Annan reviewing Sudan's request for withdrawal of UN envoy

Via POTP - Sudan expels UN official for blog revealing Darfur military defeats / Annan reviewing Sudan's request for withdrawal of UN envoy - spokesman:

By Warren Hoge of the New York Times

Sudan's government ordered the chief United Nations envoy out of the country today [Sunday], saying he was an enemy of the country and its armed forces.

Secretary General Kofi Annan said that he was reviewing the letter from the Khartoum government and had requested the envoy, Jan Pronk, to return to New York for "consultations."

The Sudanese order said he had to leave by Wednesday. United Nations officials confirmed he would depart before then.

Mr. Pronk, a blunt-spoken former Dutch cabinet minister, has been outspoken in reporting on the killings, rapes and other atrocities in Darfur, the region in the western part of Sudan where 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been driven from their homes.

He has become increasingly pointed in his comments because of the rise in violence across the area despite a May peace accord between the Sudanese government and a major rebel group, and because of the government's refusal to grant permission for a new United Nations force to take over peacekeeping in the country from the overstretched African Union.

Mr. Pronk is known as a forceful presence at the United Nations from his frequent appearances before the Security Council, where he characteristically delivers unflinching accounts of the continuing mayhem and political breakdowns in Sudan in a rhetorical style that includes finger-jabbing and dramatic pauses for emphasis.

Sudan's action against him was apparently provoked by an entry he made in his personal blog - www.janpronk.nl - last weekend that said Sudan's armed forces had suffered two major defeats with extensive casualties against rebels in Darfur in the past six weeks. He also reported that generals had been cashiered, that morale had sunk and that the government had collaborated with the feared Janjaweed Arab militias, which are held responsible for pillaging villages and killing and raping their residents.

The Sudanese armed forces on Thursday cited the blog entry in calling Mr. Pronk a threat to national security and asking that he be expelled.

The fact that one of its top officials has put sensitive findings in a personal blog has embarrassed the United Nations and put its officials in an awkward position. When the matter arose Friday, United Nations officials resisted rebuking Mr. Pronk for the practice for fear that it would appear to be a vote of no confidence in the mission, rather than just in his professional lapse.

Questioned repeatedly on Friday over whether the United Nations stood by the statements in Mr. Pronk's blog, Stephane Dujarric, Mr. Annan's spokesman, said, "Those views are expressed by Pronk, are his personal views."

Mr. Dujarric indicated that this was not the first time a problem with Mr. Pronk's blog had come up. "There have been a number of discussions with Mr. Pronk regarding his blog and the expectation of all staff members to exercise proper judgment in what they write in their blogs," he said.

In a statement distributed by the official Sudanese news agency today, the country's Foreign Ministry accused Mr. Pronk of demonstrating "enmity to the Sudanese government and the armed forces" and of involvement in activities "that are incompatible with his mission."

The activity in question was apparently a trip that Mr. Pronk made into Darfur to make direct contact with rebels.

In a blog entry on Oct. 14, Mr. Pronk wrote that losses by the Sudanese armed forces in two recent battles "seem to have been very high. Reports speak about hundreds of casualties in each of the two battles with many wounded and many taken prisoner."

"The morale in the government army in North Darfur has gone down," the blog entry continued. "Some generals have been sacked; soldiers have refused to fight. The government has responded by directing more troops and equipment from elsewhere to the region and by mobilizing Arab militia."

Victor Tanner, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advance International Studies who returned from Sudan a week ago, said the blog's references to defeats suffered by the Sudanese army had caused a furor there.

"Comments on the disarray that seemed to be reigning within the Sudanese armed forces was an amazing thing to see in the blog of a U.N. official," he said. "Refreshing but wild."

"That the armed forces had suffered these losses was something that everybody was talking about as a rumor swarming around Khartoum and Darfur, but it took on a new reality and became 'the truth' when it was uttered in print by Pronk."

In Washington, the State Department said it was withholding comment until it learned more from Khartoum about the incident.

Amnnesty International in New York said it "condemns in the strongest terms" the ouster of Mr. Pronk. "By declaring Mr. Pronk persona non grata, Khartoum has once again demonstrated heinous dispassion toward the well-being of its own citizens," the organization said.

In London, the Foreign Office also denounced the Sudanese move and called for it to be reversed. "This step is counter-productive and will contribute nothing to solving the problems of Sudan," said Lord David Triesman, a foreign office minister. "I call upon the government of Sudan to reconsider its decision."

In what has become a tense standoff with the United Nations, Sudan has adamantly refused to accept the deployment of 22,000 United Nations soldiers and police officers despite public outcries over the increasing danger to the residents of Darfur.

The force, called for in a Security Council resolution on Aug. 31, would replace the 7,200-member African Union force that has admitted it does not have the resources to curb the violence in Darfur. In light of Sudan’s defiance, the African Union agreed a month ago to strengthen the force and extend its presence in Sudan until Dec. 31.

Sudan's president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, has characterized the United Nations plan as an American-inspired plot to recolonize his country and plunder its oil, and he has threatened to attack any soldiers sent to Darfur.

At the United Nations in September, Mr. Bashir said the reports of deaths and displacements in Darfur were "fictions" spread by international aid groups and Jewish organizations to raise money to benefit Israel.

And commenting on the international campaign that has arisen to try to end the violence in Darfur, he said, "Those who made the publicity, who mobilized the people, invariably are Jewish organizations."

From the UN News Service...

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has requested his senior envoy to Sudan, Jan Pronk, to come to New York for consultations after the country's Government officially requested his withdrawal today [Sunday].

On Friday, a UN spokesman was asked about comments on Mr. Pronk's blog as well as reports that Sudan was declaring him persona non grata. Spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the views expressed on the blog were personal, and that the Government had presented no official request concerning Mr. Pronk.

Today, in a statement released in New York, the spokesman said Mr. Annan had this morning received a letter from the Government of Sudan requesting Mr. Pronk's withdrawal.

"The Secretary-General is reviewing the letter and has, in the meantime, requested Mr. Pronk to come to New York for consultations," Mr. Dujarric said.

A profile feature from SAPA/AFP...

United Nations envoy Jan Pronk, who has been ordered to leave Sudan after he criticised the government's handling of the Darfur crisis, is a veteran diplomat with a direct approach.

An international diplomat for most of his working life, the 66-year-old is an example of a UN envoy who is not afraid to speak his mind and get emotionally involved in his work.

Since the former Dutch minister of development aid was appointed UN envoy for Sudan in 2004, his relations with Khartoum have been difficult.

Pronk has openly called Sudan a "police state" and said refugees in Darfur were victims of "Arabic racism".

In an interview in March in Dutch news magazine Vrij Nederland, Pronk said he was not worried about a possible backlash.

"The most important thing is that all parties see us as impartial... I say harsh things to the Sudanese government but also to the rebels," he explained.

The final straw was Pronk's personal weblog entry of October 14 that said that the Sudanese army had suffered major losses and that the army was working with militias linked to the Janjaweed, a pro-government militia accused of gross abuses against ethnic minority civilians in Darfur.

During his political career in the Netherlands, Pronk has always stood out as a man of principles in a political landscape dominated by pragmatism and consensus.

An economist, Pronk started his political career as a member of parliament for the PDVA labour party in 1971. In 1973 he became minister of development cooperation a post he held in three different cabinets, the last from 1994 until 1998.

Between the 1970s and 2002 he held a variety of Dutch political posts and spent six years as deputy secretary-general of the UN Conference on Trade and Development.

Observers says Pronk's direct style may have been a contributing factor in naming him the UN envoy to Sudan. He is often credited with keeping the crisis there high on the international agenda.

God bless Mr Pronk and keep him well. He deserves a medal.

Sudanese army is receiving military support from Chadian rebels based in Sudan, while Darfur rebels are supported by Chad

Oct 23 2006 Independent report by Africa Correspondent Steve Bloomfield - excerpt:

Pronk also warned that a confrontation between Sudan and its neighbour to the west, Chad, was becoming a possibility. The Sudanese army is receiving military support from Chadian rebels based in Sudan, while the Darfur rebels are supported by Chad.

Sudan expels UN official for blog revealing Darfur military defeats

The buffoons running Sudan have shot themselves in the foot trying to expel UN SRSG Jan Pronk. Hopefully, this latest fiasco will show the Khartoum regime for what it is, and result in an agreement on UN troops for an "AU Plus" peackeeping force in Darfur.

It's difficult to believe more than a few people would approve of Khartoum's move to expel Mr Pronk. In fact it's a wonder how anyone can take Khartoum seriously anymore. Bashir's days now seem numbered. For his outfit to stay in power (better the devil you know) I thought it needed onside both the AU and UN. Surely people in southern Sudan (and its government!) won't take kindly to Khartoum's latest move to hurt relations with the UN and expel Mr Pronk who heads up the UN's peacekeeping in the region. Maybe soon we'll see press photos of Sudanese people marching with placards in support of Jan Pronk/UN!

Oct 23 2006 Guardian report by Jonathan Steele - excerpt:

The highly unusual expulsion of a UN official is likely to sour relations between Khartoum and the UN, which were already tense because of Sudan's refusal to accept a security council resolution calling for 20,000 troops to move into Darfur to protect civilians. Ironically, Mr Pronk had made it clear he personally agreed with Sudan's position that African Union troops could do the job just as well, provided they had proper funds and equipment. He was also a critic of the Bush administration for its confrontational line towards Khartoum.

Mr Pronk, 66, had a reputation for being outspoken as a minister in two Dutch governments but he took the unusual step of writing a regular weblog after his appointment as Mr Annan's special representative in Khartoum two years ago. This seems to have been his main sin. The weblog in which he often described the war in Darfur in graphic terms without the usual caution of a diplomat became required reading for everyone watching Sudan's war-torn western region closely.

The Sudanese government has admitted suffering two recent setbacks on the battlefield, at Um Sidir to the north of the main town El Fasher, and again near the Chadian border two weeks ago. But Mr Pronk's weblog gave new details. "The losses seem to have been very high," he wrote.

"Reports speak about hundreds of casualties in each of the two battles with many wounded and many taken as prisoner. The morale in the government army in north Darfur has gone down.

"Some generals have been sacked; soldiers have refused to fight. The government has responded by directing more troops and equipment from elsewhere to the region and by mobilizing Arab militia. This is a dangerous development. Security council resolutions which forbid armed mobilisation are being violated. The use of militia with ties with the Janjaweed recalls the events in 2003 and 2004. During that period of the conflict systematic militia attacks, supported or at least allowed by the SAF [Sudanese Armed Forces], led to atrocious crimes."

Foreign ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadiq explained the expulsion as resulting from "the latest statements issued by Mr Pronk on his website regarding severe criticism of the Sudanese Armed Forces and the fact that he said the government of Sudan is not implementing the Darfur peace agreement".

Mr Sadiq said rebels would consider Mr Pronk's comments as encouragement to continue their military campaign.

Mr Pronk also annoyed the army by crossing frontlines and meeting rebel leaders in Darfur this month, although he made it clear on his weblog that he urged them to accept a ceasefire and think about signing the peace deal brokered in May.

He wrote: "In a mass meeting with them - I counted about 300 military commanders and political officials - they promised not to attack the Sudanese Armed Forces ... I demanded more: stop considering AMIS, the African Union Peace Keeping Force, as your enemy. Guarantee that bandits and rogue commanders no longer harass aid workers and steal their vehicles. Do not reject the Darfur Peace Agreement, but consider this text as a basis for peace, as a starting point for further talks."

For stricken Darfur, threat of all-out war (Lydia Polgreen)

Oct 22 2006 Chad-Sudan border - NYT/IHT Lydia Polgreen report - excerpt:

The prospect of new negotiations for a settlement have dimmed. And the involvement of Chad and now the Central African Republic, where Sudan is reportedly supporting more rebels against the Chad government, is spawning a complex, interlinked set of conflicts among some of the least stable countries in the heart of Africa.

The conflict could stretch on indefinitely.

"Clearly Khartoum is still intent on pursing a military solution, and just because the latest offensive seems to have hit a roadblock doesn't mean they are going to give up," Thomas-Jensen said. "The strategy in the past has always been to arm and train and support local militia groups. In all of this the consequences form a humanitarian standpoint are devastating."

In Darfur, he said, it is ultimately the civilians who will pay the highest price.

EU official says UN presence in Darfur is vital to civilians there

AP report via IHT 22 Oct 2006 - excerpt:

The European Union on Sunday criticized Sudan's decision to order the chief U.N. envoy out of the country, arguing the role of the United Nations is key to resolving the crisis in Darfur.

"The presence of the United Nations is vital to hundreds of thousands of citizens of the Darfur region," said Amadeu Altafaj Tardio, a spokesman for the EU Commission.

The order for U.N. envoy Jan Pronk to leave within three days will likely further complicate efforts to end the crisis in the strife-torn region of western Sudan, he said.

Jan Pronk's views on his blog were personal - UN

FT.com excerpt:

Mr Pronk has previously used his blog to criticise the peace agreement saying it needed to be amended to rectify a flaw.

Officials in Mr Pronk's office were not available for comment.

UN officials in New York have previously said Mr Pronk's views on the website were personal, adding there were no rules appertaining to blogs by senior officials. Sudan is a notoriously difficult place for diplomats to work as the government has a reputation for manipulation and saying one thing while doing another.

Britain denounces Sudan expulsion

Oct 22 2006 icUxbridge:

In London, Foreign Office minister Lord Triesman said: "The British Government condemns the decision to expel the UN Secretary General's Special Representative to Sudan.

"This step is counter-productive and will contribute nothing to solving the problems of Sudan.

"I call upon the Government of Sudan to reconsider its decision."

Khartoum considers Jan Pronk's mission in Sudan over

Reuters report by Opheera McDoom, via Swissinfo 22 Oct 2006:

Sudan on Sunday ordered top U.N. envoy Jan Pronk to leave the country within three days following comments he made that the army's morale was low after suffering two major defeats in the violent Darfur region.

"The government ... considers Jan Pronk's mission ... in Sudan over and Mr. Pronk has to leave Sudanese soil within 72 hours from midday on Sunday," a Foreign Ministry statement obtained by Reuters said.

"The reason is the latest statements issued by Mr. Pronk on his Web site regarding severe criticism of the Sudanese Armed Forces and the fact that he said the government of Sudan is not implementing the Darfur peace agreement," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadig.

Foreign Ministry officials met with Pronk on Sunday and informed him of the decision, he added. The ministry said Khartoum would continue to cooperate with the United Nations.

In New York, a spokesman said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has asked Pronk to return to headquarters immediately for consultations but made no comment on the dispute.

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Annan had received a letter on Sunday from Sudan asking him to withdraw Pronk.

Pronk has previously had problems with the government because of comments he published on his Web log www.janpronk.nl. The latest blog entry said Darfur rebels had beaten the army in two major battles in the last two months.

He said generals had been sacked, morale was low and soldiers were refusing to fight in North Darfur. The army was furious and issued a statement on Friday calling Pronk a danger to the nation's security.

One army source said they were asking President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the commander-in-chief of the army, to expel Pronk.

Al-Sadig said rebels would consider Pronk's comments as encouragement to continue their military campaign.

"GOVERNOR-GENERAL"

Khalil Ibrahim, a senior member of the rebel National Redemption Front (NRF), told Reuters the decision to expel Pronk did not come from politicians but was a diktat from the army.

"They don't want to leave any free voices in Sudan. ... Jan Pronk was the voice of those suffering in Darfur," he said.

Pronk, 66, a former Netherlands development minister, served several terms in the Dutch parliament and was in the cabinet under two prime ministers. Annan named him U.N. special representative for Sudan in June 2004.

Pronk is known in Sudan for his dedication to his job but also his blunt comments, which irked some parties. He has been outspoken about Sudan's refusal to allow a U.N. force into Darfur where violence has mounted in recent months.

Sudanese privately call him the "governor-general" of Khartoum, a reference to the former British colonial ruler.

Ibrahim said although he has had conflicts with Pronk, he considered the U.N. official fair and unbiased.

"The government could not bribe him with money or contain him and that is why they want him out," he added.

Sudan orders UN SRSG Jan Pronk to leave within 3 days

Reuters report via POTP - excerpt:

Sudan on Sunday ordered top U.N. envoy Jan Pronk to leave the country within three days following comments he made that the army's morale was low after suffering two major defeats in the violent Darfur region.

"He has until mid-noon on Wednesday to leave," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadig. He added the reason was Pronk's comments on the army.

Last week the Sudanese military said Pronk's continued presence in Sudan represented a "military danger to the armed forces".

The military statement accused Pronk of undermining the army by "casting doubt on the ability of the Sudanese Armed Forces to protect the Sudanese people and defend the state".

Pronk's blog, www.janpronk.nl, had said army morale was low in North Darfur after two defeats at the hands of a new rebel alliance called the National Redemption Front (NRF).

South Sudan denounces Pronk expulsion

Oct 22 2006 AFP report via ST - excerpt:

"It is a wrong decision and it is taking Sudan more and more to the brink of confrontation with the international community," said Yasir Arman, Yasir Arman, deputy secretary-general of the former southern rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM).

"More importantly, it will aggravate the situation in Darfur rather than looking for solutions in partnership with the international community," he said. "Expelling Jan Pronk will not resolve the issue at hand, meaning Darfur."

"Jan Pronk came to Sudan as a result of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement," he said, referring to the accord that ended Sudan's 21-year north-south civil war. "The government should have consulted the SPLM before expelling him."

Khartoum regime = buffoons. I feel sorry for Mr Pronk and his family.

Sudan orders UN SRSG Jan Pronk to leave

Marie Heuze, chief spokeswoman for the U.N. in Geneva, said she could not comment on the order but noted that Pronk's comments were on his private blog and reflect "only his personal views."

Full story by AP writer Mohamed Osman - via Guardian 22 Oct 2006.

African Union welcomes Eastern Sudan peace deal

On October 14 the Sudanese government and rebels from the Eastern Front signed a peace accord that was negotiated with Eritrean help and is aimed at ending a 12-year armed conflict. - ST 22 Oct 2006.

Jan Pronk - Weblog: Peace in Eastern Sudan

A breakthrough: Peace in Eastern Sudan. This week the Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement has been signed in Asmara. Will it last?

Read more... by UN SRSG Jan Pronk in his blog entry Oct 21, 2006.

Sudan masses troops for decisive strike against Darfur rebels

News report by Gethin Chamberlain Oct 21, 2006 (AL-FASHER) Sunday Telegraph via ST 22 Oct 2006:

The soldier pushed at the bomb with his foot, rolling it through the dust towards the white Russian-built Antonov aircraft standing on the runway of Al Fasher airport.

A Sudanese army soldier sits next to weapons and ammunition at an outpost in Sudan's northern Darfur town of Tawilla May 17, 2006. (Reuters)
The plane was being loaded for another bombing run, as Sudanese government forces gear up for a military onslaught when Ramadan ends today or tomorrow.

Crude but effective, the Antonovs are back in the air over the villages of Darfur, just as they were during the initial pogroms that killed hundreds of thousands and displaced more than two million. When they reach their targets, the soldiers lower the ramps and kick out the bombs -- which look like munitions used in the Second World War -- to explode on those below.

New arrivals at the El Salaam camp outside Al Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, describe how the Antonovs and helicopter gunships attacked their villages, forcing them to flee.

"I saw about 10 bombs falling," said Adam Ishag, who fled his village of Hila Babkeir after it came under attack. "They exploded beside the houses and two were destroyed. We took the children and we ran away."

The troubled western region of Sudan is entering a new and dangerous period. The Darfur Peace Agreement, signed in the Nigerian capital Abuja in May, largely at the urging of the international community, is widely perceived to have failed. Fighting has escalated and the rebel groups, which splintered acrimoniously after the signing, are once again looking to present a united front.

In recent weeks, the Sudanese government has been engaged in a frenetic game of diplomatic brinkmanship, trying to convince the international community that there is no need for a United Nations peacekeeping mission to Darfur, approved by the Security Council in August. Yet despite that, its army and its Arab militia allies, the Janjaweed, are reported to be massing in the north. The rebels, and UN officials, believe that a major attack is imminent.

Planes carrying soldiers have poured into Al Fasher airport, bringing with them vast quantities of weapons. On Wednesday evening, traffic in the centre of town ground to a halt as a military convoy, perhaps 100 vehicles long, rolled by - some packed with men, others with machineguns and rocket launchers.

Both the government and the rebels - many now fighting under the banner of the newly formed National Redemption Front - fear that if the UN does take over from the hopelessly stretched African Union (AU) force, then there will be little chance of seizing more territory. If they have to renegotiate the peace agreement, they intend to do so from a position of strength.

"It is a stand-off with the US and some European governments, including Britain," said Ghazi Atabani, a Sudanese presidential adviser, in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph last week. His government argues that it is now fighting a legitimate "war on terror" against those who refused to sign up to the peace deal. But Mr Atabani conceded that talks would have to come. "Even if you win the military battle, it is a loss," he said. "In the end, it will just lead to another rebellion."

Yet military victory itself is far from certain. UN and AU sources report that the Sudanese army is demoralised and vulnerable. It has suffered two heavy defeats in the past month - including one in which 3,000 troops were reportedly routed in 20 minutes.

Unlike the earlier war in southern Sudan, which pitched mainly Muslim government forces against Christian and animist rebels, Darfur is an almost exclusively Muslim conflict. "It is not a question of religion this time, it is a question of power," said Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, an aid worker and fierce critic of the government.

The AU has said it does not want to stay on after December 31, when its mandate runs out. And there appears no prospect of a UN force of 22,500 troops arriving before spring.

For those caught in the middle, life is looking desperate. Aid workers cannot operate effectively; at least a dozen have been killed since the peace deal was signed. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that 500,000 people are now cut off from aid.

"Life has always been precarious in Darfur," said a spokesman. "It will never be an easy place to live. But it doesn't have to be the living hell it is now."

AU's Ibok holds talks with Darfur field leaders

From Bahrain News Agency Khartoum Oct 21 2006:

African Union Commission to Darfur head, Sam Ibok, said his negotiations with armed factions field leaders tackled means of moving the peace process through joint efforts instead of violence.

Ibok told Radio Sudan this evening that the groups that have not signed the Abuja peace agreement, confirmed that they were supporting the peace option and that they were ready to negotiate in order to achieve peace and stability in Darfur. He described his meetings with the group leaders as positive and added that he was informed on the situation in Darfur.

UK's Blair appeals for Darfur deal

Oct 20 2006 ePolitix.com:

The prime minister has pressed EU colleagues to put on a united front in calling for a peace agreement in Darfur.

Tony Blair was on Friday addressing the EU summit in Lahti on the subject at short notice after making a request to the Finnish presidency.

Downing Street said Blair made the move because "he believes we are at a critical time" in international efforts to stop the violence in Sudan.

The appeal came as African Union ministers were meeting the Sudanese government in Khartoum.

"We need to send a clear message of support from the EU today," the prime minister's official spokesman said.

Blair was setting out a three-pronged strategy for a lasting peace.

Firstly to stop military action immediately, secondly to allow a UN force in and thirdly for the Sudanese government to engage in peace talks.

"We have tried to do this with the Sudanese government," the spokesman said.

"If that does not prove possible we are going to have to use pressure.

"That is not our preferred strategy... but the situation in Sudan is just not sustainable."

The government also dismissed a suggestion that more African Union troops could be deployed instead of the UN force Sudan is resisting.

The spokesman said the AU had "valiantly tried" to stop the violence but "hasn't been able to be as effective as it should be".

China's move to strengthen workers' rights is undermined by U.S. corporations

From A human rights weblog 20 Oct 2006:

Last week, the New York Times reported that U.S.-based corporations are trying to stop a proposed law that would protect Chinese workers.

China's new draft labor policy would crack down on sweatshop abuse and strengthen important human and labor rights by improving pay, treatment, health and safety, and other standards for Chinese workers.

However, U.S. corporations such as Wal-Mart, Google, UPS, Microsoft, Nike, AT&T, and Intel, acting through U.S. business organizations like the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and the U.S.-China Business Council are actively lobbying against the new labor legislation. And they're threatening to take their factories elsewhere.

Charming.

UN's Egeland to step down to spend more time with family

UN's Jan Egeland has announced his intention to step down this year, reports said Friday. "My contract lasts until March next year, but I have notified the UN Secretary General that I will leave my present position before the end of the year," Egeland told Oslo daily Aftenposten. - CFD

Arab League might be willing to dispatch troops to Darfur in lieu of UN force?

Jerry Fowler, in his blog entry Grasping at the Last Straw?, notes the Washington Post acknowledged that in the face of continuing Sudanese opposition, "the fact is that the United Nations is not going to fight its way into Darfur."

Since the Arab League might be willing to dispatch troops to Darfur in lieu of a UN force, Jerry wonders if the Arabs are in fact serious. Me too.

David Blair visits Djibouti: Foreign troops guard oil gateway

How many Western soldiers can you fit inside a tiny African country? This question ran through my mind as I had breakfast in Djibouti this morning...

There are Western troops all over the place.

Read more by David Blair at Telegraph Blogs 20 Oct 2006.

US's Rice affirms US commitment to ensuring Sudan's unity

AP report via International Herald Tribune - excerpt:

US special envoy Andrew Natsios finished a week-long visit to Sudan on Friday by saying he had pressed the government for an effective peacekeeping force and a political settlement in Darfur, as well as the "protection of non-combatants from further atrocities."

Oct 20 2006 KUNA:

US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice said on Friday that her country was committed to working with Sudan's government to ensure its unity, peace and stability.

In a letter to her Sudanese counterpart Lam Akol, Rice stressed that Washington would continue its efforts to ensure implementing the two accords relevant to implementing peace in Darfur and the southern region.

In a press statement, spokesman for Sudan's Foreign Ministry Ali Al-Sadeq quoted Rice's hope that US-Sudanese efforts would ensure peace in Darfur and support Sudan's unity.

Rice's letter came after a one-week visit to Sudan by US special envoy to Sudan Andrew Natsios who met with a number of officials, civic leaders and local societies.

Speaking to the press, Natsios said as this was his first visit to Sudan, he wanted to understand the situation by observing it, noting that he conveyed the US Administration's view that called for deploying UN forces in Darfur.

Natsios departed to Egypt to meet local officials and the Arab League's executives. Upon returning to the US, he would inform President George W. Bush and Rice about the visit's outcome.

Sudanese officials who met Natsios affirmed their cabinet's stance that rejected the notion of sending any international troops to Sudan, but they expressed the government's desire to continue talks with the US and international society.

Natsios was appointed by US President George W. Bush as Coordinator for International Disaster Assistance and Special Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan. He formerly headed the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

On August 31, the UN Security-Council (UNSC) issued resolution 1706 stipulating the deployment of international forces in Darfur to replace the African Union's troops whose mandate would expire at the end of 2006. Sudan's government rejected the resolution by saying the existence of such forces would threaten the nation's sovereignty.

Noble Prize Winning economist Muhammad Yunus lifts millions of people from poverty

Good news via Miss Mabrouk of Egypt:

The inspirational economist Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today for helping lift millions of his fellow Bangladeshis from poverty through a pioneering scheme that lends tiny amounts of money to the very poorest of borrowers.

Musa the Shoeshine Boy hasn't enough money to go to school in Juba, S Sudan

See Musa the Shoeshine Boy at Sudan Man blog.

New UN chief elected

Congratulations to the new UN Secretary General, the South Korean Ban Ki-moon, 62. [via Black Kush]

Sudan denies directing Janjaweed

Oct 18 2006 BBC report says a Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesman told the BBC his government was instead working hard to try to disarm the Janjaweed militia in Darfur.

The problem with Sudan. Part 1: the system - Decentralization is the answer?

How do you run a country of 2.5 million square km, 33.3 million people, 7 times the size of Germany, with more than 400 spoken languages and dialects, multiracial, and with lots of resources?

Managing the huge country from the center had been one gigantic failure. What the country had never tried is federation. Give the different regions the right to govern themselves in partial autonomy, but retain important ministries. I believe it is the best solution to a recurring phenomenon. Decentralization is the answer.

When each region runs its own affairs, none will think of breaking away as an independent state, hopefully.

Read more at Black Kush blog - The problem with Sudan. Part 1: the system.

EU leaders call on Sudan to accept UN force in Darfur

European Union leaders today called on Sudan to accept a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur.

"The UN operation is the only viable and realistic option for peacekeeping in Darfur," Finnish prime minister Matti Vanhanen said at a news conference during a one-day summit of European leaders. "We are all very deeply concerned about the situation."

Full story Evening Echo (Ireland) 20 Oct 2006.

UK's Blair urges push for Darfur ceasefire

UK International Development Secretary Hilary Benn has suggested that the Janjaweed might be getting help from the Sudanese government.

Full story PA via Guardian 20 Oct 2006.

Sudanese sovereignty integrity must be observed - Russia

See Free Republic's reprint of Sudan Tribune report 20 Oct 2006 - and comments.

Sudan asks Russia $1 billion military equipment loan

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held talks with Sudanese Defense Minister Abdelrahim Hussein on Thursday 19 October. The Sudanese official asked Russia to sell military jets and helicopters to his county.

Moscow has not given any reply yet.

Full story Sudan Tribune 20 Oct 2006.

Sudanese army declares UN's Pronk persona non grata

How ridiculous. Biting the hand that feeds you. Oct 20 2006 AFP report via Sudan Tribune - excerpt:

The Sudanese military declared UN special envoy Jan Pronk persona non grata, accusing him of "waging war against the armed forces," in the latest escalation in a war of words between Khartoum and the international community.

The general command accused Pronk, UN secretary general Kofi Annan's special representative (SRSG) in Sudan, of "openly intruding in the armed forces' affair".

It considers the envoy's presence and movements in Sudan "a military threat that adversely affects the performance of the armed forces and (he) has therefore become a persona non grata," a statement said.

It complained that the envoy had travelled around Sudan without government permission and dealt with rebel groups fighting the military in the western region of Darfur.

It also accused Pronk of "waging psychological warfare on the armed forces by propagating erroneous information that casts doubts about the capability of the armed forces in maintaining security and defending the country."

On Wednesday, the United Nations's daily Sudan internet bulletin spoke of mounting tensions between Pronk and the military over his reporting of setbacks for the army in Darfur.

"On October 17, the Sudan armed forces (SAF) spokesman strongly criticized SRSG Pronk describing him as "aggressive and lacking credibility," the bulletin said.

"This came about following the SRSG's recent statements on SAF suffering heavy losses in Darfur," it added.

"The spokesperson commented that the SAF are currently fighting Chadian troops who use helicopters to support the rebels with munitions. Further he denied the occurrence of mutiny among SAF troops."

Pronk was reported to have said that the army had suffered two defeats and lost hundreds of troops in fighting with rebels in North Darfur, that several generals had been sacked and that the army was being forced to turn to its feared Janjaweed militia allies as troops were refusing to go to the front.

A senior general called for Pronk's swift deportation.

"The presence of Jan Pronk in the Sudan constitutes a threat to the Sudan's national security and an immediate decision for his deportation from the Sudan should therefore be taken," former armed forces spokesman General Mohammed Beshir Suleiman told the official SUNA news agency.

The envoy "has gone beyond the boundaries of his responsiblilities and duties," said Suleiman, charging that Pronk was abusing his position to attempt to force Sudan to accept a UN Security Council resolution authorising the despatch of 20,000 UN peacekeepers to Darfur to replace an African Union force.

"The envoy, with this statement, intended to prove that the armed forces and the African Union forces have failed in keeping peace and that the national army is incapable of protecting the civilians against rebel attacks, and thus to pave the way for implementation of Resolution 1706," he said.

The United Nations comprises 191 countries. Anyone working for the UN at Jan Pronk's level is bound to be a decent hardworking person, trying their best to help broker peace. Sudan ought to be grateful to Jan Pronk and the UN. Overall, it seems to me, the Sudanese aren't doing themselves any favours in the world's media spotlight, making themselves appear stupid and unappreciative, lacking in empathy. Morons and barbarians, still living in the Dark Ages.

UN's Pronk is a danger for Sudan's national security - army

Sudan Tribune attributes the following report to Xinhua.

UN's Pronk is a danger for Sudan's national security - army - Oct 19, 2006 (KHARTOUM) - The Sudanese army said that Jan Pronk, the pecial representative of the UN Secretary General Koffi Annan in Sudan, was not welcomed, indicating that he constitute a danger of the national security.

In a statement on Thursday, the High Command of the Sudanese Armed Forces condemned that "the flagrant interference of Pronk in the Sudanese army's affairs which is equivalent to a war against the army".

It stressed that "Pronk's existence and his movements, including his contacts with the rebels and his visits without the Sudanese government's approval, constitute a military danger which has negatively affected the army's work."

The statement also accused the UN top envoy in Sudan of launching a psychological war on the Sudanese army by spreading fabricated false information doubting the army's capability to maintain the security and stability of the country.

Meanwhile, a retired army officer Lieutenant General Mohammed al-Bashir Suleiman told the official SUNA news agency that Pronk's recent remarks on the Sudanese army had "obviously over passed its authority and responsibility", calling on the government to take firm steps to expel Pronk from Sudan.

He stressed that Pronk statement comes as part of general plan aiming to serve the objectives of international powers that pushed for the adoption of UN resolution 1706 and insist on its implementation in Darfur.

The mains purpose of Pronk's speech is to lay the road of the implementation of UN resolution 1706 by insisting on the incapacity of the Sudanese state to protect its population from the attacks of the armed rebel groups, the Sudanese army spokesperson explained.

Pronk wrote in his personal weblog on Saturday that the Sudanese army had lost two major battles in Darfur, one in Umm Sidir last month and the other in Karakaya last week, and suffered heavy casualties.

The Sudanese army was probably receiving support from Chadian rebels on Sudanese soil, while the Darfurian rebel groups were supported by the Chadian authorities, he added.

To read Pronk's comment please go at : http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article18192

(ST/Xinhua)

Note the report quotes a Sudanese army spokesperson as saying: "The Sudanese army was probably receiving support from Chadian rebels on Sudanese soil, while the Darfurian rebel groups were supported by the Chadian authorities." Right now, maybe it is too late at night and I need to sleep, I can't get my head around that statement.

BBC's repentant Janjaweed is a fraud - Sudan

Sapa-AFP report via IOL 19 Oct 2006 - excerpt:

Khartoum - Khartoum denied ever supporting Darfur's feared Janjaweed militia on Thursday and charged that a repentant militiaman who described the regime's atrocities to British media was not credible.

"This individual has made declarations in the hope of being granted political asylum in Britain and I believe this weakens his credibility," foreign ministry spokesman Ali al-Saddek told reporters.

The BBC detailed Sudanese government support for the Janjaweed Wednesday, citing an interview with a former militiaman now living in London who admitted killing innocent civilians in Darfur.

"The government supports no armed militia in Darfur and is cooperating with the United Nations and other organisations to restore peace and security," Saddek said, reiterating the regime's longstanding denials that it sponsored the Janjaweed.

"On the contrary, the government is bent on disarming them,"

For his part, State Minister for Humanitarian Affairs Ahmed Mohammed Haroun charged that the report "was part of a campaign aimed at deploying international forces in Darfur".

Excerpts: Ex-Janjaweed fighter story (BBC)

A former member of Sudan's pro-government militias, the Janjaweed, has told the BBC's Newsnight programme that ministers in Khartoum gave orders for the activities of his unit in the Darfur region, which included killings and rape. Click here for excerpts of the interview with ex-fighter "Ali", who is now living in London.

Read more via Eric Reeves' commentary at Guardian's Comment is Free, entitled Death in Darfur. [via CFD with thanks]

Salva Kiir and al-Mirghani to mediate with Darfur rebels

Big news. The first Vice President Salva Kiir Mayadrit and the Chairperson of the National Democratic Alliance Mohamed Osman al-Mirghani will lead a Sudanese initiative hold a new round of talks with Darfur hold rebels in Asmara.

Full story ST 17 Oct 2006.

UN's Pronk outlines Darfur rebel groups

Jan Pronk - Weblog 14 Oct 2006:

The rebel movements in Darfur are utterly divided amongst themselves. A month or two ago (weblog nr 32) I described how a number of rebel movements had emerged as splinter factions of those who started the war in 2003. The Abuja talks began with two movements: the Sudanese Liberation Front (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). At the end of the talks there were three, because the SLM had split into two factions, one of them led by Minnie Minawi, who had signed the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) and the other by Abdul Wahid, who had refused to do so. Five months after the signing of the DPA we can count at least eight movements. Abdul Wahids faction split further into four: the SLM Free Will, which associated itself with the DPA; the SLM Classic, led by Abdul Shafei, who rejects the agreement, but seems to be more pragmatic; the G19 who revolted against Abdul Wahid in Abuja, and the remainder of the original SLM, still led by Abdul Wahid.

The JEM split into two. One of them, the JEM Peace Wing, together with the SLM Free Will, has associated itself with the DPA. The other one, still led by Khabril, remains the hard-core ideological opponent, co-financing the armed struggle by those movements which did not only refuse to sign, but are also willing to fight, despite the fact that their mother movements had signed more than one cease fire agreement.

Finally there is the New Redemption Front (NRF), a cluster of groups with quite some armed strength on the ground. They were the first to start a new battle against the Government, initially in West Kordofan, but since end July also continuously in North Darfur. The front was originated by the JEM, with armed support from the G19. In particular since the emergence of the NRF we have seen various Renversements des Alliances. Some of these were proclaimed by rebel leaders in the diaspora, including Khalil in Paris and Abdul Wahid in Asmara. Others are based on rumors. Both proclamations and rumors are frequently denounced. But there is also pragmatic cooperation between rebel groups in case of attacks by militia or by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). Commanders of the SLA/Abdul Shafei told me, during my visit to the Jebel Mara last week, that they had been able to withstand an offensive by the SAF with the help of the NRF, which had directly responded to their request for assistance. Presently in the western part of North Darfur, close to the Chadian border, there is much fighting between the SAF and a combination of the G19, the JEM and the NRF. But it seems to be a rather loose coalition, because not all three components participate in all fights.

The pattern is not clear. However, some trends emerge.

First, the SAF has lost two major battles, last month in Umm Sidir and this week in Karakaya. The losses seem to have been very high. Reports speak about hundreds of casualties in each of the two battles, many wounded soldiers and many taken as prisoner. The morale in the Government army in North Darfur has gone down. Some generals have been sacked; soldiers have refused fighting. The Government has responded by directing more troops and equipment from elsewhere to the region and by mobilizing Arab militia. This is a dangerous development. Security Council Resolutions which forbid armed mobilization are violated. The use of militia with ties with the Janjaweed recalls the events in 2003 and 2004. During that period of the conflict systematic militia attacks, supported or at least allowed by the SAF, led to atrocious crimes. Moreover, a confrontation with Chad is not impossible. It seems that SAF is receiving support from Chadian rebels on Sudanese soil, while the NRF/JEM/G19 coalition is supported by Chadian authorities.

Second, the fighting amongst rebel groups has decreased. It started soon after the signing of the DPA, in particular between SLA/Minnie Minnawi and SLA/Abdul Wahid, and also with the G19. Presently the SLA/Minnie Minnawi seems to restrict itself to a defensive posture. His forces even withdraw if there is a risk of being attacked. However, this may be only a temporary phenomenon. Further splits within the movements are bound to result in internal fights. Commanders on the ground get disconnected from each other and from the leadership of their movement. During my recent visit to the Jebel Mara I was struck by the total distrust between commanders of SLA/Abdul Wahid and SLA/Minnie Minnawi, accusing each other to take sides with ‘enemies’, including even the Government. To us, having regular and intensive contacts with all of them, this seems preposterous, but rumors are easily believed in Darfur.

Third, the Government has benefited from this rather chaotic pattern in various ways. It has been able to bar rebel groups that did not sign the DPA, including those who had given up fighting, from participating in the DPA institutions, in particular the Cease Fire Commission (CFC). In this way the Sudanese Armed Forces, together with Arab militia, can continue to attack non-signatory parties, without risking that such a violation of the DPA will be raised in the CFC, let alone condemned and sanctioned. The Government has also made use of the general confusion by making secret overtures to some of these groups, irrespective of their stance. It is also trying to persuade prominent individual members of these groups, is it intellectuals or commanders, to associate themselves with the DPA through the Government. This provides these individuals with some status – and promises. However, the result is that these people get marginalized and are regarded as enemies by the movements to which they used to belong. All this adds to the chaotic pattern at the political front.

A series of initiatives to organize a conference in order to bring the various rebel movements together is the fourth phenomenon. The SLM/Abdul Shafei wing intends to organize such a conference in the Jebel Mara, in order to re-unite the SLM and to elect a new leadership. However, Abdul Wahid refuses to participate and Minnie Minnawi will not be invited. Some Western countries try to organize a similar conference, but only for non-signatories who have not taken up arms. Western countries were the first to label non-signatories as ‘outlaws’ that should be punished for their refusal to sign. They also insisted on the exclusion of these movements from the Cease Fire Commission. This attitude may turn out to be a handicap, but this can be overcome by diplomacy and guarantees. A greater handicap, however, will be an exclusion of the still fighting parties. These parties are the core of a third effort, this time made by the Government of Eritrea. Eritrea is trying to unite all movements behind the NRF. It aims at a central role in the next stage of the peace process, like it presently is playing in the negotiations, in Asmara, about East Sudan. To many parties as well as to the Government, this initiative lacks credibility.

These are the main initiatives. As said above, the Government is taking some initiatives itself. But these seem more oriented at a strengthening of its own position by means of a divide and rule policy than by the wish to have a strong and fully representative partner in negotiations that should lead to a sustainable solution, undisputed by a third party.

In my talks in with rebel leaders and with commanders in Darfur I have stressed that the UN can only associate itself with an initiative that is fully inclusive and wholly oriented towards peace. One might aim at talks and conferences in stages, but any deal from which parties are excluded would be flawed. Any exclusion of a movement is sowing the seeds for a renewed outbreak of violence. Any conference that has as its main objective to build a stronger warring coalition, in order to expand zones under control of the movements, will only result in wrecking the DPA. It may be necessary to make a new beginning with the peace talks, in order to renovate the peace agreement and instill confidence amongst the people of Darfur, but that cannot be done starting from a wreck.

It is important to keep what has been achieved, rather than throw away the child with the bathwater. The rebel movements seem to underestimate how far the DPA, if implemented, would restrict the Government of Sudan in a possible further abuse of its power. The agreed principles and institutions of the peace agreement would also provide a credible basis for a sustainable solution of the tribal conflicts in Darfur. These are still rampant. As a matter of fact they became more violent when the tribes discovered that DPA institutions like the Cease Fire Commission, the Darfur Darfur Dialogue and the reconstruction program were lame bodies. Since June this year most of the fighting in North Darfur and the Jebel Mara took place between the movements, the SAF and militia. In South Darfur, however, the fights were mainly of a tribal character. These too led to hundreds of people killed. Many serious efforts to reconcile the tribes with the help of traditional justice systems have been initiated by the Government of South Darfur. However, as long as there is not a sustainable peace at the political front, these reconciliations are not effective. The tribal conflicts are politically motivated and the political conflict has acquired tribal dimensions, in particular since the fragmentation of the rebel movements. Tribes try to settle their accounts or to finish a job, by putting to flight the last people of other tribes who are living in an area which they claim as their homeland. Rebel factions try to strengthen their weakened position on the ground by suppressing the population. The result is new tribal conflict, because the rebels and large parts of the population do belong to different tribes. All this has led to new tragedies in Gereida (where the mainly Zaghawa oriented SLM/Minnawi forces have clashed with parts of the Massaliet), in Buram.(where the Habanya, supported by the Falata, cleansed their homeland from the Zaghawa, which had come to this region in the 1970s, after the drought in North Darfur), in Sheria (where the Zaghawa had been driven out of the town and are still denied access, despite the peace between the Government and the Zaghawa based SLA/Minnie Minawi) and in Muhajeria, where the fighting continues and nobody knows who is fighting whom and for what reason.

During my last visit to South Darfur I saw some consequences: new displacements of people, desperate, because they did not know where their future lies; growing mistrust amongst the population in authorities, in rebel commanders as well as in the African Union. They feel totally unprotected. The Government in Khartoum seems to be blind for these developments. The standard reflex in Khartoum is to deny that a battle took place, to dismiss news about tribal clashes, to discredit the messenger, to belittle the number of casualties, to sketch a rosy picture of the implementation of the peace agreement, and to blame the international community for everything that goes wrong.

Muslim clerics reach out to Pope

Oct 13 2006 BBC report - excerpt:

An open letter to the Pope from 38 top Muslim clerics in various countries accepts his expressions of regret for his controversial speech on Islam.

But the lengthy letter carried on the website of Islamica magazine also points out "errors" and "mistakes" in the Pope's speech.

The clerics' letter is due to be passed to the Vatican on Sunday.

Pope Benedict sparked an uproar in September by quoting a mediaeval text which linked Islam to violence.

Strange how Muslims can find it within themselves to get up in the air about old writings but say very little about their brothers' perishing in Darfur.

AU launches Darfur dialogue to revive moribund peace deal

At long last, news of Darfur-Darfur Conference. AFP report via ST Oct 13 2006:

Hundreds of officials, rebel and tribal leaders and foreign mediators will meet in Sudan's war torn Darfur in an effort to improve an ailing peace agreement signed earlier this year, the African Union announced Thursday.

No date was set for the so-called "Darfur-Darfur Conference" but the fresh dialogue attempt comes amid huge international pressure on Khartoum to accept peacekeepers in the western region and fears of worsening humanitarian crisis.

"As far as the African Union is concerned we are not going to reopen the DPA (Darfur Peace Agreement) but we are going to see how to enhance it," AU political negotiator Sam Ibok told reporters.

In May, the Sudanese government and the largest Darfur rebel faction signed a peace agreement. But the AU-brokered deal was rejected by other rebel groups and it has failed to make an impact on the ground.

The idea of a wide reconciliation conference had been floated a year before the peace agreement was signed.

"The outcome, the recommendations of the conference will of course have a moral weight, they will not be legally binding, but then they would have the force of reflecting the views of the people in Darfur," said rebel representative Ali Hussein Dossa.

Ibok said the dialogue would look into issues which participants feel are not addressed in the Darfur peace agreements.

The question of how to disarm the pro-government Janjaweed militia, as requested by the peace deal, is expected to top the agenda, he said.

At least 200,000 people have died as a result of fighting, famine and disease, and more than two million have fled their homes in Darfur since the conflict erupted between local rebels and pro-government militia.

A report by the International Crisis Group think tank released Thursday said that international diplomacy had failed to solve the crisis and argued tough sanctions should be imposed on President Omar al-Beshir's regime.

Chris DeWolfe, CEO of MySpace announced that it is sponsoring "Rock for Darfur"

Via arabesquespress Oct 13 2006:

The networking site MySpace announced that it is sponsoring "Rock for Darfur," a fundraising project including concerts across the United States. At least 20 concerts are scheduled on Oct.21.

MySpace also plans a public service commercial featuring Samuel L.Jackson to be shown in movie theaters in October and has created a "Rock for Darfur" page on its site with video footage from George Clooney's trip to Darfur and footage from an upcoming documentary, "The Devil Came on Horseback."

"The crisis in Darfur is a global concern and as a global community we have a responsibility to take action," said Chris DeWolfe, CEO of MySpace

"MySpace's reach gives us an extraordinary opportunity to spread the word and empower individuals to help address the horrors in Darfur."

Eastern Sudan rebels obtain post of presidential assistant

In a statement released in Asmara, which has been hosting and mediating the negotiations, Eritrea's foreign ministry said the pact between Khartoum and the Eastern Front rebels would be inked on Saturday. - ST 11 Oct 2006.

France, Germany urge UN Forces deployment in Darfur

France and Germany Thursday urged the international community to focus more attention on the conflict in Darfur and to press the government to accept UN peacekeepers. - ST/AP 12 Oct 2006.

Egypt, Libya discuss Sudan's Darfur crisis

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit discussed Wednesday with Ali al-Treiki, head of African affairs department at the Libyan foreign ministry, on Sudan's Darfur crisis. ST 12 Oct 2006.

UN's Malloch Brown says world must act quickly on Darfur

Oct 12 2006 Irish Examiner report:

A senior United Nations official today said the Sudanese government had been able to reject the proposed deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur because the US and Britain had not done enough to sell the idea to countries around the world.

Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown credited US president George Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair for the lead role they have taken in highlighting the suffering in Darfur.

However, he gave them low marks in their efforts to persuade countries to pressure Sudan's President Omar el-Bashir to accept UN peacekeepers.

Speaking to a gathering at the Brookings Institution, Malloch Brown said pressure must be applied to African and Asian nations to convince el-Bashir to change course. He said the world must act quickly lest the grave situation in Darfur deteriorates further.

"We fear the worst because of the massive amount of Sudanese armament in the area," Malloch Brown said.

The United Nations wants to deploy 20,000 troops and police in Darfur, but el-Bashir has been inflexibly opposed.

Sudanese national anthem: the call to arms

Sudanese blogger Black Kush thinks Sudan's national anthem shows how much the Sudanese love to fight each other. Excerpt from Sudanese national anthem: the call to arms:

ARABIC LYRICS

Nahnu Djundullah Djundulwatan.
In Da A Da Il Fida Lam Nakhun.
Natahaddal Maut Endalmihan.
Nashta Ril Madjd Bi Aghlathaman.
Hathihil Ard Lana! Falyaish Sudanuna,
Alaman Bayn Al Umam.
Ya Benissudan, Hatharamzukum;
Yah Miluleb, Wa Yahmi Ardakum.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

We are the army of God and of our land,
We shall never fail when called to sacrifice.
Whether braving death, hardship or pain,
We give our lives as the price of glory.
May this Our land, Sudan, live long,
Showing all nations the way.
Sons of the Sudan, summoned now to serve,
Shoulder the task of preserving our country.

Sounds like they are their own worst enemies.

'Genocide' developing in Darfur - Nigeria's Obasanjo

African politics in action. The African Union's chairman announced to the press today that genocide is developing in Darfur and AMIS must be handed to the UN but retain its African character. Maybe this news will enable more African leaders to offer African peacekeepers for AMIS - or better still, the "African Union Plus" (= AU mission in Darfur + UN support). See Oct 10 2006 ST - 'Genocide' developing in Darfur - Nigeria's Obasanjo - excerpt:

Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo urged Sudan Tuesday to accept a UN role in its troubled western Darfur region, where he said "genocide" was developing and African peacekeepers are overwhelmed.

In some of the strongest comments by an African leader to date about the situation in Darfur, Obasanjo said the African Union mission must be handed over to the United Nations but retain its African character.

"It is not in the interest of Sudan, nor in the interest of Africa nor indeed in the interest of the world for us all to stand by and see genocide being developed in Darfur," he told diplomats and AU officials at the pan-African body's headquarters here.

Note the report tells us, the US and some relief agencies characterized Darfur as "genocide" in the past, but Obasanjo is believed to be the first African leader to use the word.

Amnesty International's new report

Andreas Kiaby of The Oslo Blog commented here at Sudan Watch, saying ...
Speaking of new reports, amnesty just released a report which can be found here; http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR540552006

Thanks Andreas! Sorry the link appears to lead nowhere. If I can find the report, I'll insert correct URL later on.

Wireless internet tower at AMIS HQ Darfur, W Sudan

See photo and caption at Soldier of Africa: Wireless.

The Right Time To Declare Victory (Drima)

Another gem by Drima The Sudanese Thinker (from The Right Time To Declare Victory):

The day every Sudanese regardless of color or religion has an opportunity to live in peace, get a decent education, a decent healthcare, is well-fed, has access to clean drinking water, has a decent shelter and last but most certainly not least has self-worth is the day I shall proudly stand up and declare victory. For a country with huge amounts of natural resources and with a population of only about 30 million, it's easily achievable. All we desperately need is responsible leadership and a change of the "blame it all on the Joooz" attitude. I hope the progressive recovery takes place in my lifetime because I sincerely wish to be a part of it.

Good luck with your exams Drima! Surely the UN could find a seat for you!

Why Egypt Won't Press Sudan: the Nile

News reports re water in Sudan ought to be regarded as important. See blog entry 8 Oct 2006 by Drima The Sudanese Thinker titled Why Egypt Won't Press Sudan: the Nile.

DARFUR Dying For Heroes - Myspace is organising 20 concerts for Sudan

See links at The Sudanese Thinker: Americans Increasingly Concerned about Darfur.

UN OHCHR Report - Darfur: Hundreds Killed in August Attacks

Not yet had a chance to read this - via Coalition for Darfur 9 Oct 2006:

Darfur: OHCHR Report.

And this [from Reuters via CFD] Darfur: Hundreds Killed in August Attacks.

Sudan accepts to compensate Darfur IDPs - AU official

Here's an interesting development. How else to breathe life into a truce and get civilians onside with Darfur's peace agreement? News of money travels fast. Holdout insurgents refusing Darfur's peace deal, insisted on certain sums of money per displaced person. Surely if compensation could be agreed, they could get behind a ceasefire agreement and hammer out details later, using non violent means? Shan't hold my breath. Darfur's so called "rebels" are greedy thugs who use women and children as cannon fodder. Give them them an inch and they take a mile. Next thing they'll insist on will be from a long list of other stuff they want before agreeing to disarm. I favour non-violent conflict resolution but think these guys deserve a slap on the head. But if money talks and saves even one child, so be it. Bring it on, enough money has been wasted on this war.

Oct 10 2006 Sudan Tribune news article [author unknown, unsourced] from Khartoum, Sudan - excerpt:

The African Union announced that Sudan accepted the individual compensation for the affected people in Darfur, saying this would help to convince the holdout rebel groups to join the peace deal.

Chairman of the African Mission in Sudan and head of Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) implementation team Ambassador Sam Ibok has affirmed that the African Union is endeavouring to convince rebel groups that did not sign DPA to join the DPA.

He indicated in a statement to the official SUNA that the government's readiness to compensate the affected people. The question of the individual compensation is one of the majors' demands of the rebel groups.

Actually, the Darfur displaced persons have lost any thing during the Janjaweed militias attacks against their villages. When official speak about peace to them, the IDPs say what peace it is. We are still under militia attacks and we have no money to rebuild our home or cultivate our land.

Ibok said there are consultations between the government and some African countries to contribute to resolving Darfur crisis, pointing out that heads of state of some African countries will arrive in Sudan in the coming days.

The presidents of Senegal, Nigeria and Gabon are to travel to Khartoum "shortly" for talks with their Sudanese counterpart Omar el-Bashir about ending the crisis in Sudan's western Darfur region, the Senegalese foreign ministry said Saturday.

He said the expected visit of an AU envoy to Khartoum in the coming days comes in the framework of the continuous consultations between the government and the AU to remove impediments affecting implementation of the DPA.

Ibok further said that the UN Secretary General and the Chairman of the AU have presented proposals to President Al-Bashir to support the AU in logistic fields, explaining that UN experts would arrive in Sudan in this context.

The AU official pointed out that Sudan's al-Bashir welcomed during meetings with his counterparts during the recent UN General Assembly session in New York any efforts aiming to boosting the African Union mission.

S Korean proposed as new UN chief

Ban Ki-moon could be the first Asian UN chief since 1971, BBC reported today:

South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon has been nominated by the UN Security Council as the successor to Secretary General Kofi Annan.
The General Assembly is now expected to endorse the choice in a vote likely to take place later this week.

Mr Annan is due to step down on 31 December after heading the UN for two five-year terms.

UK Blair wants to lead a "coalition of the willing" ready to step into Darfur

Oct 8 2006 Scotland on Sunday - UK Blair insists for Sudan troops plan despite militarys reluctance [via ST] by Brian Brady:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has astonished defence chiefs by ordering them to draw up plans to send hundreds of troops to strife-torn Sudan despite Britain's huge military commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Prime Minister has signalled his intention to back up his demands for international intervention to prevent "genocide" in Darfur by sending a large British force to help protect the black African population.

The proposal for at least 1,000 troops to play a core role in an international protection force has been under consideration by military planners for several months, although senior officers have repeatedly expressed their doubts about such a force's effectiveness.

But Blair is continuing to press for the move as a gesture of intent, particularly amid the continuing failure of the international community to agree on a multi-national force - and the Sudanese government's refusal to accept any intervention.

The proposed extension of Britain's military commitment overseas comes as the Prime Minister pledged that British forces in Afghanistan will be provided with whatever resources they need.

Addressing military personnel on the fifth anniversary of operations in the country, he promised "every support and every protection", including more armoured vehicles and more helicopters.

Scotland on Sunday understands that the proposal to send a non-combat force to Darfur was first investigated - at Blair’s insistence - at the military’s planning headquarters at Northwood earlier this year, when John Reid was defence secretary.

But the Prime Minister has maintained his interest in the issue, which he singled out during his Labour conference speech as a priority for action.

"What is happening now in the Sudan cannot stand," he told delegates last month. "If this were in the continent of Europe we'd act."

A senior military source last night said the military option was a "very real prospect", as Blair attempts to force the hands of the European Union and the United Nations.

He added: "This has been on the boards at Northwood for several months. The planners have told the prime minister that Britain cannot spare the troops easily, but he is committed to it.

"He has come back to it now. I think he would prefer this to happen as we draw down our forces elsewhere, especially Iraq, but he wants to do it anyway."

The conflict began in early 2003 when two new rebel groups began attacking government targets in Darfur.

Other nations, including Britain and the United States, claim Sudan's military is helping carry out a genocidal war against Darfur's black African residents. The Khartoum government denies the charge or backing the Arab Janjaweed militias, which are accused of attacking villages, killing, raping and looting.

Some 200,000 people have died and two million people have fled their homes as the crisis has escalated over the past three years. A number of aid workers have also been killed while attempting to bring relief to the oppressed people of Darfur. The UK is the second largest donor in Darfur, providing more than £96m in aid since the conflict began. The funds have been channelled into providing shelter, food, water and basic health care for Darfur's citizens, through UN agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The Department for International Development has committed a further £67m towards humanitarian relief in Sudan in the next year.

The political and military crisis has worsened in recent days, as the Sudanese government has resisted UN plans for a 20,000-strong peacekeeping force to stop the conflict in Darfur, claiming it would be a cover for an invasion by Western countries. A 7,000-strong African Union force has failed to end the conflict.

In a report to the UN last week, Secretary General Kofi Annan said humanitarian access to Darfur was at its lowest level since 2004, and that a peace deal agreed in May had had little effect.

"Instead of reconciliation and building of trust, we are witnessing intensified violence and deeper polarisation," he warned. "The region is again on the brink of a catastrophic situation."

Although the UK has deployed around 5,600 service personnel to Afghanistan, and still has some 8,000 in Iraq, Blair wants to lead a "coalition of the willing" ready to step into Darfur, to present the UN and the Khartoum government with a fait accompli.

Tory leader David Cameron made clear his own hopes for an end to the impasse during his Conservative conference speech last week, when he told delegates: "I support humanitarian intervention."

However, an Opposition spokesman last night warned that the government should "think long and hard before committing more of our forces to another expedition overseas"

Eyewitness account: What I saw in Darfur (by Paul Salopek)

The following excerpts, from excellent commentary by Paul Salopek (copied here below) echo some of what I've pointed out here many times before:

"...negotiators on the ground [in Sudan] worry that a well-intentioned human-rights campaign, launched by Western activists on behalf of Darfur's civilians, may actually be locking in the violence."

Also:

"...Insurgents I interviewed on the Chad border had little vision for the future of their people. Some resembled warlords from such dismal places as eastern [DR] Congo: sleek businessmen of war using children as cannon fodder."

Note, Paul tells us:

"... our dusty little party was driven off in an SUV with tinted windows and a Sudanese Humanitarian Affairs Ministry logo emblazoned on the doors."

I wonder if the logo says SHAM or HAM. Pity no photo.

Jailed for 34 days, Tribune reporter writes: What I saw in Darfur (by Paul Salopek) - Oct 8 2006 AP report - via Guardian via POTP:

One cloudless Sunday morning in early August, while traveling on a desert road in the remote Darfur region of western Sudan, a teenager sporting dreadlocks and an AK-47 rifle stopped my vehicle. My translator, Suleiman Abakar Moussa, stepped out and offered the youth a cigarette -- standard etiquette in African war zones. But Moussa immediately returned to the car, frowning.

In this incidental way, I learned that we had just lost our freedom.

The young gunman belonged to a pro-government militia. And his patrol, after beating us and stealing our car and equipment, handed us over to Sudanese military intelligence. Moussa, my driver, Idriss Abdulrahman Anu, and I spent the next 34 days behind bars in Darfur, ending up hostage to a regime accused of mass murder. The government in Khartoum charged us with espionage, spreading "false news" and entering Africa's latest killing field without a visa.

It was hard not to feel, however, that our real crime was unspoken: reporting on a humanitarian catastrophe that is largely invisible to the outside world, and that is poised to grow worse in the weeks ahead.

Thousands of villagers will likely die soon in Darfur, the arid homeland of millions of farmers and herders who have been targeted in a ruthless civil war that some call genocide. Their torched huts, seen from the air, look like cigarette burns on a torture victim's skin.

Currently, a peace deal between the government and a major insurgent group is coming unglued. With the advent of the dry season, the Sudanese army and the fractious Darfur rebels are primed for a new military showdown. And, paradoxically, negotiators on the ground worry that a well-intentioned human-rights campaign, launched by Western activists on behalf of Darfur's civilians, may actually be locking in the violence. With Khartoum tarred as the bully, there is scant hope for any last-minute dialogue before the offensives begin.

Ironically, I wasn't focused exclusively on the Darfur tragedy when I crossed the desolate border separating Sudan and Chad on Aug. 6.

My Chadian colleagues and I were working on a much broader freelance assignment for National Geographic on the Sahel, the immense and turbulent band of savanna that runs across northern Africa, home to some 90 million struggling people.

Darfur was a side trip. Other journalists and aid workers had described how some Darfur refugees in Chad were drifting back to their ruined villages to rebuild their homes. It seemed a rare chance to profile civilians clinging to life in an intractable war zone. With our arrest, we unwittingly became part of that survival story.

For years, foreign correspondents have covered the Darfur crisis by slipping into rebel-held territory from Chad. Sudanese officials in Khartoum are stingy with journalist visas. Thus, much of what the world knows about a conflict that has killed at least 200,000 people comes from quick reportorial forays into the beautiful, lawless, corrugated plains and rocky escarpments controlled by Darfur's half-starved rebels.

Unfortunately for us, those insurgents can no longer be relied upon to guarantee our safety.

Fluid loyalties

A cease-fire accord signed in May, brokered partly by the U.S., has shattered the rebel movement into dozens of small, competing bands. Loyalties are fluid. Confusion and treachery are common. Case in point: We were captured by a unit answering to Minni Minnawi, a pro-peace former rebel who only two weeks earlier had shaken President Bush's hand in the White House.

Minnawi's field commander along the northern border, a skinny, rakish guerrilla named Ibrahim Garsil, initially threatened to kill us. Luckily, his demoralized, war-weary men disregarded those orders. Instead they deserted by twos and threes every night, leaving their rifles propped against the nearest thorn tree. Others got drunk on date wine gulped from old automotive antifreeze jugs. Still others went on impromptu safaris with my stolen vehicle, taking potshots out the windows at wild cranes and storks. (They missed.) After holding us in lice-infested huts for three days, Garsil traded us to the Sudanese army for a large box of new uniforms.

Our Sudanese military helicopter ride to the garrison town of El Fasher offered a rare glimpse into Darfur's secretive air war, in which government pilots are accused by groups such as Human Rights Watch of strafing and bombing civilian villages. Only this time, the tables were turned.

Our chopper took ground fire over the contested town of Kutum. Bullets pinged through the passenger compartment. With my hands tied behind my back, I felt doubly helpless. A spent round knocked a Sudanese officer out of the seat opposite me. He clawed at his back, feeling for blood, and guffawed with relief when he discovered he was only bruised.

Off to the 'ghost house'

After wobbling to a hard landing on the airfield at El Fasher, our dusty little party was driven off in an SUV with tinted windows and a Sudanese Humanitarian Affairs Ministry logo emblazoned on the doors. Our destination was a "ghost house," one of Sudan's notorious clandestine jails. For the next 10 days we were held incommunicado and interrogated. I spent my time in solitary confinement, in a barren room with a cot and a permanently buzzing fluorescent light. During my five-minute morning walks around the perimeter of a sandy courtyard, I managed to fling several distress notes scribbled on cigarette paper over the high wall. These ridiculous calls for help may have bounced off the heads of government soldiers; I learned later that our prison was in the middle of a large army base.

Obviously, Moussa, Anu and I saw little of Darfur: a succession of pestilential huts, mud-brick prison cells and interrogation rooms.

Still, we kept our ears and eyes open while inside the belly of the very security agencies that were helping prosecute the government's war in Darfur. And our keyhole view of the conflict offered some bleak insights into the future:

Vastly oversimplified as a good-versus-evil contest between African farmers and rampaging Arab herdsmen armed by Khartoum, the complicated struggle in Darfur is about to get a lot murkier -- and more unstoppable. Once loosely united by the neglect and cruelty of the central government, the region's squabbling rebels now maul each other. They are a messy obstacle to peace. Many have devolved into ethnic militias, or worse, simple bandits. Insurgents I interviewed on the Chad border had little vision for the future of their people. Some resembled warlords from such dismal places as eastern [DR] Congo: sleek businessmen of war using children as cannon fodder.

Flouting the peace deal, the Sudanese government has unleashed an offensive that is supposed to crush the remaining rebels. Whispered conversations with our jailers confirmed that, so far, it has failed miserably. Khartoum reportedly lost dozens of vehicles and hundreds of soldiers. That said, troop planes roared nightly over our prison in El Fasher. Military activity is set to escalate when the battlefields dry after the rains. Even our pudgy guards were being mobilized.

An African Union peacekeeping force can't stanch the bloodshed in Darfur, despite a promised addition of 4,000 troops. Sources as varied as Sudanese military officers, rebels, refugees and even frustrated AU officials themselves said the ill-equipped force remains outgunned and overwhelmed. Moreover, their credibility as an honest broker is in tatters. A typically depressing incident overheard in prison: In August, pro-government raiders called janjaweed attacked women and children gathering wood within sight of an AU firebase in southern Darfur. Several women were shot down. I was told that the AU contingent of Nigerian soldiers didn't lift a finger. Only when infuriated villagers surrounded the peacekeepers' base, chanting and waving sticks, did the AU at last react--dispersing the civilians with armored personnel carriers.

"Abuja? What is Abuja?" a slender woman named Fatim Yousif Zaite, 40, asked in a destroyed village where I was briefly held by the ragged militia, early in my ordeal.

Abuja is the popular name for the Darfur peace accord, signed in the Nigerian capital of the same name. Zaite had never heard of it.

She wore a yellow wrap and a luminous smile, and she was planting a small plot of sorghum in fields that, by her estimate, had been cratered nine times by government bombers since the outbreak of the war in 2003. Five of her relatives had been killed in the war. Standing in the field, she kept gently pulling her 3-year-old daughter's hand away from a small bucket of seed grain. The girl was hungry. She was eating the seeds.

A fruitless hunger strike

I knew hunger briefly in prison in Darfur.

For seven days I refused food in the ghost house in El Fasher. I was protesting my separation from Moussa and Anu, and our secret incarceration. This was the only weapon I could muster. But the bored duty officers simply shrugged, mentioning Guantanamo, the U.S. military base in Cuba, where several Sudanese are being held as terror suspects. Disheartened, I resumed eating on the eighth day.

I believe that our arrest in Sudan was a billboard-size warning to foreign journalists: Khartoum is fed up with the drumbeat of negative news emanating from Darfur.

Yet moderates within the regime must have ultimately prevailed in our case. For on Aug. 19, we three scruffy "spies" were transferred to a civilian jail. We still faced a penalty of 20 years in prison. But now we enjoyed access to Sudanese attorneys. Better yet, Moussa, Anu and I were reunited, albeit sometimes with 16 other men--pickpockets, con men, gun runners--in a 15-by-15-foot cell. We were delirious with relief. I traded my wristwatch for a cell phone call to my wife. Our police guards acted like human beings.

Six days later, the U.S. vice consul in Sudan and several American military advisers to the AU negotiated even better conditions for us at a courthouse jail. There, the affable judge who was to try us as enemies of the state bought us sickly sweet mint tea. By the end, I even was playing chess with the jailer who administered 40 lashes to town drunks under Shariah, the religious laws enforced under conservative Islam. The whip-man's name was Salah. To him the beatings were a job. At night he studied microbiology.

On Sept. 9 we were pardoned by President Omar al-Bashir, thanks to the humanitarian intercession of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and the Herculean efforts of the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum. Worldwide pressure from the journalistic community, in particular our tireless colleagues at the Chicago Tribune and National Geographic, gave us heart. So did letters of support from public figures as diverse as Bono and former President Jimmy Carter.

Yet for the hapless people of Darfur, there appears to be no such happy ending.

Reacting to public outcry, the Bush administration has classified Darfur's almost incomprehensible suffering as genocide. The White House is pushing hard for a UN force of 20,000 police and soldiers to replace the weak African Union peacekeepers. And Sudan is resisting bitterly. On Thursday, Khartoum sent threatening letters to nations promising troops to a UN force.

In truth, there are no guarantees that even a powerful UN force will do much better than the AU in Darfur.

The violent badlands of western Sudan are larger than Texas. And the proliferating gangs of rebels and pro-government militias, whether steered by Khartoum or renegade commanders, recall the nightmare of Bosnia. There, blue-helmeted UN troops hunkered down and performed abysmally.

Roots of discord run deep

Meanwhile, the ancient roots of Darfur's feuding will remain: racism between ethnic Arabs and Africans, and competition for threadbare natural resources--water and pastureland.

"A political settlement has been completely overlooked or downplayed by the U.S.," insists Alex de Waal, co-author of the book "Darfur: A Short History of a Long War." "The whole debate has gone off on a red herring--UN troops. From experience, we know that, ultimately, there is no real military solution to these kinds of complicated ethnic wars."

Yet relations between the West and Sudan are now so polarized that negotiating a new peace accord before the killing flares anew seems like a pipe dream.

During my last night in the ghost house in El Fasher, I endured my longest interrogation at the hands of an army colonel named Abdallah. He grilled me for nearly six hours, bludgeoning me robotically with accusations of espionage, absurd charges that I knew even he didn't believe. At 1 a.m. he finally played the good cop, and asked if I had any questions of my own. I did. I wanted to know the fate of Darfur.

"More war," he said without hesitation. He stared hard down at his desk.

After days of lies and mind games, these were the first honest words that escaped his lips.

psalopek@tribune.com

Chapter Eight - Jonathan Steele: Be honest: the west isn't sending troops to Darfur

Here's some excellent must-read commentary to leave at the top of this page during a short intermission. Bye for now. Back soon.

"Bush and Blair are raising false hopes among rebels and refugees, at the same time as blocking the best mechanism for peace," writes Jonathan Steele in Darfur, Oct 6, 2006, The Guardian. Copy in full:

A cruel hoax is being perpetrated on the desperate people of Darfur. With their constant demands for UN troops to go to Sudan's western region as the only way to protect civilians, George Bush and Tony Blair are raising hopes in a grossly irresponsible way. When reality dawns and new despair takes over, Washington and London will have to take the blame.

It is not just that the Khartoum government rejects the idea of UN troops. More important, Bush and Blair know that, even if Khartoum were to back down, they will not be sending US or British troops to replace the African Union (AU) force. Nor will other European governments. Why does this matter? Because hundreds of thousands of displaced villagers who sit in miserable camps across Darfur are under the impression that European soldiers will soon be riding over the hill to save them.

After spending hours talking to homeless families and their community leaders, I can report that the demand for the UN to send troops to Darfur is overwhelming. The Arab-dominated government in Khartoum has orchestrated demonstrations in the capital denouncing US and UK interventionism, and warning of "another Iraq". The Arab press hammers the same theme, which may well resonate among its readers.

In Darfur's camps, however, the mood is different. It explains why Jose Manuel Barroso, the European commission president on a trip here on Sunday, was not allowed to make the usual camp tour. No reason was given, but EU officials said they were sure it was to prevent him hearing pleas for a UN force.

If UN troops are sent here, where do you think they will come from, I asked everyone I met. "British, American, all the European countries," said Abdullah Hassan Karamidin, an elderly imam in a white knitted cap who sat with six other men in a clearing between their miserable homes in the Abu Shouk camp at El Fasher. What if the UN troops turned out to be from India, Bangladesh, or Turkey? "No, they can't solve our problem. They're like Arabs. Arabs can't protect us," the imam replied, while the others nodded in agreement.

In Zamzam camp, south of El Fasher, I came across four guerrilla fighters, unarmed but wearing trademark white scarves wrapped into their turbans. Two were festooned with small leather pouches, each carrying a verse from the Qur'an. The amulets they were wearing protected them from bullets, they said. The fighters belonged to a faction that signed a peace deal with the government in May, which allows them to protect the camp. They and most of the camp's inmates are from the Zaghawa tribe.

The rebels are known to fellow-Africans as "Tora Bora". My translator laughed at my surprise. "They don't like the phrase mujahideen because they are Muslims, not Islamists. But they know Tora Bora is a place of caves in Afghanistan where the Americans hunted local fighters and couldn't find them, just as the government here couldn't do."

One of the ex-rebels said: "The African Union troops only go along the main roads. If there's an incident, they do nothing except write it down. They're useless." Asked where the UN would get its troops from, he said: "Why not British or American?" His friend was one of the few people I found who was willing to have troops from India, Bangladesh or Turkey, "as long as they can protect people. If that's the case, we have no problem".

A group of community leaders sat under a tree. "We're in need, and we want UN troops," said Sheikh Ali Ishag Hamid. "They should come here even if the government refuses. The government cannot confront the UN." Where would the UN get its troops from? "Britain, America, Nato." And if they were from Asia? "We will only welcome Europeans," he insisted.

Bush and Blair should get the message. Unless they deliberately intend to disappoint Darfurians, it is time for honesty in place of grandstanding. Let's have some constructive nimbyism. Next time they thunder on about the need for UN troops, they should add the qualifier: "Of course, we won't be sending our own soldiers. Other countries will have to send theirs." The two leaders should also start looking for a compromise. Both sides have backed themselves into a corner. Sudan refuses to have a UN force. Washington insists there is no alternative. With three months until the AU force's mandate expires, common sense requires that this interval be used to negotiate a solution.

The first principle should be a security council commitment to extend the AU mandate indefinitely, until it is safe for the displaced to go home. Last month's brinkmanship, when it looked as if the AU would withdraw, leaving a security void, must not be repeated in December. The threat of a pullout creates new fears for traumatised people.

The second principle should be that the AU's contingents are transformed into a robust force from the demoralised units that have not been paid for the past two months. Western governments must fund more AU troops and better equipment, particularly helicopters and surveillance technology. At the moment the AU reacts slowly, if at all.

Darfur was hardly heard of when the UN's founding fathers drew up its charter in 1945. Unwittingly, they wrote seven paragraphs that offer the best mechanism for bridging the gap between Washington's and Khartoum's intransigence. Known as chapter eight, these allow the UN to subcontract peacekeeping to a regional organisation. Instead of the current wrangling over UN troops, why not let the UN give the AU a mandate for Darfur, while requesting that rich member governments, either western or Arab, fund a stronger AU-led force?

In Kosovo and Afghanistan, Nato took charge in a similar way, though under a different chapter and without the request that non-Nato members chip in. Nato, after all, is richer than the AU.

At the UN, senior officials are aware of chapter eight. Jan Pronk, the secretary general's special representative in Sudan, mentioned it in New York a fortnight ago. Sudanese leaders have hinted they would accept it. Shamefully, however, Washington and London are trying to suppress the idea. They reject any suggestion that UN resolution 1706 (which called for UN troops) might be superseded. It would let Khartoum off the hook, they say. But the real people on the hook are Darfur's 2 million displaced. They need quick international agreement on better protection, rather than the mischievous illusion that western troops are on the way.

Hawkish call to arms ignores realities of Darfur

Here is a copy of a letter by Dave Markland in Vancouver, Canada, published in the Letters section at Straight.com 5 Oct 2006:

Hawkish call to arms ignores realities of Darfur

In July 2004, the report of the UN's International Commission of Inquiry into Darfur concluded that "the Government of Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide." Instead, horrific attacks by government forces and the Janjaweed are "primarily for purposes of counter-insurgency warfare". Yet nowhere in his piece does Terry Glavin mention the three-year-old rebellion that forms the context for the extreme abuses of human rights being committed in Darfur. While he spares no ink in expressing his desire that Canada "take action" and send a "robust" armed force, Glavin sadly exhausts no effort to deepen his readers' understanding.

For those of us who do wish to educate ourselves about the conflict, an obvious place to start is the leading authority on Sudan, Alex de Waal.

A long-time human-rights advocate, prolific author, and a mediator in this year's multilateral peace talks, de Waal has been unambiguous in his recent comments on the crisis: "The idea of foreign troops fighting their way into Darfur and disarming the Janjaweed militia by force is sheer fantasy," he wrote in the Guardian on September 29. Further, the actions of UN forces operating without the consent of both the Sudanese government and rebel groups would "make the plight of Darfurians even worse". He concludes: "Finding a solution hinges on a sober assessment of what is practical, not on making Darfur a guinea pig for 'the duty to protect' or a test case for a new global moral consciousness."

USA calls emergency Security Council meeting over Sudan letter

Oct 5 2006 AP report via USA Today [via CFD]

The United States demanded an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Thursday over a letter in which Sudan's government said it would view any troop commitments to a future peacekeeping force in Darfur as a "hostile act" and a "prelude to an invasion," a U.S. official said.

In the unsigned letter, dated Oct. 3, Sudan reiterated that it rejects a Security Council resolution passed in August that would seek to give the U.N. authority over an African Union peacekeeping mission that has been unable to stem the violence in Darfur.

The letter was sent to several U.N. missions, including those of New Zealand and Japan, and refers to a note sent by the U.N. asking nations to nominate police personnel for an unspecified force.

"In the absence of Sudan's consent to the deployment of U.N. troops, any volunteering to provide peacekeeping troops to Darfur will be considered as a hostile act, a prelude to an invasion of a member country of the U.N.," the Sudanese letter said.

U.S. mission spokesman Richard Grenell said the United States wants the Security Council to discuss the letter and approve a statement addressing it.

"We've called for an emergency Security Council meeting at 11:30 to discuss the latest Sudanese obstruction of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur," Grenell said.

The letter did, however, repeat previous Sudanese claims that the government would allow the U.N. to help support the African Union peacekeepers. That was reiterated out of Khartoum on Thursday, when the official Sudan News Agency reported that al-Bashir had sent U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan a message welcoming the assistance.

He said that help would enable the AU force to "carry out its most recent mission and duties," the agency reported.

"Cooperation and consultations between the United Nations, the African Union and the Government of National Unity would speed up finding a solution to the question (of Darfur) and help instill a permanent peace in Sudan," al-Bashir said in his message, according to the news agency report.

But a UN spokeswoman said the provision of funds and logistics did not mean the world body was backing off from its plan to put the Darfur mission under UN control.

Radhia Achouri, spokeswoman for the U.N. in Sudan, said the aid offer "is not to be seen as an alternative to a UN deployment" in Darfur.

Head of UN Peacekeeping shuns sending troops without gov't OK

Oct 4 2006 AP report [via Easy Bourse via CFD] excerpt:

The top U.N. peacekeeping official on Wednesday rejected the notion that the U.N. could deploy troops to Sudan's war-wracked Darfur region without a firm political agreement between rebels and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir's government.

Jean-Marie Guehenno, the undersecretary-general for peacekeeping, said sending international troops to try to stop the continued violence in Darfur - which the U.S. has labeled a genocide - would go well beyond what peacekeepers are supposed to do.
"When you try to apply peacekeeping to any kind of situation and confuse peacekeeping with peace enforcement, you run very quickly into great difficulties," Guehenno said.

[edit]

Guehenno said he believed there was no military solution to the Darfur conflict, suggesting that the international community ought not look to the U.N. "blue helmets" if it wants foreign troops to be the ones who impose peace in Darfur.

He said Darfur was too big at about 200,000 square miles to be policed by a U.N. force unless the force was huge. The current African Union force is about 7,000 strong, while the U.N. force that would take over is pegged at 22,000 troops.

"Anybody who tells me that a half million square kilometers can be policed, that law and order can be imposed by an outside force ... I think is wrong," Guehenno said. "We know from experience that that is not the case."