 A month of violence and over 800 civilian deaths later, Sudan's warring parties have signed a seven-day ceasefire agreement, seventh since the fighting began on April 15. Will this ceasefire hold or will it fall apart like earlier attempts at truce? There's a new face on the block as Florida Governor and Republican Ron DeSantis has announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidential elections in 2024, entering an already crowded primary contest. And finally, a historic win in the struggle of indigenous groups in Australia claiming back their heritage as the Western Australian government agrees to pay damages for mining on indigenous lands. Welcome to Daily Debrief, this is your host Shreya and these are today's stories. After nearly a month of fighting Sudan's warring factions, the Sudanese army forces and the paramilitary rapid support forces have signed a written agreement for a seven-day truce to provide free passage for humanitarian assistance. The latest ceasefire in Sudan, unlike its predecessors, includes a monitoring mechanism where cross-party committee will track violations. While welcoming the ceasefire, left activists in the African nation pointed out the absence of any civilian representation who face the brunt of the ongoing conflict. We go to Prashant now, who has more details on this story. Thanks for joining us Prashant. First off, so a lot of ceasefires have happened in Sudan since the fighting began but they have not been successful. What is significant about this particular ceasefire? Right Shreya, so just to give some context before we answer the question, we know that the fighting broke out between the Sudanese armed forces and the paramilitary rapid support forces on April 15th and we have had nearly one month of fighting. The fighting was over disagreements over how whether the RAS should be integrated into the armed forces or not, when, what is the timeline, etc. But there is a long tradition of both these forces that are part of the military junta oppressing people and these generals have come in responsible for a lot of crimes. So that is the context. Now in the one month that the fighting has taken place, the impact has been really brutal. Over one million people have been displaced. I think the number of civilian deaths alone is 800 plus. So there has been a constant demand to sort of bring about some kind of ceasefire. There have been attempts in the past but almost all of them have not held being broken within hours. The difference this time is that there is a mechanism for monitoring it. The ceasefire was negotiated with the mediation of the US and Saudi Arabia in Jeddah, which is in Saudi Arabia. So there is a monitoring mechanism for 12 members with three members from each of the parties. That is the armed forces, the RSF, US and Saudi Arabia. So as far as how the ceasefire is going, there are reports of violations. It is not that it has been a crystal clean situation so far. Both the army and the RSF have been accusing each other of continuing this fighting. However, the general reportage from the ADIs that overall things have been much more quieter since the ceasefire began, which is definitely a very welcome situation. Now it is a question, this is a seven-day ceasefire. It took effect on Monday evening, which means it is only, we have just a few more days to go. Now this ceasefire can be extended, whether that will happen or not remains to be seen. But the fact that it is even happening is significant because like I said the impact was really horrible. We saw clashes breaking out in Darfur region again in the larger context of this one. We saw the fact that there was huge shortage of electricity, water, essentials, people leaving Khartoum and other cities and droves, people being scared of leaving, despite wanting to leave because the fact that they were afraid that while trying to flee they would be shot down or anything of that sort. A lot of the fighting was through air attacks because the RSF controlled certain key installations and the army would bomb them. So it is not even that, the fighting was entirely with very close to civilian areas. So it is not just to military groups fighting but civilians really being caught in the crossfire. So this was a very difficult situation. A large percentage of hospitals were taken out of action, either bombed or had run out of equipment. So things were getting very harrowing, were harrowing for the people of Sudan. There's no question of that. And the fact that even there is a minor amount of reduction in violence, so that for that reason is good. Now I think the key question here is regarding the ceasefire, it says whether it will continue. Now the problem here is that it doesn't seem like there are conditions good in the, the conditions for the ceasefire not continuing are pretty good, so to speak. In the sense that neither armed group has really gained enough of an advantage over the other and the situation is still more even, which means that there is a lot of incentive to keep fighting. And if you look at the statements and the declarations, both of them are kind of said that you know we'll keep the war going, etc., which means that it will require a lot of incentives and push pressure of various kinds from the mediating forces to sort of ensure that the fighting does not take place. So it's going to be a bit of a seesaw in the next couple of days where to see if the ceasefire will be extended. The important thing I think to note is that you know for the people of Sudan this will provide some relief, but it will not address a serious structural questions. And what has been the reaction like from left parties and activists in Sudan regarding this ceasefire? So I think we have an article which talks about this by our colleague Pawan and I think if you look at for instance what the Sudanese Communist Party is saying. There are two or three things it makes clear. One is the fact that they are very clear that these humanitarian corridors through which aid is delivered should not be in the hands of the army or the RSF. They're saying that it will be looted and you know all the supplies will go to these forces instead of going to the people. So they have called for the neighborhood resistance committees. The neighborhood resistance committees are small groups which have been in the forefront of both protests for democracy and for providing relief during the fighting. They're called for these committees, say Sudanese Red Crescent, Sudanese Doctors Union, for these groups to preside over the provision distribution of relief rather than the armed forces or the rapid support forces. They also cautioned against for instance you know ceasefire being an occasion for people to leave Sudan in droves. So the idea that it should not be an invitation for people to leave as my people has to stay where they are right and safety conditions that we've provided for them rather than people giving being given the impression that they ceasefire just so that you can leave so that we can continue fighting right. And I think they also want against the US and Saudi Arabia taking monopolizing the negotiation. So the fact that the African Union is not on the ground. The fact that you know civil society organizations I think the Sudanese Communist Party made a very good point when they said that the civilians who have suffered the most are not part of the monitoring mechanism right. So these are some of the immediate responses to the ceasefire but I think the larger structural question also remains we've talked about this multiple times on this show which is that as long as the generals in the army and the RSF are considered a key part of any solution. It's very difficult to see how the situation is going to change. The army and the RSF together were responsible for repressing civilians. They were the props behind the Omar al-Bashir regime which was in power for a very long time. So to somehow suddenly expected the same army and RSF together will help transition to democracy is really I think being very you know delusional for lack of better word. But the international community for the longest time has been okay with the fact that this army and the RSF are part of the process right. So I think that's a larger critique and which is why the protesting forces the civilian protesters have always insisted that there should be no compromise no understanding with the military. They have called for meaningful democracy which means that the army is subordinated to the military as well. So keeping all that in mind I think those are like we keep saying on this show I think those are the largest structural questions that remain for Sudan as a whole because even if this bout of fighting comes to an end we might end up with another bout of fighting in some months another you know military coup or whatever. So the question is that what is the status of the security forces can will they will they control the economy be divested from them all these are I think important questions that need to be addressed. Right thank you so much for joining us Prashant. Florida governor and Republican Ron DeSantis has announced his candidacy for US presidential elections in 2024. DeSantis made the announcement through a campaign video ahead of joining Twitter CEO Elon Musk on the social media platform. The entry of DeSantis has been rumored for months and he is also being considered as Donald Trump's strongest rival in the primary contest. We joined by Anish for more on this story. Hi Anish thanks for joining us first off can you tell us how does the entry of DeSantis in the presidential race at this point of time change the dynamics of the race. Well it's quite hard to say it's quite early to say how things will be changed but what we need to notice the fact that Ron DeSantis who is currently the governor of Florida is really not that much of a different public figure when we compare him to say Donald Trump. Now Trump is definitely the frontrunner of this entire race. We have multiple polls talking about how a majority of Republican voters are more likely to opt for Trump than any other candidate at the moment or one we need to remember is performance during the COVID-19 pandemic where he essentially you know told the line with Trump. He was one of the Republican governors to do that. He went against all sorts of recommendations and health advisories that called for you know social distancing or that matter masking and even when it came to COVID vaccines he pretty much was one of the anti-vaxxers of anti-vaxxer governors in the United States. Even if you look at some of the record of how you know COVID-19 death toll was managed there is definitely also you know several reports that indicated that the government his administration had actually covered up certain numbers just so that they could you know they could actually create a sort of data figure database that would make it look as if Florida wasn't doing as bad as it actually was. So you know a lot of things he wasn't really different from how Trump worked as the president. He was pretty much the many Trump in Florida and but definitely he's a polarizing figure not just in Florida. I mean mostly in Florida if you look at the winning margin with which he has become the government the very tiny one and that clearly shows how polarizing he is over there and also if he has any kind of capability to actually eat into Trump force is something that we are yet to see. Obviously Trump's current you know being beleaguered with all sorts of cases and investigations against him ranging from you know sexual harassment to you know actually you know fund siphoning of funds from while being the president of you know tax fraud and all sorts of other cases that are against him. He is definitely he's still seen as somebody who is far more favorable to most Republicans than than most other candidates but we need to really wait and see how his entry, DeSantis's entry. I mean his definitely the beginning was not very good considering the kind of snag that he his campaign had actually had to face the technical snag we all know about. All right and Anish you mentioned apart from DeSantis there are other Republican candidates also in the race you mentioned Donald Trump. Could you tell us a little bit about these other candidates from the Republican end and who should we look out for the most in the coming days? Well apart from DeSantis and Trump obviously there is definitely Nikki Haley who is a former president of South Carolina. She is one of the more you know established from Republicans and while she has been you know in several instances very pro-Trump on major issues she is definitely one of these old like she belongs to that club of old conservatives I mean she's not old but like the very traditional kind of conservatives that used to kind of represent the Republican Party for a very long time and so there is definitely there is a definitely a great deal of likelihood that the more conservative block who do not necessarily identify with the sort of new right or the alt right or kind of populist tendencies within the Republican Party that has now gone over to Donald Trump's campaign not just now but like even during his presidency and before as well are more likely to you know organize around her so this is one other candidate there are definitely going to be more we can obviously expect several big and small figures and some even unknown figures to come up with candidacy announcement in the coming months and that is not going to be due because if you remember the last Republican primary when Trump actually won it was a massive lineup almost a dozen candidates who wanted to become the party's nominees but obviously only one person of the only a couple of them actually ended up being in the race entirely or at least for the most part by the by the time the families actually began so these three are the ones that we can look out for at the moment on the overall perspective to look at it the Republican primary will be important definitely but what is going to be significant is how the ongoing cases especially the indictment with Stormy Daniels case is going to actually affect Trump simply whether it is going to you know turn him out to be a martyr that his campaign is trying very hard to paint him as or whether it is actually going to affect his standing as a popular figure within the Republican party. Thanks for that update Anish we please hang on we'll be back with you for our next story. The Australian government set a historic precedent this week by agreeing to compensate an aboriginal group for acts such as approving roads and issuing leases that damaged or destroyed the group's legal rights over their traditional lands. The settlement with the indigenous people of western Australia will pay the group over 17 million US dollars and will also allow for a greater say for the indigenous group on future developments by miners and others on issues including water management and mining or even petroleum leases. It also removes the need for future compensation claims. Anish is back with us for more updates on this story. Welcome back Anish The first question is what do you think is the significance of a settlement like this? Well it's quite unprecedented in the manner at which the western Australian government actually dealt with this issue. They negotiated with the community and they actually came up with a resolution eventually and also came up with the fact that aboriginal native title owners are entitled to compensation for pretty much any activity that happens on their lands which includes building off roads even constructing pipelines or for that matter mining. Now this is significant in the sense that this is going to definitely set a precedent for how the government deals with very similar cases that we have always talked about not only but also on our website in across Australia where native land owners are actually impacted by such massive projects very often mining projects and considering the fact that western Australia being one of the biggest repositories of all sorts of natural resources that Australia has to offer along with the fact that it also has one of the largest or maybe second only to the northern territory province the largest number of native land owners or for that matter native land itself shows that this is going to have a significant impact on not just how native titles are dealt with but also the mining industry as well. The mining industry will have to take into account not only the fact that these land owners will have to be compensated with but also how their cultural artifacts and their historic and cultural sites should be protected and how they can be involved in any such process from here on. You know Anish, three years ago a similar incident took place, a mining company named Raiout into it blasted a 50,000 year old sacred site of one of the aboriginal groups. What do you think this particular settlement that we're talking about, what kind of an impact, a positive impact, a negative impact, what kind of an impact it will have on similar such cases and on the future of claiming back indigenous heritage in Australia? Well it is quite an interesting time right now in Australia when it comes to indigenous groups and communities trying to claim back their lands and also their cultural heritage. So it is interesting that you mentioned Raiout into this, Raiout into his primary the reason why the settlement happened in the first place, the fact that something of that sort was possible by existing laws and by existing regulations and almost very little could be done when it comes to legal and you know legislative remedies that can happen. It is because of that that there was this urgency in Western Australia especially with the government that they had to actually fine tune some of the existing regulations to actually come up with something like this, a settlement like this. Now what we need to remember is that while it's going to set a sort of customary precedent it is not a legislative or a legal act like this is not going to be set in stone something that can obviously change if the government changes. So it remains to be seen how the government, the state government and obviously the federal government in Australia is going to institutionalize such a settlement because once you have that sort of institutional protection it becomes like it will become a necessity for any kind of future projects. And interestingly we are looking at similar cases of aboriginal indigenous groups in Australia filing court cases trying to get back their land. We have seen a similar court case actually give about thousands of kilometers of land in Victoria back to the indigenous group that claimed it. We are also seeing very similar fight for compensation in Western Australia itself, multiple of them, there are multiple cases. One was filed in March earlier this year. So in all of these cases and obviously right into we are today we are reading reports about how the company and the indigenous group, the juukan group are actually have gotten into mediating this issue and also coming up with a solution and maybe possible compensation in the future because it has been three years and pretty much nothing has been done on the front by right itself. So in all of these cases definitely we are looking at a time when indigenous groups are becoming more assertive about their rights, about their native titles, about their rights to the land itself and obviously going to have an impact. We need to see if the governments like there are already cases and calls made by legislators and you know even civil society groups that are calling for the changes in native legislations in the country so that there could be greater right and greater say for aboriginal groups towards their you know cultural and natural heritage and that clearly shows that the times are changing and there will be definitely more reforms, hopefully something to more positive outcome in the new future. Right thank you so much for joining us today Anish and that's all we have for today for more such stories keep watching peoplesdispatch.org you can also follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.