to diversify payment and reserve currencies, reduce foreign exchange costs and deepen trade with China, noted africa.businessinsider.com.

Additionally, China’s zero-tariff concessional market access for African goods exported into its 1.4 billion population added a new dimension to China-Africa relations, which are predicated on the Forum for China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC).

“According to the Chinese Envoy, in the first half of 2026, China—Africa trade reached a record high of $207 billion. From May to June alone, Chinese imports from Africa reached $29 billion, a 24% year-on-year increase. Estimates show that the zero-tariff policy has increased overall exports to China by roughly 6%, noted Nigeria’s Abuja based daily,” reported Leadership.ng.

Despite China’s economic growth didn’t begin with its admission to the WTO despite the claim by former Prime Minister Truss. It began in 1978 with Chinese paramount leader of the People’s Republic of China, Deng Xiaoping’s internal economic reforms. By the time China joined the WTO in 2001, their growth trajectory was already locked in. China’s success came from state directed industrial policy, massive infrastructure investment and human capital development.

This growth and expansion, particularly with inroads in Africa, has Western nations, particularly the U.S., concerned and trying to keep up.

The post America and its allies threatened by growing China-Africa economic ties appeared first on Final Call News.

The choice of capital city Nairobi was not incidental.

This marked the first time a France-Africa summit was co-hosted and held in an Anglophone (English-speaking) African nation rather than a traditionally Francophone (French-speaking) country on the continent. The summit came amid France’s diminishing ties with its former African colonies but as Kenya is seeking increased trade.

In advance of the summit, Macron told Paris-based magazine “The Africa Report” that colonialism could no longer be blamed for all of Africa’s challenges. “We must not exonerate from all responsibility the seven decades that followed independence,” he said. He called on African leaders to improve governance.

This condescending remark was not the only controversial thing the French president stated.

According to Ghana’s online news portal, Modernghana.com, Macron made another declaration that sparked debate. “Standing alongside Kenyan President William Ruto at a press conference on the eve of the Africa Forward Summit, French President Emmanuel Macron looked into the lenses of the world’s media and made a declaration that would ignite a continent,” reported Modernghana.com.

According to the outlet, Macron claimed, “We are the true Pan-Africanists.” The French president, with his country’s history of colonialism and the post-colonial blemish of Africa’s last colonial currency, the CFA Franc, added, “We believe that Africa is a continent, and that this continent has an enormous amount to build.”

Within hours, his comments went viral. “For millions of Africans who know their history who know what France spent three centuries doing on the African continent the claim was not simply debatable. It was breathtaking in its audacity.

And what followed both in the streets of Nairobi and on social media platforms across Africa and its diaspora was one of the most pointed, passionate, and historically grounded conversations about France’s relationship with Africa that the continent has had in a generation,” noted Modernghana.com.

Togolese human rights activist Farida Bemba Nabourema responded in a scathing open letter to Macron titled, “You Are Not A Panafricanist and Can Never Be!”

In it, she took Macron to task recounting France’s colonialist past. She recounted France’s horrific history that began on the continent of Africa. “Pan-Africanism was not born in Paris. It was not theorized in the corridors of sciences or the salons of the Fifth Republic.

It was born in the holds of slave ships, in the plantation fields of Saint-Domingue in the exile of men and women whom your republic and its predecessors hunted, poisoned, shot, disappeared and buried in unmarked graves precisely because they had the temerity to believe that African and African-descended people deserved to govern themselves,” she wrote.

“Pan-Africanism is, at its most fundamental, the political philosophy that said no to everything France spent three centuries saying yes to: slavery, colonialism and neocolonialism.

It is the intellectual and organizational tradition built in direct and irreconcilable opposition to the project your nation prosecuted across this continent with a consistency and a brutality that your current rhetorical repositioning cannot retroactively launder.”

Nabourema’s response was not the first time Macron has been confronted with response by Africans on France’s colonial history and its impact.

In October of 2021 Macron hosted a summit in Montpellier, France. No heads of state were invited, but reportedly thousands of young Africans, including artists, athletes, and businesspeople attended. According to Theelephant.com, an online outlet that provides analysis on the continent, the purpose of the 2021 gathering was, “To demonstrate a ‘new’ France-Africa relationship, built on listening to youth.”

At the summit Kenyan radio personality and social activist Adelle Onyango addressed the audience in which Macron was a part of. “We as Africans feel the pain of colonization every single day. The lack of a clear and strong acknowledgement of the continent’s pain on this destructive past results in skepticism.

What we end up with is skepticism of what exactly does France stand for. … In fact, the air of denial that France chooses to sit in is uncomfortable, not only for Africa but also for France, and it does no good for either one of us. How can you trust the source of your pain when the source doesn’t acknowledge it?” she said, reported Theelephant.com.

Macron’s real quest is in reinventing the colonial narrative. His goal is to stay connected by any means necessary, to a continent that is awakening to its history of being subjected to the Global North, including French imperialism.

Additionally, there are media reports that point out that France’s new African initiative, may have more to do with its current economic situation. France may not currently be collapsing economically, but as the world’s seventh largest economy, it faces a severe fiscal and political strain, driven by mounting public debt, high government spending, and a persistent budget deficit.

John Ryan is an economist and a Network Research Fellow at CESifo, Munich. He noted, in an article published on the website of the London School of Economics website (LSE), that France’s debt metrics are abysmal and he writes in part that France’s “External debt stands at approximately $7.7 trillion, equivalent to around 248 percent of GDP, while total debt across the economy is close to 319 percent of GDP.”

In Dr. Ndongo Sylla’s book, “Africa’s Last Colonial Currency: The CFA Franc Story,” co-authored by journalist Fanny Pigeaud, they argue that the CFA Franc continues to act as a neocolonial tool that extracts wealth from Africa’s Francophone countries.

They outline how this monetary arrangement hinders economic sovereignty, perpetuates underdevelopment, and subordinates African nation-states to European financial policies and French geopolitical interests.

The question Africa has to ask is: Does the continent with its significant mineral wealth want to continue to tie itself to a former colonial master during a time of its severe fiscal and political crises? Follow Jehron Muhammad @africawatchfcn on X

The post The ongoing attempts by French president to keep colonial hooks in Africa appeared first on Final Call News.

The four countries together represent over two-thirds of the world’s global cocoa production. At the recent Cocoa Value Addition Summit 2026, in Abuja, Nigeria, they declared that establishing this new agreement has the potential to coordinate policies, promote local cocoa processing, bring production standards into harmony, and strengthen the continent of  Africa’s bargaining power in the global cocoa industry.

Cocoa is a seed from the Theobroma Cacao Tree and is the primary or essential raw material in the making of chocolate. According to confectioneryproduction.com, the world’s demand for chocolate has developed into a $150 billion industry

“with African countries supplying over 70% of the cocoa for it—yet its farming communities reportedly gain no more than between 5-10% of that overall value, due to the longstanding supply chain system that has seen the majority of profits returned to largely European-based processing facilities and corporations.”

“Value added” is simply the addition given to raw material by processing it before selling it abroad. In Walter Rodney’s book, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa,” he explains how Europeans and Americans have a history of undervaluing Africa’s substantial mineral wealth by exporting raw material and processing it abroad.

This is the ultimate form of exploitation, and the primary hallmark of the capitalist imperialist economic system, Dr. Rodney points out. Throughout the book, one of Dr. Rodney’s main arguments is that through this exploitation, Africa developed Europe at the same rate that Europe underdeveloped Africa.

Perhaps this agreement between Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana and Ivory Coast will be a step toward the West African nation breaking off this European and American exploitation.

According to Nigeria’s Punch Newspaper, in speaking in advance of the July 14, Cocoa Value Addition Summit, Senator John Owan Enoh, who is the Minister of State for Industry in Nigeria, said African cocoa-producing countries were determined to change a century-old trade model that has left producing nations with little economic value despite supplying most of the world’s cocoa.

“For a hundred years, Africa has sent its cocoa to the world in sacks and received it back in wrappers, paying at both ends of the transaction,” said Senator Enoh, the outlet reported.

“The distance between a bean and a brand is measured in jobs and in dignity, and on July 14, in Abuja, four nations begin closing that distance together. We do not gather to lament the market. We gather to redesign our place in it,” the senator who is also a cocoa farmer said.

During the summit sponsored by the Nigerian government, the country’s president, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, unveiled a “far-reaching” plan designed to enhance the country and wider regions of cocoa production to retain a greater share of its overall commercial value, noted confectioneryproduction.com.

The president was represented at the summit by his Minister of Agriculture, Abubakar Kyari. The theme of the summit was “From Bean to Brand: The Bean in My Hand, The Brand in Our Future.” 

The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security noted that Kyari pointed out that “Nigeria is shifting from exporting raw cocoa to processing it domestically, to create jobs, attract investments and earn more foreign exchange from (the) cocoa sub-sector.”

He added that “Seven of every ten cocoa pods on this earth ripen under the African sun. They are grown by African hands-on African soil with African knowledge passed down through generations, and yet of a global chocolate economy now valued at well over $130 billion and by some recent estimates approaching $165 billion,’’ reported Agriculture.gov.ng.

“We will grind our beans at home, we will press our butter at home, we will make our chocolate at home, brand it at home and sell it to the world on our own terms.’’ 

During the summit, participants received updates on the construction of what is expected to become Nigeria’s largest cocoa processing facility, a 70,000-metric-ton processing plant being developed by Sunbeth Global Concepts in Sagamu, Ogun State, which is scheduled for commissioning in 2027.

In addition, the Ghanaian news site Pulse reported that the country is set to join Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria and Cameroon in a landmark agreement aimed at transforming Africa’s cocoa industry by increasing local processing, strengthening the continent’s bargaining power and reducing its dependence on exporting raw cocoa beans.

According to Brandspur Brand News, “Nigeria will also sign a separate Cocoa Value Addition Accord with cocoa-producing state governments, farmers’ associations, processors, researchers and development finance institutions.

The agreement is expected to drive investment across the cocoa value chain, expand domestic processing capacity and improve earnings for cocoa farmers through coordinated implementation.”

Later this year on October 7-8, Nigeria will host the Africa Cocoa and Coffee Conference. It will convene an unprecedented assembly of cocoa and coffee stakeholders across the full value chains—farmers, cooperatives, processors, roasters, exporters, researchers, policymakers, development finance institutions, and multilateral organizations—to drive concrete action on the most urgent challenges and opportunities facing Africa’s cocoa and coffee sectors.

The conference is presented by the Cocoa and Coffee Farmers Alliance Association of Africa (COCEFAAA) in partnership with the Federal Ministry of  Agriculture and the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria.

Follow Jehron Muhammad @africawatchfcn on X

The post West African countries sign agreement to put added value on $150 billion cocoa industry appeared first on Final Call News.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) expressed its concern in a article published on the Independent Online (IOL.co.za), which is one of South Africa’s leading news and information websites. In the article, “Online attacks target Muslims amid anti-immigrant sentiment in South Africa,” the group expressed its growing concern in what it describes as “a rise in Islamophobia on social media following efforts by members of the Muslim community to assist migrants who were allegedly displaced by xenophobic attacks, as well as the appointment of Yusuf Cassim as Deputy Minister of Higher Education.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s appointment of Yusuf Cassim as Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Training has drawn much praise. It is the “criticism(s)” he received that “triggered” the increasing wave of Islamophobia.

Iqbal Jassat is executive member of the South Africa-based Media Review Network. He noted that “the increasing spread of anti-Muslim rhetoric (is) driven by online disinformation, political opportunism, and imported ideologies.” While the country claims a long history of religious tolerance, media narratives increasingly portray Muslims as “perpetual outsiders” regardless of their contributions to society and history of citizenship.

Another article of Independent Online titled, “Understanding Islamophobia in SA: Historical roots and current implications,” notes that “public figures and Muslim politicians frequently face targeted online campaigns aimed at questioning their patriotism and framing them as dangerous or foreign.” Even though Cassim has been called a “devout Muslim,” his swearing in as Deputy Minister triggered a wave of Islamophobia on social media.

Another example is that of Dr. Imtiaz Sooliman, head of the popular NGO (nongovernmental organization) “Give of the Givers.” Independent Online reported that for decades Sooliman was hailed across all sections of South African society “as a true patriot and champion of the underprivileged until he spoke out against the Israeli genocide, after which we saw coordinated attacks on his integrity, patriotism, motives, religion and the attempts to suggest that his funding came from ‘suspicious and tainted’ overseas funding.”

In the 2022 study: “Think-tanks and the news media’s contribution in the construction of Islamophobia in South Africa,” that was published on Manchesterhive.com, author Dr. Mohamed Natheem Hendricks, senior lecturer at University of Western Cape, noted that some of the country’s think-tanks and popular media outlets are contributing factors in Islamophobia.

According to Dr. Hendricks, “These actors are often complicit in representing African Muslims and Islam as sources of terror and terrorism.”

In the study he explains that think-tanks and the media manufacture terrorism knowledge and expertise in support of the so-called global “War on Terror” in ways that are consistent with western discourses on Islamophobia. “They represent Muslims’ identity in static and negative terms to exclude them from the constructed ‘we,’ using securitization theory as a theoretical lens he confirms that South African think-tanks and media have manufactured Muslims as a security threat and have created a climate of widespread fear of Muslims that has the potential to justify anti-Muslim racism or anti-Islamic prejudice—Islamophobia,” the study noted.

Dr. Faisal Suliman, chairperson of the South African Muslim Network, wrote on Independent Online that these patterns of social media messaging are not “organic but (are) coordinated, opportunistically riding on the wave of anti-immigrant, Afrophobic and xenophobic sentiments sweeping our country.”

He added, “We have noticed a clear pattern that the framing of Muslims as the other increased after Israel’s invasion and its genocide against the people of Gaza and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case against Israel.”

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Mmamoloko Kubayi has warned that this is possibly a part of a foreign destabilization campaign. In a July 6 interview Minister Kubakyi gave to Thecommonsense.co.za, titled, “It’s an (Israeli) Plot, Claims Minister on Xenophobic Wave,” she linked recent protests in her country to South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). “That court case is huge on their (Israel’s) shoulders. And they will fight back in a manner that seeks to show South Africa is not a country with moral authority to advocate for human rights.”

While Minister Kubayi “stopped short of directly accusing Israel of being complicit in backing demonstrations and did not provide smoking gun evidence to support the allegation, the minister said it would be ‘naïve’ to assume that powerful global interests would not seek to weaken South Africa’s credibility on human rights issues, thus weakening its long running genocide claim against Israel,” reported The Voice of the Cape News.

Follow Jehron Muhammad @Africawatchfcn on X

The post What is behind the rise of Islamophobia in South Africa? appeared first on Final Call News.