Ali Ahmadi, Catherine Barnard and Fiona Costello argue that while the UK’s restrictions on employment for asylum seekers do not act as a strong deterrent, they do drive up asylum costs, risk pushing asylum seekers into exploitative working conditions and harm their wellbeing and integration.

The UK has one of the strictest systems in Europe concerning the right to work for asylum seekers. This blog considers why this is the case and the consequences for asylum seekers, the Home Office, and the economy as a whole.

Most European countries allow asylum seekers to work immediately or within six months of making an asylum application. In the UK, most asylum seekers are not allowed to work while their claim is being decided. This has been the case since 2002, when the Labour government removed the previous rule allowing asylum seekers to apply for permission to work after waiting six months for an initial decision. Today, asylum seekers can apply for permission to work but only if they have been waiting 12 months or more, and the delay is not the claimant’s fault. Even then, they are restricted to jobs on the Immigration Salary List of skilled occupations and, from 26 March, RQF level 6 or above (i.e. degree level roles). They cannot be self-employed or take most entry-level jobs.

The government says that allowing asylum seekers to start working early would not only undermine local labour markets but also act as a ‘pull factor’, encouraging economic migrants to abuse the asylum route. However, as we have discussed before, there is little evidence that labour market access has any significant impact on the number of arrivals.

Yet not allowing asylum seekers to work brings its own costs. While waiting for a decision on their asylum application (and not working), those who would otherwise be destitute are entitled to asylum support under section 95 of Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This includes accommodation and/or a weekly payment for essentials, currently £49.18 (approx. £7 per day). For those living in hotels that provide meals the rate is £9.95 per week. For many, this support is not enough and they are often forced to rely on food banks and charities to meet their basic needs. As of June 2025, over 106,000 people were receiving asylum support.

Home Office spending on asylum support is increasing significantly: from £739m in 2019-20, to £4.7bn in 2023-4 (and £4bn in 2024-5). The growing costs are largely due not only to an increase in the number of asylum seekers but also to backlogs in decision-making. In 2014, 25% of asylum seekers (11,629 people) waited six months or more for a decision. In 2024, 59% (73,866 people) waited that long. A study from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) shows that allowing earlier permission to work could significantly reduce these costs.

So not allowing asylum seekers to work is an expensive policy. Allowing asylum seekers to work would also bring benefits to the UK economy. Analysis by the Lift the Ban coalition suggests that if one in two adults among the 73,866 people waiting an initial decision for longer than six months found employment at the average UK salary, the benefit from tax, national insurance contributions, and savings in asylum support, could be over £280m. Based on the Home Office data from 2022, NIESR calculate that allowing asylum seekers to work would increase tax revenue by £1.3bn, reduce government expenditure by £6.7bn, and increase GDP by £1.6bn, annually.

Instead, a ban on employment pushes some asylum seekers into ‘survival-related’ illegal and exploitative employment where, studies show, they work for well below the minimum wage, ‘cash in hand’ (from which the government does not benefit in terms of tax take), and in unacceptable work conditions. The exploitation is more severe for vulnerable asylum seekers. For instance, one study showed that some female asylum seekers had been pushed into ‘abusive situations’ and/or ‘sex work’ because they had no legal means of income. There is also evidence that those working lawfully as delivery riders ‘rent’ their passes to those who cannot work legally, taking a cut off the top. Likewise, organised crime networks help failed and/or limbo asylum seekers run or work illegally in mini-marts, barbershops, and car washes by faking paperwork and providing ‘ghost directors’.

It is not just the economic costs: preventing asylum seekers from working affects their mental health, with longer term consequences for them and the NHS if they subsequently get refugee status. Asylum seekers in the UK are five to six times more likely than the general population to have mental health needs, and 61% will experience severe mental illness. A systematic review studying the impact of asylum processes on mental health found that policies restricting work or meaningful activities contributed to psychological distress and social exclusion. The Mental Health Foundation reported that not being allowed to work leads to ‘loss of self-esteem, loneliness, and an increased risk of depression’ for asylum seekers. Employment has been shown to reduce psychological distress and depression in this population.

A ban on working also affects the long-term economic integration of refugees. Research consistently shows that being unable to work causes de-skilling, reducing employment prospects even after refugee status is granted, creating what researchers call an ‘economic scarring effect’. A study from Germany found that those who waited longer for permission to work were less likely to find employment within 5 years, and it took nearly 10 years for this gap to close.

In conclusion, the UK’s restrictions on asylum seekers’ right to work do not appear to act as a strong deterrent, yet they drive up asylum costs, risk pushing asylum seekers into exploitative working conditions, and harm their wellbeing and integration. You Gov polling, albeit somewhat dated, has shown that the British public are largely in favour of lifting the ban on asylum seekers working, with 81% in favour of asylum seekers being able to work after 6 months of submitting their application (as suggested by the Commission on the Integration of Refugees). Allowing employment in all types of jobs would reduce asylum costs, bring in tax revenue, and treat people with dignity. It would also help those granted refugee status to rebuild their lives faster and is likely to cost taxpayers less in the long run.

By Ali Ahmadi, Research Associate, University of Cambridge and PhD student at Anglia Ruskin University, Catherine Barnard, Senior Fellow, UK in a Changing Europe & Professor of EU Law and Employment Law, University of Cambridge and Fiona Costello, Assistant Professor, University of Birmingham.

It’s a day ending in a ‘y’, so you know red Tory Wes Streeting is going to be spouting some tripe about the British Medical Association (BMA) somewhere or other.

The health secretary’s latest desperate gambit is waving around a public opinion poll on the upcoming BMA resident doctors’ strike:

The BMA think their demands are more important than patients.

Unsurprisingly, patients don’t agree.

Patients deserve better. The BMA must call off these strikes. pic.twitter.com/XaCPGJ7kaD

Advertisement

— Wes Streeting (@wesstreeting) April 8, 2026

A howling moral vacuum called Streeting

You might think a Labour health secretary like Streeting would devote less of his time to bashing the doctor’s union, but that forgets a crucial detail. Namely, Starmer’s shower of a party wouldn’t know socialist values if they slapped them round the face.

First and foremost, what a bloody disgusting thing to say from Streeting. This swine is trying to frame doctors as not caring about their patients, purely because they won’t stand for years of real-terms pay cuts.

Sure, it’s nice to have public backing for a strike. It’s a pity the public aren’t on-side with the striking workers. However, going ahead with industrial action without public support is a far cry from thinking that patients are unimportant.

Given his utterly shameless display, it’s unsurprising that the health secretary got absolutely cooked on social media. It’s no secret we at the Canary also think Streeting is a howling moral vacuum in the shape of a man – so let’s take a look, shall we?

Threats to the NHS

Some commenters pointed out the this isn’t just about pay restoration –  Starmer and his henchman like Streeting have also threatened to take away residents’ training places:

Have you asked the patients if they agree with pulling 1000 training posts?

Or pivoting away from resident doctors (who will be future GPs/consultants)?

You can’t solve a staffing crisis by cutting doctors.

Advertisement

Work with us and both doctors and patients benefit https://t.co/m4ZfuMBNJt

— Dr Melissa Ryan 🦀 (@Melissa_S_Ryan) April 8, 2026

Is there anybody out there who thinks that threatening to take away training is a good call? Labour is threatening the healthcare system itself in an attempt to break the strike here.

Others pointed out that public opinion is likely being swayed by the dire state of the NHS:

No surprise that patients don’t want strikes

Patients want to be seen promptly by doctors – we need funding for more GPs and consultants

Meanwhile @wesstreeting is cutting training posts and planning wholesale doctor substitution with people who aren’t medically trained https://t.co/qpT5WTzaGO

— Dr Asif Qasim MA PhD FRCP (@DrAsifQasim) April 8, 2026

Remind us again who’s meant to be responsible for the welfare of the NHS? Oh yeah, it’s the fucking health secretary. 

Wes Streeting: Tory in disguise

Then there’s the good old standard – pointing out that Streeting is a Tory in a red tie:

We have a Labour Health Secretary actively campaigning against medical professionals.
What a disgrace Wes Streeting is. https://t.co/sLK4Js0zVA

— Anne Greensmith 💙 (@snowleopardess) April 8, 2026

Anyone else remember back when Labour was a friend of the unions? Wasn’t that nice? Moving on then.

Oh, and of course, there’s the fact that Streeting’s framing was low-down, even for him:

Trying to characterise doctors as uncaring is an incredibly unprincipled and disappointing thing to see from a Labour Health Secretary.

Shame. https://t.co/2sab8JUAmN

— Harry Eccles (@Heccles94) April 8, 2026

Nobody mention the public approval

Then, we’re breaking out the big guns – highlighting that the Labour Party are hardly brimming with public approval:

Why do politicians think that basically everyone else *except* themselves have to act in a way that has public support? https://t.co/rNmhQVXh0P

— Sean Biggerstaff (@Seanchuckle) April 8, 2026

Advertisement

Just 16% of the public currently intends to vote for Labour in the event of a general election. Oh, and 63% of the public disapprove of the current government.

Looks like Streeting will be out of a job even faster than the doctors he’s trying to chase off.

Then, of course, there’s the popularity of the health secretary himself:

So still a higher approval rating than you or your Government.

Waiting lists are over 6 million and you’ve cut 1000 consultant and GP training posts out of spite.

Advertisement

The public want someone who can fix the health service, not someone using it as a stepping stone to their PM run. https://t.co/bX57ioZFij pic.twitter.com/rM8JPdibap

— DoctorsVote (@DoctorsVoteUK) April 8, 2026

Did anyone else know that YouGov tracks the popularity of individual politicians? That has the potential to become utterly soul-destroying.

I bet this is going to come in handy.

What unites us?

Anyway, let’s see what the ‘opposition’ thinks:

I will ban resident doctors and consultants from going on strike – as we already do for the Police and Armed Forces.

Labour has chosen the unions over patients. The @Conservatives choose patients, because only we are serious about getting Britain working again.

— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) April 8, 2026

You know, it’s got to be difficult for the likes of Badenoch and the other Tory scum at the moment. Labour keep coming out with all of the horrific right-wing policies that used to be the Conservatives’ bread and butter.

Look, poor Badenoch has had to resort to making shit up. ‘Labour has chosen the unions over patients’ – come again now? Are we listening to the same Labour health secretary?

You know, if Streeting and Badenoch sat down and talked it out like grownups, they’d find they’re more alike than they are different.

Both clearly think they have free rein to abuse NHS doctors.

Likewise, they both think they can lie to the public and get away with it.

And, of course, both of them are working as hard as they can to ensure that Labour are never elected again.

Well would you look at that – it came in handy immediately.

Featured image via the Canary

Experts have issued a stark warning to the UK Labour government: opening up new fossil fuel fields in the North Sea could ruin international climate targets.

Likewise, this terrible climate leadership from the UK would also embolden other countries to draw on their own fossil fuel reserves, greatly magnifying the predicted negative impact. One senior development official told the Guardian that:

What we are hearing already from developing countries is: why shouldn’t we tap into our own fossil fuel resources if the UK is doing so? That is a legitimate point. You have to provide leadership.

Oil industry shills wearing various different disguises – whether Tory, Reform, trade unionist or the drillers themselves – have put pressure on the government to issue permits for new oil and gas fields.

However, we at the Canary would just like to chip in with our two cents. Namely – holy shit, how are we still having this fucking conversation? You don’t get ‘just a little bit more oil’. We’ve already used too much. Are these genocidal cunts actively trying to kill everything and everyone at this point?

A dangerous example

The two largest remaining oil and gas reserves in the North Sea are the notorious Rosebank and Jackdaw fields. However, even these are already over 90% depleted. As such, they’d require the use of extraction methods that are both energy-intensive and extremely costly.

Even after that, research has predicted that the two fields combined would only produce around 3% of the gas that the UK currently imports.

But again, and not to belabor the point, even if they provided 100% of our fuel they still wouldn’t be worth it, because of the aforementioned rapidly accelerating death of all things. 

Beyond that, climate diplomats and analysts have warned that the UK greenlighting new drilling would also send a dangerous signal to other countries.

If developing nations followed the UK’s dreadful example and used up their own fossil fuel reserves, the world would massively exceed the carbon limits that would otherwise ward of the most ruinous effects of climate breakdown.

‘Short-term interests are being prioritised’

Mohamed Adow – director of the Nairobi-based Power Shift Africa thinktank – explained that:

The UK approving new oil and gas projects would send a shock wave around the world that short-term interests are being prioritised over long-term responsibility. I dread to think what example that would set to the rest of the world. […]

Countries across Africa are being asked to leapfrog to clean energy systems, often with limited financial support. We are told, often by European nations, that the future lies in renewables, and increasingly we are proving that it does. When wealthier nations continue to invest in fossil fuels, they undermine this message and diminish their credibility.

Speaking to the Guardian, one anonymous senior African negotiator stated that their continent would oppose any new drilling on the Labour’s part. The diplomat called the proposal “fundamentally inconsistent” with the Paris climate agreement, and warned that it would weaken climate-vulnerable nations’ trust:

At a moment when science is unequivocal about the need for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, new oil exploration by a historic emitter is as contradictory as it is regressive. It also risks setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to follow.

‘Solutions of the past’ from Labour?

Likewise, Christiana Figueres – ex-UN executive secretary for the framework convention of climate change – issued similarly damning criticism. She stated that there was neither an economic nor climatological basis for new drilling:

It’s entirely understandable that in today’s geopolitical context, countries must seek greater energy security and independence. But reaching for solutions of the past – such as expanding oil and gas drilling – risks locking in infrastructure that is increasingly out of step with where the global energy system is heading. True energy independence today lies in scaling clean, domestic energy, not in extending the life of declining industries.

UK Labour net-zero secretary Ed Miliband has already signaled that he plans to snub a global conference on the green energy transition later this month. In his place, the country will send special climate envoy Rachel Kyte.

With Miliband’s decision on the oil fields being imminent, and the world watching, the UK stands at a crossroads. The choice is clear – we can stand firm and resist the frantic appeals of the far right and the oil lobby, or we can give in to the climate-wrecking and economically non-viable allure of further drilling.

Remind us again how this even remains a question at this point?

Featured image via the Canary

1) Can sleep apnoea kill you? (About 13,000 monthly searches)

2) How much deep sleep do you need? (About 11,000 monthly searches)

3) What is sleep apnoea? (About 9,600 monthly searches)

4) Does magnesium help you sleep? (About 9,600 monthly searches)

5) What is REM sleep? (About 8,400 monthly searches)

3 min read12 min

Fairness must be at the heart of our immigration system. Fairness for the British taxpayer, and fairness for those who seek to come here in search of a better life.

What the government is proposing to do to our immigration system, retrospectively applying changes to the amount of time for those who have made Britain their home must wait for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), is the opposite of fairness.

Under the current system, migrants coming to Britain legally must wait years for proper stability. Years spent waiting to restart their lives. Frozen.

That is why ILR is so important. It offers them stability and security, the assurance that this is their home and community. Most importantly, it gives them a stake in the country.

For the thousands of migrants currently working towards ILR, they came on the promise that if they follow the rules we have set, wait the requisite number of years, and pay the right application fees, they will get that security and become part of that community. It is this promise that gives them a stake in the country.

By changing the rules and moving to an ‘Earned Settlement’ model, we are taking that stake away. Taking it away from those who have spent years working and contributing to the economy. We are moving the goalposts, and that is not fair.

It will penalise those who, for whatever reason, have received benefits. Whether it is someone working in social care receiving tax credits to make ends meet, or a victim of domestic abuse being placed in temporary accommodation, or a mother of a child receiving disability benefit.

These proposed changes have real impacts, like the constituent I met who was forced to claim Universal Credit after becoming unable to work due to his cancer diagnosis, and for whom the proposals could see decades added to his waiting time – for something entirely out of his control.

Or another constituent who has spent years setting up successful businesses in the UK, but because his earnings are not over £125,000, is included in the group whose waiting time faces being extended by years.

I am very unclear as to what it is the Home Office is trying to achieve with these reforms. These two men are not going to leave the UK, nor does my community want them to, but their lives will be made inexplicably more difficult.

Reform to our immigration system is obviously needed, but in my view, Labour’s way has always been to aspire to have a firm immigration system that is also fast, but above all, is fair.

These proposals, as they stand, will not achieve that. The government needs to think again.

Emily Thornberry is Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee

It’s a day ending in a ‘y’, so you know red Tory Wes Streeting is going to be spouting some tripe about the British Medical Association (BMA) somewhere or other.

The health secretary’s latest desperate gambit is waving around a public opinion poll on the upcoming BMA resident doctors’ strike:

The BMA think their demands are more important than patients.

Unsurprisingly, patients don’t agree.

Patients deserve better. The BMA must call off these strikes. pic.twitter.com/XaCPGJ7kaD

Advertisement

— Wes Streeting (@wesstreeting) April 8, 2026

Howling moral vacuum

You might think a Labour health secretary would devote less of his time to bashing the doctor’s union, but that forgets a crucial detail. Namely, Starmer’s shower of a party wouldn’t know socialist values if they slapped them round the face.

First and foremost, what a bloody disgusting thing to say from Streeting. This swine is trying to frame doctors as not caring about their patients, purely because they won’t stand for years of real-terms pay cuts.

Sure, it’s nice to have public backing for a strike. It’s a pity the public aren’t on-side with the striking workers. However, going ahead with industrial action without public support is a far cry from thinking that patients are unimportant.

Given his utterly shameless display, it’s unsurprising that the health secretary got absolutely cooked on social media. It’s no secret we at the Canary also think Streeting is a howling moral vacuum in the shape of a man – so let’s take a look, shall we?

Threats to the NHS

Some commenters pointed out the this isn’t just about pay restoration –  Starmer and his henchman have also threatened to take away residents’ training places:

Have you asked the patients if they agree with pulling 1000 training posts?

Or pivoting away from resident doctors (who will be future GPs/consultants)?

Advertisement

You can’t solve a staffing crisis by cutting doctors.

Work with us and both doctors and patients benefit https://t.co/m4ZfuMBNJt

— Dr Melissa Ryan 🦀 (@Melissa_S_Ryan) April 8, 2026

Is there anybody out there who thinks that threatening to take away training is a good call? Labour is threatening the healthcare system itself in an attempt to break the strike here.

Others pointed out that public opinion is likely being swayed by the dire state of the NHS:

No surprise that patients don’t want strikes

Patients want to be seen promptly by doctors – we need funding for more GPs and consultants

Meanwhile @wesstreeting is cutting training posts and planning wholesale doctor substitution with people who aren’t medically trained https://t.co/qpT5WTzaGO

— Dr Asif Qasim MA PhD FRCP (@DrAsifQasim) April 8, 2026

Advertisement

Remind us again who’s meant to be responsible for the welfare of the NHS? Oh yeah, it’s the fucking health secretary. 

Wes Streeting: Tory in disguise

Then there’s the good old standard – pointing out that Streeting is a Tory in a red tie:

We have a Labour Health Secretary actively campaigning against medical professionals.
What a disgrace Wes Streeting is. https://t.co/sLK4Js0zVA

— Anne Greensmith 💙 (@snowleopardess) April 8, 2026

Advertisement

Anyone else remember back when Labour was a friend of the unions? Wasn’t that nice? Moving on then.

Oh, and of course, there’s the fact that Streeting’s framing was low-down, even for him:

Trying to characterise doctors as uncaring is an incredibly unprincipled and disappointing thing to see from a Labour Health Secretary.

Shame. https://t.co/2sab8JUAmN

— Harry Eccles (@Heccles94) April 8, 2026

Advertisement

Nobody mention the public approval

Then, we’re breaking out the big guns – highlighting that the Labour Party are hardly brimming with public approval:

Why do politicians think that basically everyone else *except* themselves have to act in a way that has public support? https://t.co/rNmhQVXh0P

— Sean Biggerstaff (@Seanchuckle) April 8, 2026

Just 16% of the public currently intends to vote for Labour in the event of a general election. Oh, and 63% of the public disapprove of the current government.

Looks like Streeting will be out of a job even faster than the doctors he’s trying to chase off.

Then, of course, there’s the popularity of the health secretary himself:

So still a higher approval rating than you or your Government.

Waiting lists are over 6 million and you’ve cut 1000 consultant and GP training posts out of spite.

The public want someone who can fix the health service, not someone using it as a stepping stone to their PM run. https://t.co/bX57ioZFij pic.twitter.com/rM8JPdibap

— DoctorsVote (@DoctorsVoteUK) April 8, 2026

Advertisement

Did anyone else know that YouGov tracks the popularity of individual politicians? That has the potential to become utterly soul-destroying.

I bet this is going to come in handy.

What unites us?

Anyway, let’s see what the ‘opposition’ thinks:

I will ban resident doctors and consultants from going on strike – as we already do for the Police and Armed Forces.

Labour has chosen the unions over patients. The @Conservatives choose patients, because only we are serious about getting Britain working again.

Advertisement

— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) April 8, 2026

You know, it’s got to be difficult for the likes of Badenoch and the other Tory scum at the moment. Labour keep coming out with all of the horrific right-wing policies that used to be the Conservatives’ bread and butter.

Look, poor Badenoch has had to resort to making shit up. ‘Labour has chosen the unions over patients’ – come again now? Are we listening to the same Labour health secretary?

You know, if Streeting and Badenoch sat down and talked it out like grownups, they’d find they’re more alike than they are different.

Both clearly think they have free rein to abuse NHS doctors.

Likewise, they both think they can lie to the public and get away with it.

And, of course, both of them are working as hard as they can to ensure that Labour are never elected again.

Well would you look at that – it came in handy immediately.

Ethiopia is supplying the Sudanese Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a genocidal UAE-backed militia, with vehicles modified for war. The Yale School of Public Health’s Humanitarian Research Lab (HRL) published a new report on 8 April detailing the Ethiopian National Defence Force (ENDF) role in RSF’s shadowy supply chain

The ENDF has reportedly been supplying RSF with military-adapted vehicles for use in the war. HRL used a full suite of open source and satellite imagery in their report. Their latest briefing shows the suspect comings and goings of vehicles and vehicle-carrying trucks to an ENDF base.

HRL concluded:

with high confidence that there is activity consistent with military assistance to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) occurring at an ENDF (Ethiopia National Defense Force) base in Asosa Town in the Benishengul-Gumuz region of Ethiopia between 29 December – 29 March 2026.

RSF, whose main backer is the United Arab Emirates (UAE), is currently engaged in a vicious war with the Sudanese government.

War in Sudan

As the Canary has reported, UAE has been a major backer of RSF in its war with the Sudanese government. Turkey, Egypt, Israel and many more countries are pursuing their own interests in Sudan too. British military components has also shown up on the battlefield in RSF hands. The UK is a major arms supplier to UAE.

As the Canary has said in our previous coverage of this poorly understood genocidal war:

The war in Sudan is theoretically between the Arab supremacist RSF and the Sudanese government. But foreign states pursuing their own interests are backing the combatants. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), for example, backs the RSF with arms and equipment. Egypt backs the government, alongside Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Israel has backed both sides at different times.

The mounting death toll is similarly mindboggling:

RSF has killed Sudanese civilians in vast numbers. And some estimates say 150,000 people have died and over 10mn have been displaced by fighting.

You can read more of our reporting on RSF and Sudan here.

New Yale findings

HRL said it had:

reached its conclusions about military assistance being provided to the RSF at the ENDF facility in Asosa based on five interconnected indicators present at the base over a five-month period of satellite imagery and open source data collection.

These ‘indicators’ include many details about ‘technicals’ – light civilian pick up trucks adapted for warfighting.

• Repeating presence of non-ENDF commercial car carriers offloading non ENDF consistent technicals.
• Offloaded unarmed technicals consistent with vehicles allegedly bound to RSF fighters in Ethiopia.
• Increased presence of tents, vehicle traffic, and logistics activity consistent with high tempo non-ENDF military support operations.
• Unarmed technicals are being retrofitted with gun mounts for heavy machine guns at base.
• Technical vehicles consistent with those present at Asosa are observed in open source data from Kurmuk.

You can read the full details in the 8 April HRL briefing here. The operation centres on the military base in Ethiopia’s Asosa Town in the Benishengul-Gumuz region – about 100km from the Sudanese border town of Kurmuk.

HRL reported:

This support occurs from within an active ENDF installation in connection with an armed actor credibly accused of committing acts of genocide and illustrates violations of UN Security Council Resolution 1591 prohibiting arms shipments to those engaged in fighting in the Darfur region.

Ethiopia and the UAE

Ethiopia and the UAE have close economic relations. Utilities Middle East reported on 7 April:

Ethiopia is placing energy and infrastructure at the centre of its deepening partnership with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with a strong focus on power, logistics and large-scale development projects.

In January 2026, both governments stated their commitment to working together on various projects:

Both sides reaffirmed the depth of their longstanding strategic partnership, and the strong foundations of mutual respect and cooperation that define the UAE-Ethiopia relationship.

Both sides reaffirmed their comprehensive and strategic partnership in the promotion and defense of each other’s peace and security, territorial integrity and economic interests.

In the same press release, Ethiopia and UAE even found space to condemn the ‘warring parties’ in the conflict in Sudan – one of which HRL says they are both secretly backing:

The UAE and Ethiopia condemned attacks against civilians by the warring parties. They called on both warring parties to ensure the protection of civilians and humanitarian personnel. The two sides underlined that the primary responsibility for ending the civil war lies with both warring parties.

From civilian truck to armed ‘technical’ – thanks to Ethiopia

Activities at Ethiopia’s Asosa base allegedly include equipping the technicals with gun mounts:

HRL has observed activities consistent with the modification of unarmed light technical vehicles to be equipped with gun mounts capable of holding heavy machine guns.

HRL added:

the livery and vehicle type are not consistent with those in standard use by Ethiopia’s armed forces.

The tightly parked vehicle were often seen on satellite imagery next to long, dark objects:

These objects are consistent with the length of a gun barrel, including the 50-caliber machine gun often used by RSF mounted on the back of technical vehicles.

While HRL concedes there are many unanswered questions about the vehicles and Ethiopia’s activities, they said:

The vehicles assessed in Asosa are consistent in color and type with vehicles utilized by RSF in battle across frontlines in Blue Nile, Sudan in March 2026

According to Middle East Eye (MEE), who also covered the HRL report, available satellite imagery:

connects the car transporters and other vehicles seen at Asosa with Berbera, the Somaliland city port that hosts a base run by the United Arab Emirates.

UAE continues to deny it is backing RSF. HRL’s forensic investigations say otherwise. Sudan’s civilians are the ones who suffer in the meantime. And they do so in numbers – and under conditions – which are at once horrifying and criminally under-reported.

Featured image via the Canary

How can you tell “normal” age-related language changes from dementia-related ones?

Dr García hopes this will lead to better early dementia diagnosis

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

It’s wedding season again! Yay (or nay, depending how you look at it).

There’s nothing more stressful than navigating overly-complicated wedding dress codes.

You can’t wear white (famously), some say you can’t wear black or red, and apparently green is off limits in some circles, too.

Not to mention that you have to factor in whether you’re going to be among the same group of friends as previous years of weddings past.

Add to that the number of separate ceremonies you have to dress for this year, and their respective weather and locations, and you have yourself a sartorial minefield.

The good news is that no one cares about what you’re wearing as much as they do the bride and groom. So fire up those group chats, brainstorm what’s appropriate, but ultimately choose something that feels ‘you’.

Whether you’re witnessing vows on a beach, in a church, at a vineyard, or in someone’s back garden, we’ve found 17 wedding guest dress contenders for the season ahead.