French massacre of WWII African soldiers ‘premeditated’: official report

French massacre of WWII African soldiers ‘premeditated’: official report
​Senegal Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko (L), President Bassirou Diomaye Faye (C) and Mamadou Diouf, president of the Committee for the Commemoration of the Thiaroye massacre (R), attend a ceremony after receiving the official report on the 1944 massacre, at the Presidential Palace in Dakar, on October 16, 2025. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 18 sec ago

French massacre of WWII African soldiers ‘premeditated’: official report

French massacre of WWII African soldiers ‘premeditated’: official report
  • French colonial authorities have saidonly 35 African troopsdemanding pay in Senegal were killed in a 1944 massacre
  • But a new probe found that up to 400 soldiers were killed during the massacre at the Thiaroye camp near Dakar
  • Probe calls on France to “request for forgiveness to the families, communities and populations from which the riflemen came”

DAKAR:A 1944 massacre by French forces of African troops demanding pay in Senegal was “premeditated” and “covered up,” with previous death tolls vastly underestimated, according to an official report seen exclusively by AFP.
French colonial authorities at the time said at least 35 World War II infantrymen were killed during the massacre at the Thiaroye camp, near Dakar.
That toll is likely significantly too low, according to the committee of researchers who authored a paper submitted to the Senegalese president on Thursday. They said the “most credible estimates put the figure at 300 to 400” deaths.
The 301-page report, submitted to President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, called on France to “officially express its request for forgiveness to the families, communities and populations from which the riflemen came.”
Around 1,300 soldiers from several countries in west Africa were sent to the Thiaroye camp in November 1944, after being captured by Germany while fighting for France.
Discontent soon mounted over back pay and unmet demands that they be treated on a par with white soldiers.
On December 1, French forces opened fire on them.




Members of the Senegalese Armed Forces stand guard at the Thiaroye Military Cemetery on December 1, 2024 after a ceremony marking the 80th anniversary of the Thiaroye Massacre. (AFP)

According to the committee, which was led by historian Mamadou Diouf, the report “restores” facts that were “deliberately hidden or buried in masses of administrative and military archives and released sparingly.”
“The true death toll of the tragedy is difficult to determine today,” the researchers wrote.

‘Meticulously planned’

But they said previous reports of around 35 or 70 deaths were “contradictory and patently false” and that “more than 400 riflemen vanished as if they had never existed.”
The most credible toll, they said, was 300 to 400 deaths.
The massacre “was intended to convince people that the colonial order could not be undermined by the emancipatory effects of the Second World War,” the report said.
For this reason, “the operation was premeditated, meticulously planned and executed thusly in coordinated actions,” it said.
“In the days following the massacre, the French authorities did everything they could to cover up” the killings, the report said.
This included altering the riflemen’s departure records from France and arrival records in Dakar, as well as the number of soldiers present in Thiaroye and other facts.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said Friday during a trip to Lagos that France was “ready to cooperate with Senegal” on shedding light on the events.
“France is not going to avert its eyes from its own history and has embarked, along with Senegal and a number of other African countries, on the work of remembrance,” Barrot told journalists.


After Zelensky meeting, Trump calls on Ukraine and Russia to ‘stop where they are’ and end the war

After Zelensky meeting, Trump calls on Ukraine and Russia to ‘stop where they are’ and end the war
Updated 7 sec ago

After Zelensky meeting, Trump calls on Ukraine and Russia to ‘stop where they are’ and end the war

After Zelensky meeting, Trump calls on Ukraine and Russia to ‘stop where they are’ and end the war
  • In recent weeks, Trump had shown growing impatience with Putin and expressed greater openness to helping Ukraine win the war
  • Inhislatest comments he appeared to be edging back in the direction of pressing Ukraine to give up on retaking land it has lost to Russia

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump on Friday called on Kyiv and Moscow to “stop where they are” and end their brutal war following a lengthy White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Trump’s frustration with the conflict has surfaced repeatedly in the nine months since he returned to office, but with his latest comments he appeared to be edging back in the direction of pressing Ukraine to give up on retaking land it has lost to Russia.
“Enough blood has been shed, with property lines being defined by War and Guts,” Trump said in a Truth Social post not long after hosting Zelensky and his team for more than two hours of talks. “They should stop where they are. Let both claim Victory, let History decide!”
Later, soon after arriving in Florida, where he’s spending the weekend, Trump urged both sides to “stop the war immediately” and implied that Moscow keep territory it’s taken from Kyiv.
“You go by the battle line wherever it is — otherwise it’s too complicated,” Trump told reporters.
In recent weeks, Trump had shown growing impatience with Russian President Vladimir Putin and expressed greater openness to helping Ukraine win the war.
Indeed, after meeting with Zelensky in New York on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly last month, Trump even said he believed the Ukrainians could win back all the the territory they had lost to Russia since Putin launched the February 2022 invasion. That was a dramatic shift for Trump, who had previously insisted that Kyiv would have to concede land lost to Russia to end the war.
Zelensky after Friday’s meeting said it was time for a ceasefire and negotiations. He sidestepped directly answering a question about Trump nudging Ukraine to give up land.
“The president is right we have to stop where we are, and then to speak,” Zelensky said when asked by reporters about Trump’s social media post, which he hadn’t seen.
Trump tone on the war shifted after he held a lengthy phone call with Putin on Thursday and announced that he planned to meet with the Russian leader in Budapest, Hungary, in the coming weeks.
The president also signaled to Zelensky on Friday that he’s leaning against selling him long-range Tomahawk missiles, weaponry that the Ukrainians believe could be a game changer in helping prod Putin to the negotiating table.
Zelensky at the start of the White House talks said he had a “proposition” in which Ukraine could provide the United States with its advanced drones, while Washington would sell Kyiv the Tomahawk cruise missiles.
But Trump said he was hesitant to tap into the US supply, a turnabout after days of suggesting he was seriously weighing sending the missiles to help Ukraine beat back Russia’s invasion.
“I have an obligation also to make sure that we’re completely stocked up as a country, because you never know what’s going to happen in war and peace,” Trump said. “We’d much rather have them not need Tomahawks. We’d much rather have the war be over to be honest.”
Trump’s latest rhetoric on Tomahawks is certainly disappointing to the Ukrainians. In recent days, Trump had shown an openness to selling Ukraine the Tomahawks, even as Putin warned that such a move would further strain the US-Russian relationship.
But following Thursday’s call with Putin, Trump began downplaying the prospects of Ukraine getting the missiles, which have a range of about 995 miles (1,600 kilometers.)
Zelensky had been seeking the Tomahawks, which would allow Ukrainian forces to strike deep into Russian territory and target key military sites, energy facilities and critical infrastructure. Zelensky has argued that the potential for such strikes would help compel Putin to take Trump’s calls for direct negotiations to end the war more seriously.
Putin warned Trump during the call that supplying Kyiv with the Tomahawks “won’t change the situation on the battlefield, but would cause substantial damage to the relationship between our countries,” according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy adviser.
It was the fifth face-to-face meeting for Trump and Zelensky since the Republican returned to office in January,
The president said Friday it was “to be determined” if Zelensky would be involved in the upcoming talks in Hungary — suggesting a “double meeting” with the warring countries’ leaders was likely the most workable option for productive negotiations.
“These two leaders do not like each other, and we want to make it comfortable for everybody,” Trump added.
But Zelensky told reporters that the animus toward Putin “is not about feelings.”
“They attacked us, so they are an enemy for us. They don’t intend to stop,” Zelensky added. “So they are an enemy. It is not about someone just hating someone else. Although, undoubtedly, we hate the enemy. Undoubtedly.”
Trump, going back to his 2024 campaign, insisted he would quickly end the war, but his peace efforts appeared to stall following a diplomatic blitz in August, when he held a summit with Putin in Alaska and a White House meeting with Zelensky and European allies.
Trump emerged from those meetings certain he was on track to arranging direct talks between Zelensky and Putin. But the Russian leader hasn’t shown any interest in meeting with Zelensky and Moscow has only intensified its bombardment of Ukraine.
Asked Friday if he was concerned that Putin was stringing him along, Trump acknowledged it was a possibility but said he was confident he could handle the Russian leader.
“I’ve been played all my life by the best of them, and I came out really well,” Trump said. He added, “I think I’m pretty good at this stuff.”
 


Trump asks Supreme Court to allow troop deployment to Chicago area, citing mob violence

Trump asks Supreme Court to allow troop deployment to Chicago area, citing mob violence
Updated 21 min 47 sec ago

Trump asks Supreme Court to allow troop deployment to Chicago area, citing mob violence

Trump asks Supreme Court to allow troop deployment to Chicago area, citing mob violence
  • Federal judges questioned justification as Trump seeks to send troops to more Democratic-led cities
  • Illinois gov said militarizing communities against their will is “not only un-American but also leads us down a dangerous path”

CHICAGO: Donald Trump’s administration asked the US Supreme Court on Friday to allow his deployment of National Guard troops to the Chicago area, as the Republican president moves to dispatch military personnel to a growing number of Democratic-led locales and expand the use of the armed forces for domestic purposes.
The Justice Department asked the court to block a judge’s ruling that halted the deployment of hundreds of troops over the objection of Illinois state officials and local leaders, while litigation challenging Trump’s plan continues.
Given events on the ground, the judge questioned the administration’s stated reasons for sending in the military. A federal appeals court upheld the judge’s ruling on Thursday, also doubting the administration’s stated justification.
The administration has stated that danger to federal property and personnel posed by protests against Trump’s hard-line immigration enforcement policies justified the president’s deployment of troops. In a written filing, the Justice Department called the assessment by local officials of these protests as “implausibly rosy” and urged immediate action.
Federal law enforcement agencies “have been forced to operate under the constant threat of mob violence,” the department said. “Local forces have failed to respond, or unaccountably delayed their response, even when federal agents face life-threatening violence.”
The Supreme Court asked Illinois and Chicago officials to respond to the Justice Department’s request by Monday afternoon.
“Donald Trump will keep trying to invade Illinois with troops — and we will keep defending the sovereignty of our state,” Democratic Illinois Governor JB Pritzker wrote on social media. “Militarizing our communities against their will is not only un-American but also leads us down a dangerous path for our democracy. What will come next?“
Trump ordered National Guard troops to Chicago, the third-largest US city, and Portland, Oregon following his earlier deployments to Los Angeles, Memphis and Washington, D.C. Trump has sought to use military forces to suppress protests and support domestic immigration enforcement.
Trump and his allies have described these cities as lawless, crime-ravaged and plagued with vast, violent protests in need of military intervention. Democratic mayors and governors, along with other Trump critics, have said these claims are a false account of the situation and a pretext for sending troops to punish adversaries, accusing Trump of abusing his power.
Federal judges have expressed skepticism over the administration’s view of events on the ground. Demonstrations over the administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement efforts have been largely peaceful and limited in size, according to local officials, far from the “war zone” conditions described by Trump.

Testing the limits
Though Trump has suggested troops can be used to tackle crime, National Guard and other military personnel under US law are not typically permitted to engage in civilian law enforcement. While a US president can deploy the National Guard under certain authorities, Trump is testing the limits of those powers by sending troops to cities controlled by his political adversaries.
The legal dispute centers on Trump’s invocation of a federal law that allows a president to federalize National Guard troops only in the case of rebellion or if he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The administration this month federalized 300 Illinois National Guard troops and also ordered more Texas National Guard troops into the state.
In the face of criticism and pushback from local leaders, Trump escalated his threats, calling on October 8 for the mayor of Chicago and the governor of Illinois, both Democrats, to be jailed, accusing them of failing to protect immigration officers.
Illinois and Chicago sued the administration over the deployment. On October 9, Chicago-based US District Judge April Perry, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, temporarily blocked the move.
Perry said the administration’s claims of violence during protests at an immigration facility in the Chicago suburb of Broadview, Illinois, where a small group of demonstrators had gathered daily for weeks, were unreliable.
In a written opinion, Perry faulted administration officials for “equating protests with riots and a lack of appreciation for the wide spectrum that exists between citizens who are observing, questioning and criticizing their government, and those who are obstructing, assaulting or doing violence.”
There is no evidence of a danger of rebellion in Illinois or that the law is not being enforced, the judge said, adding that a National Guard deployment “will only add fuel to the fire.”
A three-judge panel of the Chicago-based 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift Perry’s order blocking the deployment, concluding that “the facts do not justify the president’s actions in Illinois.” Two of the three judges were appointed by Republican presidents, including one by Trump. 


ICC rejects Israel appeal bid over arrest warrants

A view of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday, June 26, 2024. (AP)
A view of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday, June 26, 2024. (AP)
Updated 27 min 24 sec ago

ICC rejects Israel appeal bid over arrest warrants

A view of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday, June 26, 2024. (AP)
  • In a ruling that made headlines around the world, the ICC in November found "reasonable grounds" to believe Netanyahu and Gallant bore "criminal responsibility" for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza

THE HAGUE: The International Criminal Court Friday rejected Israel's bid to appeal against arrest warrants for its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant over the Gaza war.
In a ruling that made headlines around the world, the ICC in November found "reasonable grounds" to believe Netanyahu and Gallant bore "criminal responsibility" for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
The ICC also issued arrest warrants for three top leaders from the Palestinian militant movement Hamas but dropped these after their deaths.
The warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant sparked outrage in Israel and also in the United States, which has since slapped sanctions on top ICC officials.
Netanyahu described it as an "anti-Semitic decision" and the then US president Joe Biden slammed it as "outrageous".
Israel had asked the court in May to dismiss the warrants while it weighed a separate challenge over whether the ICC had jurisdiction in the case.
The court rejected this on July 16, saying there was "no legal basis" for quashing the warrants while the jurisdiction challenge was pending.
A week later, Israel asked for leave to appeal that ruling, but judges ruled on Friday that "the issue, as framed by Israel, is not an appealable issue."
"The Chamber therefore rejects the request," said the ICC in a complex, 13-page ruling.
ICC judges are still weighing a wider Israeli challenge over jurisdiction.
When the court originally issued the arrest warrants in November, it simultaneously rejected an Israeli appeal against its jurisdiction.
However, in April, the ICC's Appeals Chamber ruled the Pre-Trial Chamber was wrong to dismiss the challenge and ordered it to look again in detail at Israel's arguments.
It is not clear when it will hand down a ruling on that issue.
 

 


Trump suggests too soon for Tomahawks in talks with Zelensky

Trump suggests too soon for Tomahawks in talks with Zelensky
Updated 17 October 2025

Trump suggests too soon for Tomahawks in talks with Zelensky

Trump suggests too soon for Tomahawks in talks with Zelensky
  • Trump added that he was confident of getting Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the invasion he launched in 2022

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump suggested Friday it would be premature to give Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, saying as he hosted Volodymyr Zelensky that he hoped to secure peace with Russia first.

“Hopefully they won’t need it. Hopefully we’ll be able to get the war over with without thinking about Tomahawks,” Trump told journalists including an AFP reporter as the two leaders met at the White House.

Trump added that he was confident of getting Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the invasion he launched in 2022, following a phone call with the Kremlin chief a day earlier.

The US and Russian presidents agreed on Thursday to a new summit in the Hungarian capital Budapest, which would be their first since an August meeting in Alaska that failed to produce any kind of peace deal.

“I think that President Putin wants to end the war,” Trump said.

But Zelensky, who wore a dark suit for his third meeting with Trump in Washington since the US president’s return to power, demurred, saying that Putin was “not ready” for peace.

Ukraine has been lobbying Washington for Tomahawks for weeks, arguing that the missiles could help put pressure on Russia to end its brutal three-and-a-half year invasion.

But on the eve of Zelensky’s visit, Putin warned Trump in a call against delivering the weapons, saying it could escalate the war and jeopardize peace talks.

Trump said the United States had to be careful to not “deplete” its own supplies of Tomahawks, which have a range of over 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles).

- ‘Many questions’ -

Diplomatic talks on ending Russia’s invasion have stalled since the Alaska summit.

But Trump, who once said he could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, appears set on pursuing a breakthrough to follow the Gaza ceasefire deal that he brokered last week.

The Kremlin said Friday that “many questions” needed resolving before Putin and Trump could meet, including who would be on each negotiating team.

But it brushed off suggestions Putin would have difficulty flying over European airspace.

Hungary said it would ensure Putin could enter and “hold successful talks” with the US despite an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against him for alleged war crimes.

“Budapest is the only suitable place in Europe for a USA-Russia peace summit,” Hungarian President Viktor Orban said on X on Friday.

- Trump frustration -

Zelensky’s visit to Washington, Ukraine’s main military backer, will be his third since Trump returned to office.

During this time, Trump’s position on the Ukraine war has shifted dramatically back and forth.

At the start of his term, Trump and Putin reached out to each other as the US leader derided Zelensky as a “dictator without elections.”

Tensions came to a head in February, when Trump accused his Ukrainian counterpart of “not having the cards” in a rancorous televised meeting at the Oval Office.

Relations between the two have since warmed as Trump has expressed growing frustration with Putin.

But Trump has kept a channel of dialogue open with Putin, saying that they “get along.”

The US leader has repeatedly changed his position on sanctions and other steps against Russia following calls with the Russian president.

Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, describing it as a “special military operation” to demilitarize the country and prevent the expansion of NATO.

Kyiv and its European allies say the war is an illegal land grab that has resulted in tens of thousands of civilian and military casualties and widespread destruction.

Russia now occupies around a fifth of Ukrainian territory — much of it ravaged by fighting. On Friday the Russian defense ministry announced it had captured three villages in Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv regions.


UK’s Prince Andrew says giving up royal title

UK’s Prince Andrew says giving up royal title
Updated 17 October 2025

UK’s Prince Andrew says giving up royal title

UK’s Prince Andrew says giving up royal title
  • He said his decision came after discussions with his brother, King Charles III, and his own “immediate and wider family“
  • He said “we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family“

LONDON: Prince Andrew of Britain on Friday renounced his title of Duke of York and other honors after being increasingly embroiled in scandals around his ties to US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
“I will... no longer use my title or the honors which have been conferred upon me,” Andrew, 65, said in a statement.
He said his decision came after discussions with his brother, King Charles III, and his own “immediate and wider family.”
“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first,” he said.
He again denied all allegations, but said “we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family.”
Andrew, who stepped back from public life in 2019, will remain a prince, as he is the second son of the late queen Elizabeth II.
But he will no longer hold the title of Duke of York that she had conferred on him.
His ex-wife Sarah Ferguson will also no longer use the title of Duchess of York, though his daughters Beatrice and Eugenie remain princesses.
The bombshell announcement came after new allegations emerged this week in the posthumous memoir of Virginia Giuffre, the woman at the center of the Epstein scandal.
She wrote that Andrew had behaved as if having sex with her was his “birthright.”
In “Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice,” Giuffre said she had sex with Andrew on three separate occasions including when she was under 18.
Giuffre rose to public prominence after alleging the disgraced US financier Epstein used her as a sex slave and that Andrew had assaulted her.
Andrew has repeatedly denied Giuffre’s accusations and avoided trial by paying a multimillion-dollar settlement.
In extracts published by The Guardian this week, Giuffre describes meeting the prince in London in March 2001 when she was 17.
Andrew was allegedly challenged to guess her age, which he did correctly, adding by way of explanation: “My daughters are just a little younger than you.”

- ‘Entitled’ -

Giuffre and Andrew later went to the Tramp nightclub in London, where she said he was “sort of a bumbling dancer, and I remember he sweated profusely.”
They later returned to the London house of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate and former girlfriend, where they had sex, she alleged.
“He was friendly enough, but still entitled — as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright,” Giuffre wrote.
Giuffre, a US and Australian citizen, took her own life at her farm in Western Australia on April 25.
Andrew’s association with Epstein has left his reputation in tatters and made him a source of embarrassment to the king.
In a devastating 2019 television interview, Andrew — once feted as a handsome war hero who served as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands War — denied ever meeting Giuffre and defended his friendship with Epstein.