Warmongering New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is gunning for Khartoum

The following copy of an article published at Sudan Tribune appears to be based on an opinion piece by The New York Times' columnist, Nicholas Kristof. The BBC interview cited in the article took place in February of last year [George W Bush's BBC interview 14 February 2008]. Note the paragraph that I have highlighted in red for future reference.

From Sudan Tribune - US special envoy to Sudan asked Bush to use military force: report

December 28, 2008 (WASHINGTON) – The US special envoy to Sudan Richard Williamson has reportedly asked President Bush to take coercive measures against Khartoum to halt killings in the western region of Darfur.



Photo: US special envoy for Sudan, Richard Williamson, leaves after meeting with Sudanese Foreign Minister Deng Alor (unseen) in Khartoum on June 2, 2008 (AFP)

The New York Times (NYT) newspaper reported that Williamson sent a “tough” memo to Bush recommending a series of steps to pressure the Sudanese government.

Among the steps is to temporarily jam all communications in the Sudanese capital which would severe telephone communications, cell phones as well as internet access.

Furthermore the US navy would hinder access to Port Sudan by searching or turning away some ships. At a later stage a full blown embargo could be enforced to prevent Sudan from selling its oil.

The last stage would be to shoot down all Sudanese fighters that violate ban over Darfur and to use the threat of destroying air force if Khartoum does not comply with other demands such as handing over two suspects to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The US has been the only country to label the Darfur conflict genocide and the Bush administration has been under intense domestic pressure to intervene.

The US has been the most outspoken country on bringing the issue of the Darfur. In September 2004 Washington officially labeled the conflict as ‘genocide’.

Last February US President George W Bush has defended his decision not to send troops to the region despite strong domestic pressure.

“I had to make a seminal decision. And that is whether or not I would commit US troops into Darfur” Bush told the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in an interview.

But many Darfur activists accused the Bush administration of refusing to take more forceful steps against Khartoum to avoid jeopardizing their intelligence cooperation.

US officials denied the allegations saying that the counterterrorism cooperation has not prevented Washington from taking the lead on the Darfur crisis.

The NYT said that the plans put forth by Williamson were blocked by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security adviser Stephen Hadley.

The report is likely to worry Khartoum which has last week praised Williamson for his knowledge of Sudan after the diplomat made a speech suggesting that the incoming Obama administration should test diplomatic options with Sudan before moving to “more robust steps.”

I say, if this report is true, thank goodness for Dr Rice and Mr Hadley.
- - -

A New Chance for Darfur
Opinion editiorial by NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published at nytimes.com December 27, 2008



Photo: Nicholas D. Kristof (Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)

If Barack Obama wants to help end the genocide in Darfur, he doesn’t have to look far for ideas of how to accomplish that. President Bush and his top aides have been given, and ignored, a menu of options for tough steps to squeeze Sudan — even destroy its air force — and those will soon be on the new president’s desk.

The State Department’s policy planning staff prepared the first set of possible responses back in 2004 (never pursued), and this year Ambassador Richard Williamson has privately pushed the White House to squeeze Sudan until it stops the killing.

Mr. Williamson, who is President Bush’s special envoy to Sudan, wrote a tough memo to Mr. Bush this fall outlining three particular steps the United States could take to press Sudan’s leader, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir:

• The United States could jam all communications in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital. This would include all telephone calls, all cellular service, all Internet access. After two days, having demonstrated Sudan’s vulnerability, the United States could halt the jamming.

• The United States could apply progressive pressure to Port Sudan, from which Sudan exports oil and thus earns revenue. The first step would be to send naval vessels near the port. The next step would be to search or turn back some ships, and the final step would be to impose a quarantine and halt Sudan’s oil exports.

• The United States could target Sudanese military aircraft that defy a United Nations ban on offensive military flights in Darfur. The first step would be to destroy a helicopter gunship on the ground at night. A tougher approach would be to warn Sudan that unless it complies with international demands (by handing over suspects indicted by the International Criminal Court, for example), it will lose its air force — and then if it does not comply, to destroy all its military aircraft on the ground.

Officials frustrated by the administration’s passivity shared these possible steps with me, partly to make clear that Mr. Obama can do more if he has the political will.

Mr. Williamson has been one of the unsung heroes of the Bush administration, fighting tenaciously and secretly — even twice threatening to resign — to redeem American honor by confronting genocide. President Bush himself seemed open to tougher action, officials say, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, always resisted, backed by the Pentagon. Ms. Rice and Mr. Hadley tarnished their own honor and America’s by advocating, in effect, acquiescence in genocide.

The naysayers’ objection was simple: Those are incredibly serious steps, with grave repercussions.

They’re right. But then again, genocide is pretty serious, too.

That’s something that Mr. Obama and his aides understand. Partly for that reason, Sudan fears the Obama administration, and now for the first time in years, there’s a real chance of ousting President Bashir and ending his murderous regime.

Several factors are coming together. The leaders in Khartoum feel their government wobbling, particularly after rebels clashed with government soldiers on the outskirts of Khartoum earlier this year. They know that the International Criminal Court is expected to issue an arrest warrant for President Bashir, probably in February, but that no other top leader will be indicted after Mr. Bashir.

China, which for years has been President Bashir’s most important international supporter, now seems to be backing away — just as it eventually abandoned genocidal friends like Slobodan Milosevic and the Khmer Rouge. And an Arab state, Qatar, is now leading a serious diplomatic initiative to try to end the slaughter.

Thus there are growing whispers that key figures in the Sudanese regime may throw Mr. Bashir overboard in the coming months. The other leaders are ruthless and have blood on their hands as well, but some of them have in the past proved more willing to negotiate deals than Mr. Bashir has.

Hovering in the background is the risk that the north-south war in Sudan will resume, leading to a slaughter even worse than Darfur. One ominous sign is that Sudan is now stockpiling cash and weapons, apparently so that it can wage war on the south even if Port Sudan is blocked.

Mr. Williamson has suggested providing surface-to-air missiles to the separate government of South Sudan. Such weaponry would reduce the chance that Sudan would attack the south.

If Mr. Obama and his aides can work with Europe, China and Qatar to keep the heat on — and to make clear that Sudan has no choice but to hand over President Bashir once the court issues the arrest warrant — then we just might avert a new war and end the first genocide of the 21st century in the new year.

More on this later.

UPDATE THURSDAY JANUARY 08 2009
See next Sudan Watch post Thursday, January 08, 2009: The White House denounces Nicholas Kristof

NYT Nicholas Kristof invites readers' comments

Excerpt from New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof 28 Jan 2007 (via CFD with thanks):

Serious negotiations between the government and Darfur's rebels are crucial for a lasting peace deal in Darfur, and new discussions are expected soon (that may be why President Hu dares visit Khartoum). But Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, a Sudanese human rights leader, says the new talks will fail unless the Darfur rebels have a chance to consult first. And when they try to meet, the Sudanese government bombs them.

There are countless other practical ideas for Darfur, and I'd like to hear yours. Send your suggestions to me at DarfurSuggestions@gmail.com. I'll post some on my blog at www.nytimes.com/ontheground and discuss them in a future column.

Readers' comments - Disingenuous Eric Reeves is more than annoying

Eric Reeves is disingenuous. In his latest rant entitled The "Perfect Storm" of Human Destruction Reaches its Crescendo, he calls for a UN peacekeeping force to deploy without delay but, once again, omits to mention the International Criminal Court and UN list of 51 suspected Darfur war criminals.

I challenge anyone pushing for UN troops in Darfur to please address the issue of Khartoum's fears, the UN list, the ICC and all of the Sudanese officials, locals and so-called "janjaweed" who are against foreign intervention. US President GW Bush has made clear that no American citizen will ever be tried by a foreign body. How would Americans feel if foreign troops forced themselves into the USA, armed with weaponary and a mandate to haul in top US officials, including the president, for questioning by the ICC?

How can Khartoum agree to UN troops coming face to face with anyone on the list? What are UN troops to do when faced with Janjaweed leader Musa Hilal, haul him off for questioning and shoot/kill janjaweed when they attack in retaliation? And then what about risks to aid workers and humanitarian access and international personnel being dismissed from the country?

Eric Reeves fails to mention these issues because doing so would make his arguments fall apart. Knowingly, he misleads his readers by spinning fairy tales. Kristof et al do the same. Shame on them for failing to properly inform readers.

DISINGENUOUS ERIC REEVES IS MORE THAN ANNOYING

A few days ago, here at Sudan Watch, British blogger Daniel Davies of dsquared blog posted the following comment:

"God Reeves is annoying. I don't recall him ever having had a bad word to say about Minawi until he signed a peace agreement. And this is really quite disingenuous:

"Recent reports from the ground make clear that Minawi's rebel faction is actively coordinating with Khartoum's regular military forces in attacks on civilians and other rebel forces that have not signed the DPA."

Well, if you are enforcing a peace agreement, what do you do to people who break it? Any peacekeeping force (including the UN/NATO Khartoum decapitation operation of Reeves' dreams) would have to attack "other rebel forces" because people like SLA/Wahid are part of the problem. I am not aware of any more hard evidence for the accusation that the Khartoum military are attacking civilians than there was for the Chad invasion story that I see he is no longer pushing.

Thanks for that Daniel. Glad to know I'm not the only one saying such things. I find Eric Reeves more than annoying. He tells the rebels what they want to hear: Americans onside (read money) pushing for international troops. Why should holdout rebels sign peace deals and abide by ceasefires when they're encouraged to hold out for a better deal? Never mind the millions of Sudanese women and children imprisoned in refugee camps for years on end, waiting to return home.



Photo: President Bush shakes hands with SLA rebel group leader Minni Minnawi, in the Oval Office, 25 July 2006 (AFP) Jul 26 2006 Washington Post: Bush Meets Rebel Leader To Discuss Darfur Accord:

Bush met for about 40 minutes in the Oval Office with Sudanese Liberation Army leader Minni Minnawi. He was the lone rebel leader to agree in May to a U.S.-brokered peace accord to end what the United States calls genocide in western Sudan. The president asked Minnawi to support a U.S.-backed plan to bring African Union peacekeepers in Darfur under the blue flag and helmets of the United Nations, said Frederick Jones, a National Security Council spokesman. (From News Services)

Photo: The leader of Darfur's Sudan Liberation Army, Minni Minawi, left, who signed Darfur Peace Agreement, shakes hands with Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir, right, Monday, Aug 7, 2006, in Khartoum, Sudan, after being appointed senior presidential Assistant and Head of the provisional authority in Darfur state. (AP Photo/Abd Raouf)

AU TROOPS IN DARFUR CAN'T DELIVER BECAUSE THEY LACK TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT?

The fledgling African Union Mission in Darfur (AMIS) can't deliver because it lacks training and equipment? Is this true? Sudan Watch archives contain many reports praising AU professionalism and diplomacy - and details of training and logistical support given to AMIS that's ongoing by NATO, UK, Canada, to name a few.

Here is a copy of a reader's comment 13 Aug 2006.

RA Soenke Franzen said ...

"Actually SPLA troops are not the answer to Darfur's problems, just as only South Africa might have the african troops needed.

From a military point of view the situation in the vast savannahs and semi-arid lands of Darfur need quick reaction forces, not truckmobile at best footsloggers.

Actually the ideal force mix would contain aero cavalry plus attack choppers, reconnaissance flights, some of the light and mechanized infantry the African Union has in place, plus at least one heavy armoured unit that could take on everything that might be met in Sudan.

Light armour like what Canada delivered to upgun the AU force can't suffice, because there are still some Milan missiles in Chad from the Toyota Wars.

If one wants to stop atrocities against civilians, one needs either a lot of troops or preferably a nimble and agile force. And unfortunately this can neither be delivered by the SPLA, nor the AU.

That is why a UN force with a robust mandate and preferably spearheaded by NATO troops would be so helpful. Not because the AU troops can't be trusted, but because they can't deliver, because they lack training and equipment."

Thanks Soenke. Enjoyed reading your comment. Sorry it fails to take into account (a) a UN Resolution (b) a UN peacekeeping mandate: Khartoum totally reject a UN force, especially one with a Chapter 6 or 7 mandate; (c) UN list of 51 names (d) ICC (e) Sudanese officials and locals against foreign intervention.



Photo: See full report June 26 2006 Thousands of protestors gathered in Khartoum to protest against UN and its proposed peacekeepers.



Photo: President Bush shakes hands with the First Vice President of the Government of National Unity of Sudan Salva Kiir, a former rebel who is also President of Southern Sudan, in the Oval Office, July 20, 2006 REUTERS/Jason Reed

For crying out loud - last month Darfur's worst-ever for violence towards aid workers - please don't waste any more time: back the African Union Mission in Darfur and provide the support they need. They deserve medals.

Like Drima says:

To the UN: For the Kazillionth time, REINFORCE THE AU TROOPS! That's all you need to do!:

Darfur previously = Disaster
Darfur now = Worsening disaster?
Darfur + UN troops = Bigger disaster
Darfur + UN troops + Al Qaeda = One big ass GIGANTIC Disaster !!!
Darfur + AU troops reinforced by UN & NATO = HUGE improvements.

New York Times' Kristof and Miller dramatise Darfur revelations

Minnesota Public Radio report - Times writers dramatize Darfur revelations - by Marianne Combs, July 20, 2006:

How do you write a play about genocide that both delivers an important political message and a compelling evening of theater? A New York Times staffer has come to the Twin Cities hoping to do just that.

St. Paul, Minn. - In the Darfur region of Sudan, people are dying by the hundreds of thousands in a blatant act of genocide. New York Times researcher Winter Miller has studied the Darfur crisis for years, but she still wasn't prepared for the reality when she travelled to the Sudanese border earlier this year.

"People talk about the resilience of the Sudanese, and there's no better word," says Miller. "It's the most punishing environmental conditions. It's unimaginable to me how people forage in peaceful times. Add a genocide, and they're getting raped and killed every time they step outside to get firewood. It's beyond comprehension."

Miller is also a playwright. She found an opportunity to bridge her two worlds in Minneapolis at the Playwrights' Center's "Two-Headed Challenge." Each year the Playwrights' Center chooses a writer who wants to collaborate with someone knowledgeable on a difficult topic.

Winter Miller chose to work with her colleague, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. Kristof says he was happy to help.

"Since Winter knows the world of theater, and since it is a way of dramatizing really awful things that people don't always want to focus on, I thought it was terrific," says Kristof.

Many a movie has dealt with genocide: "Hotel Rwanda," "Schindler's List." But how do you convey the horror of genocide on the stage? Playwrights' Center Director Polly Carl says this has got to be one of the very hardest kinds of plays to write.

"Plays are really about the imagination," says Carl. "Films can show you lots of bodies and can give you the horrific visual images without saying much. But with a play, you really have to figure out a way that you can take an issue that's enormous, shrink it down so it fits on a stage, and still let it have the impact. You still have to feel that enormity."

Carl and a director sit with Miller through several readings of her play, suggesting revisions to make it more dramatic and more accessible.

Miller says she wants her audience to connect with the people of Darfur by seeing individual characters on stage, instead of a sea of nameless faces on the news. And so she created Hawa, a young teacher and translator who's lost her family and is struggling to survive.

Hawa's plight unfolds alongside the story of a Swedish journalist desperate to report the crisis, and an American doctor trying to provide aid to the wounded.

The title for Winter Miller's play is "Never Again, Again." She says in the wake of past genocides, people have declared "Never again!" But still genocides continue.

Miller says with her other plays, she's used to being patient, waiting for the work to find a home on stage. But not this time.

"I wrote this play now, so quickly and for this reason, because something needs to be done now. Something needs to be done yesterday," says Miller. "So in an ideal world somebody says, 'Let me see that script,' great! I love the idea of it, let's do it."

The Playwrights' Center in Minneapolis has scheduled a dramatic reading of "Never Again, Again" as part of its PlayLabs festival. Then Winter Miller will have to wait and see if a theater is willing to mount a full production.

The Playwrights' Center's Polly Carl, writer Winter Miller and a director discuss the latest draft of "Never Again, Again." Winter Miller's play addresses the genocide of black Africans by their Arab neighbors over land use. (Photo and caption by MPR/Marianne Combs)


New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has covered the Darfur crisis for years, with help from researcher and playwright Winter Miller. Miller was inspired by the experience to write the play "Never Again, Again." (Photo by Fred Conrad - caption by MPR/Marianne Combs)


Actress Sonja Parks plays the role of Hawa in Winter Miller's play "Never Again, Again." The play is being developed as part of the Playwrights' Center's annual Playlab Festival. (Photo and caption by MPR/Marianne Combs)

Sudanese Embassy says the 'Stop Genocide' rallies April 30 tells Darfur rebels: "Don't Make Peace. The US supports you"

In response to massive 'Stop Genocide' rallies being held across America on April 30 to urge the Bush Administration to intervene in Sudan, the Sudanese Embassy in Washington has released a Statement asking demonstrators to "Think About Their Actions" - excerpt:

"Today, the organisers of the April 30th rally include veterans of the Sudan Coalition. As part of their protest they are targeting the peace negotiations in Abuja, Nigeria, which, by all accounts, will reach a successful conclusion in the very near future. By implication, the message that will be sent by the demonstrators to the Darfur rebels is: Don't Make Peace. The US supports you. These are the same misdirected, naive tactics that delayed a peace deal in Sudan for more than eight years. Yet we are certain that delaying peace is not the reason why so many of you are motivated to participate in this rally.

There is a human tragedy today in Darfur that will be most effectively and quickly addressed through peace negotiations, not rhetoric. Peace will not be achieved by sending the wrong message at just the wrong time to the perpetrators of that tragedy, the Darfur rebels, who demonstrated their goals and methods through violent attacks in Southern Darfur earlier this week."

[Note, I doubt the message will be understood by many people. From what I can gather, most Americans speaking out about Darfur appear to view Khartoum regime as the bad guys. As a human rights advocate, my view is any party using violence to get their own way are bad guys - talks are the only way to settle disputes]

Washington foments division - Propaganda for NATO intervention

Snippets from an opinion piece at Workers World by G. Dunkel Apr 27, 2006 "Oil is behind struggle in Darfur":

The US government, among others, is trying to exacerbate these differences by defining this conflict as between "Arab vs. black." Washington has accused Sudan of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing." However, Paul Moorcraft, a British expert on Sudan, points out, "Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous African Muslims - just like Darfur's non-Arabs."

The New York Times, whose right-wing columnist Nicholas D Kristof just won a Pulitzer prize for demanding US intervention in Darfur, supplies the liberal cover for imperialist troop deployment.

Two Zionist groups, the American Jewish World Service and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, have taken a very active role in building a national rally set for April 30 whose main demand is direct US intervention in Darfur to "stop the genocide." The AJWS is pushing to replace the African Union soldiers in Darfur with 20,000 UN or NATO troops.

The US want to get President Deby out and a new president in who relies on it, not France.

[See Mar 23, 2006 DARFUR: Sudan has all the potential ingredients to be a failed state - How to avoid another Iraqi quagmire in Sudan (Dr Paul Moorcraft)]
- - -

Feb 28 2006 UN envoy Jan Pronk cites Al-Qaeda threats to his own life and non-African UN troops deployed to Sudan's Darfur
- - -

Save Darfur Coalition - Rally To Stop Genocide April 30, 2006

Many thousands of people are expected to attend rallies being held on Sunday across America. See details at Save Darfur.org.

Hollywood actor George Clooney will speak at the Save Darfur Rally to Stop Genocide in Washington, D.C. A video of his recent trip to southern Sudan and eastern Chad is available at: www.thenewsmarket.com/clooneyinsudan