The World and Everything in It: October 28, 2024

PREROLL: It’s called the “the forgotten war.” 18 months of fighting in Sudan has left millions of people hungry and homeless. I'm Lindsay Mast and in a moment, I'll explain how this humanitarian crisis all began. Stay tuned.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Good morning! 

At the Supreme Court, doubts about the death penalty.

AUDIO: The critical question that a jury is asking is, do I believe this guy and everything he says and particularly, do I believe him when he points the finger at the accused?

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today, the Monday Moneybeat, economist David Bahnsen’s standing by and we’ll talk about the sort of economic policy team he thinks Donald Trump will tap if he wins next week.

And the WORLD History book, that heartbreaking conflict in Sudan.

WOSORNU: This is an entirely man-made crisis and a shameful stain on our collective conscience.

ROUGH: It’s Monday, October 28th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Jenny Rough.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

ROUGH: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Israel strikes Iran » An Israeli attack on Iran reportedly damaged facilities at a secretive military that experts in the past have linked to Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, and at another base tied to its ballistic missile program.

Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon: 

DANON:  We sent a very clear message to Iran that you cannot send 200 ballistic missiles into Israel and expect us not to react.

Iran downplayed the attacks, saying they caused minimal damage.

Some of the buildings damaged sat in Iran’s Parchin military base, where experts suspect Iran in the past conducted tests of high explosives that could trigger a nuclear weapon. The other damage could be seen at the nearby Khojir military base, which is believed to hide an underground tunnel system and missile production sites.

President Biden told reporters over the weekend that the retaliatory strikes did not have his blessing. 

BIDEN:  They're making a mistake in my humble opinion. It looks like they didn't hit anything other than military targets. My hope is this is the end.

But Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman said the United States cannot possible expect Israel not to respond to the largest direct attack by Iran against Israel in history.

TURNER: The over several hundred missiles that Iran has launched against Israel and the Biden administration has attempted to act like, well, since those missiles didn't hit their intended targets as if they didn't happen, then trying to restrain Israel's response.

He said the United States rightly helped defend Israel from those incoming missiles but should wholeheartedly support Israel’s response to Iran’s attack.

Rubio on Israel documents leak » Meantime, questions remain about a leak of classified documents about Israel’s preparations for a possible retaliatory attack on Iran, including top-secret U.S. intelligence documents. And Republican Sen. Marco Rubio says he believes the leak came from an anti-Israel U.S. government official or employee. 

RUBIO:  This indicates to me that this was a treasonous act by someone in the U. S. government to undermine Israel and, and, and by extension, the national security of the United States.

The FBI is investigating the leak after the documents were released online.

A Telegram channel called the"Middle East Spectator" said it received the documents from a source in the U.S. intelligence community.

Presidential politics » The campaigns are making their final push with just 8 days left till Election Day and early voting now underway. Vice President Kamala Harris on Sunday again campaigning from the pulpit in Philadelphia: 

HARRIS: What kind of country do we want for our children and grandchildren? A country of chaos, fear, and hate, or a country of freedom, justice, and compassion.

Trump, meantime, made a detour from his swing state campaigning … to rally supporters Sunday at Madison Square Garden in New York. 

TRUMP: I'm here today with a message of hope for all Americans with your vote in this election. Our country will be bigger, better, bolder, richer, safer, and stronger than ever before.

Momentum has shifted in Trump’s direction over the past several weeks.

For the first time in nearly three months, the former president has tied Kamala Harris in an average of recent national polls. More importantly, Trump either leads or has tied Harrris in every major swing state in the country.

Hitler rhetoric » Republican lawmakers are calling out Vice President Kamala Harris and others over once again calling Donald Trump “fascist” and drawing comparisons between Trump and Hitler.

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham: 

GRAHAM: He’s not a fascist. He’s not Hitler. And that shows you just how desperate this campaign is.

But it isn’t just the Harris campaign. Former Trump White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and other former Trump officials made news recently by saying Trump … met the definition of a "fascist" and had an affinity for dictators.

Former GOP Congresswoman and ardent Trump critic Liz Cheney:

CHENEY: I don't think, certainly in my lifetime, probably in American history, have you had a situation where so many of the top officials, uh, of the former president are saying they won't vote for him.

But some Republicans question why these ex-Trump officials said nothing at the time when they served in the administration if they truly believed these things.

And House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released a bicameral statement last week calling the rhetoric dangerous. They said Vice President Kamala Harris' words more closely resemble those of President Trump's second would-be assassin than her own earlier appeal to civility.

Zelensky: North Korea troops set to fight in Ukraine » Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy claims North Korean troops are poised to be deployed by Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine any day now.

White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby says the Pentagon has confirmed that Pyongyang has sent troops to Russia. 

KIRBY:  It is possible, uh, that there are now more than 3,000 troops from North Korea that are, uh, that have been dispatched to Russia for outfitting and for training.

And he said it’s very possible that at least some of those North Korean troops could be sent into the battlefield against Ukraine.

President Biden told reporters over the weekend that if that happens,

BIDEN: We have options. It depends on what they do.

He did not expound on what those options might be.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: the Supreme Court considers a death penalty question. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: It’s Monday October 28th, and you’re listening to The World and Everything in It from WORLD Radio. Good morning! I’m Jenny Rough.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Time now for Legal Docket.

AUDIO: [MONTAGE OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND PAUL CLEMENT]

That’s the voice of the very prolific Supreme Court advocate Paul Clement,  along with Chief Justice John Roberts. The funny moment was that Clement was appearing for the second time on the same day, representing different clients. We cut that montage together to make the point that Clement is widely seen as the most experienced Supreme Court advocate among active attorneys, having argued more than 100 cases.

Four years ago when Clement hit the 100 milestone, the court took a moment to recognize the occasion.

JUSTICE ROBERTS: That is a rare milestone …

Clement’s most recent appearance before the high court is in a case from Oklahoma involving a convicted killer named Richard Glossip.

CLEMENT: Glossip is facing the death penalty. And so as in any death penalty case, the stakes are incredibly high.

So Jenny, you got to talk to the famous Paul Clement in his office near D.C. That audio is from your interview with him.

ROUGH: Yes, quite the honor. His office is across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia. Paul Clement’s really been involved in highly consequential cases ranging from religious liberty to gun rights and when we talked, we discussed the case we’ll analyze today, a significant case on the death penalty.

EICHER: So a familiar name and familiar voice, as we’ve heard Clement in action over the years here, but the death penalty case has some familiarity to it as well. The Glossip case goes back over a quarter of a century. Richard Glossip was convicted in a 27-year-old murder-for-hire case and was sentenced to death in Oklahoma.

ROUGH: Glossip’s first case before the Supreme Court came in 2015. He challenged Oklahoma’s method of execution lethal injection.

But he lost. And now, Glossip’s back with a completely different challenge.

CLEMENT: So the Glossip case is a really interesting case.

Interesting for many reasons.

Normally, Supreme Court cases focus on a principle of law that’s at stake. But in death penalty cases, the focus tends to shift to what happened at trial. So let’s go back to that.

There are three key players to keep in mind:

Barry Van Treese, the murder victim. He owned a motel in Oklahoma City at the time he was killed.

Glossip, the prisoner. He worked for Van Treese as manager of the motel and lived on the premises.

And Justin Sneed, the motel handyman.

EICHER: The motel had fallen into disarray, both physically and financially. Van Treese suspected Glossip was stealing, so he paid Glossip a visit. During the inspection, Van Treese gave Glossip a deadline to produce missing receipts or be fired.

According to handyman Justin Sneed, Glossip offered to pay Sneed $10,000 to kill Van Treese. So Sneed sneaked into Van Treese’s motel room at night and beat him to death using a baseball bat.

Sneed testified to that.

ROUGH: He did, and he also testified that he had been prescribed the drug lithium.

Now, this is a medication used to treat bipolar disorder, a mental illness. But Sneed said he took lithium for a head cold. And he testified under oath that he’d “never seen no psychiatrist.”

EICHER: I’m assuming this detail is going to figure in the case later on, Jenny.

ROUGH: Big time.

EICHER: But let’s talk about the rest of the particulars: Sneed was a star witness in the case against Glossip and for cooperating with the prosecution the state agreed to spare Sneed’s life and he’ll serve a life sentence instead.

ROUGH: Glossip has admitted he helped Sneed cover up the crime but he maintains his innocence as to arranging the murder. Here’s Paul Clement again.

PAUL CLEMENT: So the whole question is really did Sneed commit the murder on his own and Glossip help out after the fact? Or did Glossip basically put Sneed up to do it?

A lot rests on the story Sneed tells.

CLEMENT: Sneed's testimony about Glossip is the central testimony in the whole case.

EICHER: And that brings us to Glossip’s latest challenge, and what this case is all about: the drug and the psychiatric treatment.

ROUGH: It all goes back to the lithium and the fact that Sneed denied that he was under psychiatric care.

As the execution date loomed last year for Glossip, the Oklahoma attorney general requested an independent review of the case.

Around that time, the state produced documents that it hadn’t disclosed before. Handwritten notes from the prosecutor, Connie Smothermon. The notes came from a pre-trial meeting with Sneed—the handyman. In one place, she wrote down the words on Lithium followed by a question mark. And in another place Dr. Trumpet, also followed by a question mark.

The assumption is that Dr. Trumpet refers to Dr. Trombka, the prison’s only psychiatrist at the time.

But her notes are very cryptic. So it’s hard to say for sure.

A medical record sheet did confirm Sneed took lithium for bipolar disorder. But prosecutors didn’t disclose that either.

EICHER: Glossip now argues that the state denied his due process rights. He says he didn’t get a fair trial because the prosecutors failed to turn over that evidence of mental illness to the defense. And he says prosecutors knowingly elicited false testimony from Sneed because they didn’t correct him about why he was on lithium.

Jenny, I remember talking with you a few weeks ago about this case when we did an overview of the Court’s term. You mentioned Paul Clement represents Oklahoma, not Glossip.

Normally, in a case called Glossip v. Oklahoma, Oklahoma would oppose Glossip’s argument that he’s entitled to a new trial. The parties are on opposite sides of the “v” so-to-speak.

But that’s not quite true here. This case is unusual.

ROUGH: It is, as Clement explained to me.

CLEMENT: What makes it different from most capital cases is that the state, who is my client in the case—

ROUGH: Oklahoma

CLEMENT: They have admitted that there were material errors, material that should have been given to the defense wasn't given to the defense. And then this error that involves eliciting false testimony.

In other words, Glossip and Oklahoma both agree that Glossip is entitled to a new trial.

CLEMENT: The state isn't saying that Mr. Glossip is completely innocent of the crime.

EICHER: Yet, Oklahoma still wants a re-trial. But it agrees that the due process rights of Glossip were violated. Strange.

ROUGH: But this case gets even stranger.

CLEMENT: And what makes the case even more extraordinary is that even though the state confessed error in the lower courts, the lower courts disregarded that confession of error and said, “That's all very well that the attorney general thinks that there was prosecutorial misconduct. But we don't think there's a basis for overturning the conviction.”

In other words, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed with the state’s confession of error and wants to leave the death sentence in place.

EICHER: So Glossip appealed to the Supreme Court and teamed up with the state of Oklahoma insofar as both filed briefs asking to set aside his execution to consider the due process claims.

Now, Jenny, how does oral argument work in a circumstance like this? I mean, the Supreme Court needs someone to argue the other side.

ROUGH: Right, and just to be clear, here’s what the “other side” is: specifically the lower court’s decision that Glossip’s due process rights weren’t violated.

Situations like these do sometimes happen. And when they do, the Supreme Court will appoint a lawyer to argue the other side.

In this case, Chief Justice John Roberts asked one of his former law clerks, Chris Michel, to do that.

EICHER: OK, so then that left Glossip’s attorney Seth Waxman and Oklahoma’s attorney Paul Clement, each to take a turn trying to persuade the court to order a new trial.

Then Chris Michel took a turn arguing it should not.

ROUGH: Exactly. Lots went on during oral argument.

We’ll emphasize three issues that I heard the justices raise.

The first centered the state’s inferences about the prosecutor’s notes. Justice Samuel Alito said that Glossip reads a lot into a few scribbled words: “lithium?” and “Dr. Trumpet?”

And Justice Clarence Thomas made much of the fact that the prosecutor Connie Smothermon didn’t have the chance to fully give her side of the story. Namely, she didn’t get to say what her own notes meant. She was frozen out of the process.

Let’s listen to Justice Thomas in an exchange with Clement about that.

JUTICE THOMAS: Well, when I looked at the note of Ms. Smothermon, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It had a few names. It had "lithium" and a question mark.

CLEMENT: I think you ultimately have to draw the most plausible inference from all the information available. And the most—

JUSTICE THOMAS: But you didn't, though. Her point is that you didn't ask her. You're drawing it from the note, which she thinks is inadequate information.

EICHER: The second issue had to do with the significance of Sneed’s mental illness.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked: If the jury knew he was bipolar and had lied on the stand, would that have mattered? After all, the defense did know he was taking lithium — that part wasn’t hidden.

Let’s hear Roberts asking Glossip’s attorney Seth Waxman about that.

JUSTICE ROBERTS: Because the jury knew about the lithium. And what they didn't know is that it was prescribed by a psychiatrist. Do you really think it would make that much of a difference to the jury?

SETH WAXMAN: This is a witness who lied. It very well could have made a significant difference.

But then Chris Michel, defending the judgment of the lower court, said the defense has known about Sneed’s mental illness.

CHRIS MICHEL: Petitioner has known since 1997 that Sneed took lithium.

That’s 27 years. After Sneed’s arrest back then, he underwent a competency evaluation. All the attorneys received a copy of that resulting report.

MICHEL: It says, does this patient have a mental illness? And the answer is yes, underlined, exclamation point. If Petitioner thought that Sneed's mental health was important to his defense, surely, that would have been a bright red flag that he would have presented that defense at trial.

ROUGH: This relates to a third issue, a highly important state law. And it might actually prevent the Supreme Court from overturning the conviction, even if Glossip’s due process rights were violated!

States have laws on the books that limit how many times a prisoner can attack his conviction and sentence, whether at the trial level or appeal. Such laws prevent prisoners from litigating over and over so that they’re never executed. It has to end at some point.

Here, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that Glossip’s most recent petition doesn’t meet the requirements to overcome the finality of the lower court judgment.

Justice Samuel Alito seemed to agree.

JUSTICE ALITO: But there is the Oklahoma statute. It has two requirements. They go through the two requirements, and they say that they weren't satisfied.

Basically, in order to get his conviction overturned, Glossip must show the prosecutor’s errors could not have been raised earlier. If the information was available to the defense, and it didn’t exercise diligence in raising it before, it can’t do so now. As we’ve talked about, there does seem to be some indication Glossip should have known about Sneed’s mental illness.

EICHER: But Glossip also must show the outcome of the trial would have been different, but for the errors. Justice Elena Kagan seemed to side with Glossip on this point. She said the jury might not have found him guilty if it had known Sneed lied on the stand.

JUSTICE KAGAN: The critical question that a jury is asking is, do I believe this guy and everything he says? And particularly, do I believe him when he points the finger at the accused? If he's lying, if he's trying to cover up something about his own behavior, I'm going to take that into account in deciding whether, when he accuses the defendant, he's telling the truth.

Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case because he was involved in one of Glossip’s earlier cases on the Tenth Circuit. If the judgment is split 4 to 4, Glossip’s conviction stays in place and his execution will be rescheduled.

ROUGH: Right, and that’s a risk here.

And I should add, the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board could recommend clemency. But so far, it hasn’t done that.

The Supreme Court may grant an evidentiary hearing on Glossip’s due-process claims. But the more I think about this case, I wonder whether the Oklahoma state law will prevent any further action. Then again, maybe not, because there was a ton of discussion about whether that bar can be waived.

Highly complicated, even for an experienced attorney like Paul Clement, whom I thank for making time to talk with WORLD listeners.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything in It, the Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s time to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen.

He’s head of the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group and he’s here now.

David, good morning!

DAVID BAHNSEN: Well, good morning, Nick, good to be with you.

EICHER: Just real quickly off the top, David, this strike against Boeing.

Its biggest union, about 33,000 machinists, rejected a new contract proposal. They extended a strike already six-weeks running at Boeing production sites. These are crucial for manufacturing its top-selling planes. The company’s reporting a $6 billion loss this quarter; it’s planning to reduce its workforce by 10 percent. Boeing’s looking at taking on debt or selling stock, to stave off a downgrading of its credit. It’s got some serious reputational damage because of highly publicized failures. David, are we looking at the death of a company?

BAHNSEN: No, I don't think so at all. I think there’s a lot that’s going to change in the company. I don't know how Boeing is particularly doing this. They've been struggling and losing market share to Airbus for years. They've had significant problems in terms of quality control for a number of years, and their ability to right that ship is outside of my purview, but I do not think it's a systemic issue for Boeing—not at all.

EICHER: Alright. Your Dividend Cafe over the weekend was so interesting to me—about 16 questions and answers you did with readers of your newsletter,. topics ranging from the impact of the Senate composition on markets to predictions on trade and energy policies, the potential influence of advisors, broader economic concerns…

But one takeaway: You’re really looking closely at how control of the Senate comes out. Given your view on the Senate’s influence on the economy, let’s suppose the Republicans take control as they’re projected to do what policies would most likely emerge regardless of who wins the White House?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think it means very different things depending on who’s president. But if you have a Republican majority with a Harris presidency, it essentially means gridlock. Quite literally, I don’t think there would be any significant legislation that would get passed.

If there’s a Republican-majority Senate with a Trump presidency, it becomes very different. I doubt that the Republican-majority Senate would be willing to be at odds with the Trump administration over much at all. So, in one case, you get gridlock, and in the other, you lose some of the separation of powers. There are pros and cons to both scenarios.

But if I’m right, and the polls and general political expectations are right that Republicans will have a Senate majority, with the only question being whether it’s 51, 52, or 53 seats, then the tail risk to the economy resets. The worst-case scenarios—like significant tax increases or filibuster removal—that a Harris presidency might try to implement are all off the table. That’s a huge outcome and becomes the new baseline in a Trump administration with a Republican Senate.

Things could still get tricky, as some actions require 60 votes unless they eliminate the filibuster, which I certainly hope they won’t do. But whatever level of spending the Trump administration wants, I don’t expect any pushback from a Republican-majority Senate.

EICHER: Let’s wrap up with the top of the ballot, and that’s the presidential race. You say, personnel is policy. So give me your appraisal of what you’d expect from each respective administration, and go ahead and take the rest of the time on this one.

BAHNSEN: For economic policy, I actually feel I have more clarity on who a Harris administration would bring in. I expect she doesn’t have a Rolodex to fill it with all her own people or all California alumni. If she did, I think it would be a disaster. I assume it would be a combination of Biden, Obama, and even Clinton alumni—by the way, her campaign is largely that, too. That’s not great but not worse than you might expect; just… not good.

For a Trump administration, the 2016-2020 term gave us a good indication of certain Reaganite, traditionalist, supply-side economic thinkers. This time, though, he has J.D. Vance as his vice-presidential candidate, who is much more of an economic nationalist.

If Trump wins, Nick, I cannot wait to record with you three weeks or so after the election outcome is known. His first three to five appointments will tell us a lot. We’re having daily conversations about who we think those people will be. For instance, the Treasury Secretary, who will have to be named pretty early, will reveal a lot.

There are competing ideologies between Reaganite and economic nationalist factions that Trump might draw from for his economic policy team. But President Trump also loves hiring and firing Wall Street figures. His first Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin—a Goldman Sachs alum—was the only cabinet member who stayed from day one to the last day. Gary Cohn, former Goldman Sachs president, was his National Economic Council director before Larry Kudlow came in. So, there are technocratic Wall Street figures who would be effective and useful, and Trump may want to go that route as well.

And there’s Howard Lutnick, the chair of Trump’s transition committee. Lutnick is a billionaire CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, an extremely conservative, extremely gifted individual I’ve known of for years. He doesn’t fit into one political mold, either. All of this makes Trump a bit less predictable than your conventional politician.

EICHER: Ok, David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group.

If you aren’t subscribing to David’s regular market writing you can find out more at Dividend Café-dot-com. It’s free and you can receive it in your inbox. Dividend Cafe-dot com.

Thanks for your analysis this week, David, we’ll see you next time.

Have a great week!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick, good to be with you.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, October 28th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: And I’m Jenny Rough. Up next: the WORLD History Book. Today, war in Sudan.

It’s been just over 18 months since fighting broke out between two formerly allied groups. The World Food Programme says nearly a quarter of the country’s 48 million residents have fled their homes. More than half of them face acute hunger,

EICHER: One U.N. official says it’s the worst humanitarian crisis in recent history but it’s gotten little media coverage, compared to the scale of the problem. WORLD’s Lindsay Mast explores the history of how the country got to this point.

LINDSAY MAST: Sudan’s story stretches far back into history. The area was part of both ancient Kush and Egypt… and Christian kingdoms in the middle ages. In the early 1800s an Ottoman ruler from Egypt conquered Sudan. It later spent decades under joint British-Egyptian control. Sudan gained independence in 1956.

Audio from British Pathé.

NEWSREEL: The world has gained a new nation. The Sudan, for 58 years under joint rule by Britain and Egypt, becomes a republic.

The country was…and is… huge. In 1956, Sudan covered nearly a million square miles–about the size of Alaska and Texas combined. It borders the Red Sea and connects Africa to the Arab world…and Northern Africa to the sub-Saharan region. That tension of geography and culture has played a part in political struggles for much of the country’s history.

NEWSREEL: The proclamation is read from the balcony of the House of Representatives in Khartoum and the new flag is hoisted: blue for the Nile, yellow for the desert, green for agriculture.

Just before gaining independence, a civil war broke out that lasted for 17 years. On one side, the wealthy, mostly Arab and Muslim north. On the other, the south: less-developed…and generally Christian or animist.

The BBC reports the war killed an estimated half million people. A peace agreement signed in 1972 didn’t fully quell the tension.

Then, in 1983, President Gaafar Al-Nimeiry (Nih-my-ree) declared an Islamist revolution and introduced Sharia law into the country. Audio here from a supporter shortly after it went into effect.

AUDIO: The whole Muslim world is witnessing an Islamic renaissance. So people are interested in how Islam would develop into a civilization.

The experiment sparked an even deadlier, longer war. Between fighting, famine and disease, this time, some two million people died.

In the 1990s, troops from the north targeted Christian villages in the south. An estimated 20-thousand young boys from the south fled en masse. They traveled more than a thousand miles on foot…to Ethiopia, back to Sudan, then Kenya… It took years. Half of them died. The survivors become known as the Lost Boys of Sudan. More than 3000 would eventually be resettled in the United States. Audio here of one of the Lost Boys, courtesy KTEH-TV:

SIMON DENG: What actually kept me going is the faith that I have and a lot of advice from my parents that encouraged me to choose that path, to choose light in that time.

In 1989, a coup brought Omar Al-Bashir to power. He later appointed himself president…then abolished parliament, and political parties. The brutal leader would stay in power for nearly thirty years. The International Criminal Court charged him with war crimes and genocide more than 15 years ago, though he has yet to stand trial.

Those charges came after the government encouraged Arab militias to control a rebellion in 2003. Those militias, including the Islamist Janjaweed, were accused of rapes, torture, and killing. They drove people from black, African tribes from their homes in Darfur.

The second civil war ended in 2005 and six years later a referendum granted independence to the southern part of the country.

AUDIO: There the flag being raised for the new republic of South Sudan, a historic moment, an extraordinary moment…

Back in Sudan, another coup in 2019. After four months of protests, Omar Al-Bashir was ousted from power. The streets of the capital of Khartoum erupted in celebration.

A joint civilian and military transitional government was set up. But in April 2023, fighting broke out between the two military groups that had previously worked together to overthrow Al-Bashir.

On one side, the Sudan Armed Forces, or SAF–the official Sudanese military. On the other, the Rapid Support Forces, known as the RSF whose leader previously headed the Janjaweed militia.

This is not a true civil war–it’s a brutal power struggle between two military factions, yet it is far reaching. A UN fact finding mission reports both groups have committed-quote- “an appalling range of harrowing human rights violations and international crimes,” It also found grounds to believe that the RSF has additionally engaged in crimes against humanity.

Now, after 18 months of fighting and displacement, millions of people don’t have enough food. Reuters reports both sides have engaged in blocking aid efforts. An international committee monitoring global food supply confirmed famine conditions in a displacement camp housing an estimated half-million people.

Edem Wosornu, head of the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs:

EDEM WOSORNU: When famine happens it means we are too late. It means we did not do enough. This is an entirely man-made crisis and a shameful stain on our collective conscience."

Experts say there is no readily apparent path to ending this war. Recent U.S.-led peace talks ended after representatives from the Sudanese military failed to appear. The only thing that seems clear is that until one or both sides stands down, many in Sudan will continue to suffer.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Lindsay Mast.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: Israel’s military finally responded to Iran’s missile attack. What did they hit and was it effective? We’ll talk about it.

And, we’ll meet some Russian Christians in limbo as they wait in Mexico for U.S. immigration interviews. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

JENNY ROUGH, HOST: And I’m Jenny Rough.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is Biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible says: “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose trust is the Lord. He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit.” —Jeremiah 17:7, 8

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.