UN News Service (New York) October 21, 2004 - Posted to the web October 22, 2004 http://allafrica.com/stories/200410220032.html
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today hailed the African Union's decision to send an expanded force of troops and police with a broad mandate to protect monitors, aid workers and civilians in the conflict in western Sudan and he called on countries to contribute urgently and generously to the AU as it prepares to deploy.
The AU Peace and Security Council announced yesterday that it would increase its observer mission of 465 to a full peacekeeping force that would include 2,341 military personnel, among them 450 observers, and up to 815 civilian personnel.
Mr. Annan told journalists that he learned from the AU Commission Chairman, currently Alpha Oumar Konare, that "in addition to monitoring the ceasefire, they are supposed to help create an environment that would be conducive to delivery of humanitarian assistance and the return of displaced persons to their homes. And that they also have a mandate to protect civilians in the immediate vicinity, if they are in threat."
He added that he hoped that they would proceed quickly and that, meanwhile, pressure must be maintained on the Sudanese Government and the rebels to honour their commitments. Mr. Konare had said the AU would work towards a breakthrough in the talks between the Sudanese Government and rebel delegates that started today in the Nigerian capital, Abuja.
Through a spokesperson, Mr. Annan also said the planned AU deployment "requires complex and massive planning and logistical support."
"The Secretary-General considers it essential that the African Union receive the urgent, adequate and continuing support of the international community, not only to quickly deploy but also to sustain effectively its mission," the statement said.
"The UN will continue to offer the AU whatever assistance it can. The Secretary-General urges all Member States with capacity urgently and generously to provide the required support."
In Abuja, the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Sudan, Jan Pronk, began meetings with representatives of the Sudanese Government, and the Darfur rebel groups - the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).
Mr. Pronk, too, welcomed the AU Council's decision to expand the size and mandate of its force, taking into account recommendations made by the UN.
"The AU has done its part. It's time now for the others to do theirs: the countries that are in a position to provide the required assistance to the AU must do it without delay, and the Government and the other parties to the Darfur conflict must extend full cooperation with the African Mission," he said.
"Time is of the essence. Any effort must be exerted to ensure the speedy deployment of the Mission."
Friday, October 22, 2004
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Canada helps African Union improve security in Darfur
Copy of October 21, 2004 news report http://www.news.gc.ca/cfmx/CCP/view/en/index.cfm?articleid=103899
The Government of Canada today announced that it will provide approximately $2 million for five chartered helicopters to assist the African Union (AU) in carrying out its mission to help end the violence and human rights abuses in Darfur, Sudan. Today’s funding is the first phase of Canada’s $20 million commitment to the AU mission, announced by Prime Minister Paul Martin in September 2004 at the United Nations General Assembly.
Canada’s contribution comes as a timely response to the AU’s decision to expand its mission to 3,320 from 390 people. The AU mission will help foster stability and enhance civilian protection in the region. It is composed of contingents from a number of African countries.
“Canada has responded to the African Union’s urgent appeal for help,” said Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew. “These helicopters will allow the AU to move troops and supplies around Darfur, a region the size of Manitoba, but with very few roads.”
“Today’s funding will help support African efforts to find a solution to an African crisis,” said Minister of National Defence Bill Graham. “We are providing advice and support for this initiative.”
“This contribution will allow the observers to do their jobs in some of the most remote areas of the region,” said International Cooperation Minister Aileen Carroll. “Today’s contribution is part of a coordinated effort of international donors to help protect the Sudanese and alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. This is part of Canada’s ongoing support to the African Union to build its capacity to respond to crises.”
The five helicopters are due to arrive in Darfur at the end of this month. Canada will continue to monitor the situation and provide further assistance, including additional transportation support, as requested by the AU.
Canadians want to contribute to alleviating the suffering of the Sudanese. Canada’s approach to the crises in Sudan has been both to help address the underlying political problems, and to provide urgently needed humanitarian assistance, protection for those affected by the conflict and support for peacebuilding efforts. Since October 2003, Canada has contributed some $37 million in humanitarian assistance to the crises in Sudan, including $25.9 million to respond specifically to the Darfur crisis. Canada is vigorously pursuing diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts in Sudan, particularly Darfur and the southern civil war. Canada is urging the Government of Sudan to live up to its commitments made to the UN Security Council.
For more information on Canada’s role in Sudan, please visit http://www.international.gc.ca/africa/sudan-crisis-in-darfur-en.asp and
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind.nsf/vall/3DA49BA30696A42285256E94004970E7?OpenDocument.
The Government of Canada today announced that it will provide approximately $2 million for five chartered helicopters to assist the African Union (AU) in carrying out its mission to help end the violence and human rights abuses in Darfur, Sudan. Today’s funding is the first phase of Canada’s $20 million commitment to the AU mission, announced by Prime Minister Paul Martin in September 2004 at the United Nations General Assembly.
Canada’s contribution comes as a timely response to the AU’s decision to expand its mission to 3,320 from 390 people. The AU mission will help foster stability and enhance civilian protection in the region. It is composed of contingents from a number of African countries.
“Canada has responded to the African Union’s urgent appeal for help,” said Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew. “These helicopters will allow the AU to move troops and supplies around Darfur, a region the size of Manitoba, but with very few roads.”
“Today’s funding will help support African efforts to find a solution to an African crisis,” said Minister of National Defence Bill Graham. “We are providing advice and support for this initiative.”
“This contribution will allow the observers to do their jobs in some of the most remote areas of the region,” said International Cooperation Minister Aileen Carroll. “Today’s contribution is part of a coordinated effort of international donors to help protect the Sudanese and alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. This is part of Canada’s ongoing support to the African Union to build its capacity to respond to crises.”
The five helicopters are due to arrive in Darfur at the end of this month. Canada will continue to monitor the situation and provide further assistance, including additional transportation support, as requested by the AU.
Canadians want to contribute to alleviating the suffering of the Sudanese. Canada’s approach to the crises in Sudan has been both to help address the underlying political problems, and to provide urgently needed humanitarian assistance, protection for those affected by the conflict and support for peacebuilding efforts. Since October 2003, Canada has contributed some $37 million in humanitarian assistance to the crises in Sudan, including $25.9 million to respond specifically to the Darfur crisis. Canada is vigorously pursuing diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts in Sudan, particularly Darfur and the southern civil war. Canada is urging the Government of Sudan to live up to its commitments made to the UN Security Council.
For more information on Canada’s role in Sudan, please visit http://www.international.gc.ca/africa/sudan-crisis-in-darfur-en.asp and
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind.nsf/vall/3DA49BA30696A42285256E94004970E7?OpenDocument.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
My vent over Darfur at the blog of British Labour MP Clive Soley
Here is a copy of a comment I have just posted at the blog of British MP Clive Soley:
Hi guys, sorry it's me here again to bug you about Darfur. Thanks for discussing the hugely important issue of aid. I've blogged about the Darfur crisis almost every day for the past six months now and the refugees' situation appears to be as dire as ever.
Back in April, the death toll in Darfur was reported as 10,000. Now it stands at 70,000 since March. 10,000 are now dying every month. 85% of those now in camps who are dying, are losing their lives because of food shortages and disease.
Today, the Scotsman's report on Sudan is headed "DARFUR FACING FOOD CRISIS ON A SCALE NEVER SEEN BEFORE"
If we, who have so much in the West, cannot help the people of Darfur who are being killed off by their own government, what possible help can other people in countries like Uganda, Congo etc., hope for? Surely by now, they must be losing all hope. I know I am.
The U.S. and U.K. have given hundreds of millions of dollars for Darfur. Other countries around the world have given generously. But it seems that the whole of one years contribution for Darfur so far, is the equivalent of what is being spent on Iraq every 1 - 2 days.
(1) Why is the UN not getting the money it is asking for to help Darfur?
Are the UN crying wolf and don't really need the money for Darfur? Are they and the aid agencies using ploys and hyping the crisis every two months to fundraise? Whenever news breaks through on how the situation in Darfur is worsening, it seems to coincide with fundraising initiatives by aid agencies from around the world - including the U.N.
(2) Why does the U.N. not name and shame the countries who have pledged but are not paying? Is the UK one of those countries?
(3) Why is the African Union saying the reason for not sending the 300 Rwandan troops into Darfur last weekend was due to lack of funding?
Maybe the reason for the delay in AU troops getting into Darfur is that nobody is providing back up to the African Union quickly enough. The only explanation I can think of is that countries are saying to the media they are doing this, that and the other, but in reality they are not paying their pledges on time. It is vital that the African Union do not fail. The African Union is a ray of hope for Africa. If it is seen to be failing, it will lose credibility. It must succeed in Sudan.
(4) Why is China that sits on the UN Security Council, with its huge oil interests in Sudan, getting away with not being a major donor? Can't the UK ask them to kindly pay for or send a whole load of food and aid - and trucks and helicopters to distribute the food - and 70,000 police to provide safe passage for the aid?
China has oil operations in the vicinity of Darfur and staff of 10,000 in Sudan. Can't China chivvy up the Asian countries to help? It would sure make them look good in the worlds eyes. China needs some good PR - especially when it comes to humanitarian issues.
And what about India, Pakistan, Brazil, Algeria ... and all those within the 191 member states under the UN umbrella.
(5) Why is the U.S. who makes a big deal about declaring genocide in Darfur, being so stingy (and slow) in only two military planes to transport the AU troops into Darfur? (note this was just announced a few days ago - after the AU troops were supposed to leave at the weekend - if they were set to leave, who was transporting them to Darfur? I thought Norway and Australia and Canada were going to help. Who is co-ordinating the Wests efforts with the AU? Sounds like a shambles.
The U.K. paid for the last batch of Nigerian troops to enter Sudan and funding their rations. You can fit the UK, size wise into the State of Texas.
(6) Why is Sudan still sitting on the UN panel for human rights while it allows its people to die of starvation and disease because it refuses outside help? And why is oil rich Sudan getting away with not paying to feed its own people?
The media are really doing a poor job of investigative journalism. And the politicians aren't telling the story as it really is. What are we the people - the citizens of the world - supposed to think, do and feel?
For all the press releases that are issued out of the U.N. and Washington, I really cannot understand the lack of hard news regarding the desperate shortage of food - and why 85% of those now in the camps who are dying, are losing their lives because of food shortages and disease.
Today, the Scotsman reports that Darfur is facing an "unprecedented food crisis" worse than the famines of recent decades, the Red Cross said yesterday.
I'm lost for words now when it comes to trying to understand why the refugees in the camps are dying unnecessarily, and what will become of them in the camps over the next year or two if they are not getting enough food now because of lack of funding.
Does anybody know what is really going on and what we can do to help? Communications technology is not really empowering us to get our voices heard, it's just forcing us into becoming helpless passive voyeurs. I feel sad. I have given my time, energy and money and contacted my MP. Bottom line is, nothing seems to have made any real difference. I am exhausted and disillusioned with the whole political and UN process - and lack of news and accountability. At least here at Clive's blog I feel there is somewhere to go and have a vent that at least has a good chance of being heard. Thanks.
Here is link to the Scotsman report:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=121749200
Hi guys, sorry it's me here again to bug you about Darfur. Thanks for discussing the hugely important issue of aid. I've blogged about the Darfur crisis almost every day for the past six months now and the refugees' situation appears to be as dire as ever.
Back in April, the death toll in Darfur was reported as 10,000. Now it stands at 70,000 since March. 10,000 are now dying every month. 85% of those now in camps who are dying, are losing their lives because of food shortages and disease.
Today, the Scotsman's report on Sudan is headed "DARFUR FACING FOOD CRISIS ON A SCALE NEVER SEEN BEFORE"
If we, who have so much in the West, cannot help the people of Darfur who are being killed off by their own government, what possible help can other people in countries like Uganda, Congo etc., hope for? Surely by now, they must be losing all hope. I know I am.
The U.S. and U.K. have given hundreds of millions of dollars for Darfur. Other countries around the world have given generously. But it seems that the whole of one years contribution for Darfur so far, is the equivalent of what is being spent on Iraq every 1 - 2 days.
(1) Why is the UN not getting the money it is asking for to help Darfur?
Are the UN crying wolf and don't really need the money for Darfur? Are they and the aid agencies using ploys and hyping the crisis every two months to fundraise? Whenever news breaks through on how the situation in Darfur is worsening, it seems to coincide with fundraising initiatives by aid agencies from around the world - including the U.N.
(2) Why does the U.N. not name and shame the countries who have pledged but are not paying? Is the UK one of those countries?
(3) Why is the African Union saying the reason for not sending the 300 Rwandan troops into Darfur last weekend was due to lack of funding?
Maybe the reason for the delay in AU troops getting into Darfur is that nobody is providing back up to the African Union quickly enough. The only explanation I can think of is that countries are saying to the media they are doing this, that and the other, but in reality they are not paying their pledges on time. It is vital that the African Union do not fail. The African Union is a ray of hope for Africa. If it is seen to be failing, it will lose credibility. It must succeed in Sudan.
(4) Why is China that sits on the UN Security Council, with its huge oil interests in Sudan, getting away with not being a major donor? Can't the UK ask them to kindly pay for or send a whole load of food and aid - and trucks and helicopters to distribute the food - and 70,000 police to provide safe passage for the aid?
China has oil operations in the vicinity of Darfur and staff of 10,000 in Sudan. Can't China chivvy up the Asian countries to help? It would sure make them look good in the worlds eyes. China needs some good PR - especially when it comes to humanitarian issues.
And what about India, Pakistan, Brazil, Algeria ... and all those within the 191 member states under the UN umbrella.
(5) Why is the U.S. who makes a big deal about declaring genocide in Darfur, being so stingy (and slow) in only two military planes to transport the AU troops into Darfur? (note this was just announced a few days ago - after the AU troops were supposed to leave at the weekend - if they were set to leave, who was transporting them to Darfur? I thought Norway and Australia and Canada were going to help. Who is co-ordinating the Wests efforts with the AU? Sounds like a shambles.
The U.K. paid for the last batch of Nigerian troops to enter Sudan and funding their rations. You can fit the UK, size wise into the State of Texas.
(6) Why is Sudan still sitting on the UN panel for human rights while it allows its people to die of starvation and disease because it refuses outside help? And why is oil rich Sudan getting away with not paying to feed its own people?
The media are really doing a poor job of investigative journalism. And the politicians aren't telling the story as it really is. What are we the people - the citizens of the world - supposed to think, do and feel?
For all the press releases that are issued out of the U.N. and Washington, I really cannot understand the lack of hard news regarding the desperate shortage of food - and why 85% of those now in the camps who are dying, are losing their lives because of food shortages and disease.
Today, the Scotsman reports that Darfur is facing an "unprecedented food crisis" worse than the famines of recent decades, the Red Cross said yesterday.
I'm lost for words now when it comes to trying to understand why the refugees in the camps are dying unnecessarily, and what will become of them in the camps over the next year or two if they are not getting enough food now because of lack of funding.
Does anybody know what is really going on and what we can do to help? Communications technology is not really empowering us to get our voices heard, it's just forcing us into becoming helpless passive voyeurs. I feel sad. I have given my time, energy and money and contacted my MP. Bottom line is, nothing seems to have made any real difference. I am exhausted and disillusioned with the whole political and UN process - and lack of news and accountability. At least here at Clive's blog I feel there is somewhere to go and have a vent that at least has a good chance of being heard. Thanks.
Here is link to the Scotsman report:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=121749200
Darfur facing food crisis 'on a scale never seen before'
Does anyone know what is really going on with the U.N.'s World Food Program and US Aid? I've yet to see a report in mainstream media about the aid situation and how it works.
The U.S. and U.K. have given hundreds of millions of dollars for Darfur. Other countries around the world have given generously. I know I have banged on about this for nearly six months now.
Do the aid agencies use ploys every two months to fundraise? Whenever news breaks through on how bad the situation is in Darfur, it seems to coincide with fundraising initiatives by aid agencies from around the world - including the U.N.
Even the African Union are saying the reason for not sending the 300 Rwandan troops to Darfur last weekend was due to lack of funding. The only explanation I can think of is that countries are saying to the media they are doing this, that and the other, but in reality they are not paying their pledges on time.
And why is the U.S. who make a big deal about declaring genocide in Darfur, are being so stingy sending only two military planes to transport the AU troops into Darfur? The U.K. paid for the last batch of Nigerian troops to enter Sudan and funding their rations. Maybe the reason for the delay in AU troops getting into Darfur is that nobody is providing fast enough back up to the African Union. Who knows. The media are really doing a poor job of investigative journalism.
For all the press releases that are issued out of the U.N. and Washington, I really cannot understand the lack of hard news regarding the desperate shortage of food - and why 85% of those in the camps who are dying, are losing their lives because of food shortages and disease.
It will be interesting to see what comes of the talks in Libya between Col Gadaffi and the Darfur rebel groups. He is meeting with them separately for them to air their views. More later. Peace talks are key to getting the violence stopped and aid flowing. Aid workers need unimpeded access to all areas. Aid trucks and food are in danger of being attacked and looted. More on this later.
Today, the Scotsman reports that Darfur is facing an "unprecedented food crisis" worse than the famines of recent decades, the Red Cross said yesterday. Here is an excerpt from the report:
The warning was based on a study of food supplies in 20 selected villages across the huge region, where villagers - those who have not taken refuge in camps - reported they had more trouble coping than in earlier severe droughts.
"Most rural communities in north, west and south Darfur are facing an unprecedented food crisis, worse even than the famines they faced in the Eighties and Nineties," the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said in a statement. "Insecurity is the root cause of the collapse of agriculture and trade in Darfur," it added.
A spate of incidents over the past ten days near the West Darfur capital of El Geneina highlighted dangers for the displaced and aid agencies, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said yesterday.
An UNHCR team was stopped at gunpoint by police last week, days after two staff of Save the Children were killed by an anti-tank mine in North Darfur, spokesman Ron Redmond said.
"This gives some indication of the problems we are facing in just trying to provide some kind of protection presence in Darfur. We feel the more international staff on the ground who can go to these places - the more eyes and ears from the international community - the better for everybody," he said.
Mustafa Osman Ismail, the Sudanese foreign minister, said talks between Darfur tribal leaders, which include rebel group representatives, were due to begin in Libya yesterday to try to help restore stability in the troubled region.
US has made two military transport planes available to aid African peacekeeping forces heading for Sudan.
The planes will help take in fresh troops, part of a 4,500-soldier contingent to be deployed to Darfur by the African Union by the end of next month.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1217492004
The U.S. and U.K. have given hundreds of millions of dollars for Darfur. Other countries around the world have given generously. I know I have banged on about this for nearly six months now.
Do the aid agencies use ploys every two months to fundraise? Whenever news breaks through on how bad the situation is in Darfur, it seems to coincide with fundraising initiatives by aid agencies from around the world - including the U.N.
Even the African Union are saying the reason for not sending the 300 Rwandan troops to Darfur last weekend was due to lack of funding. The only explanation I can think of is that countries are saying to the media they are doing this, that and the other, but in reality they are not paying their pledges on time.
And why is the U.S. who make a big deal about declaring genocide in Darfur, are being so stingy sending only two military planes to transport the AU troops into Darfur? The U.K. paid for the last batch of Nigerian troops to enter Sudan and funding their rations. Maybe the reason for the delay in AU troops getting into Darfur is that nobody is providing fast enough back up to the African Union. Who knows. The media are really doing a poor job of investigative journalism.
For all the press releases that are issued out of the U.N. and Washington, I really cannot understand the lack of hard news regarding the desperate shortage of food - and why 85% of those in the camps who are dying, are losing their lives because of food shortages and disease.
It will be interesting to see what comes of the talks in Libya between Col Gadaffi and the Darfur rebel groups. He is meeting with them separately for them to air their views. More later. Peace talks are key to getting the violence stopped and aid flowing. Aid workers need unimpeded access to all areas. Aid trucks and food are in danger of being attacked and looted. More on this later.
Today, the Scotsman reports that Darfur is facing an "unprecedented food crisis" worse than the famines of recent decades, the Red Cross said yesterday. Here is an excerpt from the report:
The warning was based on a study of food supplies in 20 selected villages across the huge region, where villagers - those who have not taken refuge in camps - reported they had more trouble coping than in earlier severe droughts.
"Most rural communities in north, west and south Darfur are facing an unprecedented food crisis, worse even than the famines they faced in the Eighties and Nineties," the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said in a statement. "Insecurity is the root cause of the collapse of agriculture and trade in Darfur," it added.
A spate of incidents over the past ten days near the West Darfur capital of El Geneina highlighted dangers for the displaced and aid agencies, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said yesterday.
An UNHCR team was stopped at gunpoint by police last week, days after two staff of Save the Children were killed by an anti-tank mine in North Darfur, spokesman Ron Redmond said.
"This gives some indication of the problems we are facing in just trying to provide some kind of protection presence in Darfur. We feel the more international staff on the ground who can go to these places - the more eyes and ears from the international community - the better for everybody," he said.
Mustafa Osman Ismail, the Sudanese foreign minister, said talks between Darfur tribal leaders, which include rebel group representatives, were due to begin in Libya yesterday to try to help restore stability in the troubled region.
US has made two military transport planes available to aid African peacekeeping forces heading for Sudan.
The planes will help take in fresh troops, part of a 4,500-soldier contingent to be deployed to Darfur by the African Union by the end of next month.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1217492004
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Summit in Tripoli closed with emphasis on getting aid to the refugees - Sudan hints at Darfur power share - JEM says Libya can play a very vital role
The BBC's correspondent in Tripoli, Mike Donkin, filed a report on October 18, saying the summit meeting in Tripoli has, on the face of it, produced real signs of movement to end the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
A Sudanese government delegate said that the summit had agreed that granting a federal Sudan might offer the best hope for a solution. That way the Darfur region would have its own governor and parliament, he notes.
No matter how many news reports I read re Darfur, it is still unclear what is going on with aid. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid by the US and UK but reports quote the U.N. as saying that since March 70,000 have died as a result of Darfur's civil war - many starving or succumbing to illness.
UN Security Council resolutions call on Khartoum to stop the violence so that humanitarian aid can reach those who need it, and threaten sanctions against Sudan as a way of solving the crisis. How will imposing no fly zones and sanctions feed and get flow of aid to the refugees? If there is an arms embargo - cheap arms and stuff are still bound to get in to Sudan via unethical countries.
Peace talks are the key -- it is absolutely crucial that the peace talks succeed. They start again in a few days time on Oct 21.
Summit bringing together leaders from Nigeria, Egypt, Chad and Sudan was chaired and hosted in Tripoli by Col Muammar Gaddafi of Libya
Sudan's government says it is ready to consider giving the crisis-stricken Darfur region its own federal state, following talks with African leaders.
Egyptian presidential spokesman Maged Abdel Fattah said "we should all try to help Sudan to implement its obligations in accordance with resolutions" and warned against "putting pressure on Sudan or threatening [it] with sanctions".
The summit also gave its backing to peace talks between Khartoum and rebels based in Darfur, which are due to resume on 21 October.
Journalists were barred from the meeting, which was convened and chaired by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, clad in brightly-coloured African robes.
Speaking before the summit, Libyan Foreign Minister Abdul Rahman Sharkum told the BBC: "These five leaders are helping the efforts of the African Union."
"We are going to accelerate and to facilitate the process of peace and the negotiation between all sides and also to find a way for more troops, African troops to come to Darfur on the ground."
The sending of the African Union troops to Darfur has been delayed by a lack of funds
Preparations to house the 300 Rwandan soldiers due to arrive in Darfur on Sunday were not made on time, Rwandan Foreign Minister Charles Muligande told the Associated Press news agency. The African Union hopes to have a 4,500-strong force in place by the end of November. It already has about 300 unarmed Nigerian and Rwandan troops in place.
Gaddafi to hear views of Darfur rebel groups separately - JEM say Libya can play vital role but doubt Egypt and Chad
Mr Gaddafi is due to meet two rebel groups separately to hear their views on Darfur. "We think Libya can play a very vital role," said Tag el-Din Bashir Nyam, a member of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). "[He] wants to listen directly to us so he can take some kind of an initiative."
But JEM seemed more sceptical about the role of other summit leaders. "Egypt and Chad want Libya to pressure Darfur rebels to avoid an internationalisation of the conflict and force them to sign agreement that will not meet their aspirations," an official told AFP news agency.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3751554.stm
BBC news Sudan's Darfur 'safer than Iraq'
A Sudanese government delegate said that the summit had agreed that granting a federal Sudan might offer the best hope for a solution. That way the Darfur region would have its own governor and parliament, he notes.
No matter how many news reports I read re Darfur, it is still unclear what is going on with aid. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid by the US and UK but reports quote the U.N. as saying that since March 70,000 have died as a result of Darfur's civil war - many starving or succumbing to illness.
UN Security Council resolutions call on Khartoum to stop the violence so that humanitarian aid can reach those who need it, and threaten sanctions against Sudan as a way of solving the crisis. How will imposing no fly zones and sanctions feed and get flow of aid to the refugees? If there is an arms embargo - cheap arms and stuff are still bound to get in to Sudan via unethical countries.
Peace talks are the key -- it is absolutely crucial that the peace talks succeed. They start again in a few days time on Oct 21.
Summit bringing together leaders from Nigeria, Egypt, Chad and Sudan was chaired and hosted in Tripoli by Col Muammar Gaddafi of Libya
Sudan's government says it is ready to consider giving the crisis-stricken Darfur region its own federal state, following talks with African leaders.
Egyptian presidential spokesman Maged Abdel Fattah said "we should all try to help Sudan to implement its obligations in accordance with resolutions" and warned against "putting pressure on Sudan or threatening [it] with sanctions".
The summit also gave its backing to peace talks between Khartoum and rebels based in Darfur, which are due to resume on 21 October.
Journalists were barred from the meeting, which was convened and chaired by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, clad in brightly-coloured African robes.
Speaking before the summit, Libyan Foreign Minister Abdul Rahman Sharkum told the BBC: "These five leaders are helping the efforts of the African Union."
"We are going to accelerate and to facilitate the process of peace and the negotiation between all sides and also to find a way for more troops, African troops to come to Darfur on the ground."
The sending of the African Union troops to Darfur has been delayed by a lack of funds
Preparations to house the 300 Rwandan soldiers due to arrive in Darfur on Sunday were not made on time, Rwandan Foreign Minister Charles Muligande told the Associated Press news agency. The African Union hopes to have a 4,500-strong force in place by the end of November. It already has about 300 unarmed Nigerian and Rwandan troops in place.
Gaddafi to hear views of Darfur rebel groups separately - JEM say Libya can play vital role but doubt Egypt and Chad
Mr Gaddafi is due to meet two rebel groups separately to hear their views on Darfur. "We think Libya can play a very vital role," said Tag el-Din Bashir Nyam, a member of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). "[He] wants to listen directly to us so he can take some kind of an initiative."
But JEM seemed more sceptical about the role of other summit leaders. "Egypt and Chad want Libya to pressure Darfur rebels to avoid an internationalisation of the conflict and force them to sign agreement that will not meet their aspirations," an official told AFP news agency.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3751554.stm
BBC news Sudan's Darfur 'safer than Iraq'
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan set up a commission to determine whether genocide has taken place in the Darfur region of Sudan. What do you think?
Jim Moore's recent post at Passion of the Present asks this:
Question: Last week, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan set up a commission to determine whether genocide has taken place in the Darfur region of Sudan. What do you think?
Copied here below, is my response, emailed to Jim a few days before he proposed in his Journal that the U.S. bomb Sudan's air force and "Janjaweed" camps - with the aim of exterminating as many people in those camps as possible.
My email was not intended as a post, and so is not as complete as I'd like, but as a co-author of Passion of the Present, I feel a need to record, in my own space, my take on things as they can't be aired at Passion of the Present.
Jim is exhorting readers of his Journal to be more aggressive and creative. I'd like to see much more focus and pressure put on Sudan's peace talks. The talks are key to a united Sudan and imho are the quickest and safest route to stopping the violence, whilst at the same time, keeping the flow of aid going into Sudan. If Sudan is attacked or any troops go in without permission, Khartoum is bound to deny access to newcomers and for could dismiss all aid workers from the country.
As an aside, there is a big to do going on here in Britain. American soldiers in Iraq have disobeyed U.S. orders to drive fuel and supplies to their buddies on the front line - saying it was too dangerous - nevermind about those stuck in the thick of things without supplies and fuel.
Now, because the British are more respected and accepted by the people in Iraq, the U.S. are asking the UK for British forces and support in Iraq and for them to come under U.S. command. At the same time, some loud voices in America are pushing for the U.S. to attack and bomb Sudan.
If the Americans can't hack it in Baghdad they wouldn't last five minutes in the heat and sand of Africa surrounded by warring militia and saber rattling bedouins.
I think the UN's setting up of a commission to determine whether genocide has taken place in the Darfur region of Sudan:
(1) acts as a three-month long stick, instead of a one-month long stick, with which to beat the regime in Khartoum into action. By extending the psychological pressure, it increases, not delays, the pressure and keeps access open for aid workers and the flow of aid. It buys another three months for psychological warfare which - if it works - will succeed within a shorter space of time than military intervention. U.S. or European military intervention without permission from Khartoum could escalate and turn into a bloodbath that could last for years, halt the peace talks, fragment Sudan, stop aid from getting through and annihilate the very people the process aimed to help.
(2) genocide could have been officially declared five months ago but would have made the U.S. and other countries morally bound to intervene militarily with troops and identify, arrest and prosecute the perpetrators. By keeping diplomatic channels and lines of communication open, aid has a good chance of getting through to those most in need; provides pressure to keep peace talks going; allows international community to press for AU troops and expanded mandate; puts pressure on countries who are not paying their contributions pledged; gives international community time to gather more evidence of war crimes that will hold up in court if - and when - genocide is officially declared.
(3) in order to enter a country without its permission, you need a strong case and concrete evidence. How does one provide a cast iron case against a country where access is severely restricted? Seems impossible. When genocide is first suspected, evidence can only be gathered by intelligence services and civilians on the ground. Others on the ground may be there illegally. Aid workers may provide flimsy evidence for fear of losing their neutrality and confidence of those who need the most help, being accused of taking sides, and being denied access to those who are most in need.
Others on the ground, for example aid suppliers and distributers, might have vested interests and their perspectives may be biased. Citizens themselves could be biased and prejudiced against their attackers for all manner of reasons, or more likely be in such fear they feel too intimidated to speak out and provide evidence.
When access into a country is denied (such as Iraq and Sudan) diplomatic pressure allows observers and inspectors to legally enter a country - enabling them to look for hard evidence that will stand up in court. When a country has something hide it's like looking for a needle in a haystack - only those leading a country know where the needle is and have plenty of warning via U.N. resolutions to cover up. Suspecting - and then setting out to prove - crimes against humanity is painfully slow, laborious and time consuming, causing years of delay - that probably at this time (the way U.N. works) can't be helped and is what separates democracies from dictatorships.
Here in the West if security forces try to search a suspected criminal's home for evidence without a warrant, the evidence won't stand up in court. People who are up to no good learn how to duck, dive and survive. No trick is too low or too dirty - they see it as survival and a game where they can outwit those pose a threat.
The day the U.S. or U.N. is really forced to send in its troops -- against the will of the regime in Khartoum -- is the day genocide will be officially declared in order enter Sudan without permission. That day may never come -- which could mean genocide might not ever be officially declared.
My question is: at what point does a country lose its right to handle its own affairs and refuse help from the outside world?
At what point can security forces storm in onto private land and break down the front door of a suspected drugs baron? My guess is they'd have to watch and monitor the life and dealings of the drugs baron - and everyone else involved in the drug dealing, from growers to distributors - and gather solid evidence with which to make an arrest and succeed in stopping the drug baron's dealings. People who are suspected of crimes have rights too.
After years of weapons inspections in Iraq, countless numbers of UN resolutions against Iraq and all the while Saddam Hussein thumbing his nose at the West -- citizens of the world insisted evidence has to be concrete and documentation crystal clear. Voiciferous voters, with the aid of the media, have forced governments to make cast iron cases for intervening militarily into another country. These voters seem to be saying it is up to each country to do as it wishes in its own territory - including countries like Iraq and Sudan, regardless of the atrocities committed by genocidal dictators.
As for Darfur, by the time a cast iron case is made, the genocide will be over. And as in the case of Iraq, enough time was bought by Saddam Husseins years of stalling for WMD to be shipped out of the country and sold.
The whole U.N. process allows socio path dictators to survive - with some ending up being seen as the victims, while those who took the trouble and shouldered huge expense in terms of lives sacrificed and resources spent - to help stop atrocities from occurring - are seen, and accused of, as being the villains. It's a mad world.
Question: Last week, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan set up a commission to determine whether genocide has taken place in the Darfur region of Sudan. What do you think?
Copied here below, is my response, emailed to Jim a few days before he proposed in his Journal that the U.S. bomb Sudan's air force and "Janjaweed" camps - with the aim of exterminating as many people in those camps as possible.
My email was not intended as a post, and so is not as complete as I'd like, but as a co-author of Passion of the Present, I feel a need to record, in my own space, my take on things as they can't be aired at Passion of the Present.
Jim is exhorting readers of his Journal to be more aggressive and creative. I'd like to see much more focus and pressure put on Sudan's peace talks. The talks are key to a united Sudan and imho are the quickest and safest route to stopping the violence, whilst at the same time, keeping the flow of aid going into Sudan. If Sudan is attacked or any troops go in without permission, Khartoum is bound to deny access to newcomers and for could dismiss all aid workers from the country.
As an aside, there is a big to do going on here in Britain. American soldiers in Iraq have disobeyed U.S. orders to drive fuel and supplies to their buddies on the front line - saying it was too dangerous - nevermind about those stuck in the thick of things without supplies and fuel.
Now, because the British are more respected and accepted by the people in Iraq, the U.S. are asking the UK for British forces and support in Iraq and for them to come under U.S. command. At the same time, some loud voices in America are pushing for the U.S. to attack and bomb Sudan.
If the Americans can't hack it in Baghdad they wouldn't last five minutes in the heat and sand of Africa surrounded by warring militia and saber rattling bedouins.
I think the UN's setting up of a commission to determine whether genocide has taken place in the Darfur region of Sudan:
(1) acts as a three-month long stick, instead of a one-month long stick, with which to beat the regime in Khartoum into action. By extending the psychological pressure, it increases, not delays, the pressure and keeps access open for aid workers and the flow of aid. It buys another three months for psychological warfare which - if it works - will succeed within a shorter space of time than military intervention. U.S. or European military intervention without permission from Khartoum could escalate and turn into a bloodbath that could last for years, halt the peace talks, fragment Sudan, stop aid from getting through and annihilate the very people the process aimed to help.
(2) genocide could have been officially declared five months ago but would have made the U.S. and other countries morally bound to intervene militarily with troops and identify, arrest and prosecute the perpetrators. By keeping diplomatic channels and lines of communication open, aid has a good chance of getting through to those most in need; provides pressure to keep peace talks going; allows international community to press for AU troops and expanded mandate; puts pressure on countries who are not paying their contributions pledged; gives international community time to gather more evidence of war crimes that will hold up in court if - and when - genocide is officially declared.
(3) in order to enter a country without its permission, you need a strong case and concrete evidence. How does one provide a cast iron case against a country where access is severely restricted? Seems impossible. When genocide is first suspected, evidence can only be gathered by intelligence services and civilians on the ground. Others on the ground may be there illegally. Aid workers may provide flimsy evidence for fear of losing their neutrality and confidence of those who need the most help, being accused of taking sides, and being denied access to those who are most in need.
Others on the ground, for example aid suppliers and distributers, might have vested interests and their perspectives may be biased. Citizens themselves could be biased and prejudiced against their attackers for all manner of reasons, or more likely be in such fear they feel too intimidated to speak out and provide evidence.
When access into a country is denied (such as Iraq and Sudan) diplomatic pressure allows observers and inspectors to legally enter a country - enabling them to look for hard evidence that will stand up in court. When a country has something hide it's like looking for a needle in a haystack - only those leading a country know where the needle is and have plenty of warning via U.N. resolutions to cover up. Suspecting - and then setting out to prove - crimes against humanity is painfully slow, laborious and time consuming, causing years of delay - that probably at this time (the way U.N. works) can't be helped and is what separates democracies from dictatorships.
Here in the West if security forces try to search a suspected criminal's home for evidence without a warrant, the evidence won't stand up in court. People who are up to no good learn how to duck, dive and survive. No trick is too low or too dirty - they see it as survival and a game where they can outwit those pose a threat.
The day the U.S. or U.N. is really forced to send in its troops -- against the will of the regime in Khartoum -- is the day genocide will be officially declared in order enter Sudan without permission. That day may never come -- which could mean genocide might not ever be officially declared.
My question is: at what point does a country lose its right to handle its own affairs and refuse help from the outside world?
At what point can security forces storm in onto private land and break down the front door of a suspected drugs baron? My guess is they'd have to watch and monitor the life and dealings of the drugs baron - and everyone else involved in the drug dealing, from growers to distributors - and gather solid evidence with which to make an arrest and succeed in stopping the drug baron's dealings. People who are suspected of crimes have rights too.
After years of weapons inspections in Iraq, countless numbers of UN resolutions against Iraq and all the while Saddam Hussein thumbing his nose at the West -- citizens of the world insisted evidence has to be concrete and documentation crystal clear. Voiciferous voters, with the aid of the media, have forced governments to make cast iron cases for intervening militarily into another country. These voters seem to be saying it is up to each country to do as it wishes in its own territory - including countries like Iraq and Sudan, regardless of the atrocities committed by genocidal dictators.
As for Darfur, by the time a cast iron case is made, the genocide will be over. And as in the case of Iraq, enough time was bought by Saddam Husseins years of stalling for WMD to be shipped out of the country and sold.
The whole U.N. process allows socio path dictators to survive - with some ending up being seen as the victims, while those who took the trouble and shouldered huge expense in terms of lives sacrificed and resources spent - to help stop atrocities from occurring - are seen, and accused of, as being the villains. It's a mad world.
Patrick Hall's Information Campaign and "Sudan Project" on Wikipedia
Patrick Hall, at the Horn of Africa weblog, says Wikipedia seems to be taking on a lot of importance on the web.
My sense of Wikipedia is that it's brilliant. I think it's a wonderful idea of Patrick's to record what has been going on in the Sudan, on Wikipedia. It is a project other bloggers might want to visit and get involved with.
There may be bloggers out there who are not able to take action to help the people suffering in Sudan. Many bloggers are shy, quiet and introverted. Wikipedia could be just the thing for some bloggers who are interested in documenting the history of the atrocities in Sudan and Darfur.
Wikipedia is special because it is a piece of work created voluntarily - a labour of love - an encyclopedia - by the citizens of the world. Maybe one day readers from Africa and Asia etc., will be able to press a button and see a wikipedia page translated into their own language.
If I, or anyone I knew, were one of the two million slaughtered in the Sudan, I would want someone to document the facts of what really went on - for future generations to read and learn - so deaths do not go unnoticed. It's sad to think of people lost and forgotten in unmarked mass graves.
Patrick writes at Wikipedia under the username Babbage. He has recently posted a little project called "Sudan Project" -
here's what the page contains. Bless you Patrick. Hope you keep us updated on your work at Wikipedia.
Note - Joi Ito's Web recently published a post about Wikepedia. If I find the post, I'll link it here later on.
My sense of Wikipedia is that it's brilliant. I think it's a wonderful idea of Patrick's to record what has been going on in the Sudan, on Wikipedia. It is a project other bloggers might want to visit and get involved with.
There may be bloggers out there who are not able to take action to help the people suffering in Sudan. Many bloggers are shy, quiet and introverted. Wikipedia could be just the thing for some bloggers who are interested in documenting the history of the atrocities in Sudan and Darfur.
Wikipedia is special because it is a piece of work created voluntarily - a labour of love - an encyclopedia - by the citizens of the world. Maybe one day readers from Africa and Asia etc., will be able to press a button and see a wikipedia page translated into their own language.
If I, or anyone I knew, were one of the two million slaughtered in the Sudan, I would want someone to document the facts of what really went on - for future generations to read and learn - so deaths do not go unnoticed. It's sad to think of people lost and forgotten in unmarked mass graves.
Patrick writes at Wikipedia under the username Babbage. He has recently posted a little project called "Sudan Project" -
here's what the page contains. Bless you Patrick. Hope you keep us updated on your work at Wikipedia.
Note - Joi Ito's Web recently published a post about Wikepedia. If I find the post, I'll link it here later on.
How can we name the Darfur crisis in Sudan? Preliminary thoughts on Darfur
Warm thanks to Owukori for pointing to How can we name the Darfur crisis? by Mahmood Mamdani.
Owukori says Mahmood Mamdani's explanation and analysis of the Darfur crisis is excellent and one of the best pieces she has read. I agree, it's the best piece I have read too.
I'd like to read the report again and write more commentary on it here but am unable to right now and want to get this posted up here without further delay.
Note, Jim Moore has deleted the words "non-partisan" from the title banner of Passion of the Present and so I feel if I, as a co-author, publish a post at the Passion that points to Mahmood's report, I'd be interrupting something. (The war drums are beating over at Harvard and Jim is going ballistic in Boston. America's presidential election is just a few weeks away. Senator John Kerry's supporters are leaving no stone unturned looking for and providing ways to make him say things that might appeal to voters. Senator Kerry is Governor of Mass., and married to Heinz ketchup heiress. Harvard is in Boston, Mass. Join up the dots - and read Second Superpower campaigns for Kerry).
The following is a copy in full of Mahmood Mamdani's piece that reflects my view on the Darfur crisis. I completely agree with the report's proposed "solution" and "what we should do" - and love the line that says "we should organize in support of a culture of peace, of a rule of law and of a system of political accountability".
Mahmood Mamdani is Herbert Lehman Professor of Government and Director, Institute of African Studies, at University of Columbia, New York.
How can we name the Darfur crisis? Preliminary thoughts on Darfur
The US Congress, and now Secretary of State Colin Powell, claim that genocide has occurred in Darfur. The European Union says it is not genocide. And so does the African Union.
Nigerian President Obasanjo, also the current Chair of the African Union, told a press conference at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on September 23: "Before you can say that this is genocide or ethnic cleansing, we will have to have a definite decision and plan and program of a government to wipe out a particular group of people, then we will be talking about genocide, ethnic cleansing. What we know is not that. What we know is that there was an uprising, rebellion, and the government armed another group of people to stop that rebellion. That's what we know. That does not amount to genocide from our own reckoning. It amounts to of course conflict. It amounts to violence."
Is Darfur genocide that has happened and must be punished? Or, is it genocide that could happen and must be prevented? I will argue the latter.
Sudan is today the site of two contradictory processes. The first is the Naivasha peace process between the SPLA and the Government of Sudan, whose promise is an end to Africa's longest festering civil war. The second is the armed confrontation between an insurgency and anti-government militias in Darfur. There is need to think of the south and the west as different aspects of a connected process. I will argue that this reflection should be guided by a central objective: to reinforce the peace process and to demilitarize the conflict in Darfur.
Understanding Darfur Conflict Politically
The peace process in the South has split both sides to the conflict. Tensions within the ruling circles in Khartoum and within the opposition SPLA have given rise to two anti-government militias. The Justice and Equality Movement has historical links to the Islamist regime, and the SLA to the southern guerrilla movement.
The Justice and Equality Movement organized as part of the Hassan Turabi faction of the Islamists. Darfur, historically the mainstay of the Mahdist movement, was Turabi's major claim to political success in the last decade. When the Khartoum coalition - between the army officers led by Bashir and the Islamist political movement under Turabi - split, the Darfur Islamists fell out with both sides. JEM was organized in Khartoum as part of an agenda for regaining power. It has a more localized and multi-ethnic presence in Darfur and has been home to many who have advocated an 'African Islam'.
The SLA is linked to SPLA, which first tried to expand the southern-based armed movement to Darfur in 1990, but failed. The radical leadership of that thrust was decapitated in a government assault. Not surprisingly, the new leadership of SLA has little political experience.
The present conflict began when the SLA mounted an ambitious and successful assault on El Fashar airport on April 25, 2003, on a scale larger than most encounters in the southern civil war.
The government in Khartoum is also divided, between those who pushed the peace process, and those who believe too much was conceded in the Naivasha talks. This opposition, the security cabal in Khartoum, responded by arming and unleashing several militia, known as the Janjawid. The result is a spiral of state-sponsored violence and indiscriminate spread of weaponry.
In sum, all those opposed to the peace process in the south have moved to fight in Darfur, even if on opposing sides. The Darfur conflict has many layers; the most recent but the most explosive is that it is the continuation of the southern conflict in the west.
De-demonize Adversaries
For anyone reading the press today, the atrocities in Sudan are synonymous with a demonic presence, the Janjawid, the spearhead of an 'Arab' assault on 'Africans.' The problem with the public discussion of Darfur and Sudan is not simply that we know little; it is also the representation of what we do know. To understand the problem with how known facts are being represented, I suggest we face three facts.
First, as a proxy of those in power in Khartoum, the Janjawid are not exceptional. They reflect a broad African trend. Proxy war spread within the continent with the formation of Renamo by the Rhodesian and the South African security cabal in the early 1980s. Other examples in the East African region include the Lord's Redemption Army in northern Uganda, the Hema and Lendu militias in Itori in eastern Congo and, of course, the Hutu militia in post-genocide Rwanda. Like the Janjawid, all these combine different degrees of autonomy on the ground with proxy connections above ground.
Second, all parties involved in the Darfur conflict - whether they are referred to as 'Arab' or as 'African' - are equally indigenous and equally black. All are Muslims and all are local. To see how the corporate media and some of the charity-dependent international NGOs consistently racialize representations, we need to distinguish between different kinds of identities.
Let us begin by distinguishing between three different meanings of Arab: ethnic, cultural and political. In the ethnic sense, there are few Arabs worth speaking of in Darfur, and a very tiny percent in Sudan. In the cultural sense, Arab refers to those who have come to speak Arabic as a home language and, sometimes, to those who are nomadic in lifestyle. In this sense, many have become Arabs. From the cultural point of view, one can be both African and Arab, in other words, an African who speaks Arabic, which is what the 'Arabs' of Darfur are. For those given to thinking of identity in racial terms, it may be better to think of this population as 'Arabized' rather than 'Arab.'
Then there is Arab in the political sense. This refers to a political identity called 'Arab' that the ruling group in Khartoum has promoted at different points as the identity of power and of the Sudanese nation. As a political identity, Arab is relatively new to Darfur. Darfur was home to the Mahdist movement whose troops defeated the British and slayed General Gordon a century ago. Darfur then became the base of the party organized around the Sufi order, the Ansar. This party, called the Umma Party, is currently led by the grandson of the Mahdi, Sadiq al-Mahdi. The major change in the political map of Darfur over the past decade was the growth of the Islamist movement, led by Hassan Turabi. Politically, Darfur became 'Islamist' rather than 'Arab.'
Like Arab, Islam too needs to be understood not just as a cultural (and religious) identity but also as a political one, thus distinguishing the broad category of believers called Muslims from political activists called Islamists. Historically, Islam as a political identity in the Sudan has been associated with political parties based on Sufi orders, mainly the Umma Party based on the Ansar and the DUP based on the Khatamiyya. In sharp contrast to the strongly Sudanese identity of these 'sectarian' and 'traditional' parties is the militant, modernist and internationalist orientation of the type of political Islam championed by Hassan Turabi and organized as the National Islamic Front. Not only in its predominantly urban social base but also in its methods of organization, the NIF was poles apart from 'traditional' political Islam, and in fact consciously emulated the Communist Party. Unlike the 'traditional' parties which were mass-based and hoped to come to power through elections, the NIF - like the CP - was a cadre-based vanguard party which hoped to take power in alliance with a faction in the army. The fulfillment of this agenda was the 1989 coup which brought Turabi's NIF into power in alliance with the Bashir faction in the army.
As a political identity, 'African' is even more recent than 'Arab' in Darfur. I have referred to an attempt by SPLA in 1990 to confront the power in Khartoum as 'Arab' and to rally the opposition under the banner of 'African.' Both the insurgency that began 18 months ago and the government's response to it are evidence of the crisis of the Islamist regime and the government's retreat to a narrower political identity, 'Arab.'
Third, both the anti- and the pro-government militia have outside sponsors, but they cannot just be dismissed as external creations. The Sudan government organized local militias in Darfur in 1990, using them both to fight the SPLA in the south and to contain the expansion of the southern rebellion to the west. The militias are not monolithic and they are not centrally controlled. When the Islamists split in 1999 between the Turabi and the Bashir groups, many of the Darfur militia were purged. Those who were not, like the Berti, retained a measure of local support. This is why it is wrong to think of the Janjawid as a single organization under a unified command.
Does that mean that we cannot hold the Sudan government responsible for the atrocities committed by Janjawid militias that it continues to supply? No, it does not. We must hold the patron responsible for the actions of the proxy. At the same time, we need to realize that it may be easier to supply than to disband local militias. Those who start and feed fires should be held responsible for doing so; but let us not forget that it may be easier to start a fire than to put it out.
The fight between the militias on both sides and the violence unleashed against the unarmed population has been waged with exceptional cruelty. One reason may be that the initiative has passed from the communities on the ground to those contending for power. Another may be the low value on life placed by the security cabal in Khartoum and by those in the opposition who want power at any cost.
What is the solution?
I suggest a three-pronged process in the Sudan. The priority must be to complete the Naivasha peace process and change the character of the government in Khartoum. Second, whatever the level of civilian support enjoyed by militias, it would be a mistake to tarnish the communities with the sins of the particular militia they support. On the contrary, every effort should be made to neutralize or re-organize the militia and stabilize communities in Darfur through local initiatives. This means both a civic conference of all communities - both those identified as Arab and those as African - and reorganized civil defense forces of all communities. This may need to be done under the protective and supervisory umbrella of an African Union policing force. Finally, to build on the Naivasha process by bringing into it all those previously excluded. To do so will require creating the conditions for a reorganized civil administration in Darfur.
To build confidence among all parties, but particularly among those demonized as 'Arab', we need to use the same standard for all. To make the point, let us first look at the African region. The U.N. estimates that some 30 to 50,000 people have been killed in Darfur and another 1.4 million or so have been made homeless. The figure for the dead in Congo over the last few years is over 4 million. Many have died at the hands of ethnic Hema or Lendu militias. These are Janjawid-type militias known to have functioned as proxies for neighboring states. In the northern Ugandan districts of Acholiland, over 80% of the population has been interned by the government, given substandard rations and nominal security, thus left open to gradual premeditated starvation and periodic kidnapping by another militia, the Lord's Redemption Army (LRA). When the U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, flew to Khartoum recently, I was in Kampala. The comment I heard all around was: Why didn't he stop here? And why not in Kigali? And Kinshasa? Should we not apply the same standards to the governments in Kampala and Kigali and elsewhere as we do to the government in Khartoum, even if Kampala and Kigali are America's allies in its global 'war on terror'?
Internationally, there is the daunting example of Iraq. Before the American invasion, Iraq went through an era of U.N. sanctions, which were kept in place for a decade by the US and Britain. The effect of the sanctions came to light when UNICEF carried out a child mortality survey in 1999 at the initiative of Canada and Brazil. Richard Garfield, professor of Clinical International Nursing at Columbia University and chair of the Human Rights Committee of the American Public Health Association calculated 'on a conservative estimate' that there had been 300,000 'excess deaths' of children under 5 in Iraq during the sanctions. But the sanctions continued. Today, the US does not even count the number of Iraqi dead, and the U.N. has made no attempt to estimate them. Iraq is not history. It continues to bleed.
This backdrop, regional and international, should prompt us to ask at least one question: Does the label 'worst humanitarian crisis' tell us more about Darfur or about those labeling and the politics of labeling? Are we to return to a Cold War-type era in which America's allies can commit atrocities with impunity while its adversaries are demagogically held accountable to an international standard of human rights?
Some argue that international alignment on the Darfur crisis is dictated by the political economy of oil. To the extent this is true, let us not forget that oil influences both those (such as China) who would like continued access to Sudan's oil and those (such as USA) who covet that access. But for those who do strategic thinking, the more important reason may be political. For official America, Darfur is a strategic opportunity to draw Africa into the global 'war on terror' by sharply drawing lines that demarcate 'Arab' against 'African,' just as for the crumbling regime in Khartoum this very fact presents a last opportunity to downplay its own responsibilities and call for assistance from those who oppose official America's 'war on terror.'
What Should We Do?
First of all, we the civilians - and I address Africans and Americans in particular - should work against a military solution. We should work against a US intervention, whether direct or by proxy, and however disguised - as humanitarian or whatever. We should work against punitive sanctions. The lesson of Iraq sanctions is that you target individuals, not governments. Sanctions feed into a culture of terror, of collective punishment. Its victims are seldom its target. Both military intervention and sanctions are undesirable and ineffective.
Second, we should organize in support of a culture of peace, of a rule of law and of a system of political accountability. Of particular importance is to recognize that the international community has created an institution called the International Criminal Court to try individuals for the most heinous crimes, such as genocide, war crimes and systematic rights abuses. The US has not only refused to ratify the treaty setting up the ICC, it has gone to all lengths to sabotage it. For Americans, it is important to get their government to join the ICC. The simple fact is that you can only claim the moral right to hold others accountable to a set of standards if you are willing to be held accountable to the same standards.
Finally, there is need to beware of groups who want a simple and comprehensive explanation, even if it is misleading; who demand dramatic action, even if it backfires; who have so come to depend on crisis that they risk unwittingly aggravating existing crisis. Often, they use the call for urgent action to silence any debate as a luxury. And yet, responsible action needs to be informed.
For the African Union, Darfur is both an opportunity and a test. The opportunity is to build on the global concern over a humanitarian disaster in Darfur to set a humanitarian standard that must be observed by all, including America's allies in Africa. And the test is to defend African sovereignty in the face of official America's global 'war on terror.' On both counts, the first priority must be to stop the war and push the peace process.
[via Black Looks. Courtesy Pambazuka News. Copyright: Mahmood Mamdani. Reproduced at Pambazuka News with the permission of the author]
Owukori says Mahmood Mamdani's explanation and analysis of the Darfur crisis is excellent and one of the best pieces she has read. I agree, it's the best piece I have read too.
I'd like to read the report again and write more commentary on it here but am unable to right now and want to get this posted up here without further delay.
Note, Jim Moore has deleted the words "non-partisan" from the title banner of Passion of the Present and so I feel if I, as a co-author, publish a post at the Passion that points to Mahmood's report, I'd be interrupting something. (The war drums are beating over at Harvard and Jim is going ballistic in Boston. America's presidential election is just a few weeks away. Senator John Kerry's supporters are leaving no stone unturned looking for and providing ways to make him say things that might appeal to voters. Senator Kerry is Governor of Mass., and married to Heinz ketchup heiress. Harvard is in Boston, Mass. Join up the dots - and read Second Superpower campaigns for Kerry).
The following is a copy in full of Mahmood Mamdani's piece that reflects my view on the Darfur crisis. I completely agree with the report's proposed "solution" and "what we should do" - and love the line that says "we should organize in support of a culture of peace, of a rule of law and of a system of political accountability".
Mahmood Mamdani is Herbert Lehman Professor of Government and Director, Institute of African Studies, at University of Columbia, New York.
How can we name the Darfur crisis? Preliminary thoughts on Darfur
The US Congress, and now Secretary of State Colin Powell, claim that genocide has occurred in Darfur. The European Union says it is not genocide. And so does the African Union.
Nigerian President Obasanjo, also the current Chair of the African Union, told a press conference at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on September 23: "Before you can say that this is genocide or ethnic cleansing, we will have to have a definite decision and plan and program of a government to wipe out a particular group of people, then we will be talking about genocide, ethnic cleansing. What we know is not that. What we know is that there was an uprising, rebellion, and the government armed another group of people to stop that rebellion. That's what we know. That does not amount to genocide from our own reckoning. It amounts to of course conflict. It amounts to violence."
Is Darfur genocide that has happened and must be punished? Or, is it genocide that could happen and must be prevented? I will argue the latter.
Sudan is today the site of two contradictory processes. The first is the Naivasha peace process between the SPLA and the Government of Sudan, whose promise is an end to Africa's longest festering civil war. The second is the armed confrontation between an insurgency and anti-government militias in Darfur. There is need to think of the south and the west as different aspects of a connected process. I will argue that this reflection should be guided by a central objective: to reinforce the peace process and to demilitarize the conflict in Darfur.
Understanding Darfur Conflict Politically
The peace process in the South has split both sides to the conflict. Tensions within the ruling circles in Khartoum and within the opposition SPLA have given rise to two anti-government militias. The Justice and Equality Movement has historical links to the Islamist regime, and the SLA to the southern guerrilla movement.
The Justice and Equality Movement organized as part of the Hassan Turabi faction of the Islamists. Darfur, historically the mainstay of the Mahdist movement, was Turabi's major claim to political success in the last decade. When the Khartoum coalition - between the army officers led by Bashir and the Islamist political movement under Turabi - split, the Darfur Islamists fell out with both sides. JEM was organized in Khartoum as part of an agenda for regaining power. It has a more localized and multi-ethnic presence in Darfur and has been home to many who have advocated an 'African Islam'.
The SLA is linked to SPLA, which first tried to expand the southern-based armed movement to Darfur in 1990, but failed. The radical leadership of that thrust was decapitated in a government assault. Not surprisingly, the new leadership of SLA has little political experience.
The present conflict began when the SLA mounted an ambitious and successful assault on El Fashar airport on April 25, 2003, on a scale larger than most encounters in the southern civil war.
The government in Khartoum is also divided, between those who pushed the peace process, and those who believe too much was conceded in the Naivasha talks. This opposition, the security cabal in Khartoum, responded by arming and unleashing several militia, known as the Janjawid. The result is a spiral of state-sponsored violence and indiscriminate spread of weaponry.
In sum, all those opposed to the peace process in the south have moved to fight in Darfur, even if on opposing sides. The Darfur conflict has many layers; the most recent but the most explosive is that it is the continuation of the southern conflict in the west.
De-demonize Adversaries
For anyone reading the press today, the atrocities in Sudan are synonymous with a demonic presence, the Janjawid, the spearhead of an 'Arab' assault on 'Africans.' The problem with the public discussion of Darfur and Sudan is not simply that we know little; it is also the representation of what we do know. To understand the problem with how known facts are being represented, I suggest we face three facts.
First, as a proxy of those in power in Khartoum, the Janjawid are not exceptional. They reflect a broad African trend. Proxy war spread within the continent with the formation of Renamo by the Rhodesian and the South African security cabal in the early 1980s. Other examples in the East African region include the Lord's Redemption Army in northern Uganda, the Hema and Lendu militias in Itori in eastern Congo and, of course, the Hutu militia in post-genocide Rwanda. Like the Janjawid, all these combine different degrees of autonomy on the ground with proxy connections above ground.
Second, all parties involved in the Darfur conflict - whether they are referred to as 'Arab' or as 'African' - are equally indigenous and equally black. All are Muslims and all are local. To see how the corporate media and some of the charity-dependent international NGOs consistently racialize representations, we need to distinguish between different kinds of identities.
Let us begin by distinguishing between three different meanings of Arab: ethnic, cultural and political. In the ethnic sense, there are few Arabs worth speaking of in Darfur, and a very tiny percent in Sudan. In the cultural sense, Arab refers to those who have come to speak Arabic as a home language and, sometimes, to those who are nomadic in lifestyle. In this sense, many have become Arabs. From the cultural point of view, one can be both African and Arab, in other words, an African who speaks Arabic, which is what the 'Arabs' of Darfur are. For those given to thinking of identity in racial terms, it may be better to think of this population as 'Arabized' rather than 'Arab.'
Then there is Arab in the political sense. This refers to a political identity called 'Arab' that the ruling group in Khartoum has promoted at different points as the identity of power and of the Sudanese nation. As a political identity, Arab is relatively new to Darfur. Darfur was home to the Mahdist movement whose troops defeated the British and slayed General Gordon a century ago. Darfur then became the base of the party organized around the Sufi order, the Ansar. This party, called the Umma Party, is currently led by the grandson of the Mahdi, Sadiq al-Mahdi. The major change in the political map of Darfur over the past decade was the growth of the Islamist movement, led by Hassan Turabi. Politically, Darfur became 'Islamist' rather than 'Arab.'
Like Arab, Islam too needs to be understood not just as a cultural (and religious) identity but also as a political one, thus distinguishing the broad category of believers called Muslims from political activists called Islamists. Historically, Islam as a political identity in the Sudan has been associated with political parties based on Sufi orders, mainly the Umma Party based on the Ansar and the DUP based on the Khatamiyya. In sharp contrast to the strongly Sudanese identity of these 'sectarian' and 'traditional' parties is the militant, modernist and internationalist orientation of the type of political Islam championed by Hassan Turabi and organized as the National Islamic Front. Not only in its predominantly urban social base but also in its methods of organization, the NIF was poles apart from 'traditional' political Islam, and in fact consciously emulated the Communist Party. Unlike the 'traditional' parties which were mass-based and hoped to come to power through elections, the NIF - like the CP - was a cadre-based vanguard party which hoped to take power in alliance with a faction in the army. The fulfillment of this agenda was the 1989 coup which brought Turabi's NIF into power in alliance with the Bashir faction in the army.
As a political identity, 'African' is even more recent than 'Arab' in Darfur. I have referred to an attempt by SPLA in 1990 to confront the power in Khartoum as 'Arab' and to rally the opposition under the banner of 'African.' Both the insurgency that began 18 months ago and the government's response to it are evidence of the crisis of the Islamist regime and the government's retreat to a narrower political identity, 'Arab.'
Third, both the anti- and the pro-government militia have outside sponsors, but they cannot just be dismissed as external creations. The Sudan government organized local militias in Darfur in 1990, using them both to fight the SPLA in the south and to contain the expansion of the southern rebellion to the west. The militias are not monolithic and they are not centrally controlled. When the Islamists split in 1999 between the Turabi and the Bashir groups, many of the Darfur militia were purged. Those who were not, like the Berti, retained a measure of local support. This is why it is wrong to think of the Janjawid as a single organization under a unified command.
Does that mean that we cannot hold the Sudan government responsible for the atrocities committed by Janjawid militias that it continues to supply? No, it does not. We must hold the patron responsible for the actions of the proxy. At the same time, we need to realize that it may be easier to supply than to disband local militias. Those who start and feed fires should be held responsible for doing so; but let us not forget that it may be easier to start a fire than to put it out.
The fight between the militias on both sides and the violence unleashed against the unarmed population has been waged with exceptional cruelty. One reason may be that the initiative has passed from the communities on the ground to those contending for power. Another may be the low value on life placed by the security cabal in Khartoum and by those in the opposition who want power at any cost.
What is the solution?
I suggest a three-pronged process in the Sudan. The priority must be to complete the Naivasha peace process and change the character of the government in Khartoum. Second, whatever the level of civilian support enjoyed by militias, it would be a mistake to tarnish the communities with the sins of the particular militia they support. On the contrary, every effort should be made to neutralize or re-organize the militia and stabilize communities in Darfur through local initiatives. This means both a civic conference of all communities - both those identified as Arab and those as African - and reorganized civil defense forces of all communities. This may need to be done under the protective and supervisory umbrella of an African Union policing force. Finally, to build on the Naivasha process by bringing into it all those previously excluded. To do so will require creating the conditions for a reorganized civil administration in Darfur.
To build confidence among all parties, but particularly among those demonized as 'Arab', we need to use the same standard for all. To make the point, let us first look at the African region. The U.N. estimates that some 30 to 50,000 people have been killed in Darfur and another 1.4 million or so have been made homeless. The figure for the dead in Congo over the last few years is over 4 million. Many have died at the hands of ethnic Hema or Lendu militias. These are Janjawid-type militias known to have functioned as proxies for neighboring states. In the northern Ugandan districts of Acholiland, over 80% of the population has been interned by the government, given substandard rations and nominal security, thus left open to gradual premeditated starvation and periodic kidnapping by another militia, the Lord's Redemption Army (LRA). When the U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, flew to Khartoum recently, I was in Kampala. The comment I heard all around was: Why didn't he stop here? And why not in Kigali? And Kinshasa? Should we not apply the same standards to the governments in Kampala and Kigali and elsewhere as we do to the government in Khartoum, even if Kampala and Kigali are America's allies in its global 'war on terror'?
Internationally, there is the daunting example of Iraq. Before the American invasion, Iraq went through an era of U.N. sanctions, which were kept in place for a decade by the US and Britain. The effect of the sanctions came to light when UNICEF carried out a child mortality survey in 1999 at the initiative of Canada and Brazil. Richard Garfield, professor of Clinical International Nursing at Columbia University and chair of the Human Rights Committee of the American Public Health Association calculated 'on a conservative estimate' that there had been 300,000 'excess deaths' of children under 5 in Iraq during the sanctions. But the sanctions continued. Today, the US does not even count the number of Iraqi dead, and the U.N. has made no attempt to estimate them. Iraq is not history. It continues to bleed.
This backdrop, regional and international, should prompt us to ask at least one question: Does the label 'worst humanitarian crisis' tell us more about Darfur or about those labeling and the politics of labeling? Are we to return to a Cold War-type era in which America's allies can commit atrocities with impunity while its adversaries are demagogically held accountable to an international standard of human rights?
Some argue that international alignment on the Darfur crisis is dictated by the political economy of oil. To the extent this is true, let us not forget that oil influences both those (such as China) who would like continued access to Sudan's oil and those (such as USA) who covet that access. But for those who do strategic thinking, the more important reason may be political. For official America, Darfur is a strategic opportunity to draw Africa into the global 'war on terror' by sharply drawing lines that demarcate 'Arab' against 'African,' just as for the crumbling regime in Khartoum this very fact presents a last opportunity to downplay its own responsibilities and call for assistance from those who oppose official America's 'war on terror.'
What Should We Do?
First of all, we the civilians - and I address Africans and Americans in particular - should work against a military solution. We should work against a US intervention, whether direct or by proxy, and however disguised - as humanitarian or whatever. We should work against punitive sanctions. The lesson of Iraq sanctions is that you target individuals, not governments. Sanctions feed into a culture of terror, of collective punishment. Its victims are seldom its target. Both military intervention and sanctions are undesirable and ineffective.
Second, we should organize in support of a culture of peace, of a rule of law and of a system of political accountability. Of particular importance is to recognize that the international community has created an institution called the International Criminal Court to try individuals for the most heinous crimes, such as genocide, war crimes and systematic rights abuses. The US has not only refused to ratify the treaty setting up the ICC, it has gone to all lengths to sabotage it. For Americans, it is important to get their government to join the ICC. The simple fact is that you can only claim the moral right to hold others accountable to a set of standards if you are willing to be held accountable to the same standards.
Finally, there is need to beware of groups who want a simple and comprehensive explanation, even if it is misleading; who demand dramatic action, even if it backfires; who have so come to depend on crisis that they risk unwittingly aggravating existing crisis. Often, they use the call for urgent action to silence any debate as a luxury. And yet, responsible action needs to be informed.
For the African Union, Darfur is both an opportunity and a test. The opportunity is to build on the global concern over a humanitarian disaster in Darfur to set a humanitarian standard that must be observed by all, including America's allies in Africa. And the test is to defend African sovereignty in the face of official America's global 'war on terror.' On both counts, the first priority must be to stop the war and push the peace process.
[via Black Looks. Courtesy Pambazuka News. Copyright: Mahmood Mamdani. Reproduced at Pambazuka News with the permission of the author]
Monday, October 18, 2004
China fights UN sanctions on Sudan to safeguard oil
China is trying to stop the United Nations imposing sanctions on Sudan over the crisis in the Darfur regionto protect its oil imports from the country, say western diplomats.
For the past six years Beijing has been the Sudanese government's main backer, buying 70 per cent of its exports, servicing its $20bn debt and supplying the Khartoum government with most of its weapons.
Beijing oil imports jumped 35 per cent this year and its reliance on a growing number of rogue states to meet its needs is putting it on a collision course with the United States. Sudan and Iran together supply 20 per cent of China's oil imports, and if economic sanctions were applied to either, Beijing would be unable to sustain its high growth rates.
China was identified by diplomats as the member responsible for watering down last month's Security Council resolution which threatened to halt Sudan's oil exports if it did not stop atrocities in the Darfur region, where Arab militias are terrorising African villagers.
The issue will be put before the council again at the end of this month, when members will consider a report on progress made by Khartoum in halting the violence.
Sudan is the largest recipient of Chinese overseas investment and some 10,000 Chinese are working in the country. Since 1999 China has poured up to $3bn (£1.6bn) into developing several oil fields and building a 930-mile pipeline, refinery and port.
The UN Security Council is committed to reviewing the situation on a monthly basis. Given the stream of bad news, it could soon move to embargo Sudan's oil exports. China's ambassador to the UN, Wang Guangya, has already threatened to veto any such resolution, but diplomats say Beijing may have to give in to mounting international pressure.
Beijing is already under fire for its support of Burma, North Korea and Iran, countries also accused of breaches of international law. China was also singled out in the recently released Charles Duelfer report on Iraq's WMD, along with Russia and France, for breaching the UN sanctions against Iraq and subverting the oil-for-food programme. But China is almost alone in supporting Sudan. After the US imposed sanctions in November 1997, the rest of the world - apart from companies from Pakistan, India and Malaysia - have kept their distance.
Sudan's attraction to China, other than its pariah status, is that it holds Africa's greatest unexploited oil resources, even greater than those of the Gulf of Guinea. China has helped to boost Sudan's crude oil production from 150,000 barrels per day in 2000 to an expected 500,000 bpd in 2005. All this comes from oil fields in central and south-central regions which may hold only 15 per cent of Sudan's total reserves.
A failure in Sudan could severely damage China's shaky efforts to become a global player in the oil business. When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, China lost a key partner. Recently, two pipelines to import oil from Kazakhstan and Russia have been dogged by unexpected delays and problems.
Securing long-term supplies of oil, natural gas, iron ore, copper and other vital minerals has become the top priority for China, and it is investing everywhere. One new project is a 600-mile, $2bn pipeline from Burma's deepwater port of Sittwe, which will follow a projected railway line to China's south-western province of Yunnan. Another is the development of Gwadar Port in Pakistan, which China hopes to use to ship oil and gas from the Gulf. A pipeline to Xinjiang over the Karakoram Pass will follow.
Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=572309M
By Jasper Becker in Beijing, Independent UK, 15 October 2004.
For the past six years Beijing has been the Sudanese government's main backer, buying 70 per cent of its exports, servicing its $20bn debt and supplying the Khartoum government with most of its weapons.
Beijing oil imports jumped 35 per cent this year and its reliance on a growing number of rogue states to meet its needs is putting it on a collision course with the United States. Sudan and Iran together supply 20 per cent of China's oil imports, and if economic sanctions were applied to either, Beijing would be unable to sustain its high growth rates.
China was identified by diplomats as the member responsible for watering down last month's Security Council resolution which threatened to halt Sudan's oil exports if it did not stop atrocities in the Darfur region, where Arab militias are terrorising African villagers.
The issue will be put before the council again at the end of this month, when members will consider a report on progress made by Khartoum in halting the violence.
Sudan is the largest recipient of Chinese overseas investment and some 10,000 Chinese are working in the country. Since 1999 China has poured up to $3bn (£1.6bn) into developing several oil fields and building a 930-mile pipeline, refinery and port.
The UN Security Council is committed to reviewing the situation on a monthly basis. Given the stream of bad news, it could soon move to embargo Sudan's oil exports. China's ambassador to the UN, Wang Guangya, has already threatened to veto any such resolution, but diplomats say Beijing may have to give in to mounting international pressure.
Beijing is already under fire for its support of Burma, North Korea and Iran, countries also accused of breaches of international law. China was also singled out in the recently released Charles Duelfer report on Iraq's WMD, along with Russia and France, for breaching the UN sanctions against Iraq and subverting the oil-for-food programme. But China is almost alone in supporting Sudan. After the US imposed sanctions in November 1997, the rest of the world - apart from companies from Pakistan, India and Malaysia - have kept their distance.
Sudan's attraction to China, other than its pariah status, is that it holds Africa's greatest unexploited oil resources, even greater than those of the Gulf of Guinea. China has helped to boost Sudan's crude oil production from 150,000 barrels per day in 2000 to an expected 500,000 bpd in 2005. All this comes from oil fields in central and south-central regions which may hold only 15 per cent of Sudan's total reserves.
A failure in Sudan could severely damage China's shaky efforts to become a global player in the oil business. When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, China lost a key partner. Recently, two pipelines to import oil from Kazakhstan and Russia have been dogged by unexpected delays and problems.
Securing long-term supplies of oil, natural gas, iron ore, copper and other vital minerals has become the top priority for China, and it is investing everywhere. One new project is a 600-mile, $2bn pipeline from Burma's deepwater port of Sittwe, which will follow a projected railway line to China's south-western province of Yunnan. Another is the development of Gwadar Port in Pakistan, which China hopes to use to ship oil and gas from the Gulf. A pipeline to Xinjiang over the Karakoram Pass will follow.
Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=572309M
By Jasper Becker in Beijing, Independent UK, 15 October 2004.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Blood Money - Financing Mass Murder
The following is an excerpt from New York writer John Fitzgerald's "Blood Money" post. John raises the hugely important issue of business ethics and says he doesn't see how one need support genocide while supporting capitalism. Readers should look for his follow-up post on the Sudan story at his Secession blog later next week.
"...Several major corporations currently traded on the New York Stock Exchange have been handsomely financing the Sudanese government in return for petroleum. The report, based on extensive ongoing research by Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College, shows that over the last six years Sudan has used its massive wealth derived from petroleum sales for a similarly massive military build-up. “A measure of the profligacy of Khartoum’s military purchases,” Reeves explains, “can be seen in the recent completion of a deal with Russia for 10 MiG-29s – one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world.
Despite a declaration from the United States that genocide is being perpetrated by the arab Sudanese government against black Africans, western corporations continue to have lucrative contracts with Khartoum. For instance, Siemens AG, a German corporation that already has a storied history from the Nazi era, is “presently building outside Khartoum the world’s largest diesel-powered electrical generating plant.”
It is this presence “that does so much to sustain the National Islamic Front and convince the regime that ultimately petrodollars speak louder than the cries of death and suffering in Darfur.”
- - -
Financing Mass Murder
Here, courtesy John Fitzgerald's Secession blog, is an excerpt from Nat Hentoff's October 8, 2004 post Financing Mass Murder - How free-market investors contribute to genocide in Darfur while they take the profits.
"In next week's column, details of Eric Reeves's plan: "A successful divestment campaign against these companies, and their ethically myopic investments, would bring real, unsustainable economic pressure to bear on Khartoum . . .
"Its single goal would be to force a commitment by such companies to suspend all commercial activities pending the end of genocidal destruction in Darfur and completion of a final peace agreement with the people of the south." (Emphasis added.)
And there will be ways in which many of you, individually, can become part of this divestment campaign. Says Reeves: "The time has come for ordinary citizens to make it impossible for this intransigently genocidal regime to enjoy the economic benefits of European and Asian commercial and economic support. Divestment from the equity (shares) of the most culpably guilty of these transnational companies is a moral imperative." More to come, specifically on those American institutions that profit by investing in the monstrous government in Sudan."
Note quotation: Sudan's oil reserves yield two billion dollars in annual revenue . . . —Samantha Power The New Yorker, August 30, 2004
- - -
Malaysian boy does his bit for Darfur kids - why can't the Chinese government help too?
Eleven-year-old Prithiv Raja Ratnam found an unused shoebox and covered it with pictures of affected children in Darfur. Labelling it a “donation box,” he went from class to class and told his schoolmates to chip in to help alleviate the children’s sufferings. His efforts netted RM547.87 for the Darfur Children's Fund.
According to his mother, pictures of the children published in Malaysia's The Star newspaper moved the boy and he asked her if he could do anything about it. “I told him to discuss it with his principal - after he did, he spent the next three days going from class to class urging his schoolmates to donate to the fund,” she said.
The Star is joining hands with the Malaysia Medical Relief Society (Mercy Malaysia) to raise funds for a humanitarian aid programme in West Darfur.
The contribution from Prithiv's school was among the donations received for the fund at a ceremony in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday. Krista Education, a Malaysian educational organisation that runs kindergartens also made donations. Its fund-raising involved some 80 kindergartens, which collected RM2,000 over three weeks. The donations were received by Mercy Malaysia.
Krista's CEO said: “We have to educate our children to look after the less fortunate and that habit should be cultivated early.”
Countries that have not contributed to the U.N.'s appeal for funds to feed the starving should take note. Children around the world and in Africa are the future caretakers of this planet. Education is key. The children of Darfur need our help. Now.
PS Jim, I totally agree with Jay's comments in response to your proposal to bomb Sudan post. The people of Darfur, facing disease and starvation. 85% of the deaths in the camps from disease and starvation. They are desperately in need of long term supplies of food, water, latrines and medicine -- not bombs. Why they are not getting enough food?
What can we can do to help get food and aid to those most in need? And what will become of the refugees over the next 1 - 2 years if the 191 member states of the U.N. can't even come up with the $150m the U.N. have been appealing for over past six months?
The media needs to shame countries into helping BIG TIME: China, India, Pakistan, Russia and the Arab countries to name a few. I wish the media would pick up on the issue of business ethics and start investigating and shaming the oil operations sitting in the vicinity of Darfur - especially the ones beloning to the Chinese Government. They are the ones funding Khartoum.
"...Several major corporations currently traded on the New York Stock Exchange have been handsomely financing the Sudanese government in return for petroleum. The report, based on extensive ongoing research by Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College, shows that over the last six years Sudan has used its massive wealth derived from petroleum sales for a similarly massive military build-up. “A measure of the profligacy of Khartoum’s military purchases,” Reeves explains, “can be seen in the recent completion of a deal with Russia for 10 MiG-29s – one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world.
Despite a declaration from the United States that genocide is being perpetrated by the arab Sudanese government against black Africans, western corporations continue to have lucrative contracts with Khartoum. For instance, Siemens AG, a German corporation that already has a storied history from the Nazi era, is “presently building outside Khartoum the world’s largest diesel-powered electrical generating plant.”
It is this presence “that does so much to sustain the National Islamic Front and convince the regime that ultimately petrodollars speak louder than the cries of death and suffering in Darfur.”
- - -
Financing Mass Murder
Here, courtesy John Fitzgerald's Secession blog, is an excerpt from Nat Hentoff's October 8, 2004 post Financing Mass Murder - How free-market investors contribute to genocide in Darfur while they take the profits.
"In next week's column, details of Eric Reeves's plan: "A successful divestment campaign against these companies, and their ethically myopic investments, would bring real, unsustainable economic pressure to bear on Khartoum . . .
"Its single goal would be to force a commitment by such companies to suspend all commercial activities pending the end of genocidal destruction in Darfur and completion of a final peace agreement with the people of the south." (Emphasis added.)
And there will be ways in which many of you, individually, can become part of this divestment campaign. Says Reeves: "The time has come for ordinary citizens to make it impossible for this intransigently genocidal regime to enjoy the economic benefits of European and Asian commercial and economic support. Divestment from the equity (shares) of the most culpably guilty of these transnational companies is a moral imperative." More to come, specifically on those American institutions that profit by investing in the monstrous government in Sudan."
Note quotation: Sudan's oil reserves yield two billion dollars in annual revenue . . . —Samantha Power The New Yorker, August 30, 2004
- - -
Malaysian boy does his bit for Darfur kids - why can't the Chinese government help too?
Eleven-year-old Prithiv Raja Ratnam found an unused shoebox and covered it with pictures of affected children in Darfur. Labelling it a “donation box,” he went from class to class and told his schoolmates to chip in to help alleviate the children’s sufferings. His efforts netted RM547.87 for the Darfur Children's Fund.
According to his mother, pictures of the children published in Malaysia's The Star newspaper moved the boy and he asked her if he could do anything about it. “I told him to discuss it with his principal - after he did, he spent the next three days going from class to class urging his schoolmates to donate to the fund,” she said.
The Star is joining hands with the Malaysia Medical Relief Society (Mercy Malaysia) to raise funds for a humanitarian aid programme in West Darfur.
The contribution from Prithiv's school was among the donations received for the fund at a ceremony in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday. Krista Education, a Malaysian educational organisation that runs kindergartens also made donations. Its fund-raising involved some 80 kindergartens, which collected RM2,000 over three weeks. The donations were received by Mercy Malaysia.
Krista's CEO said: “We have to educate our children to look after the less fortunate and that habit should be cultivated early.”
Countries that have not contributed to the U.N.'s appeal for funds to feed the starving should take note. Children around the world and in Africa are the future caretakers of this planet. Education is key. The children of Darfur need our help. Now.
PS Jim, I totally agree with Jay's comments in response to your proposal to bomb Sudan post. The people of Darfur, facing disease and starvation. 85% of the deaths in the camps from disease and starvation. They are desperately in need of long term supplies of food, water, latrines and medicine -- not bombs. Why they are not getting enough food?
What can we can do to help get food and aid to those most in need? And what will become of the refugees over the next 1 - 2 years if the 191 member states of the U.N. can't even come up with the $150m the U.N. have been appealing for over past six months?
The media needs to shame countries into helping BIG TIME: China, India, Pakistan, Russia and the Arab countries to name a few. I wish the media would pick up on the issue of business ethics and start investigating and shaming the oil operations sitting in the vicinity of Darfur - especially the ones beloning to the Chinese Government. They are the ones funding Khartoum.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
World Food Day Saturday October 16: Name and shame the countries not contributing towards aid
On World Food Day, Saturday October 16, citizens of America and Britain can be proud of the contributions made by their countrymen and governments for the victims of Darfur.
The British have provided generous funding, several emergency plane loads of aid, logistical and financial support to AU troops, thousands of man hours of teeth gritting diplomacy, months of hard work by many British organisations, groups, charities, churches along with UK's 12 largest aid agencies and their aid workers on the ground who have risked (and some lost) their lives to help.
Plus, in addition to Prime Minister Tony Blair's historic visit to Khartoum, the highest ranking Western leader to meet with Sudan's government in Khartoum - and the first visit by a British leader since Sudan's independence in 1956 - he has pledged a further £100 million for next year if peace is agreed.
Last time I checked, the British were the second largest, after the U.S., cash donors for Darfur. The response of the British public and government has been huge, especially considering Britain is a small island that size wise could easily fit into the State of Texas.
Today (Friday) the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) announced a donation of $57 million in humanitarian assistance for Darfur. Total U.S. assistance for Darfur now stands at more than $302 million.
The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N. World Food Program (WFP) and to date has provided more than 186,000 metric tons of food aid for Darfur, valued at more than $170 million. For more information on USAID's ongoing efforts in Darfur please visit www.usaid.gov
It would be interesting to note the contributions made by China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Brazil and the Arab nations. Given that China has huge oil interests in Sudan and operations in the vicinity Darfur, it seems strange that the Chinese are not a major donor. China sits on the U.N. Security Council but, like others, seems to be getting away with contributing very little, if anything.
Also, India are doing great business with Sudan, doing deals, signing contracts and laying oil pipelines in Sudan. How much has India contributed to the humanitarian effort in Darfur and what is India, and the other countries just mentioned, doing to help the world's poorest nations?
And what about Sudan itself? It is super rich in oil and minerals with hundreds of millions spare dollars to spend on weaponary and MiGs from Russia. How come it is a member of the U.N. and does not buy food for its own people?
The U.N. asked donors for $300 million to help Darfur but to date has received only half. Some countries pledged contributions but have not paid up. The U.N., or someone, ought to name and shame those countries so the spotlight and pressure can be put upon them by the public, media and bloggers.
Today, to mark World Food Day on Saturday October 16, WFP, the world's largest humanitarian agency, tells the media that the plight of hundreds of millions of hungry people around the world has been overshadowed by the crisis in Darfur.
In one news report, WFP Executive Director James Morris emphasized his concern for the victims of Darfur, but he also stressed that for every hungry child who made world news headlines there were millions more who went unnoticed.
He was quoted as saying: "WFP is calling for a new focus on the "routine hungry", the people left without enough food, not because of natural disasters or conflict, but simply because they are too poor to provide for themselves and their families. These people -- who make up more than 90 percent of the world's hungry -- are hit even harder when high-profile emergencies take up the bulk of donor aid budgets."
Also today, the World Health Organisation (WHO) warned that the mortality rate in Darfur will not fall (70,000 deaths reported so far - 10,000 dying each month) unless countries provide more money.
“We are running on a threadbare, hand-to-mouth existence, and if the plight of these people in Darfur is as important to the international community as it seems to be then we would have expected more long-term support,” said Dr. David Nabarro, head of Who’s crisis operations.
The U.S. and U.K. have gone to a great deal of time, trouble, effort and expense to help the people of Sudan, and have given hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Many other countries have also contributed generously. But today the U.N., WFP and WHO are saying people are dying from disease and starvation because of lack of funding. Last time I checked, WFP had 800 milllion USD in its coffers. What exactly is going on, does anybody know?
The U.N. comprises 191 member states. Surely, if they are not already doing so, member states ought to agree on paying a set sum each year to help feed the world. A fixed percentage, according to ability to pay, i.e. the wealthiest pay most and the poorest pay zero. That way, wealthy countries like China could end up being major donors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3747380.stm
The British have provided generous funding, several emergency plane loads of aid, logistical and financial support to AU troops, thousands of man hours of teeth gritting diplomacy, months of hard work by many British organisations, groups, charities, churches along with UK's 12 largest aid agencies and their aid workers on the ground who have risked (and some lost) their lives to help.
Plus, in addition to Prime Minister Tony Blair's historic visit to Khartoum, the highest ranking Western leader to meet with Sudan's government in Khartoum - and the first visit by a British leader since Sudan's independence in 1956 - he has pledged a further £100 million for next year if peace is agreed.
Last time I checked, the British were the second largest, after the U.S., cash donors for Darfur. The response of the British public and government has been huge, especially considering Britain is a small island that size wise could easily fit into the State of Texas.
Today (Friday) the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) announced a donation of $57 million in humanitarian assistance for Darfur. Total U.S. assistance for Darfur now stands at more than $302 million.
The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N. World Food Program (WFP) and to date has provided more than 186,000 metric tons of food aid for Darfur, valued at more than $170 million. For more information on USAID's ongoing efforts in Darfur please visit www.usaid.gov
It would be interesting to note the contributions made by China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Brazil and the Arab nations. Given that China has huge oil interests in Sudan and operations in the vicinity Darfur, it seems strange that the Chinese are not a major donor. China sits on the U.N. Security Council but, like others, seems to be getting away with contributing very little, if anything.
Also, India are doing great business with Sudan, doing deals, signing contracts and laying oil pipelines in Sudan. How much has India contributed to the humanitarian effort in Darfur and what is India, and the other countries just mentioned, doing to help the world's poorest nations?
And what about Sudan itself? It is super rich in oil and minerals with hundreds of millions spare dollars to spend on weaponary and MiGs from Russia. How come it is a member of the U.N. and does not buy food for its own people?
The U.N. asked donors for $300 million to help Darfur but to date has received only half. Some countries pledged contributions but have not paid up. The U.N., or someone, ought to name and shame those countries so the spotlight and pressure can be put upon them by the public, media and bloggers.
Today, to mark World Food Day on Saturday October 16, WFP, the world's largest humanitarian agency, tells the media that the plight of hundreds of millions of hungry people around the world has been overshadowed by the crisis in Darfur.
In one news report, WFP Executive Director James Morris emphasized his concern for the victims of Darfur, but he also stressed that for every hungry child who made world news headlines there were millions more who went unnoticed.
He was quoted as saying: "WFP is calling for a new focus on the "routine hungry", the people left without enough food, not because of natural disasters or conflict, but simply because they are too poor to provide for themselves and their families. These people -- who make up more than 90 percent of the world's hungry -- are hit even harder when high-profile emergencies take up the bulk of donor aid budgets."
Also today, the World Health Organisation (WHO) warned that the mortality rate in Darfur will not fall (70,000 deaths reported so far - 10,000 dying each month) unless countries provide more money.
“We are running on a threadbare, hand-to-mouth existence, and if the plight of these people in Darfur is as important to the international community as it seems to be then we would have expected more long-term support,” said Dr. David Nabarro, head of Who’s crisis operations.
The U.S. and U.K. have gone to a great deal of time, trouble, effort and expense to help the people of Sudan, and have given hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Many other countries have also contributed generously. But today the U.N., WFP and WHO are saying people are dying from disease and starvation because of lack of funding. Last time I checked, WFP had 800 milllion USD in its coffers. What exactly is going on, does anybody know?
The U.N. comprises 191 member states. Surely, if they are not already doing so, member states ought to agree on paying a set sum each year to help feed the world. A fixed percentage, according to ability to pay, i.e. the wealthiest pay most and the poorest pay zero. That way, wealthy countries like China could end up being major donors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3747380.stm
Friday, October 15, 2004
Land mine that killed British charity aid workers in Darfur in breach of international humanitarian law
Save the Children U.K. employees Rafe Bullick, 34, a program manager from Scotland, and Nourredine Issa Tayeb, 41, a water engineer from Sudan, were killed last Sunday when their vehicle hit an anti-tank landmine in the Ummbaro area of Darfur. Another Sudanese, the driver, was seriously injured.
U.N. humanitarian coordinator Manuel Aranda Da Silva told reporters preliminary reports showed there was a strong possibility the mine had been freshly laid, which constituted a breach of international humanitarian law.
"The outcome of the preliminary inquiries also confirm that the road was travelled recently by other humanitarian agencies so indicate a strong possibility that this is new land mine laid down recently," he said, adding the mine was planted in a narrow place between two trees where every car would have to drive through.
“We extend our deepest sympathies to the friends and families of our two colleagues,” said CEO of Save the Children USA. “Their deaths are tragic reminders of the dangers that thousands of our workers face every day as they seek to bring real and lasting change to children in need around the world.”
U.N. humanitarian coordinator Manuel Aranda Da Silva told reporters preliminary reports showed there was a strong possibility the mine had been freshly laid, which constituted a breach of international humanitarian law.
"The outcome of the preliminary inquiries also confirm that the road was travelled recently by other humanitarian agencies so indicate a strong possibility that this is new land mine laid down recently," he said, adding the mine was planted in a narrow place between two trees where every car would have to drive through.
“We extend our deepest sympathies to the friends and families of our two colleagues,” said CEO of Save the Children USA. “Their deaths are tragic reminders of the dangers that thousands of our workers face every day as they seek to bring real and lasting change to children in need around the world.”
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Blair presses for $150M in aid for Darfur
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, Oct 7, 2004 (AP) -- At a conference to discuss Africa's future, British Prime Minister Tony Blair pressed the international community to raise $150 million to help people caught up by violence in Sudan's western Darfur region.
Mr Blair said Britain plans to train 20,000 African peacekeepers over the next five years to boost Africa's ability to respond to conflicts like the one in Darfur.
British Minister Tony Blair, holds a news conference with his Ethiopian counterpart Meles Zenawi, at the 2nd meeting of the Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Thursday, Oct. 7, 2004
"The international community should be supporting Africa's own solutions to its problems, as we are in Sudan," Blair said, adding that US$150 million (euro122 million) was needed to help the victims of fighting in Darfur.
Britain is geared to use its upcoming chairmanship of the G-8 group of industrialized nations to spearhead the effort to help Africa.
"The international community should be supporting Africa's own solutions to its problems, as we are in Sudan," Blair said, adding that a US$150 million (euro122 million) to help the victims of fighting in Darfur.
Britain is geared to use its upcoming chairmanship of the G-8 group of industrialized nations to spearhead the effort next year.
In Ethiopia, Blair chaired a meeting of his Africa Commission which will spell out what Africa needs to develop and explain what held back the continent in the past. Its findings will come out in time for Britain's presidency of the G-8 and the leadership of the European Union later in 2005.
"Next year will be the year of decision for Africa and the international community," Blair told the commission whose members includes Irish rocker Bob Geldof, Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa and Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. "The time for excuses will be over."
Blair said that a European Union's rapid-reaction force being set up could respond to a crisis in Africa within 10 days if African peacekeepers fail to stem future problems.
"There will be times when Africa cannot stop a conflict on its own, Blair said. "Then, the rest of the international community must be ready to help."
But a senior African Union official said that while poor Africans need security, the also could use access to markets in Europe and the United States in order to earn their way out of poverty.
The subsidies "are very serious as they threaten the livelihoods of millions of African producers. If they are stopped, the lives of millions of Africans would change dramatically," African Union Commission Chairman Alpha Oumar Konare said through a spokesman.
Even if "its debt is canceled and foreign aid is doubled, Africa would still be far from approaching the US$67 billion dollars (euro54 billion) it needs annually to develop," Konare said.
In 27 years, Africa will double its population, which could be an opportunity if the continent prospers - but could pose a risk to the entire planet if poverty persists, he added.
Blair expressed the same concerns.
"We know that poverty and instability leads to weak states which can become havens for terrorists and other criminals," Blair said. "Even before 9/11, al-Qaida had bases in Africa ... They still do, hiding in places where they can go undisturbed by weak governments."
In the past 50 years, 186 coups and 26 major wars have killed over seven million people and cost Africa US$250 billion (euro203 billion). Half a dozen African nations are still troubled by serious conflicts, the United Nations says.
African countries are also saddled with US$305 billion (euro247 billion) in debts, and their products account for barely two percent of world trade. Investment in the continent has shrunk to US$11 billion (euro8.9 billion) a year.
HIV complicates efforts to spur economic growth and development in Africa. More than 26 million Africans are infected with HIV and an estimated 15 million have died from AIDS, including many people from the continent's relatively small educated and business class.
"The problems are multiple, we know them all," Blair said. "The difference is this time we have to put together a plan that is comprehensive in its scope and has at its core a real partnership between Africa and the developed world."
Geldof said he would was " not going to let the Africa Commission just be a talking shop." The Irish rocker's fund-raising campaign 20 years ago raised millions in donations from around the world for the starving of Ethiopia, and "we are going to get solutions and make sure they are enforced," he said.
http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=5869
Mr Blair said Britain plans to train 20,000 African peacekeepers over the next five years to boost Africa's ability to respond to conflicts like the one in Darfur.
British Minister Tony Blair, holds a news conference with his Ethiopian counterpart Meles Zenawi, at the 2nd meeting of the Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Thursday, Oct. 7, 2004
"The international community should be supporting Africa's own solutions to its problems, as we are in Sudan," Blair said, adding that US$150 million (euro122 million) was needed to help the victims of fighting in Darfur.
Britain is geared to use its upcoming chairmanship of the G-8 group of industrialized nations to spearhead the effort to help Africa.
"The international community should be supporting Africa's own solutions to its problems, as we are in Sudan," Blair said, adding that a US$150 million (euro122 million) to help the victims of fighting in Darfur.
Britain is geared to use its upcoming chairmanship of the G-8 group of industrialized nations to spearhead the effort next year.
In Ethiopia, Blair chaired a meeting of his Africa Commission which will spell out what Africa needs to develop and explain what held back the continent in the past. Its findings will come out in time for Britain's presidency of the G-8 and the leadership of the European Union later in 2005.
"Next year will be the year of decision for Africa and the international community," Blair told the commission whose members includes Irish rocker Bob Geldof, Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa and Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. "The time for excuses will be over."
Blair said that a European Union's rapid-reaction force being set up could respond to a crisis in Africa within 10 days if African peacekeepers fail to stem future problems.
"There will be times when Africa cannot stop a conflict on its own, Blair said. "Then, the rest of the international community must be ready to help."
But a senior African Union official said that while poor Africans need security, the also could use access to markets in Europe and the United States in order to earn their way out of poverty.
The subsidies "are very serious as they threaten the livelihoods of millions of African producers. If they are stopped, the lives of millions of Africans would change dramatically," African Union Commission Chairman Alpha Oumar Konare said through a spokesman.
Even if "its debt is canceled and foreign aid is doubled, Africa would still be far from approaching the US$67 billion dollars (euro54 billion) it needs annually to develop," Konare said.
In 27 years, Africa will double its population, which could be an opportunity if the continent prospers - but could pose a risk to the entire planet if poverty persists, he added.
Blair expressed the same concerns.
"We know that poverty and instability leads to weak states which can become havens for terrorists and other criminals," Blair said. "Even before 9/11, al-Qaida had bases in Africa ... They still do, hiding in places where they can go undisturbed by weak governments."
In the past 50 years, 186 coups and 26 major wars have killed over seven million people and cost Africa US$250 billion (euro203 billion). Half a dozen African nations are still troubled by serious conflicts, the United Nations says.
African countries are also saddled with US$305 billion (euro247 billion) in debts, and their products account for barely two percent of world trade. Investment in the continent has shrunk to US$11 billion (euro8.9 billion) a year.
HIV complicates efforts to spur economic growth and development in Africa. More than 26 million Africans are infected with HIV and an estimated 15 million have died from AIDS, including many people from the continent's relatively small educated and business class.
"The problems are multiple, we know them all," Blair said. "The difference is this time we have to put together a plan that is comprehensive in its scope and has at its core a real partnership between Africa and the developed world."
Geldof said he would was " not going to let the Africa Commission just be a talking shop." The Irish rocker's fund-raising campaign 20 years ago raised millions in donations from around the world for the starving of Ethiopia, and "we are going to get solutions and make sure they are enforced," he said.
http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=5869
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Blair arrives in Khartoum to press for Darfur peace - Blair outlines demands to Sudan
British Prime Minister Tony Blair flew in to Khartoum earlier today (Wednesday). He is the most senior Western government official to visit Sudan since the Darfur conflict erupted. After talks with President Bashir, he called for a peace agreement to cover the whole of Sudan by the end of 2004
Mr Blair told a press conference that he handed the Sudanese leadership a list of five demands to deal with the "terrible" situation in Darfur.
He urged the government of Sudan to adopt a five-point plan designed to help end the slaughter in Darfur and ease the humanitarian crisis there.
In talks with President Bashir and his deputy, the premier made plain the international community's continuing concern at the conflict in Darfur, which has left up to a million refugees, as rebels fight with government-backed militia gangs.
"We want the government to commit to reaching a comprehensive agreement, north and south, in Sudan by the end of the year," Blair said. He coupled his blunt message with the announcement of a GBP 100 million aid package to the country next year.
He called for a major boost to African Union forces, all government troops and militia to be identified, agreement with the rebels to withdraw troops, an overall peace accord for Sudan, and Khartoum to facilitate aid distribution.
Blair said the fact he had travelled to Khartoum showed "the seriousness with which this is taken".
"The international focus will not go away while this issue remains outstanding," he added, describing talks with Bashir and Vice President Ali Osman Taha as "frank and open and, I think, constructive".
Mr Blair urged Sudan to:
Allow more African Union troops to take part in peacekeeping.
Identify its own troops and its sponsored militias to aid monitoring.
Reach agreement with the rebels to withdraw both sides' soldiers from Darfur.
Reach a comprehensive agreement covering ethnic tensions throughout the country.
Give a commitment to help humanitarian aid get through to the suffering.
British officials said later they were confident the Sudanese government would agree on paper to the demands but stressed they were cautious and wanted to see "the reality on the ground" changed.
Mr Blair later told reporters he acknowledged some progress had already been made.
But, speaking on the first leg of a three-day Africa visit, the Prime Minister stressed: "It's important that people in Darfur realise that the international community is determined to ensure that when we talk with the government of Sudan it realises it has to take on these responsibilities and the rebel forces likewise recognise they have responsibilities in this situation and the international focus will not go away while this situation remains outstanding."
Mr Blair, looking fit and relaxed in the sweltering Sudan heat despite his recent heart procedure, flies on later today to Ethiopia for talks with its premier Meles Zenawi before chairing the second meeting of his Africa Commission tomorrow.
The Prime Minister has promised to make the future of Africa one of the centrepieces of Britain's presidency of the G8 group of leading industrialised democracies next year.
Ahead of Mr Blair's arrival:
-- Ismail said Britain could push all sides to reach an agreement at peace talks in NIgeria due to reconvene on October 21, after an earlier round of talks in Abuja collapsed last month and said he hoped for more aid for reconstruction from Britain, one of the biggest aid donors to Darfur.
-- Mr Blair's spokesman said, "Rather than concentrate on threats and sanctions, we would like to focus on trying to get progress that would make sanctions not necessary." British officials say Blair's message to Khartoum officials will be three-fold -- negotiate a settlement with rebels in Darfur; allow "unfettered access" for aid workers; and accept an expanded role for African Union peacekeepers.
Blair, who has pledged to make Africa one of his key policies during 2005, when Britain holds the rotating presidency of both the G8 rich nations' club and the European Union, was scheduled to spend around five hours in Sudan.
After talks with Beshir and Taha, he will hold a press conference, before flying to Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, for a meeting of the Commission for Africa, his personal project designed to galvanize development efforts.
This evening, in Ethiopia, he will have talks with the prime minister, Meles Zenawi. Tomorrow, Mr Blair will make local visits and then outline his vision for Africa in a speech setting out his case for change. International Development Secretary Hilary Benn and Treasury Chief Secretary Paul Boateng are accompanying Mr Blair on the trip.
The stopover in Sudan - the first-ever visit by a British leader since Khartoum got independence from Britain in 1956 - had been kept under wraps for security reasons, with London only confirming the trip after Blair's aircraft took off on Tuesday evening.
Mr Blair will not visit Darfur, with his spokesman saying the limited time available was best used hammering home the international community's message to the Sudanese government. "We know what the situation in Darfur is. The important thing is that something is done about it at government level," said the Prime Minister's spokesman.
Blair's spokesman refused to be drawn on whether Britain supported sanctions against the north African Muslim state, or whether it would join the United States in considering the violence in Darfur as genocide. He said the premier was simply "relaying and re-emphasising" international worries. But he stressed that Blair would expect clear answers on issues such as a ceasefire, peace negotiations and aid efforts. "Those are points which we believe the Sudanese government understand. And I think what we need to see is what the response of the Sudanese government is to the prime minister's visit," he said.
The trip to Sudan is part of Mr Blair's three-day Africa tour, which will also take him to Ethiopia where he will attend a session of the Commission for Africa, an Africa task force launched by himself in February.
Blair will arrive in Addis Ababa today, along with Benn, Treasury chief secretary Paul Boateng and Live Aid founder Bob Geldof, for the opening of the three day meeting of the commission.
Mr Blair will attend the second session of his Commission for Africa in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa. The talks will also be attended by Band Aid star Sir Bob Geldof, 20 years after his appeal to help people starving there raised GBP 90m.
The commission will report in time for its findings to be discussed by the G8 group of leading industrialised nations next year, when Britain will be in charge of both the European Union and the G8 - the club of the world's richest countries.
Mr Blair has promised to make the plight of Africa one of the twin focuses of his chairmanship, along with climate change.
"There is a moral imperative to do this," said International Development Minister Hilary Benn, who will join Blair in Addis Ababa for the two-day meeting starting on Thursday. "If we don't tackle poverty, injustice and inequality round the world, then we're never going to have a safe and secure world in which to live," he told Reuters.
"Something concrete has got to be done this time. Unless the politicians actually do something about unfair trade rules, no amount of aid money is going to solve poverty," said Helen Palmer, of aid agency Oxfam.
The commission aims to propose action from the West on boosting aid, obtaining more debt relief and making trade rules fairer for African exporters. "Then the priorities for Africa itself are tackling conflict and promoting good government," Benn said.
Britain set up the commission, including senior figures from across Africa, earlier this year to highlight to problems in a continent Blair called a "scar on the conscience of the world".
Africa expert Thomas Cargill, of the Royal Institute of International Affairs said the most urgent priorities were bigger investment, pressure on poorly performing governments and tighter controls on Western firms to act in a moral fashion.
- - -
ANNAN'S UN ASSESSMENT
In a stinging U.N. assessment on Monday, Annan said Sudan made no progress last month in stopping attacks on civilians or punishing culprits. Nor did the government make progress in nailing down a ceasefire, he added.
While the U.S. government believes genocide is taking place, two top U.N. human rights watchdogs told the council last week war crimes probably occurred on "a large and systematic scale".
British officials said they would reserve judgement on how to qualify the crisis until a U.N. inquiry.
Britain is one of the largest donors for Darfur, with 62.5 million pounds ($111 million) committed this year
- - -
DONORS NOT MEETING PLEDGES FOR DARFUR AID
Oct 5 (AFP) - The U.S. called Tuesday for international donors to fulfill pledges to provide assistance to stem the crisis in Darfur, accusing some nations of failing to live up to their promises.
"We've been very outspoken about the need for the international community to do more to help the people of Darfur," deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "It is a problem of a huge scale beyond the capability of any one country".
"There have been pledges from the international community, pledges that are important and necessary, but that have gone unfilled to date," he told reporters. "It's important ... that they be filled."
Ereli did not name the countries that have failed to meet their pledges and was unable to specify the amount of the shortfall although on Monday the World Food Program said it was short some 220 million of the 865 million dollars it needs to feed some 11 million refugees worldwide, including 200,000 from Darfur who have crossed the Sudanese border into Chad.
Late last month at a donors conference in Norway, representatives of the Sudanese government and the southern rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) appealed for the international community to provide about 300 million dollars in aid to cover emergency needs in Darfur.
The United States is the largest single contributor to Darfur aid efforts and on Tuesday, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) gave a 600,000-dollar grant to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to help double the number of human rights monitors there to 16.
To date, Washington has provided 243 million dollars in aid for Darfur, nearly 62 million dollars of which had been earmarked for the refugees in Chad, and expects that figure to rise to nearly 300 million through the end of the next fiscal year, according to USAID.
In addition, the United States has set aside 27.4 million dollars to help fund the African Union monitoring mission in Darfur, USAID said in a statement.
- - -
U.N. SAYS DARFUR CRISIS WILL LAST AT LEAST UNTIL THE END OF NEXT YEAR
No quick end to Darfur humanitarian crisis - U.N.
Here is a copy of an October 6 report via Reuters that says no quick end to Darfur humanitarian crisis in Darfur - it will last at least until the end of next year, a U.N. official warned on Wednesday.
U.N. World Food Programme spokesman Greg Barrow said the crisis would drag on because so many Darfur residents were still in refugee camps, unable to harvest this year or plant crops for 2005.
"The aid crisis is going to continue at least until the end of next year," Barrow said in a briefing for reporters accompanying British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Sudan.
This year's intense media focus on Darfur and a stream of high-level foreign visitors had helped, but the world must not forget the crisis when attention fades, he added.
"This is a very, very precarious situation. The levels of humanitarian aid will need to be sustained at or above the same level as this year."
Barrow said the World Food Programme had received $167 million of its $204 million budget for emergency food aid in Darfur this year. He urged international donors to quickly make up the shortfall and to prepare for further aid next year.
"We're still not there in terms of overall funding."
After years of skirmishes between Arab nomadic tribes and mainly non-Arab farmers over scarce resources, rebels launched a revolt last year. They accuse Khartoum of supporting Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, to loot and burn villages.
The United States has called the violence genocide.
But Sudan has dismissed the charge and denies supporting the Janjaweed militiamen, calling them outlaws.
The United Nations has threatened oil sanctions unless Khartoum controls the violence.
Barrow said U.N. personnel in the region had noticed an improvement in security for relief workers in Darfur, an area the size of France with a population of about six million.
Bandits were, however, still harassing U.N. personnel at the rate of at least one incident a week, he said.
"It is difficult to estimate, if our trucks or personnel get stopped, if it's by the militia or rebels or whoever. We're not talking about people getting killed but being accosted by people with guns," he said.
Barrow urged Blair to press Sudanese officials to keep giving good access for relief trucks and personnel.
"The Sudanese government has already done a lot as a result of international pressure to improve access," he said. "We need them to keep that up."
- - -
BRITISH BASED OXFAM SAYS SITUATION IN DARFUR IS NOT IMPROVING
Aid agencies urged Blair to take a tough line in Sudan
"The situation in Darfur is not improving. Nearly six months after the ceasefire, there are daily reports of violence and insecurity," British-based Oxfam said in a statement.
The charity Save the Children said foreign aid must now focus on lifting Ethiopia out of poverty, rather than just keeping people alive with food handouts.
Spokesman Mike Aaronson, said millions of people in the historically famine-prone northeastern highlands are "worse off and more vulnerable than ever".
He said "lack of political will" by world leaders and "paltry" aid have not helped the nation combat persistent food shortages.
"It is shocking that 20 years after Band Aid millions of children still experience hunger," he said.
"Yet, in the last 20 years, donors have shown a lack of political will and a shortsighted approach to aid that has compounded poverty in Ethiopia."
Ethiopia is one of the poorest nations in the world - the average annual income is GBP 56.
Donor countries must inject more investments in education and health care in a bid to help the country break out of poverty, he said.
"A great deal of money has gone into keeping people alive with food aid," Mr Aaronson added.
"However, in comparison, the sum invested in longer-term development to lift Ethiopia out of the cycle of poverty has been paltry."
- - -
NAME THE COUNTRIES NOT PAYING FOR AID
Why does the UN not name and shame and update its figures?
According to the latest news reports, the U.N. says some 50,000 people have died in Darfur from violence, hunger or disease.
The U.N. complains through the media that countries are not paying for food and aid but it refuses to name those countries. Why?
On the other hand, the U.N. seems to pull figures out of the air and expect donors to pay up based on those figures. If, as they claim, thousands of people are dying each month - how come the figure has been stuck at 50,000 deaths for the past three months? Going by reports, it seems the numbers should have changed by at least 80,000 - 120,000.
USAID predicted 300,000 deaths by Christmas, even if enough aid reached the victims of Darfur.
The World Food Programme and others do of course do great work, but when there is so much at stake it's reasonable to question what exactly is going on. People tend not to donate when they think it won't make any difference. My feelings are that charities and bodies like the UN need to sort this out asap to restore public confidence in the work of the aid agencies (see next report here below).
- - -
SUDAN'S U.N. AMBASSADOR CHALLENGES U.S. OVER 'GENOCIDE'
Today's report from UK Scotsman says Sudan's UN ambassador has challenged the United States to send troops to Darfur if it really believes a genocide is taking place as the US Congress and President George W. Bush's administration have determined. Excerpt:
Elfatih Mohamed Erwa was asked yesterday about the effect of the US "genocide" designations when both Bush and his Democratic challenger John Kerry ruled out sending US troops to end the 19-month conflict in their debate.
"If it is really a genocide they should be committed to send troops," the Sudanese ambassador said. "This is why I don't think they're genuine about its being genocide."
Would US troops really be welcome?
"I won't say I welcome them because I don't have the authority to say that, but if they want to do that, let them talk to us." Erwa said.
US Ambassador John Danforth, when told Erwa raised the possibility of discussing the deployment of US troops, said: "I've never heard of such a thing before. It's certainly an attention grabber."
"It's a curious idea, but I don't think it has a future," he said.
Mr Blair told a press conference that he handed the Sudanese leadership a list of five demands to deal with the "terrible" situation in Darfur.
He urged the government of Sudan to adopt a five-point plan designed to help end the slaughter in Darfur and ease the humanitarian crisis there.
In talks with President Bashir and his deputy, the premier made plain the international community's continuing concern at the conflict in Darfur, which has left up to a million refugees, as rebels fight with government-backed militia gangs.
"We want the government to commit to reaching a comprehensive agreement, north and south, in Sudan by the end of the year," Blair said. He coupled his blunt message with the announcement of a GBP 100 million aid package to the country next year.
He called for a major boost to African Union forces, all government troops and militia to be identified, agreement with the rebels to withdraw troops, an overall peace accord for Sudan, and Khartoum to facilitate aid distribution.
Blair said the fact he had travelled to Khartoum showed "the seriousness with which this is taken".
"The international focus will not go away while this issue remains outstanding," he added, describing talks with Bashir and Vice President Ali Osman Taha as "frank and open and, I think, constructive".
Mr Blair urged Sudan to:
Allow more African Union troops to take part in peacekeeping.
Identify its own troops and its sponsored militias to aid monitoring.
Reach agreement with the rebels to withdraw both sides' soldiers from Darfur.
Reach a comprehensive agreement covering ethnic tensions throughout the country.
Give a commitment to help humanitarian aid get through to the suffering.
British officials said later they were confident the Sudanese government would agree on paper to the demands but stressed they were cautious and wanted to see "the reality on the ground" changed.
Mr Blair later told reporters he acknowledged some progress had already been made.
But, speaking on the first leg of a three-day Africa visit, the Prime Minister stressed: "It's important that people in Darfur realise that the international community is determined to ensure that when we talk with the government of Sudan it realises it has to take on these responsibilities and the rebel forces likewise recognise they have responsibilities in this situation and the international focus will not go away while this situation remains outstanding."
Mr Blair, looking fit and relaxed in the sweltering Sudan heat despite his recent heart procedure, flies on later today to Ethiopia for talks with its premier Meles Zenawi before chairing the second meeting of his Africa Commission tomorrow.
The Prime Minister has promised to make the future of Africa one of the centrepieces of Britain's presidency of the G8 group of leading industrialised democracies next year.
Ahead of Mr Blair's arrival:
-- Ismail said Britain could push all sides to reach an agreement at peace talks in NIgeria due to reconvene on October 21, after an earlier round of talks in Abuja collapsed last month and said he hoped for more aid for reconstruction from Britain, one of the biggest aid donors to Darfur.
-- Mr Blair's spokesman said, "Rather than concentrate on threats and sanctions, we would like to focus on trying to get progress that would make sanctions not necessary." British officials say Blair's message to Khartoum officials will be three-fold -- negotiate a settlement with rebels in Darfur; allow "unfettered access" for aid workers; and accept an expanded role for African Union peacekeepers.
Blair, who has pledged to make Africa one of his key policies during 2005, when Britain holds the rotating presidency of both the G8 rich nations' club and the European Union, was scheduled to spend around five hours in Sudan.
After talks with Beshir and Taha, he will hold a press conference, before flying to Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, for a meeting of the Commission for Africa, his personal project designed to galvanize development efforts.
This evening, in Ethiopia, he will have talks with the prime minister, Meles Zenawi. Tomorrow, Mr Blair will make local visits and then outline his vision for Africa in a speech setting out his case for change. International Development Secretary Hilary Benn and Treasury Chief Secretary Paul Boateng are accompanying Mr Blair on the trip.
The stopover in Sudan - the first-ever visit by a British leader since Khartoum got independence from Britain in 1956 - had been kept under wraps for security reasons, with London only confirming the trip after Blair's aircraft took off on Tuesday evening.
Mr Blair will not visit Darfur, with his spokesman saying the limited time available was best used hammering home the international community's message to the Sudanese government. "We know what the situation in Darfur is. The important thing is that something is done about it at government level," said the Prime Minister's spokesman.
Blair's spokesman refused to be drawn on whether Britain supported sanctions against the north African Muslim state, or whether it would join the United States in considering the violence in Darfur as genocide. He said the premier was simply "relaying and re-emphasising" international worries. But he stressed that Blair would expect clear answers on issues such as a ceasefire, peace negotiations and aid efforts. "Those are points which we believe the Sudanese government understand. And I think what we need to see is what the response of the Sudanese government is to the prime minister's visit," he said.
The trip to Sudan is part of Mr Blair's three-day Africa tour, which will also take him to Ethiopia where he will attend a session of the Commission for Africa, an Africa task force launched by himself in February.
Blair will arrive in Addis Ababa today, along with Benn, Treasury chief secretary Paul Boateng and Live Aid founder Bob Geldof, for the opening of the three day meeting of the commission.
Mr Blair will attend the second session of his Commission for Africa in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa. The talks will also be attended by Band Aid star Sir Bob Geldof, 20 years after his appeal to help people starving there raised GBP 90m.
The commission will report in time for its findings to be discussed by the G8 group of leading industrialised nations next year, when Britain will be in charge of both the European Union and the G8 - the club of the world's richest countries.
Mr Blair has promised to make the plight of Africa one of the twin focuses of his chairmanship, along with climate change.
"There is a moral imperative to do this," said International Development Minister Hilary Benn, who will join Blair in Addis Ababa for the two-day meeting starting on Thursday. "If we don't tackle poverty, injustice and inequality round the world, then we're never going to have a safe and secure world in which to live," he told Reuters.
"Something concrete has got to be done this time. Unless the politicians actually do something about unfair trade rules, no amount of aid money is going to solve poverty," said Helen Palmer, of aid agency Oxfam.
The commission aims to propose action from the West on boosting aid, obtaining more debt relief and making trade rules fairer for African exporters. "Then the priorities for Africa itself are tackling conflict and promoting good government," Benn said.
Britain set up the commission, including senior figures from across Africa, earlier this year to highlight to problems in a continent Blair called a "scar on the conscience of the world".
Africa expert Thomas Cargill, of the Royal Institute of International Affairs said the most urgent priorities were bigger investment, pressure on poorly performing governments and tighter controls on Western firms to act in a moral fashion.
- - -
ANNAN'S UN ASSESSMENT
In a stinging U.N. assessment on Monday, Annan said Sudan made no progress last month in stopping attacks on civilians or punishing culprits. Nor did the government make progress in nailing down a ceasefire, he added.
While the U.S. government believes genocide is taking place, two top U.N. human rights watchdogs told the council last week war crimes probably occurred on "a large and systematic scale".
British officials said they would reserve judgement on how to qualify the crisis until a U.N. inquiry.
Britain is one of the largest donors for Darfur, with 62.5 million pounds ($111 million) committed this year
- - -
DONORS NOT MEETING PLEDGES FOR DARFUR AID
Oct 5 (AFP) - The U.S. called Tuesday for international donors to fulfill pledges to provide assistance to stem the crisis in Darfur, accusing some nations of failing to live up to their promises.
"We've been very outspoken about the need for the international community to do more to help the people of Darfur," deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "It is a problem of a huge scale beyond the capability of any one country".
"There have been pledges from the international community, pledges that are important and necessary, but that have gone unfilled to date," he told reporters. "It's important ... that they be filled."
Ereli did not name the countries that have failed to meet their pledges and was unable to specify the amount of the shortfall although on Monday the World Food Program said it was short some 220 million of the 865 million dollars it needs to feed some 11 million refugees worldwide, including 200,000 from Darfur who have crossed the Sudanese border into Chad.
Late last month at a donors conference in Norway, representatives of the Sudanese government and the southern rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) appealed for the international community to provide about 300 million dollars in aid to cover emergency needs in Darfur.
The United States is the largest single contributor to Darfur aid efforts and on Tuesday, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) gave a 600,000-dollar grant to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to help double the number of human rights monitors there to 16.
To date, Washington has provided 243 million dollars in aid for Darfur, nearly 62 million dollars of which had been earmarked for the refugees in Chad, and expects that figure to rise to nearly 300 million through the end of the next fiscal year, according to USAID.
In addition, the United States has set aside 27.4 million dollars to help fund the African Union monitoring mission in Darfur, USAID said in a statement.
- - -
U.N. SAYS DARFUR CRISIS WILL LAST AT LEAST UNTIL THE END OF NEXT YEAR
No quick end to Darfur humanitarian crisis - U.N.
Here is a copy of an October 6 report via Reuters that says no quick end to Darfur humanitarian crisis in Darfur - it will last at least until the end of next year, a U.N. official warned on Wednesday.
U.N. World Food Programme spokesman Greg Barrow said the crisis would drag on because so many Darfur residents were still in refugee camps, unable to harvest this year or plant crops for 2005.
"The aid crisis is going to continue at least until the end of next year," Barrow said in a briefing for reporters accompanying British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Sudan.
This year's intense media focus on Darfur and a stream of high-level foreign visitors had helped, but the world must not forget the crisis when attention fades, he added.
"This is a very, very precarious situation. The levels of humanitarian aid will need to be sustained at or above the same level as this year."
Barrow said the World Food Programme had received $167 million of its $204 million budget for emergency food aid in Darfur this year. He urged international donors to quickly make up the shortfall and to prepare for further aid next year.
"We're still not there in terms of overall funding."
After years of skirmishes between Arab nomadic tribes and mainly non-Arab farmers over scarce resources, rebels launched a revolt last year. They accuse Khartoum of supporting Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, to loot and burn villages.
The United States has called the violence genocide.
But Sudan has dismissed the charge and denies supporting the Janjaweed militiamen, calling them outlaws.
The United Nations has threatened oil sanctions unless Khartoum controls the violence.
Barrow said U.N. personnel in the region had noticed an improvement in security for relief workers in Darfur, an area the size of France with a population of about six million.
Bandits were, however, still harassing U.N. personnel at the rate of at least one incident a week, he said.
"It is difficult to estimate, if our trucks or personnel get stopped, if it's by the militia or rebels or whoever. We're not talking about people getting killed but being accosted by people with guns," he said.
Barrow urged Blair to press Sudanese officials to keep giving good access for relief trucks and personnel.
"The Sudanese government has already done a lot as a result of international pressure to improve access," he said. "We need them to keep that up."
- - -
BRITISH BASED OXFAM SAYS SITUATION IN DARFUR IS NOT IMPROVING
Aid agencies urged Blair to take a tough line in Sudan
"The situation in Darfur is not improving. Nearly six months after the ceasefire, there are daily reports of violence and insecurity," British-based Oxfam said in a statement.
The charity Save the Children said foreign aid must now focus on lifting Ethiopia out of poverty, rather than just keeping people alive with food handouts.
Spokesman Mike Aaronson, said millions of people in the historically famine-prone northeastern highlands are "worse off and more vulnerable than ever".
He said "lack of political will" by world leaders and "paltry" aid have not helped the nation combat persistent food shortages.
"It is shocking that 20 years after Band Aid millions of children still experience hunger," he said.
"Yet, in the last 20 years, donors have shown a lack of political will and a shortsighted approach to aid that has compounded poverty in Ethiopia."
Ethiopia is one of the poorest nations in the world - the average annual income is GBP 56.
Donor countries must inject more investments in education and health care in a bid to help the country break out of poverty, he said.
"A great deal of money has gone into keeping people alive with food aid," Mr Aaronson added.
"However, in comparison, the sum invested in longer-term development to lift Ethiopia out of the cycle of poverty has been paltry."
- - -
NAME THE COUNTRIES NOT PAYING FOR AID
Why does the UN not name and shame and update its figures?
According to the latest news reports, the U.N. says some 50,000 people have died in Darfur from violence, hunger or disease.
The U.N. complains through the media that countries are not paying for food and aid but it refuses to name those countries. Why?
On the other hand, the U.N. seems to pull figures out of the air and expect donors to pay up based on those figures. If, as they claim, thousands of people are dying each month - how come the figure has been stuck at 50,000 deaths for the past three months? Going by reports, it seems the numbers should have changed by at least 80,000 - 120,000.
USAID predicted 300,000 deaths by Christmas, even if enough aid reached the victims of Darfur.
The World Food Programme and others do of course do great work, but when there is so much at stake it's reasonable to question what exactly is going on. People tend not to donate when they think it won't make any difference. My feelings are that charities and bodies like the UN need to sort this out asap to restore public confidence in the work of the aid agencies (see next report here below).
- - -
SUDAN'S U.N. AMBASSADOR CHALLENGES U.S. OVER 'GENOCIDE'
Today's report from UK Scotsman says Sudan's UN ambassador has challenged the United States to send troops to Darfur if it really believes a genocide is taking place as the US Congress and President George W. Bush's administration have determined. Excerpt:
Elfatih Mohamed Erwa was asked yesterday about the effect of the US "genocide" designations when both Bush and his Democratic challenger John Kerry ruled out sending US troops to end the 19-month conflict in their debate.
"If it is really a genocide they should be committed to send troops," the Sudanese ambassador said. "This is why I don't think they're genuine about its being genocide."
Would US troops really be welcome?
"I won't say I welcome them because I don't have the authority to say that, but if they want to do that, let them talk to us." Erwa said.
US Ambassador John Danforth, when told Erwa raised the possibility of discussing the deployment of US troops, said: "I've never heard of such a thing before. It's certainly an attention grabber."
"It's a curious idea, but I don't think it has a future," he said.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
People in Malaysia show kindness and concern for the children of Darfur
Here is some heartwarming news. Malaysia's Star newspaper and Mercy Malaysia have embarked on a humanitarian aid mission to help the victims of Darfur.
The Star joined hands with Mercy Malaysia to raise funds for a humanitarian aid programme in West Darfur. It has received over 600 cheques since the fund was launched last week.
Malaysians continue to show strong support for the Darfur Children’s Fund with donations totalling some RM76,000 over the past two days.
Tears rolled down the cheeks of Malaysian artist Joe Rozario when he found out that children in Darfur could no longer draw flowers and sunny pictures.
Rozario, 55, was so moved by an article published in The Star that he felt more people should be made aware of their plight.
He immediately whipped out his notepad and started writing a message to the public based on the article. This is what he wrote:
Dear you,
Children in conflict-ridden Darfur, Sudan, are drawing pictures of guns, burning homes and dead bodies.
They do not draw flowers and sunny pictures any more.
Injured and older children lie in El-Geneina Hospital starving, as food is not provided.
There are 1.3 million people who have been driven out of their homes in Darfur in a crisis described as one of the greatest human tragedies today.
You can help these children.
All it takes is RM200 a month to feed a child.
Help!
Donate to Mercy Malaysia
[Full Story and more photos]
Joe Rozario with his message to the public to help the children of Darfur.
- - -
Rajan's latest Sudan Genocide Round-Up
Warm thanks to Malaysian blogger Rajan, blogging in English out of Malaysia, for his great new Sudan Genocide Roundup.
- - -
U.N. hopes larger AU force on ground in Sudan by end of October
UN mission officials in Sudan said Friday they hope an expanded African force will be on the ground in Darfur by the end of October.
Facing the genocide investigation and the threat of U.N. sanctions, Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail told the Security Council on Thursday that Sudan would accept 3,500 African Union troops for Darfur.
- - -
Nivasha peace talks to be held October 7, 2004
At long last, after a four month delay, Sudan's final phase peace agreement talks are due to start on October 7.
According to the following report, SPLM leader John Garang said that the SPLM believes in the importance of obtaining self-rule in Darfur and south and east Sudan.
Here are some excerpts from arabic.news.com Sep 30 - SPLM requests Egypt's assistance for concluding a final peace agreement with Khartoum:
Asked whether or not a final agreement is expected to be reached during Nivasha talks to be held in October 7, he [Garang] said that six protocols have already been signed during the month of June and two supplements should be agreed upon. One is on reaching a cease fire agreement and the other pertains to ways to implement the agreements reached, he said.
He voiced hope that an agreement would be reached on these two supplements as soon as possible.
He claimed that the Sudanese government is acting intendedly to waste time, saying four months have passed after July agreement.
He said a final agreement should have been signed in Nivasha in August or September but it was the Sudanese government which asked for delaying talks due to its preoccupation with Darfur crisis.
He claimed that among the reasons behind the government delay is that it would find itself obliged to divide oil proceeds after signing the agreement in order to get 50%, referring to high oil prices at the present time.
Garang warned of any delay saying it could lead to disintegration of the Sudan and this does not serve the interests of any party.
- - -
Once a deal with the SPLA is struck, other agreements could be concluded
Garang is in Cairo, Al-Bashir threatens to execute his mentor Al-Turabi and the Darfur catastrophe worsens: Gamal Nkrumah examines crisis-ridden Sudan.
Note, SPLM leader John Garang told Weekly Ahram news: "Once a deal with the SPLA is struck, other agreements could be concluded with regards to Darfur and the NDA."
- - -
US denies supporting rebels anymore than they are supporting the Janjaweed
According to swissinfo Sep 30 report, a U.S. State Department official in Washington, who asked not to be named, dismissed the charge by Khartoum that the US is supporting the rebels.
"The whole purpose of the U.S. policy is to end the violence in Sudan. We are not funding, training, providing armaments to, supporting in any way, shape or form the rebels anymore than we are supporting the Janjaweed (militia)," the official said.
- - -
Darfur tragedy may last years
In an apocalyptic new warning, British officials said that the humanitarian disaster in Darfur may worsen and last years.
The British Foreign Office fears that, whatever political agreements are made about Darfur’s future, the hundreds of thousands of civilians driven from their land by government-backed militias are unlikely to be able to return to their homes in time for next year’s crop planting season in April and May.
And they say that could condemn Darfur to another season of starvation and disease. The refugee camps now feeding and housing thousands of internal refugees could become permanent camps, like those in the Palestinian territories, officials say.
"We are a very, very long way from being able to say that circumstances anywhere are good enough for people to return home," one senior official said.
- - -
In Sudan work on laying new oil pipeline begins in the next few weeks
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation bags expansion contract in Sudan.
ONGC is to lay an oil pipeline in Sudan. Work will begin in the next few weeks.
- - -
US LIFTS SANCTIONS ON PAKISTAN
And then sells eighteen fighter jets to Pakistan - as a first installment
ChaiTeaLatte (heh love the title of the post: FILE UNDER BAD FREAKIN' IDEA) points to a report saying the US has lifted sanctions on Pakistan. The US then received an order from Pakistan for eighteen F16 fighter jets - as a first installment.
Note, Pakistan is a non-permanent member of the 15-member Security Council. And was one of the members which did not back the Darfur resolutions, despite urging of council.
- - -
Update Sunday Oct 2 - Here is a copy of a report via Associated Press:
US: Commercial interests impeding aid to Arabs in Darfur
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell says commercial interests in Sudan were motivating their opposition to a U.S. diplomatic campaign to help the oppressed non-Arab community in Darfur.
Powell singled out the four countries, Russia, China, Algeria and Pakistan, that voted against a U.N. Security Council resolution two weeks ago that set up a commission to explore human rights abuses in the violence-ravaged area of Sudan.
But in a radio interview with Michael Reagan on Tuesday, he did not say which of the four countries he believed were motivated by commercial interests and which by their opposition to the sanctions threatened in the resolution.
Still, it was an exceptional jab by the secretary of state at governments that put business over mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of people.
"There are some of these countries that just don't like the possibility of sanctions, and others that had commercial interests that they thought would not be well-served if they voted against Sudan's interest in this resolution,'' Powell said in the interview.
A text was released Wednesday by the State Department's press office.
Later, at a news conference, Andrew S. Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, noted China was extracting oil from the African country and Pakistan recently took over Chevron-Texaco's oil concessions.
"I don't know about the other two, but I can tell you Pakistan and China do have commercial interests,'' Natsios said while discussing his Sept. 11-19 trip to Sudan.
Meanwhile, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Ranneberger, who participated in the press briefing, rejected assertions by a top Sudanese official in Khartoum that Sheik Musa Hilal, accused by the State Department of coordinating bloodletting by Arab militia, was a legitimate tribal leader.
Ranneberger said Hilal was a leader of the Janjaweed militia as well as being a tribal leader.
"I think he wears four or five hats,'' the State Department official said.
Natsios said 1.5 million people have been displaced form their homes in Darfur and were in refugee camps, and there was also drought and an approaching locust plague.
The AID administrator said 574 towns had been destroyed while the militia have taken over the homes and herds of African tribes in the region.
"They have nothing left and those animals were basically their savings accounts,'' Natsios said. "The crisis hasn't peaked,'' he said. "It's the malaria season and the worst phase is right now. It's just beginning. And it's going to kill a lot of people.''
At the same time, Natsios said, food was moving in and there were 710 foreign relief workers in Darfur, more than twice the 323 workers there when Powell visited in early July. - AP http://thestaronline.com/news/story
The Star joined hands with Mercy Malaysia to raise funds for a humanitarian aid programme in West Darfur. It has received over 600 cheques since the fund was launched last week.
Malaysians continue to show strong support for the Darfur Children’s Fund with donations totalling some RM76,000 over the past two days.
Tears rolled down the cheeks of Malaysian artist Joe Rozario when he found out that children in Darfur could no longer draw flowers and sunny pictures.
Rozario, 55, was so moved by an article published in The Star that he felt more people should be made aware of their plight.
He immediately whipped out his notepad and started writing a message to the public based on the article. This is what he wrote:
Dear you,
Children in conflict-ridden Darfur, Sudan, are drawing pictures of guns, burning homes and dead bodies.
They do not draw flowers and sunny pictures any more.
Injured and older children lie in El-Geneina Hospital starving, as food is not provided.
There are 1.3 million people who have been driven out of their homes in Darfur in a crisis described as one of the greatest human tragedies today.
You can help these children.
All it takes is RM200 a month to feed a child.
Help!
Donate to Mercy Malaysia
[Full Story and more photos]
Joe Rozario with his message to the public to help the children of Darfur.
- - -
Rajan's latest Sudan Genocide Round-Up
Warm thanks to Malaysian blogger Rajan, blogging in English out of Malaysia, for his great new Sudan Genocide Roundup.
- - -
U.N. hopes larger AU force on ground in Sudan by end of October
UN mission officials in Sudan said Friday they hope an expanded African force will be on the ground in Darfur by the end of October.
Facing the genocide investigation and the threat of U.N. sanctions, Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail told the Security Council on Thursday that Sudan would accept 3,500 African Union troops for Darfur.
- - -
Nivasha peace talks to be held October 7, 2004
At long last, after a four month delay, Sudan's final phase peace agreement talks are due to start on October 7.
According to the following report, SPLM leader John Garang said that the SPLM believes in the importance of obtaining self-rule in Darfur and south and east Sudan.
Here are some excerpts from arabic.news.com Sep 30 - SPLM requests Egypt's assistance for concluding a final peace agreement with Khartoum:
Asked whether or not a final agreement is expected to be reached during Nivasha talks to be held in October 7, he [Garang] said that six protocols have already been signed during the month of June and two supplements should be agreed upon. One is on reaching a cease fire agreement and the other pertains to ways to implement the agreements reached, he said.
He voiced hope that an agreement would be reached on these two supplements as soon as possible.
He claimed that the Sudanese government is acting intendedly to waste time, saying four months have passed after July agreement.
He said a final agreement should have been signed in Nivasha in August or September but it was the Sudanese government which asked for delaying talks due to its preoccupation with Darfur crisis.
He claimed that among the reasons behind the government delay is that it would find itself obliged to divide oil proceeds after signing the agreement in order to get 50%, referring to high oil prices at the present time.
Garang warned of any delay saying it could lead to disintegration of the Sudan and this does not serve the interests of any party.
- - -
Once a deal with the SPLA is struck, other agreements could be concluded
Garang is in Cairo, Al-Bashir threatens to execute his mentor Al-Turabi and the Darfur catastrophe worsens: Gamal Nkrumah examines crisis-ridden Sudan.
Note, SPLM leader John Garang told Weekly Ahram news: "Once a deal with the SPLA is struck, other agreements could be concluded with regards to Darfur and the NDA."
- - -
US denies supporting rebels anymore than they are supporting the Janjaweed
According to swissinfo Sep 30 report, a U.S. State Department official in Washington, who asked not to be named, dismissed the charge by Khartoum that the US is supporting the rebels.
"The whole purpose of the U.S. policy is to end the violence in Sudan. We are not funding, training, providing armaments to, supporting in any way, shape or form the rebels anymore than we are supporting the Janjaweed (militia)," the official said.
- - -
Darfur tragedy may last years
In an apocalyptic new warning, British officials said that the humanitarian disaster in Darfur may worsen and last years.
The British Foreign Office fears that, whatever political agreements are made about Darfur’s future, the hundreds of thousands of civilians driven from their land by government-backed militias are unlikely to be able to return to their homes in time for next year’s crop planting season in April and May.
And they say that could condemn Darfur to another season of starvation and disease. The refugee camps now feeding and housing thousands of internal refugees could become permanent camps, like those in the Palestinian territories, officials say.
"We are a very, very long way from being able to say that circumstances anywhere are good enough for people to return home," one senior official said.
- - -
In Sudan work on laying new oil pipeline begins in the next few weeks
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation bags expansion contract in Sudan.
ONGC is to lay an oil pipeline in Sudan. Work will begin in the next few weeks.
- - -
US LIFTS SANCTIONS ON PAKISTAN
And then sells eighteen fighter jets to Pakistan - as a first installment
ChaiTeaLatte (heh love the title of the post: FILE UNDER BAD FREAKIN' IDEA) points to a report saying the US has lifted sanctions on Pakistan. The US then received an order from Pakistan for eighteen F16 fighter jets - as a first installment.
Note, Pakistan is a non-permanent member of the 15-member Security Council. And was one of the members which did not back the Darfur resolutions, despite urging of council.
- - -
Update Sunday Oct 2 - Here is a copy of a report via Associated Press:
US: Commercial interests impeding aid to Arabs in Darfur
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell says commercial interests in Sudan were motivating their opposition to a U.S. diplomatic campaign to help the oppressed non-Arab community in Darfur.
Powell singled out the four countries, Russia, China, Algeria and Pakistan, that voted against a U.N. Security Council resolution two weeks ago that set up a commission to explore human rights abuses in the violence-ravaged area of Sudan.
But in a radio interview with Michael Reagan on Tuesday, he did not say which of the four countries he believed were motivated by commercial interests and which by their opposition to the sanctions threatened in the resolution.
Still, it was an exceptional jab by the secretary of state at governments that put business over mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of people.
"There are some of these countries that just don't like the possibility of sanctions, and others that had commercial interests that they thought would not be well-served if they voted against Sudan's interest in this resolution,'' Powell said in the interview.
A text was released Wednesday by the State Department's press office.
Later, at a news conference, Andrew S. Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, noted China was extracting oil from the African country and Pakistan recently took over Chevron-Texaco's oil concessions.
"I don't know about the other two, but I can tell you Pakistan and China do have commercial interests,'' Natsios said while discussing his Sept. 11-19 trip to Sudan.
Meanwhile, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Ranneberger, who participated in the press briefing, rejected assertions by a top Sudanese official in Khartoum that Sheik Musa Hilal, accused by the State Department of coordinating bloodletting by Arab militia, was a legitimate tribal leader.
Ranneberger said Hilal was a leader of the Janjaweed militia as well as being a tribal leader.
"I think he wears four or five hats,'' the State Department official said.
Natsios said 1.5 million people have been displaced form their homes in Darfur and were in refugee camps, and there was also drought and an approaching locust plague.
The AID administrator said 574 towns had been destroyed while the militia have taken over the homes and herds of African tribes in the region.
"They have nothing left and those animals were basically their savings accounts,'' Natsios said. "The crisis hasn't peaked,'' he said. "It's the malaria season and the worst phase is right now. It's just beginning. And it's going to kill a lot of people.''
At the same time, Natsios said, food was moving in and there were 710 foreign relief workers in Darfur, more than twice the 323 workers there when Powell visited in early July. - AP http://thestaronline.com/news/story
Friday, October 01, 2004
Bashir accuses Washington of arming Darfur rebels; Garang does not oppose sanctions on Khartoum
Copy of Arabic News report 10/1/2004:
The Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has accused the US of training the rebels in Darfur and arming them in order to stand in the face of the government of Khartoum. The leader of the rebels movement in the south, John Garang, said he does not oppose the imposition of sanctions on Khartoum to force her to settle the crisis in Darfur.
Replying to a question on the involvement of foreign forces in Darfur, al-Bashir said in an interview with the Egyptian daily al-Ahram that the USA is behind that. He said "they took the rebels to Eritrea and installed training camps for them and spent money for their armament and al-Thurayya mobile phones. Training and material spending and plans were carried out by foreign forces, especially the USA."
Meanwhile, Garang said in a press conference he held in Cairo that the "sanctions on Sudan might help in rescuing the lives of vulnerable people" in Darfur, in remarks to the UN Security Council resolution of September 18 implying a threat to impose oil sanctions on Khartoum if it does not solve the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/041001/2004100110.html
The Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has accused the US of training the rebels in Darfur and arming them in order to stand in the face of the government of Khartoum. The leader of the rebels movement in the south, John Garang, said he does not oppose the imposition of sanctions on Khartoum to force her to settle the crisis in Darfur.
Replying to a question on the involvement of foreign forces in Darfur, al-Bashir said in an interview with the Egyptian daily al-Ahram that the USA is behind that. He said "they took the rebels to Eritrea and installed training camps for them and spent money for their armament and al-Thurayya mobile phones. Training and material spending and plans were carried out by foreign forces, especially the USA."
Meanwhile, Garang said in a press conference he held in Cairo that the "sanctions on Sudan might help in rescuing the lives of vulnerable people" in Darfur, in remarks to the UN Security Council resolution of September 18 implying a threat to impose oil sanctions on Khartoum if it does not solve the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/041001/2004100110.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)