Darfur no-fly zone impossible says top EU soldier - Sudan criticizes US VP contenders Palin, Biden over Darfur flight ban

In April 2006, a panel of UN experts proposed a possible no-fly zone over Darfur. As noted here at Sudan Watch on 27 April 2006, the panel's report recommended that with both the Sudanese government and rebels in Darfur violating UN resolutions, the Security Council should move swiftly to impose further sanctions, expand an arms embargo, and consider setting up a no-fly zone for government planes.

One year later, in April 2007, and noted here at Sudan Watch on 22 May 2007, US President George W Bush raised the prospect of a no-fly zone over Darfur, and Britain said it wanted the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone on Sudan as part of sanctions including broadening an arms ban.

Darfur no-fly zone impossible says top EU soldier

On 22 May 2007, a Reuters report by Mark John quoted a top European Union soldier as saying that to stop Sudanese military aircraft flying over Darfur is technically impossible - quote:

".... General Henri Bentegeat, the Frenchman who heads the EU's top military body, said the size of the 500,000-square-km (200,000-square-mile) territory made such a plan unfeasible.

"A no-fly zone is technically impossible. Darfur is around the same size as France," Bentegeat, who heads the EU Military Committee on which the bloc's 27 member states coordinate defence policy, told Reuters in an interview.

"You would need at least 60 combat aircraft to enforce it correctly. And there would be the question of distinguishing between helicopters," Bentegeat warned of possibly lethal confusion between Sudanese, UN and other aircraft.

He said there was no alternative to maintaining pressure on Khartoum to let international troops join a 7,000-strong African Union force that has so far failed to quell the violence.

"Darfur has descended into chaos," said Bentegeat, whose postings in the French army included Senegal and Djibouti. "The only viable solution is the deployment of a very large force that would throw a security net around the region."

Sudan criticizes US VP contenders Palin, Biden over Darfur flight ban

And so here we are today, Monday, 06 October 2008, noting the following Reuters report by British journalist Andrew Heavens based in Khartoum, Sudan (editing by Dominic Evans) dated Sunday, 05 October 2008. Excerpt:

Sudan criticizes Palin, Biden over Darfur flight ban

Sudan criticized both U.S. vice-presidential contenders on Sunday for suggesting they might support a no-fly zone over Darfur, saying the plan showed they knew little about the conflict.

United Nations officials, aid groups and rebels have repeatedly accused the Sudanese government of using Antonov aircraft and helicopters to attack rebel positions and villages in more than five years of fighting in Darfur.

Many activists have called for the U.N. to police a no-fly zone over the region to stop attacks.

Sarah Palin, the Republican governor of Alaska, said she supported a flight ban in Sudan's remote west during a televised debate with her Democratic rival Joe Biden on Thursday.

Biden, the Democratic senator from Delaware, did not explicitly call for a ban but said: "I don't have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It is within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we are willing to take a hard stand."

But Sudanese foreign ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadig on Sunday dismissed the statements of both candidates saying a no-fly zone would be impractical and useless.

"They know very little about what is going on here," he said. "Their statements were meant for local consumption. They had nothing to do with Darfur."

Sadig said an air ban would be ineffective because the Sudanese armed forces were not using aircraft in their ongoing struggle against rebel groups in Darfur.

He said government planes and helicopters were only being used to fight bandits and protect humanitarian convoys.

"It would be a very short-sighted move. Curbing the actions of the armed forces would impede the flow of humanitarian aid to Darfur and tie the hands of the government in its efforts to prevent attacks on aid convoys," he added.

Earlier his year, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he would like to move ahead with a no-fly zone for Darfur "if it were at all possible."

But British foreign ministry officials later said they were not pursuing a ban because it would restrict humanitarian work. Darfur's size and a shortage of planes to monitor the ban would also make it "a major logistical challenge," they added. The remote western region is roughly the same size as Spain. [Sudan Watch Ed: or the same size as Turkmenistan!]

Click here to view some reports in Sudan Watch archives re no-fly zone over Darfur.
- - -

UPDATE WEDNESDAY 8 OCTOBER 2008

Currently and over the past day or so, news content at Sudan Tribune has, for some reason, disappeared or been removed but I was able to obtain, via a Google search, Google's cache of the following report:

US-led no-fly zone would ‘impede’ aid to Darfur - Sudan
Monday 6 October 2008 04:31.

By Daniel Van Oudenaren

October 5, 2008 (WASHINGTON) – Sudanese foreign ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadig on Sunday responded to U.S. politicians who suggest enforcing a no-fly zone over Darfur, saying it would be impractical, useless, and would restrict humanitarian aid.

Both Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin, respectively the Democratic and Republic nominee for vice president of the United States, spoke favorably Thursday of imposing a no-fly zone over Darfur.

The government of Sudan has repeatedly used Antonov aircraft and helicopters to attack rebels and villages in Darfur, according to official experts’ reports to the United Nations Security Council.

This violence has prompted activists to encourage the U.S. president to use military aircraft to enforce a no-fly zone, as the U.S. did in Iraq in the wake of the first Gulf War, where it worked with the United Kingdom and France in an effort to protect Shiite and Kurdish populations that had been targeted after they revolted against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"They know very little about what is going on here," said Sadig, in response to Palin and Biden. "Their statements were meant for local consumption. They had nothing to do with Darfur."

The presidential candidates themselves, Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, have endorsed a no-fly zone over Darfur, in response to identical questionnaires submitted by the Enough Action Fund, the Save Darfur Coalition and the Genocide Intervention Network – all United States activist groups.

McCain said that he would “seek a Security Council resolution endorsing such a mission and work to persuade our allies [in NATO] to join us in its implementation.”

Obama said, “I have co-sponsored resolutions calling on the President to work with international partners to enforce a no-fly zone in Darfur. While the U.S. has provided aid and military resources to the African Union mission in Darfur, I believe this is America’s moment to lead the way toward ending this crisis.”

Sadig said an air ban would be ineffective because the Sudanese armed forces were not using aircraft in their ongoing struggle against rebel groups in Darfur. McCain, however, in his response to the activist groups, referred to “recent bombing of civilian targets in Darfur—including a school, water works, and a market.”

He said government planes and helicopters were only being used to fight bandits and protect humanitarian convoys.

"It would be a very short-sighted move. Curbing the actions of the armed forces would impede the flow of humanitarian aid to Darfur and tie the hands of the government in its efforts to prevent attacks on aid convoys," he added.

Likewise, British foreign ministry officials also recently reportedly said they are not pursuing a no-fly zone because it would restrict humanitarian work. They also cited a shortage of planes and referred to the idea as "a major logistical challenge." (ST)

Does anybody know what's happened to Sudan Tribune? Sudan says US-led no-fly zone would ‘impede’ aid to Darfur

For some unknown reason, at the present time (Wednesday 08 October 2008 UK 09:23 GMT) and over the past day or so, news content at the Paris based website Sudan Tribune has disappeared. Today, a Google cache of the site's main page shows news reports only up until Saturday 04 October 2008.

However, thanks to a Google search, I was able to obtain Google's cache of a report published at Sudan Tribune on Monday 06 October 2008, enitled "US-led no-fly zone would ‘impede’ aid to Darfur - Sudan" (copied here below). Right now, I'm finding that some earlier reports published at Sudan Tribune cannot even be viewed via Google's cache and lead to a blank white page with a note in top left corner saying (sic): (Sorry, there is no article at this adress.)


So, this morning, I added a copy of the report at Sudan Watch entry dated Monday 06 October 2008 re Darfur no-fly zone impossible says top EU soldier - Sudan criticizes US VP contenders Palin, Biden over Darfur flight ban.

US-led no-fly zone would ‘impede’ aid to Darfur - Sudan
Sudan Tribune Monday 6 October 2008 04:31.
By Daniel Van Oudenaren

October 5, 2008 (WASHINGTON) – Sudanese foreign ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadig on Sunday responded to U.S. politicians who suggest enforcing a no-fly zone over Darfur, saying it would be impractical, useless, and would restrict humanitarian aid.

Both Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin, respectively the Democratic and Republic nominee for vice president of the United States, spoke favorably Thursday of imposing a no-fly zone over Darfur.

The government of Sudan has repeatedly used Antonov aircraft and helicopters to attack rebels and villages in Darfur, according to official experts’ reports to the United Nations Security Council.

This violence has prompted activists to encourage the U.S. president to use military aircraft to enforce a no-fly zone, as the U.S. did in Iraq in the wake of the first Gulf War, where it worked with the United Kingdom and France in an effort to protect Shiite and Kurdish populations that had been targeted after they revolted against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"They know very little about what is going on here," said Sadig, in response to Palin and Biden. "Their statements were meant for local consumption. They had nothing to do with Darfur."

The presidential candidates themselves, Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, have endorsed a no-fly zone over Darfur, in response to identical questionnaires submitted by the Enough Action Fund, the Save Darfur Coalition and the Genocide Intervention Network – all United States activist groups.

McCain said that he would “seek a Security Council resolution endorsing such a mission and work to persuade our allies [in NATO] to join us in its implementation.”

Obama said, “I have co-sponsored resolutions calling on the President to work with international partners to enforce a no-fly zone in Darfur. While the U.S. has provided aid and military resources to the African Union mission in Darfur, I believe this is America’s moment to lead the way toward ending this crisis.”

Sadig said an air ban would be ineffective because the Sudanese armed forces were not using aircraft in their ongoing struggle against rebel groups in Darfur. McCain, however, in his response to the activist groups, referred to “recent bombing of civilian targets in Darfur—including a school, water works, and a market.”

He said government planes and helicopters were only being used to fight bandits and protect humanitarian convoys.

"It would be a very short-sighted move. Curbing the actions of the armed forces would impede the flow of humanitarian aid to Darfur and tie the hands of the government in its efforts to prevent attacks on aid convoys," he added.

Likewise, British foreign ministry officials also recently reportedly said they are not pursuing a no-fly zone because it would restrict humanitarian work. They also cited a shortage of planes and referred to the idea as "a major logistical challenge." (ST)
- - -

UPDATE WEDNESDAY 08 OCTOBER 2008 17:11 UK GMT

I've just tried to access Sudan Tribune via Yahoo's search engine listings and it came up with a blank white page saying:

http://www.sudantribune.com/

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@sudantribune.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Apache/2.0.59 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.59 OpenSSL/0.9.8g Server at www.sudantribune.com Port 80
- - -

Sudan: Darfur no-fly zone unworkable says top EU soldier

Via POTP May 22, 2007 report by Reuters' Mark John - excerpt:

A U.S.-backed proposal to stop Sudanese military aircraft flying over the war-ravaged western region of Darfur is technically unworkable, a top European Union soldier said on Tuesday.

President George W. Bush raised the prospect last month, and Britain wants the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone on Sudan as part of sanctions including broadening an arms ban.

But General Henri Bentegeat, the Frenchman who heads the EU's top military body, said [that] the size of the 500,000-square-km (200,000-square-mile) territory made such a plan unfeasible.

"A no-fly zone is technically impossible. Darfur is around the same size as France," Bentegeat, who heads the EU Military Committee on which the bloc's 27 member states coordinate defence policy, told Reuters in an interview.

"You would need at least 60 combat aircraft [in order] to enforce it correctly. And there would be the question of distinguishing between helicopters," Bentegeat warned of possibly lethal confusion between Sudanese, U.N. and other aircraft.

He said [that] there was no alternative to maintaining pressure on Khartoum to let international troops join a 7,000-strong African Union force that has so far failed to quell the violence.

"Darfur has descended into chaos," said Bentegeat, whose postings in the French army included Senegal and Djibouti. "The only viable solution is the deployment of a very large force that would throw a security net around the region."

Seems to me the only viable solution is for all Sudanese tribal leaders and rebels to commit to peace and reconciliation and agree on compensation asap. Otherwise this could go on for years, keeping the rebels and their leaders on easy street while 'their people' (mostly women and children) are killed or dispersed from land with potential oil and stuff. Sort out Darfur and another so-called rebellion will spring up elsewhere in Sudan, like in S Kordofan or along the Sudan-Chad border where, reportedly, there's unexplored oil. The USA is four times larger than Sudan. Sudan is a country as large and diverse as Europe.

Tony Baldry MP, Chair of Parliamentary report "Darfur, Sudan" in African contract inquiry

A copy of the 93-page "Darfur, Sudan" Parliamentary report featured in an earlier post here is freely available online at International Development Committee - Houses of Parliament.
- - -

Blair all talk on 'moral responsibility' to end Darfur genocide says Conservative Press Release

Conservative MP Michael Ancram QC recently issued a press statement saying Sudan must be "compelled" to halt its genocide and allow the people it has chased into camps to return to their homes.

Mr Ancram does not explain how this can be achieved. In a Press Release he suggests the UN should establish an oil embargo on Sudan to give it an incentive to comply, but he fails to mention countries with interests in the Sudan, like China and Russia, that sit on the UN Security Council and make it known they will block sanctions and an oil embargo.

In the press release Mr Ancram says, "After 7 security council resolutions, 10 reports to the security council, two million displaced Darfuris, and 300,000 deaths why is the international community still taking baby steps towards a solution for the people of Darfur? But instead of answering the question to educate readers, Mr Ancram takes a cheap shot at Tony Blair by saying, "Mr Blair's self proclaimed 'moral responsibility' to act to end this genocide is all talk."

Either he and his colleague, Shadow International Development Secretary Alan Duncan MP do not know what they are talking about [which I find hard to believe] - or they do, but have ulterior motives. Commenting on the publication of the International Development Committee's report "Darfur, Sudan" Mr Duncan said:

"This report makes shocking reading. It details the collective failure of the international community to stop the genocide in Darfur. Mr Blair should have pressed for a UN resolution requiring Sudan to accept a larger African Union force with a mandate to protect civilians, establishing a no-fly zone over Darfur, and imposing an oil embargo on Sudan. His failure to do so makes a mockery of his rhetoric on helping Africa," he said.

Mr Duncan goes on to accuse Mr Blair of being 'all talk', and says "Instead of ending genocide in Darfur, Mr Blair's only determination is to walk on by on the other side. His only urgency to utter another promise he will not keep."

As far as I am aware [and I have followed the news on Darfur very closely over the past year and have a good idea of just how much the British Government has done for Darfur and Africa as a whole] Messrs Ancram and Duncan have not said much before in the press about Darfur over the last year. Both of them call for an oil embargo knowing that China, Russia and Algeria would block it. Note also, Ancram praises the no-fly zone and Duncan criticises the lack of no-fly zone.

Note too, how loudly they speak out about Darfur in the press now that there is a General Election in the offing - along with Conservative MP Tony Baldry, chair of a House of Commons select committee responsible for releasing the report "Darfur, Sudan" in an attempt, it would appear, to score political points before an election. Clare Short MP, a former international development secretary, serves on the same committee. Ms Short resigned from the Cabinet because she was against the war in Iraq. Her outspoken remarks, and attempts to bring down Tony Blair, became an embarrassment to the Government and this country.

Since these MPs have not before made a concerted effort to speak up strongly about Darfur over the past year, the unleashing of their March 30, 2005 report "Darfur, Sudan" and media campaign gives the impression they are using Darfur against Tony Blair for their own political gain. Shame on them.
- - -

Sunday Times Insight: Top Tory in African contract inquiry

It was disappointing to see Conservative MP Tony Baldry, who chairs the international development committee responsible for the above report "Darfur, Sudan", featured in an article in today's Sunday Times. Here is a copy:

A SENIOR MP used his parliamentary position to lobby an African government over the award of a lucrative aviation contract to a company in which he is a big shareholder.

Tony Baldry, the Conservative MP for Banbury, Oxfordshire, could now face censure for exploiting his position in the Commons to further his business interests.

The Sunday Times has seen a series of letters sent on Commons notepaper by Baldry to Vice-President Solomon Berewa in Sierra Leone discussing the privatisation of the country's failed national airline.

He attempts to arrange meetings with Angel Gate Aviation, a British-registered company that is keen to schedule flights from London to Freetown, the capital of the west African state.

Companies House records show that Baldry owns 439,000 shares in Angel Gate, although he makes no mention of this in any of the letters. The firm has paid him £30,000 in the past year as its chairman.

Val Collier, Sierra Leone’s anti-corruption commissioner, criticised Baldry's intervention. He said last week that Baldry was "immoral" in using his position as an MP to promote his own business.

"(The airline approach) has nothing to do with House of Commons matters," he said. "You cannot use high office to influence business negotiations. It's morally wrong and a bad example to countries like ours."

The revelations will increase the pressure on Baldry, a former minister in the Foreign Office. Last week, Insight revealed that he has been paid by Milestone Trading, a mining company, to lobby the Sierra Leone government for valuable diamond concessions.

He stands to make a substantial amount of money out of the deal. This is despite the fact that his business with Sierra Leone - a war-torn country heavily dependent on British aid - presents a potential conflict of interest for someone in his position.

As chairman of the Commons international development committee, Baldry is responsible for scrutinising the millions in government aid spent in countries such as Sierra Leone. Fellow committee members point out that their job is to help alleviate Third World poverty rather than try to profit from it.

Baldry also used Commons notepaper to write to Hilary Benn, the international development secretary, on behalf of Milestone.

The matter has been referred to Sir Philip Mawer, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, by George Foulkes, the Labour MP and former international development minister.

After seeing the latest letters lobbying for the aviation firm, Foulkes said: "This appears to show that his (Baldry’s) business activities and his position as chairman of the select committee have become inextricably mixed in a way which appears to be a conflict of interest and breach of parliamentary rules.

"As a result, he should consider whether it is possible for him to continue as chairman of the committee."

In the letters to Berewa, Baldry says he has been negotiating with Abdul Turay, the country's privatisation commissioner, for Angel Gate Aviation to take over from the country's national airline.

"We have agreed the way forward for the airline project and I hope it may be possible for Mr Turay to meet (Angel Gate director Ramy Lakah) to finalise details of the proposed agreement, which can then be passed to the respective lawyers to draw up the necessary contracts," wrote Baldry.

"We fully understand that 'speed is of the essence' on this matter and that the government of Sierra Leone is anxious to see a viable airline operating between London and Freetown as soon as possible."

Although he declares his directorships and shareholdings in the register of members' interests, Baldry's letters give the impression his involvement is neutral. His shareholding in the firm is not even alluded to.

As it turned out, his lobbying for the company failed as the contract was awarded to another operator. He did, however, have more success when acting on behalf of Milestone.

Last year the company was blacklisted in Sierra Leone pending an investigation into links between one of its directors and two mafia figures wanted in Europe and South Africa. A report by Collier confirmed that Gershon Ben-Tovim, a partner in Milestone, had business links to Vito Palazzolo, a known mafia figure wanted in Italy. Milestone and Ben-Tovim reject the significance of those links.

Baldry wrote to Berewa on October 4 last year dismissing the links as "tangential".

The intervention undermined the objections made by Collier and cleared the way for Milestone to receive new mining licences. In return the MP's company, Red Eagle Resources, received a $75,000 payment, and the promise of a potential £1.5m shareholding in Milestone.

Baldry is now being asked to explain himself in front of his Commons committee. John Barrett, a Liberal Democrat member of the select committee, said: "If the allegations of a conflict of interest between business dealings and the work on the select committee are proved, then he should resign. I would certainly advise him to make a statement to the select committee on Tuesday."

Baldry is also to be interviewed by the commissioner for standards. Last week he declined to comment further until the investigation has been completed.

Sudan's Janjaweed leader Musa Hilal led attack on Darfur

On Mar 30, 2005 the UN passed Resolution 1591 on Sudan which, among other things, demanded that the Government of Sudan immediately cease conducting offensive military flights in the region.

The African Union's Oct 1 statement on security in Darfur, reveals Sudanese forces deployed helicopter gunships in Darfur as recently as Sep 28.

A report at Bloomberg by Karl Maier in Khartoum Oct 1 2005 details what African Union Ambassador Kingibe told reporters yesterday about the Sep 28 attack on Aro Sharow camp in Darfur. Excerpt:

"In recent days, the government's deployment of helicopter gunships overhead while the Janjaweed forces attacked villagers suggests cooperation with the militia, Kingibe said.

"This apparent land and air assault gives credence to the repeated claim by the rebel movements of collusion between the GoS forces and the Janjaweed/Arab militia,'' he said."

And, according to this extract from Bloomberg's report, if true, explains the reason for the attack:

"There are reports that the leader of Janjaweed, Musa Hilal, led the attack on Aro Sharow, Kingibe said.

One of Musa Hilal's sons was reportedly killed in a Sept. 19 attack by Darfur's biggest rebel movement, the SLA, on the government-held garrison town of Sheiria, Kingibe said, while another was abducted."

The report goes on to quote Kingibe as saying:

"If the government claims its latest attacks are in retaliation for the Sheiria assault, "this cannot be justified given the deliberately calculated and wanton destruction wrecked by the disproportionate use of force on innocent civilians and IDPs in their camps.''

See full report.

Impose a no-fly zone over Darfur?

The number of AU peacekeepers for Darfur is scheduled to increase from 5,600 to 7,000 this year, and to 12,000 by next year, aside from the 10,000 strong UN peacekeepers expected for South Sudan. Since NATO is now providing logistical support to the African Union's mission in Darfur, one of the actions that could be taken at the AU's Security Council meeting Oct 3, or the UN Security Council at its next meeting, is to impose a no-fly zone on the region.

But don't hold your breath. Even after UN Resolution 1591 last March, air attacks in Darfur happened again. The Scotsman notes the AU has photographic evidence of those attacks, and reports Khartoum's excuse 31 May 2005:

Najib Abdulwahab, the then Sudanese government's minister of state for foreign affairs, denied AU reports that helicopters were attacking the town, claiming instead that they were fighting off an insurgent offensive. "What the government is doing in these areas is actually within its sovereign rights," he said at the time.

Further reading:

2 Oct 2005 - Prof Eric Reeves points out the above Bloomberg report in his latest analysis. [Thanks to Eric JM at Passion of the Present for above links]

2 Oct 2005 - Mail & Guardian report by Associated Press Writer Ibrahim Ali Suleiman in Khartoum says Sudanese government and Janjaweed accused of combined attacks.

2 Oct 2005 - Tehran Watch links to report: Iran to construct $16 million water treatment plant in Sudan - Bashir considered these projects of paramount importance for developing Sudan's infrastructure and conveyed his country's interest in expanding economic ties with Iran.

16 Aug 205 - Sudan Watch notes on Janjaweed and Abyei Boundary Commission Report.
- - -

You will be hunted, attackers warned after Darfur atrocity

Radio Australia Oct 2 summarises the latest news on Darfur by saying UN says war crime prosecutions imminent in Darfur - the United Nations has warned that war crimes prosecutions may be imminent, amid renewed fighting in Darfur.

Canada's Montreal Gazette features an Associated Press report Oct 2 that says the UN High Commissioner for Refugees said it sent a team to the Aro Sharow camp that had discovered more details about Wednesday's attack by a large group of armed men riding horses and camels:

The UNHCR team reported that many of the camp's 4,000 to 5,000 residents had returned from surrounding areas "where they initially fled as the horsemen swooped into the camp, killing residents and burning down their makeshift shelters," the agency said.

The survivors said the attackers included up to 300 Arab men.

The 34 people killed in the attack were men. Half had been living at the camp and half in nearby villages, UNHCR said. One of the victims appeared to have had his arms bound before being killed and witnesses reported that he was tied up and dragged behind a horse until he died, the agency said.

Photo: Janjaweed fighters ride their horses in western Darfur [Courtesy Middle East Online report April 1, 2005: UN approves ICC war crimes trials on Darfur - Security Council's move clear way to ICC to prosecute those responsible for atrocities in Darfur.

What some bloggers are saying

Oct 2 Australian blogger Pip Wilson expresses anger at army over violence in Darfur in his category amusingly entitled 'Boys with Toys Watch'.

Oct 2 netwmd says Sudan's Arab/Muslim Militias at it Again.

Oct 2 Chuck Currie's Darfur Update has a message from Church World Service: On October 6, the CWS-supported Dear Sudan campaign is supporting in an International Solidarity Fast for Darfur.

Oct 2 Crooked in Canada hopes the Canadian government has taken notice of the African Union's accusation that Sudanese government forces are supporting Arab militiamen who are targeting civilians in Darfur.

Oct 1 Princeton Progressive Nation writes on how not to demonstrate and says protests should convey a particular message to those who watch them and shouldn't consist simply of a mass that shouts slogans which are both various and superficial.

Oct 1 News with a Feeling in Baltimore says "oh good, now the african union has joined the chorus of tsk-tsking and finger wagging over the genocide going on in darfur. i'm sure the refugees are so grateful." -- if you want to help, check out the Genocide Intervention Fund

[Note, I am here in the UK and tried to donate to GIF but it looks like you need to be resident in USA or Canada]

Tags: Darfur Sudan Africa African Union UN NATO UNHCR no fly zone Musa Hilal Khartoum

Sudan's shame

The below copied op-ed from yesterday's Telegraph says what I would like to say, if I was able to write such a neat piece, with regard to three points in particular: (1) that the disagreement over what constitutes genocide seems academic in the absence of effective outside intervention (2) enforcement of a no-fly zone (3) the truth is that Omar al-Bashir's National Congress is determined to crush any form of dissent and in a country of such political, ethnic and religious diversity, that is no recipe for long-term stability.

Unfortunately, the Telegraph does not credit the name of the author. The piece is copied here in full for future reference:

The American Congress and State Department and the European Parliament have declared that the Sudanese government's military campaign in Darfur amounts to genocide. The United Nations begs to disagree, accusing Khartoum and its allied militias of atrocities that fall short of that crime as defined by the 1948 convention. It is probably true to say that the government did not embark on operations in the western region with the intention of eliminating its sedentary population.

It was, rather, doing what it has done in many other parts of the country: seeking to crush an insurgency through terror tactics. Yet each day the line between that brutal campaign and genocide becomes thinner. Despite numerous appeals for peace, Khartoum is stepping up an offensive aimed not so much at the two rebel groups as the civilian population.

Studying data from various sources, Jan Coebergh, a doctor who has worked in Darfur, estimates that the death toll there is about 300,000, well above the commonly quoted figure of 70,000.

Whatever the truth, the escalation of the conflict is rapidly pushing up the total. Sudan's Islamist government may not have sized up its victims with the same chilling method displayed by the Hutus in Rwanda in 1994, but that is a distinction likely to be lost on those in Darfur subjected to bombing, murder, rape and loot.

Likewise, the disagreement over what constitutes genocide seems academic in the absence of effective outside intervention. It is piously said that this is a problem for Africa to sort out. Yet the African Union force in Darfur is both tardy in deployment and ill equipped to bring order to such a vast area. Western logistical help is overdue. Beyond that, the enforcement of a no-fly zone and the dispatch of a small ground force under a UN mandate should be enough to blunt Khartoum's offensive.

That is not happening because Darfur is regarded as a sideshow to the north-south peace agreement between Khartoum and Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army, which was signed in January and ratified by the Sudanese parliament yesterday. Yet what confidence can there be that a government oblivious to outside appeals over Darfur will not renege on its agreements with the south? The truth is that Omar al-Bashir's National Congress is determined to crush any form of dissent. In a country of such political, ethnic and religious diversity, that is no recipe for long-term stability.

[Telegraph report via Tas's post titled "And how many of these 300,000 deaths were preventable?"]

UN, US discuss no-fly zone for Darfur - US and other powers should provide air cover for peacekeepers, Annan says

Extracts from Washington Post report by Colum Lynch March 2, 2006:

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the US that UN members should consider providing close air support in possible combat situations for several thousand AU troops in Darfur.

The UN is also requesting that governments with advanced militaries supply the African troops with sophisticated logistical and intelligence support and aircraft for ferrying troops around the province.

The Bush administration has sent four military planners to New York to help the UN plan for the transition. US officials say the military will likely airlift troops to Darfur and provide the mission with logistical and intelligence support.

One US military official involved with Africa said the Pentagon is considering ways to assist in Darfur but that the African Union would have to remain in the lead for now. "No final decisions have been made," the official said.

The official said the administration and the UN are in discussions about enforcing a UN ban on flights by the Sudanese aircraft that have been used in attacks on villages and rebels in Darfur. "What's been talked about is imposing a no-fly zone," he said.

Bolton, meanwhile, has distributed a paper to council members with elements for a Security Council resolution authorizing a new UN mission. The paper calls for the protection of civilians under threat and for the enforcement of a ban on offensive air flights by the Sudanese air force over Darfur. It would also provide authority to carry out preemptive strikes against groups that pose a threat.

Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson in Washington contributed to this report.

UNAMID wants Sudan and JEM to sign agreement on 1 km square no-fire zone in Muhajiriya, S. Darfur

Darfur's UNAMID peacekeeping force Wednesday said it was hoping to persuade the government and fighters from the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) to sign an agreement to respect a 1 km square no-fire zone in Muhajiriya.

UN/AU representative in Darfur, Rodolphe Adada, was hoping to fly to neighbouring Chad Wednesday to discuss the plan with JEM leaders.

News is starting to emerge saying JEM has made a complete withdrawal to between 50km and 60km from the town.

UNAMID told Reuters their forces heard shooting and three loud explosions around Muhajiriya. A spokesman said it was unclear whether the shots were caused by full-blown fighting, or whether troops from one of the warring parties were firing into the air to celebrate a victory.

Source: (the following reports)

Peacekeepers plan no-fire zone in Darfur town
February 4, 2009 report from Reuters by Andrew Heavens in Khartoum - excerpt:

Peacekeepers said Wednesday they are hoping to set up a no-fire zone to protect 30,000 civilians caught in the middle of clashes between Sudan army troops and rebels in a Darfur town. [...]

Darfur's joint U.N./African Union UNAMID peacekeeping force Wednesday said it was hoping to persuade the government and fighters from the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) to sign an agreement to respect a 1 km square no-fire zone in Muhajiriya.

"Our priority is to protect civilians," said UNAMID communications chief Kemal Saiki. "The idea is to get everyone to agree that you don't bomb in the zone, you don't shell, you don't use small arms to shoot bullets into the zone."

He said UNAMID leaders had already discussed setting up the zone around their base in Muhajiriya with Sudan government and armed forces leaders in Khartoum.

He added the UN/AU representative in Darfur, Rodolphe Adada, was hoping to fly to neighbouring Chad later Wednesday to discuss the plan with JEM leaders. [...]
The U.S. envoy to the United Nations Susan Rice Tuesday said the United States was "gravely concerned" about reports of government bombardment around Muhajiriya, adding that the Security Council was working on the wording of a demand for a cease-fire. (Editing by Richard Balmforth)

- - -

Sudan: Darfur rebels withdraw from key town - remaining civilians seek UN protection from Government attack
February 4, 2009 report from Aegis Trust, UK - excerpt:

Independent sources on the ground confirm that the Justice and Equality Movement force which was holding Muhajeriya, South Darfur, has made a complete withdrawal to between 50km and 60km from the town.

- - -

Gunfire erupts in battled-scarred Darfur town
February 4, 2009 report from Reuters by Andrew Heavens in Khartoum - excerpt:

Gunfire erupted in a battle-scarred town in Sudan's Darfur region on Wednesday, forcing thousands of civilians to take shelter outside a peacekeeping base, officials said.

Joint U.N./African Union peacekeepers told Reuters their forces heard shooting and three loud explosions around Muhajiriya, the scene of three weeks of clashes between rebels and Sudanese government troops that have already killed at least 30.

A spokesman said it was unclear whether the shots were caused by full-blown fighting, or whether troops from one of the warring parties were firing into the air to celebrate a victory.

Darfur: France unready to support no-fly zone

Dec 14 2006 Kuna news report (via CFD) France Unready to Support No-Fly Zone - excerpt:

French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei remarked that his government had learned of the proposal through the press and that France was not approached by Britain on this subject.

UK Blair tells US Bush they have to deal with Bashir in next 2-3 months

Dec 12 2006 Financial Times Blair backs no-fly zone over Darfur - excerpt:

Mr Blair declared his support for a no-fly zone for the first time during his visit last week to Washington. He told President George W Bush that they had to deal with Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, in the next two to three months.

"If rapid progress is not made, we will need to consider alternative approaches, with international partners," Mr Blair warned on returning to London.

Planning has moved ahead, according to one official, who added: "The Americans mean business."

Bet Khartoum thinks UK is bluffing. Doubt it's now a bluff. Lately, Khartoum's sounding too cocky. When's Bashir retiring?

Sudan despises threats of no-fly zone over Darfur by U.S.,Britain

Dec 15 2006 China's Xinhua - news report excerpt:

Financial Times reported on Wednesday that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had backed setting up a no-fly zone over Darfur while U.S. military planners were also developing plans for air strikes and a naval blockade to pressure Khartoum to stop the violence.

Sudanese Envoy to UK Dismisses "No Fly Zone Over Darfur Reports"

BBC Monitoring report via RedOrbit - Text of report by Sudanese radio on 14 December:

The media adviser for Sudanese embassy in London, Mr Sadiq Bakhit, has dismissed media reports which said that the USA and Britain were planning to impose [designate] no fly zone over Darfur airspace if Sudanese government does not accept deployment of UN troops in the region.

In an interview with the Radio Omdurman he said these media reports were denied by both the British and US governments, and up to now it is a mere media leakage.

Bakhit said there were several foreign organizations targeting Sudan, and providing baseless propaganda to Western media outlets, which level false allegations and accusation against Sudan, particularly on issues concerning humanitarian affairs in Darfur.

(c) 2006 BBC Monitoring Middle East. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved. Source: BBC Monitoring Middle East

UN experts propose possible no-fly zone in Darfur

With both the Government and rebels in Darfur violating UN resolutions, the Security Council should move swiftly to impose further sanctions, expand an arms embargo, and consider setting up a no-fly zone for government planes, according to the latest report from a panel of experts. Full report UN News Centre April 27, 2006.

Time for a no-fly zone over Darfur in Sudan?

A report via Reuters Jan 13 says Sudan defends its use of military aircraft in Darfur.

Bearing in mind that a UN resolution in November said Khartoum had the primary responsibility to protect its population -- and Sudan did everything it could to ensure any AU troops entering Sudan were low in number and hamstrung -- and Jan Pronk, UN envoy to Sudan, called on Khartoum a few days ago to stop military flights -- here is the excuse Sudan's foreign minister Moustafa Osman Ismail gave for carrying out a recent air attack:


Sudan's foreign minister Moustafa Osman Ismail (AP).

"The government used aircraft. According to the Security Council resolution, the government is responsible for protecting routes and protecting civilians," Ismail told reporters in Cairo. "If the African forces there cannot protect routes and protect civilians, then the Sudanese government must undertake that," Ismail said, adding that the government had a right to use planes in an area larger than France.

Ismail said the government did not carry out aerial bombardments but would investigate such accusations. "When we use aircraft, we do not use aerial bombardment. We do not use planes that drop bombs. This is different from helicopter gunship aircraft," he said. Ismail said that if key routes were cut because of rebel ceasefire violations then the government would not be able to deliver food and other supplies to the population.
- - -

Hopefully, a no-fly zone will be one of the options under consideration by the UN Security Council when the findings of the UN investigation into genocide in Darfur are made public around January 25. As reported here earlier, Darfur peace talks were tentatively set for January 28 but another press report mentioned February 1. See how the days turn into weeks, and the weeks into months, and the months into years, while 10,000 die in the camps each month?

UK Liberal Democrats call for no-fly zone over Darfur, Sudan

Britain's Liberal Democrat website Feb 3 noted a call for action on Darfur by Sir Menzies Campbell MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary, quoting him as saying:

"Why are troop numbers so low? Has the Sudanese Government been obstructive and if so what is being done about it? As a matter of urgency UN Security Council must institute sanctions, establish a no-fly zone for the protection of Darfur and provide logistical support for the deployment of the full force of military observers."

- - -

Swedish officers to Sudan (one for Darfur!)

The Swedish Government decided Thursday to contribute six staff officers to the UN rapid deployment force SHIRBRIG in southern Sudan over a six-month period and one staff officer to the African Union's peace support initiative in Darfur.
- - -

AU says force in Darfur reaches 1,400

Reuters report Feb 4 excerpt:

The African Union said on Friday its protection force in Darfur had reached 1,401 soldiers after the deployment of 339 troops from Nigeria, Senegal and Kenya. AU spokesman Assane Ba said South Africa and Tanzania were expected to soon provide 196 troops each, but no date for their arrival has yet been set.

The AU force in Darfur is ultimately supposed have 3,320 troops, but it has grown slowly because the pan-African body is relying on foreign aid to pay for it. So far, the AU has received $186.7 million of the $221 million it budgeted for the Darfur operations, Ba said. Contractors building the camps to house the troops are also still behind schedule, Ba said.

- - -

Note, the AU has received a few hundred million dollars while only 1,000 AU soldiers are in Darfur. It's a nonsense for the AU to suggest that funding and the building of military camps are the reasons for the delay in deploying troops to Darfur. Personally, I think Khartoum is doing everything it can to thwart any troops entering Sudan. African leaders (the ones agreeing to send troops for Darfur) may be giving leeway to the regime in Khartoum. No other explanation makes sense.
- - -

Cartoon: Call us back when you have some Europeans says UN


- - -

Americans tell UN: Don't hide from genocide

iAbolish.com summarises what's at stake and invites Americans to tell the UN to take action.

[Cartoon and links via Instapundit and Parkview Blog, with thanks]
- - -

Darfur rebel commanders quit SLA group

The UN inquiry into genocide in Darfur said the rebels have committed crimes too. The EU and UN have made clear that those brought to justice will include some on both sides.

Today, Fred at Rantburg writes a post on the news via Reuters that SLA commander Jumaa Mohamed Haggar said the military field command had renounced the leadership of the movement, which is based in the Eritrean capital Asmara.

"We will very soon be announcing a new secretary-general and chairman," Haggar's head of office told Reuters from Darfur yesterday. The SLA chairman and secretary-general both confirmed the statement but said it posed no threat to the movement.

Fred adds:

The humanitarian coordinator for the movement, Suleiman Adam Jamous, told Reuters he had travelled to meet the commanders, but was still waiting to start talks with them. "There are several commanders with Haggar. There may be 10 of them," Jamous said by telephone from Darfur, adding he did not think it was a serious threat to the movement. Asked why the commanders had said they had no confidence in the leadership, Jamous said: "Because of their absence I think."

- - -

Note, Last summer, in my personal blog, I pointed to news reports that said Darfur rebel groups have bases or headquarters in Europe, and that Darfur rebel leaders visited governments in France, Germany and Britain for closed door talks in the run up to the final round of peace talks on Southern Sudan. After nine months of blogging almost daily on Darfur, and reading almost every news report that has appeared since then, I have yet to find information on how the SLA and JEM rebels are funded/supplied or the location of their European HQ's or who is behind them. It is well known the the US supported the Southern Sudan rebels SPLM.

The above report confirms there is a connection to Eritrea where the rebels' supplies may be coming from (when they are not looting food, petrol and trucks from the UN relief agency). UN food, supplies and vehicles are stolen so regularly, it makes one wonder if it is just another of the many ways in which the international community is "supporting" Sudan's rebels.

Who funds/supplies satellite phones and radios to Sudan's rebels? It has been reported the rebels have their ears glued to BBC radio news Arabic service and communicate with satellite phones. Also, Kofi Annan and Jan Pronk issue such odd statements at times, it seems as if they both use the press to convey cryptic messages to people on the ground in Sudan.

Sometime last year, Kofi Annan, in a UN Off the Cuff interview, revealed he uses the press to communicate to his people on the ground in Sudan [I regret not keeping the link].
- - -

UN envoy: Darfur key to Sudan peace

Fred at Rantburg, in his latest post titled "UN envoy: Darfur key to Sudan peace", writes:

Actually, I'd say Khartoum is the key to Sudan peace. If Darfur was the only place on fire, then Darfur would be the key. But Bashir splits his time between oppressing people and putting down rebellions. You'd almost think the two were connected or something.

Fred notes that Jan Pronk, on calling for thousands of peacekeepers for Southern Sudan, said:

"I am convinced that without a solution in Darfur, the north-south will not remain a sustainable peace agreement."

Fred's reply:

"I dunno. I think that, rather than peacekeepers like they have in DRC, an army of occupation might be more to the point. They obviously are incapable of keeping their own house in order."

Several months ago, I suggested that Darfur should be turned into a UN Protectorate until Sudan could get its house in order. It would allow for the displaced Sudanese to return home to start planting their food and put their lives and livestock back together. If this goes on for much longer, they will be displaced for years and dependent on foreign aid. But when you think about it, if they were in the way in the first place, no country is going to rush in and risk their troops' lives to help Sudanese return home where they are not wanted by their own government.

Western countries weigh up the cost in terms of their own troops, if there were to be military intervention in the Sudan. There are well founded fears it would be seen as colonialism and trigger a holy war. Africa is a tinder box. So the international community puts its stock in the African Union. African solutions to African problems. But who knows, leaders of the African Union may be corrupt. Africans and Arabs often say it is none of our business. They appear to resent help from the West and say the West should not interfere. My hope is one day, they all walk out of Darfur into to Chad, and that African women start refusing to take violence anymore, rise up and band together to do something unique. I did read a report a while ago that explained how some groups of Sudanese women went on strike refusing sex with their partners. It sure got the menfolk's attention, quickly.

Today, the BBC reports news of protestors in Nigeria holding a Nigerian oil plant. One man has died. It shows a photo of Nigerian women standing up against an American oil giant.

Note, as an aside, the report states:

A spokesman from ChevronTexaco - which operates Escravos in partnership with the Nigerian government - said the incident was handled by the security forces, and refused to go into any more details. ChevronTexaco say they do not know why the villagers were demonstrating. But there has been a long standing dispute in the area, with local people claiming that the company has failed to honour of promises of community development which it made following the 2002 occupation.

Three years ago hundreds of women occupied the oil installation

I still suspect there may be oil and other riches in Darfur and, like the native Americans and aborignes in Australia, the African tribes and nomads are perceived as a nuisance, taking up precious resources and standing in the way of "progress".

The regime in Khartoum (many are educated, so they cannot plead ignorance) are so ruthless, they give Arab militias a free reign to commit atrocities. The Sudanese air force bombs civilians to eliminate the rebellion. Rebels are civilians, and civilians who are not rebels (mostly women and children) are seen as supporting an uprising against the regime in Khartoum that wants to hang on to power at any cost, no matter if it costs another 2 million lives.

YouTube Joe Biden: Darfur - Obama’s choice of Biden as VP is Sudan’s NCP worst nightmare - We tilt at windmills as world war looms

My heart sank yesterday when I watched four video clips on YouTube, featuring US Senator Joe Biden answering questions (last year, I guess) about what the US should do concerning Darfur.

I had just finished reading a great article in The Sunday Times (Aug 24, 2008) by Simon Jenkins, entitled 'We tilt at windmills as world war looms' . He opened with the question "Is the world drifting towards a new global war?" I think so, and I agree with him that "there is no strategic justification for sitting American missiles in Poland". It is a MUST-READ.

Today, Monday August 25, 2008, the Sudan Tribune published the following report, 'Obama’s choice of Biden as VP is Sudan’s NCP worst nightmare' which seems to be a fair summary, in a nutshell, of what I saw Mr Biden saying on the four short MUST-SEE video clips (listed here below).

Obama’s choice of Biden as VP is Sudan’s NCP worst nightmare

August 24, 2008 (WASHINGTON) – The Sudanese ruling National Congress Party (NCP) are likely to be very concerned by Barack Obama’s pick of Senator Joe Biden as his running mate.

The Democratic presidential contender made the announcement of Biden as his Vice President over the weekend ending weeks of speculation.

The NCP considers the Democratic Party generally hostile to them let alone a figure who was strong proponent of military intervention in the war ravaged region of Darfur.

Biden is the chairman of the foreign relations committee at the US senate and presided over many hearings discussing the situation in Darfur.

In April 2007 the aspiring presidential VP said that “it’s time to put force on the table and use it”.

Biden said that senior US military NATO officials in Europe told him that 2,500 U.S. troops could “radically change the situation on the ground [in Darfur]”.

The Delaware senator was also a co-sponsor for a resolution asking for a no-fly zone over Darfur and Sudan Divestment Authorization Act.

“It is within our power to clip their wings. Yes, a no fly zone could make it more difficult for humanitarian groups to operate – so we should do everything possible to design it with their concerns in mind” Biden said last year.

“This is incredible what is happening and I promise you, we will all going to sit here 5-10 years from now and ask ourselves why didn’t we do the things we can do? “ he told the former US special envoy to Sudan Andrew Natsios in a hearing last year.

In September 2004 the US, in a unilateral move, officially labeled the conflict in Darfur as genocide.

Khartoum denies genocide and blames the Western media for exaggerating the four-year-old Darfur conflict. European governments are reluctant to use the term. (ST)



Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., listens to testimony by Andrew Natsios, the special US envoy to Sudan, not pictured, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 11, 2007 (AP)

- - -

Senate Hearing on Darfur

YouTube - Added: April 11, 2007 from JoeBidendotcom

Title: "Senate Hearing on Darfur - Senator Joe Biden asks why more has not been done to curb the genocide in Darfur. Biden outlines his strategy to end the violence and prevent another Hotel Rwanda"



URL - Views: 1,701 (as at Aug 26, 2008)
- - -

Joe Biden Calls for Tougher Action on Darfur

YouTube - Added: April 13, 2007 from JoeBidendotcom

Title: "Joe Biden Calls for Tougher Action on Darfur - In an exchange with Andrew Natsios, President Bush's envoy to Sudan, US Senator Joe Biden argues that it is time to "stop the bleeding" in Darfur"



URL - Views: 3,586 (as at Aug 24, 2008)
- - -

Joe Biden: Darfur

YouTube - Added: December 02, 2007 from iowacaucuses

Title: "Joe Biden: Darfur - Delaware US Senator and Democratic candidate for president Joe Biden met with The Des Moines Register's editorial board Tuesday, May 29. [2007] Biden answers a question about what the U.S. should do concerning Darfur"



URL - Views: 232 (as at Aug 24, 2008)
- - -

Biden on Darfur at New Hampshire Debate (1 of 2)

YouTube - Added: June 03, 2007

Title: "Biden on Darfur at New Hampshire Debate (1 of 2) - Senator Biden makes an impassioned plea for United States intervention in Darfur. (1 of 2)"



URL - Views: 2,178 (as at Aug 24, 2008)

Hat tip: milkandcookies.com
- - -

George Clooney and US Senator Barack Obama



Photo: Hollywood actor George Clooney (L) and US Senator Barack Obama at a press conference April 27 [2006] at the National Press Club in Washington to bring attention to the atrocities in Darfur and the rally. Click here for a video from CNN.

Source: Sudan Watch archive Saturday, April 29, 2006: Protestors at Sudanese Embassy, Washington - Massive rallying across the USA in protest of killings in Darfur'
- - -

UPDATE Tuesday August 26, 2008:

Barack Obama on Darfur

YouTube - Added: November 26, 2007 from savedarfurcoalition

Title: "Barack Obama on Darfur - Barack Obama answers the Save Darfur Coalition's questions about his plan to end the genocide in Darfur"



URL - Views: 23,290 (as at Aug 26, 2008)
- - -

UDATE Wednesday August 27, 2008:

Barack Obama's half-brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama

Rob Crilly (pictured below) is a freelance journalist writing about Africa for The Times, The Irish Times, The Daily Mail, The Scotsman and The Christian Science Monitor from his base in Nairobi. Also, he blogs at 'From The Frontline'. Going by some of the comments Rob has made online, he has a great sense of humour.

Here is a sample of Rob's fascinating reports and photos:

'Finding George' (by Rob Crilly, August 22, 2008)

Nairobi’s slums are filled with hundreds of thousands of people living cheek-by-jowl in tiny shacks. Each of the muddy streets looks the same and within minutes the visiting mzungu is completely disoriented. So finding Barack Obama’s half-brother George was never going to be easy. Especially as he had made a point of telling no-one but his closest friends about his famous relative.

I’d already spent two months trying and failing to trace him. It was sickening to discover that an Italian team from Vanity Fair had simply bumped into him at the Obama family home close to Lake Victoria - a place I must have visited about 10 times.

But in the end it was pretty straightforward. The sprawling slums are just like villages. Ask enough people and eventually you find what you’re looking for. So within an hour or so we were sitting down to nyama choma and handfuls of ugali chatting about Kenya’s medal haul at the Olympics.

Photo: Barack Obama's half-brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama (Rob Crilly/From The Frontline August 22, 2008)
- - -

'Life is good in my Nairobi slum, says Barack Obama's younger brother'



Photo: George Obama, half-brother of Barack, hopes to become a car mechanic (Rob Crilly/The Times)

Source: The Times, August 22, 2008, by Rob Crilly: 'Life is good in my Nairobi slum, says Barack Obama's younger brother'

- - -

UPDATE SATURDAY 04 OCTOBER 2008:

See Sudan Watch October 04, 2008: YouTube videos of US Vice Presidential Debate 02 Oct 08: Biden vs Palin on Darfur, Nuclear Weapons & Bailout Bill

Expulsion of major NGOs and Darfur rebel leaders' call to refuse Sudan gov't aid prompt food and health fears

Expulsion of major aid agencies and rebel leaders' call to refuse Sudan government aid prompt food and health fears.

Britain and Ireland slam Sudan's "retaliation" aid ban.   Oxfam and Save the Children said they would appeal against the decision to withdraw their licences for operations in Sudan.

The World Food Programme is distributing a two-month ration to 1.1 million displaced people who were served by Care, Solidarites, Action Against Hunger and Save the Children, which have all been expelled.

In Kalma camp in south Darfur, home to 90,000 people, camp leaders have refused to accept government fuel to run the borehole generators, and are trying to raise money to buy their own diesel.

Sources: the following three reports from Guardian, M&C, Sudan Tribune.

Report from Guardian.co.uk by Xan Rice in Nairobi, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 -
Warning as humanitarian crisis deepens in Darfur:

The humanitarian situation in Darfur is growing more precarious by the day following the expulsion of major aid agencies and a call from the main rebel group for displaced people to refuse any government assistance, NGO officials warned today.

The results of the joint UN-government mission to assess the gap in aid provision has not yet been published, but humanitarian workers say the supply of medicine, clean water and food has already been significantly affected, and could worsen in coming weeks.

Some 13 foreign agencies and six local organisations were kicked out of Darfur three weeks ago when the international criminal court issued an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir.

Numerous hospitals and clinics remain closed, while others are being run by local staff at a basic level. One agency today expressed concern at reports that "non-health professionals" in displaced persons' camps were using the medical equipment it was forced to leave behind.

The World Food Programme is distributing a two-month ration to 1.1 million displaced people who were served by Care, Solidarites, Action Against Hunger and Save the Children, which have all been expelled. But Rachid Jafaar, a WFP official, said this was "unsustainable" and that it could not guarantee all the affected people, at 140 different sites, would receive food.

The situation has been exacerbated by a surge in attacks on aid workers, which have severely restricted the activities of some of the agencies left on the ground. Three foreign Médecins Sans Frontières workers were kidnapped for several days by a militia supportive of Bashir two week ago, causing the agency to temporarily withdraw all its international staff from Darfur. A local employee of a Canadian aid agency was shot dead on Monday night.

Despite pleas from the international community, Sudan's government has refused to reconsider the decision to expel the aid groups, which it accuses of collaborating with the ICC. It insists that local relief agencies, assisted by Khartoum, can fill the gap.

Even if this were possible, the mistrust in Darfur means that much of the government aid will not reach the intended recipients. In Kalma camp in south Darfur, home to 90,000 people, camp leaders have refused to accept government fuel to run the borehole generators, and are trying to raise money to buy their own diesel.

"More people are now relying on hand pumps, but the water is not enough," said Alun McDonald, a spokesman for Oxfam, which helped manage the water supply in Kalma before it was expelled. "Things are getting very tense."

The refusal to allow the government to work in Kalma is based on a widespread suspicion within the camp that the government wants to shut it down. Other camps are also refusing government aid, a move backed by the Justice and Equality Movement, the most effective of Darfur's rebel groups, which said it was taking a "political stance" against the expulsion of the aid agencies.

"Our position is that our people should not accept any food, medicine or other assistance from government agencies," said Ahmed Hussein Adam, a JEM spokesman, speaking by telephone from Darfur.

"How do we know what they will put inside the food or drugs? Bashir cannot be both the oppresser and the helper."

The expelled agencies, which were responsible for more than half the total humanitarian effort in Darfur, where 4.7 million people receive aid, say fear among the remaining groups of being expelled has made gathering information extremely difficult. There are reports that the Sudanese health ministry has deployed in some locations where clinics have been closed, though the extent of the work remains unclear. An emergency meningitis vaccination campaign in Kalma, where several people have died of the disease, has yet to begin.

The International Rescue Committee said that some of its clinics have reopened, although at "drastically reduced hours", while water supply had nearly halved in one camp where it used to operate. Kurt Tjossem, the IRC's regional director, said the sanitation work it carried out had stopped altogether, heightening the risk of disease.

"If such services aren't replaced, this is going to create a huge health hazard, fast. The scale of the humanitarian need in Darfur is simply immense and this has to be recognised."

Photo: Sudanese refugees pass by the site of the looted compound of the expelled British aid group, Oxfam at Al Salam refugee camp, outside the Darfur town of al-Fasher, Sudan Saturday, March 21, 2009. Al Salam refugee camp leaders in Darfur say a dozen men broke into the warehouse of an expelled British aid group, Oxfam, stealing all its contents. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)

Report from M&C, March 05, 2009 London -
Britain, Ireland slam Sudan's "retaliation" aid ban

The British government Thursday criticised Sudan for retaliating against international aid workers following the arrest warrant issued against President Omar al-Bashir.

Aid organizations have warned that millions of lives would be put at risk by al-Bashir's decision to expel 10 humanitarian groups from the Darfur region, including Oxfam, Save the Children, Care International and Doctors Without Frontiers.

Deputy Labour Party leader Harriet Harman, standing in for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, told parliament that it was important that Sudan should not 'retaliate' against the agencies and refrain from 'escalating' the situation.

In Ireland, Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Martin urged the Sudanese government to reverse its decision which amounted to using 'extremely vulnerable people as pawns.'

Al-Bashir Wednesday became the first sitting head of state to be served with an arrest warrant for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, a move that has sparked anger, protests, and rallies of suppport in Sudan.

Oxfam and Save the Children said they would appeal against the decision to withdraw their licences for operations in Sudan.

Penny Lawrence, Oxfam's International Director, said the withdrawal of its registration would affect more than 600,000 people who were being given 'vital humanitarian and development aid, including clean water and sanitation on a daily basis.'

Of those, 400,000 were affected by the ongoing conflict in Darfur where people continued to flee from violence and the humanitarian needs remained 'enormous.'

Oxfam GB has operated in northern Sudan since 1983 and currently has 450 staff there, 90 per cent of whom are Sudanese.

Photo: A Sudanese refugee carrying a child walks over strewn documents at the site of the looted compound of the expelled British aid group, Oxfam at Al Salam refugee camp, Saturday, March 21, 2009. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)



Photo: Sudanese refugee children play with strewn documents at the site of the looted compound of the expelled British aid group, Oxfam at Al Salam refugee camp, Saturday, March 21, 2009. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)



Photo: Sudanese workers are seen at a feeding center of the expelled aid group, Action Contre La Faim, at Al Salam refugee camp, Saturday, March 21, 2009. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)

Article from Sudan Tribune Tuesday, 24 March 2009 by Wasil Ali - Darfur JEM say 4 IDP children die from malnutrition, criticize Qatar - excerpt:

March 23, 2009 (WASHINGTON) — The Darfur Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), warned today that Khartoum’s expulsion of humanitarian groups is taking a toll on the vulnerable population within the IDP camps in the war ravaged region. [...]

Aid groups say that it will be nearly impossible for the United Nations and the remaining aid groups to fill the void left by the evacuating workers.

JEM spokesperson Ahmed Hussein told Sudan Tribune that four children have died at the Shangil Tobaya camp in North Darfur over the last couple of days He disclosed their names as Esam Babiker Yacoub (3 years); Munir Mohamed Ibrahim (9 months); Maitha” Ahmed Musa (7 months); Abdel-Latif Hassan Gar El-Nabi (7 months).

“They died because of the severe shortage in food levels caused by departure of aid groups. There is also an alarming drop in water supplies which will increase the likelihood of mass disease outbreaks” Hussein said via satellite phone from an undisclosed location in Darfur.

The JEM official said that the foreign aid organizations that covered the camp were all evicted per Khartoum’s orders. He accused the government security agents of standing behind last week’s looting of a warehouse in Al-Salam camp owned by the expelled British Oxfam group in North Darfur.

Hussein said that the warehouse guard and another woman were killed during the armed attack.

“The government detained four camp leaders who notified UNAMID of the incident. All of them need to be released immediately and unconditionally” he said.

The JEM spokesperson warned that residents of IDP camps around EL-Geneina in South Darfur may soon be forced to cross borders into Chad in search for food.

“We will hold president Bashir personally responsible for the current situation and any deaths among our people that result from his decision” Hussein said angrily.

Asked about Darfur camp rejecting Sudanese aid groups from offering help, Hussein said that the IDP’s “made the right choice” saying that these are “undercover security agents

“A couple of those organizations are owned or administered by Bashir’s wives and relatives. The head of the Commission for Humanitarian Affairs Hasabu Abdel-Rahman is a security officer working on dismantling those IDP camps” Hussein claimed.

He also criticized the “complicity” of the UN Security Council (UNSC) in its response to expulsion of aid groups.

“The UNSC must intervene under a Chapter VII resolution to avert the imminent humanitarian disaster. Even if China and Russia block it the US and European Union (EU) must act unilaterally” the JEM official said.

“A No-Fly zone must be established over Darfur and we are prepared to secure the ground and provide safe corridors for humanitarian groups through which they can enter” he said.

But a US state department official told Sudan Tribune last week that there is nothing in the works with regard to a No-Fly Zone.

Hussein blasted the Arab League and African Union (AU) saying their positions on the aid group expulsion is “shameful”.

“They would not even utter a single word to condemn the decision by Sudan. How can they remain silent before an intentional campaign to starve the people of Darfur?” he questioned.

He reiterated JEM’s position on suspension of the Qatar hosted peace talks until Sudan rescinds its expulsion order.

“Make no mistake about it. There will be no return to the negotiating table until aid groups are allowed back. The expulsion decision in itself constitutes a violation of the agreement Khartoum signed with us in Doha which provides for facilitation of humanitarian flow” Hussein said.

“If Qatar wants to assert itself as an impartial peace broker they must publicly demand that Khartoum revokes their decision” he added.

Yesterday Qatar urged JEM to continue the peace talks it started last month with Khartoum despite the move against relief groups.

“They [Qataris] asked us to convey a message to the movement saying that we can protest the decision without halting the entire peace process” the head of JEM’s general congress Abu-Bakr Al-Gadi told Agence France press (AFP) yesterday.

Last month JEM and Khartoum signed a goodwill agreement in the Qatari capital, pledging to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the six-year conflict in the western Sudan region of Darfur but a date for the full blown talks has not been fixed yet.

Copy of Comment on this article...
7 Comments

by Namaa
The death of Sudanese children is a grave and disturbing matter, and the issue needs to be addressed before more Sudanese children are lost to malnutrition, which is so easily cureable, specially when the Government of Khartoum’s food banks are full of grains and bursting with several seasons worth of harvest.

What is even more disturbing, is when JEM use this grave matter as a weapon of war, 4 children have died from lack of food, but how many have you killed by your guns...who launched the offensive onslaught in Darfur, who chose to take up weapons to ask for basic services, when you could have taken on the government through peacful channels, JEM did, JEM started the fire on the people of Darfur, JEM used propoganada war tacticts, JEM is refusing to sign any peace agreement and JEM is responsible for escalating the crisis in Darfur.....
- - -

by Saif El Hag
Namaa,You are looking at the elephan but keep spearing its shedow. JEM and the rest of arm struggle groups in Darfour are fighting for their rightful cause, which Khartoum has been denying them ever since.

What JEM and the rest armed groups are doing is a honourable stand against a tyranny of NCP. People like you have no sympathy for who are starving and will starve to death by the Khartoum action. If you are really a person who has a heart and concious you will be siding with the people of Darfour and you will shout down El Bahire and his regime as you did to Israel when the bombed Gaza.

But I think you belong to those groups in Sudan who call themselves ARABS, so let me tell you all loud and clear.. Arabs are the Worst and the most RACIST human species in the face of the world, this is a clear cristal fact,and all their stands and countinous support to their Arab cousins in Sudan.  

Saif El Hag

- - -

by Samani
!!! 4 IDP children died !!
Can JEM get any lower than this ?? Now the repeat like stupid parrots what the british an americans say ’al bashir will be responsible for every death in darfur’ !! Do they wait for these people to tell them what to say.

Ocampo keeps blabbering on about 5000 people death every month in darfur now. So now its 5004?? Oh what a crisis !! quick get the UN and US and ICC involved !! Its all lies lies lies .. those who believe this bull are either ignorant or have a clear agenda against sudan and its people.

Its becoming clear to everyone that JEM have no real agenda or intention of peace. They are working for the french, british and americans trying to make as much trouble in darfur until all of sudan collapses or the government is toppled. Traitors !! Who only want power for themselves.

Al Nur sits in his hotel room in france getting fat and telling everyone when i am president i will do this and that. The JEM look for any excuse to get out of signing a peace treaty. The other sad groups in darfur are headed by greedy people that want power and to be recognized ! I feel sorry for the people of darfur if they expect these people to give them security, peace and prosperity.
- - -

by Logic
Sammani, I think you’re being extremly unfair here! the rebel groups might be taken advatage of by the West but that is no reason to deny the marginlization of the Darfur people by Khartoum elitists.

The Darfuris have a just cause, for too long the Khartoum government has denied many of its sons and daughters their due recognition in society especially after they fought along side their muslim brothers against the South for the sake of religion but now they relize they were simply tools being used by the khartoum elites.

I am not a fan of Khalil Ibrahim or Abdel Wahid but their people deserve better than what they have received.
- - -

by tayeb M. Alhassan
Namaa, We have talked too much about Darfur crises suggesting solutions but these people either never read or never understand. Time is running taking more lives of innocent people in the refugee camps but they don’t care or rather they exploit the disaster to market for their own objectives servicing further agenda imposed on them.

Request for No-Fly-Zone, Petrol for food and other disgusting Iraqi war terms already expired and unusable in Sudan for the administration inverted those terms already gone and the new administration in the White House not interested and much wiser to turn history on reverse mode.

If they really don’t act as ((puppets)) to prolong Darforeans suffering in service of others they have to opt for negotiations whether in Qatar or any place they suggest however they have to put behind any personal interests and act with self-denial, goodwill and determination to reach crises solutions for the wefare of the real agonized people in Darfur.
- - -

by Logic
Tayeb!  You make it sound like it is only the responsibility of JEM and SLM to prevent further deaths in Darfur but in fact the bigger responsibility falls on the government.

There is so much more they could do as well, if they always had the capabilities to feed the hungry, why in God’s name have they not helped the situation before? and why are they not speeding up the repatriation of IDPs to their homelands? etc etc etc....
- - -

by Logic
I don’t have any sympathy for the rebel leaders nor the NCP because they are all equally responsible for the deaths in Darfur but for JEM to encourage the IDPs to refuse food from Khartoum aid agncies because they’re spies sounds to me like irony.

As the main reason cited for the expulsion of the aid agncies was because the NCP accusses them of being western spies. However, if you’re hungry? does it really matter who feeds you or would you be more concerned with being fed!! I would’ve thought...

So JEM is guilty of starving IDPs as much as the NCP is guilty of playig the power game.

If you want peace, you negotiate not attach conditions before you negotiate. You can attach your conditions to a final settlement not for having a conversation about how to stop the deaths.

Terrorism and Arab culture: Where are the Saudi men risking death to stand between Muslim villagers in Darfur and the Janjaweed?

Today, Instapundit points to a post on Darfur by Joseph Britt at Belgravia Dispatch, May 5. It's about Tom Friedman's culture analysis piece in the Times yesterday, relating the thoughts of a friend of his resident in Cairo about Arab terrorism. Too long to go in to here. Read the whole thing. Journalists like Tom Friedman and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times take it upon themselves to demand that every trouble happening in the world be sorted out by America when the finger could quite easily be pointed elsewhere. I've given up highlighting how the West is expected to intervene militarily in Darfur while the Arabs next door to Sudan aren't lifting a finger to stop fellow Arabs from killing and marginalising African tribes, driving them from their homeland and using rape as a weapon of war in the Arabisation of Sudan.

Here's an excerpt from Joseph's post entitled "Hidden in Plain Sight" where he points out that Nicholas Kristof writes frequently in the New York Times about Darfur without mentioning any Arab country or government other than Sudan's:

" ... None of them explain the Arab genocide in Darfur; the silence of other Arabs about Arab genocide in Darfur; or the Western media's silence about Arabs' silence about Arab genocide in Darfur. Friedman, for example, seems oblivious to the subject. Kristof, who is not, follows the conventional practice of American journalists witnessing something awful. This is to demand that the American government do something about it."

A few lines later, the post goes on to say:

" ... The Arab world isn't even doing that about Darfur. No peacekeepers, no aid, no media coverage, and for damn sure no guilt. Does Tom Friedman during all his earnest chin-stroking about the problem of terrorism and Arab culture pause to consider that this might be related somehow? Saudi imams get young men inspired to blow themselves up in the middle of Iraqi crowds, but we sure don't hear too many reports of young Saudi men risking death to stand between Muslim villagers in Darfur and the janjaweed.

What about Nick Kristof, who has access to the same maps of Africa that the rest of us do? Does he wonder that the largest Arab country, directly north of Sudan with a large army and an air force hundreds of planes strong, has never made a move toward establishing, say, a no-fly zone over any part of Darfur? Demanded UN sanctions against Sudan, or imposed any of its own? To be honest, I doubt the idea has even crossed his mind."

Heh. Well said. I don't read Kristof anymore. Can't work out what his game is at all. Nor that of the emotive American writers on the quirky Washington Post. One can only conclude they have political motives, which means they are spinning propaganda instead of educating us.
- - -

P.S. Foundations can expect more scrutiny in an age of weblogs, according to this article.

ICC's Ocampo got it wrong: 5,000 people are not dying a month - there is no ‘ongoing genocide’ in Darfur, Sudan

The following excerpt is from Julie Flint's comment posted in the comments section of her analysis "Justice and Hunger" March 6, 2009 at Alex de Waal's blog Making Sense of Darfur:

Five thousand people are not dying a month. There is no ‘ongoing genocide’. (The ICC judges said that, effectively telling Moreno Ocampo he got it wrong.) Not all aerial bombardment by the government is ‘genocidal’ and unprovoked. Let’s get it in perspective, stop talking about ‘saving’ Darfur and work out how best we can help them Darfurians to save themselves - especially now that our own leverage is so dramatically reduced.

Here is a copy of some responses to "Justice and Hunger". I have used red to highlight some of the text and added links within Julie's last comment, for future reference.
- - -

From Ahmed Hassan:
March 7, 2009
Dear Julie Flint,
Thank you very much for your analysis. However, I believe we should not allow ourselves to be dragged into a game staged by the government of Sudan and which the regime knows exactly how to play.  El-Bashir is playing on the reactionary “pride” of the international community and of those affected humanitarian agencies, to buy a compromise.  Albeit the fact that those INGOs represent the “big players”, let us not to exaggerate facts regarding their contribution, in favor of the government game, by claiming that 60% of all humanitarian aid in Darfur will disappear in a matter of days if these INGO leave Sudan.

Let us just not forget that there are still more than 100 INGO operating in Darfur, all of them are American and European.  As long as the cry is for the victims in Darfur, who are in need for help, I don’t see why donors can not re-allocate funds to those operational NGOs or to national partner NGOs? 

I think the only obstacle that I can see is the “hurt pride’ of the kicked out INGOs as well as of the International donor community, and I believe this should be considered as small price for what the government is quoting as Moreno statements that he gathered his information mainly from INGOs.  Technically, I am sure someone will respond with comments about the capacity of the other INGOs and the National NGOs to handle the humanitarian operations in Sudan.

Again, I think the International donor community should prove their rhetoric about partnership and should invest in building the capacity of the national NGOs as part and parcel of the calls for empowering the civil society and bringing peace and democracy.

As an eye witness and as humanitarian worker with recent experience in Darfur, I don’t buy any argument that the level of the humanitarian emergency can not allow for a lengthy process of capacity building, there are enough INGO and local NGOs with adequate capacity to fill the gap caused by the expelling of the 13 INGOs and at the same time undergo a systematic process of capacity building. This could be quite an option to deprive the regime in Sudan from what it plan to use as a leverage to gain a compromise.

To a some extend also, I think we should start looking at things differently, that we are now dealing with two different but not separate issues; the arrest of Bashir, and the Darfur or Sudan Peace.

I like Alex’s statement that “The ICC pretends to be outside politics, representing principles on which no compromise is possible. The key word is ‘pretense’, to paraphrase David Kennedy: it is a nice fiction for the human rights community to believe that it is ’speaking truth to power’ and not actually exercising power.  The ICC arrest warrant is a real decision with real consequences in terms of lives saved and lost and the political life of a nation”. Again, even under this pretence, I don’t see how the ICC can step back from this situation.

Bashir arrest process and trial should go on without being questioned or doubted. The international community, on the other hand, should start working on issue number two, which is the primary issue, of peace in Sudan, and which I strongly believe that it could be more possible and more attainable without Bashir in the picture.

The International community on the other hand, should not be deceived with the staged demonstrations in support of Bashir, or with the silence of the rest of the political forces in Sudan.  The regime is keeping events for the time being by the sheer use of force and resources, however, once the International community decides on the right mode of actions, it will be surprising the support that would come from all the political forces in Sudan, now intimated and subdued by the ruling party.
- - -

From Abdikarim Ali:
March 7, 2009
Ocampu’s excuse was that it couldn’t get any worse for the Darfurians; And now we know it really could and it is already in process. Now the UN and AU are on the ground in Darfur; what can they do?
- - -

From Ibrahim Adam:
March 7, 2009
To Bob Williamson: And America takes it on itself to ’solve’ other countries’ problems it disagrees with by tearing-up, and using shock-and-awe bombing tactics (with huge civilian casualties and other likely war-crimes) by murdering other people living in said-country, and regulates it (the assault) with a sophisticated media and other communications tools apparatus. Touche…..Or it lets other allies do it and provides them with diplomatic cover.

Put simply, there’s no moral high ground for the US to occupy here: don’t search for it.

Agree with Ahmed Hassan’s incisive reality of the humanitarian situation, staffing and capacity on the ground; also agree with Julie’s sharp analysis completely and Alex’s posting on the day of the ICC announcement: “Yes, Alex, you’re right, it was a sad day for Sudan….”
I Adam
Country-Risk Consultant,
El Fasher, North Darfur, Sudan
- - -

From Sharon Silber:
March 7, 2009
What a terrible disaster. It really seemed that the difference between the hundreds of thousands killed in Darfur and the millions killed in South Sudan was due, not just to the difference of duration in years of the conflicts, but due to the lack of access of humanitarian groups in South Sudan since so many died not from the killing itself but from hunger, thirst and lack of medical care. I am very fearful of what this means for Darfur. What are you recommending now? What pressure can be harnessed? Are there specific economic sanctions that could be implemented?
- - -

From Julie Flint:
March 7, 2009
Dear Ahmad Hassan,
You are absolutely right in that what we need to be doing now is trying to limit the damage done by the expulsion of the aid agencies. I appreciate that those expelled are a minority, but they represent more than half of the overall capacity of the Darfur relief operation. The assistant secretary general for humanitarian affairs has said the suspension of their work means that ‘1.5 million have already lost access to health care, and over one million could soon lose access to potable water. The loss of MSF alone will leave more than 200,000 patients in rural areas without essential medical care. The departure of Oxfam Great Britain, which is the largest NGO providing water, sanitation, and hygiene services, is likely to leave 600,000 people in a precarious situation.’ She warned that nearly 1.1 million people may be without food at the next distribution time.
OCHA said (privately) yesterday that Kalma and Kass would run out of water ‘by tomorrow’ - i.e. today.

The impact of the arrest warrant is going to have a massive impact, and soon. And not only in Darfur. In the east, the Three Areas and perhaps even Chad, if the displaced are forced to leave the camps - either through hunger, or thirst, or actions of the government or its militias, or possibly even the rebel movements. Can UNAMID protect them?

I’m not an aid person, and pretend to no expertise there whatsoever, but I understand that funds cannot be reallocated quickly, nor new personnel recruited overnight. Even if they could be, not every INGO has the operational capacity of those that have been expelled. National NGOs, however courageous and committed, simply don’t have the capacity or the expertise for such a large and complex operation, that brought in the best cadres from all over the world. The transfer of capacity is difficult because assets have been confiscated. Management capacity can’t be transferred because staff have been ordered to leave the country.

There seems to be an emerging consensus that it is more useful, in the short term, for the expelled NGOs to put their energy into helping the remaining NGOs to scale up their activities to prevent loss of life rather than putting all their energies into lobbying for the Sudan government to reverse its decision. And I would imagine a priority has to be mapping what remains, and where, and determining how the need that has been created can be best and quickest addressed.

John Smith says ‘the Prosecutor is not a diplomat and should not be expected to act as such.’ Fair enough; he is only doing what the UNSC asked him to do. But he is required, by the Rome Statue, to take the interests of the victims of the account. And running out of water, food and health care, in the middle of a meningitis epidemic, is not in their interests. This government has been in power for 20 years - expect Bashir to organise one hell of a party on June 30 this year - and we have no excuse for not knowing how it works. It is constantly looking for pretexts to erect obstacles in front of humanitarians. This is a tragedy foreseen, and avoidable. I’m not against accountability at the highest level for the crimes committed in Darfur. Far from it. But with no-one to protect the victims, this is not the time.
- - -

From Julie Flint:
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Dear Sharon,
Your diagnosis of the difference between the South and Darfur is spot on. Throughout twenty years of war, most Southern Sudanese never saw any relief. Most war-displaced Darfurians have received a fair amount.

It’s so much easier to know what not to do than what to do at this point, when we have so dramatically limited our options. Don’t impose a no-fly zone, for starters, since most aid goes - or more correctly now, went - by air and must again. Don’t bomb. Nick Kristof, who a few days ago told us that our fears that aid agencies would be expelled were ‘overblown’, now wants us to bomb the Sudan air force. And the same government that has cut the lifeline of more than a million Darfurians without batting an eyelid will take that sitting down? Pull the other one. De-escalate. Don’t escalate. Get off the high moral ground into the dust and mud where displaced Darfurians live. Put yourself in the place of a mother who has been under canvas for five years, whose child has meningitis, malaria or diarrhea, and not a doctor or nurse in sight now. Prioritize the life of that child. There are hundreds of thousands of them, most already beginning to feel the effects of Bashir’s arrest warrant.

The immediate challenge is to respond to the gaping holes in service provision - NGOs estimate that 70% of humanitarian service delivery to 4.7 million people in Darfur will be affected - and to try somehow to utilize (and if necessary protect) the 2,570 national staff rendered jobless. The 200 international staff have until 9 March to leave Sudan. Sudanese law states that NGOs should have 30 days to challenge the revocation of registration, but the government has dismissed this, citing ‘national emergency’ and ’state security’. I see no moderates on the horizon, no ripe prospects for peace.

Somehow international organizations have to find a way to dialogue with the government - criminalized in its entirety by the ICC Prosecutor - at a time when it appears that those who want a degree at least of cooperation have been silenced or pushed aside. In the immediate term, this may have to be by proxy - through Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar or the African Union. The CPA cannot be allowed to collapse. HAC Commissioner Dr. Hassabo Mohamed Abdul Rahman has said more NGOs are under investigation for collaboration with the ICC and will be expelled if a connection is found. Ever since Moreno Ocampo applied for the arrest warrant, activists in the US especially have been hailing this as a breakthrough for peace and a means of leverage on the government. I don’t get this. I see a dwindling of peace hopes and vastly diminished leverage.

Security in the camps must be a major concern. The ICC’s outreach was poor, and the arrest warrant against Bashir seemed to many like a magic bullet. (Even if he were, somehow, arrested, would the regime veer into democracy? Almost certainly not.) There is a need for urgent contacts with the rebel leaders who have influence in the camps - especially Abdel Wahid - to calm rather than inflame the situation and do what they can to stabilize it. JEM must be warned not to seize this moment to make another military push.

Economic sanctions? Would they not affect ordinary Sudanese? What I am hearing indicates that the main concern ordinary Sudanese have about the Bashir warrant is the effect it will have on their economy. Make things tougher on that front and risk increased support for Bashir, I think.

Finally, start telling it like it is. (In for a penny in for a pound.) Distortion of facts, purple prose and exaggerated rhetoric, with a liberal sprinkling of Sudanophobia, have all conspired to create the current dead end - Bashir dances while Darfurians risk starving again, en masse. Five thousand people are not dying a month. There is no ‘ongoing genocide’. (The ICC judges said that, effectively telling Moreno Ocampo he got it wrong.) Not all aerial bombardment by the government is ‘genocidal’ and unprovoked. Let’s get it in perspective, stop talking about ‘saving’ Darfur and work out how best we can help them Darfurians to save themselves - especially now that our own leverage is so dramatically reduced.

Then we can worry about putting Sudan’s leaders in handcuffs. They’ll still be there in a few years’ time.
- - -

Grenade victim



Photo: After a grenade exploded, Bakit Musa, 8, lost his hands, one eye and the skin on half of his face. (Nicholas D. Kristof/The New York Times March 4, 2009) 

From Kristof's blog at nytimes.com March 7, 2009
Your comments on my Darfur column
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF

My Sunday column is about the aid workers being expelled from Darfur. Surprisingly, the United Nations reacted with rather more vigor than the Obama administration, especially at first. Ban Ki-moon issued a tough statement and has been busy calling up leaders in the region to try to get this reversed, and the heads of WFP and other agencies made strong statements as well. In contrast, the initial State Department comment was pathetic, although it was strengthened to a condemnation on Friday. Obama, Biden, Clinton were all tough on Darfur when they were in the Senate and when they were running for office, so let’s hope they aren’t backing down now that they are in office.

Let me also try to clarify something. There are still many aid workers who have not been expelled (World Vision is one of the biggest groups that remains in place), and of course they will try to pick up the slack. But they won’t be able to, except at the margins, for a couple of reasons. First they have their own missions, and everybody is understaffed. Second, Sudan security officials have closed the offices and confiscated the equipment of the expelled NGO’s, and you can’t do a food distribution if you don’t have lists of people who are supposed to get aid; a communications technician for a group that remains can’t shift to treating children with diarrhea, particularly if the clinic and medications have been confiscated. In some areas, the camp managers were expelled, so there is no longer anyone who even knows what is needed. Third, there is a wide variation in the regional impact of the expelled NGO’s. For example, almost all the aid groups in West Darfur were expelled, but a World Vision staff member in South Darfur can’t do anything to save lives in West Darfur.

Bashir surprised most of his own ministers with the decision (the first vice president didn’t know of it), and they seem to have mixed views. Bashir has been very tough in meetings in the capital, but he was also very tough on how he would never allow UN peacekeepers into Darfur, and of course he did. The key was international pressure, and that’s what we desperately need right now.

Your comments?

- - -

Postscript from Sudan Watch: Here is a copy of a noteworthy comment posted to Kristof's commentary copied here above.  There are more from the 50+ comments posted that I would have liked to include here (especially one re British involvement over 100 years) but I can't re-read them all, must close and sleep now.  Maybe more, tomorrow.  Bye for now.

While in your replies to comments you do acknowledge some of the complexities of the situation, your original column was just an artificial and simplistic ‘white hat/black hat’ distortion. You can’t just go visit a place for a few months and think that you know what should happen there better than the locals.

I still remember your suggested ’solution’ to the issue of Tibet’s status which was equally simplistic. No element of that solution has come to pass, ever will, or should. It was a very typical case of the perils of half-understanding a situation, which seems to be a specialty of yours.

These neo-imperialist attempts to solve other nations’ problems for them without their consent are just as harmful coming from well-meaning and intelligent liberals such as yourself as they are from incompetent noecons, if not more so. The Third World is rightly hypersensitive to this in the aftermath of Iraq, and any attempt to escalate the issue, particularly along military lines as you suggest, would fracture the world order and cause immeasurable damage compared to which Iraq would be a walk in the park. American pilots shot down enforcing a no-fly zone by Sudanese using Chinese antiaircraft weaponry helped by Chinese advisers, and locked up in a Sudanese jail? Peacekeeping troops from the A.U. fighting UN troops from Europe? Sudan bombing French airbases in Chad? The nightmare scenarios are endless. The Chinese would veto any Security Council action, and rightly so, but that still leaves a lot of scope for the Americans and Europeans acting independently to cause an enormous amount of damage.

The comprehension of Americans, in particular, of other countries and how they work (as opposed to how we would like them to work) is just about zero, and you unfortunately are no exception.

The best hope in this situation would have been to push all sides in the peace talks to the negotiating table and towards a solution, but the ICC’s boneheaded action has removed all incentives for any party to negotiate. The rebels hope the international community will do their dirty work for them, and the government now no longer has any scenario in which the international community recognizes their rule, and hence has absolutely nothing to gain from negotiating and nothing to lose by walking away. Nice job (not)! This one is going to get ugly, and you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

— Martin Mellish

Well said, Mr Mellish, brilliant comment. Loved the lines that I have highlighted with red!