Annan: What happens to 3m people if we have to leave?

Sep 5 2006 AP report via IHT - excerpt:

"I know that yesterday an important decision was taken by the Sudanese government, which I don't consider initially positive," Annan said.

The UN chief was speaking in this Mediterranean city north of Cairo after a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

"The international community has been feeding about 3 million people in camps and if we have to leave because of lack of security, lack of access to the people then what happens? The government will have to assume responsibility for doing this and if it doesn't succeed, it will have lots of questions to answer before the rest of the world," he said.

"I've always said that international forces will go there to help the Sudanese people, to help the government protect the people. We're not going to invade," said Annan.

Amnesty's petition for UN peacekeepers

See Amnesty International's petition for UN peackeepers in Darfur. [hat tip The Oslo Blog]

Reuters' video report on Darfur

Reuters' video report on Darfur via The Australian. [hat tip Darfur: An Unforgivable Hell on Earth]

Why Darfur was left to its pitiful fate (David Blair)

Sep 5 2006 report from The Telegraph's Africa correspondent David Blair [hat tip POTP]:

As helicopter gunships and Antonov bombers sweep across the rugged plains of Darfur, striking villages at will, Sudan's emboldened regime must scent victory. When it comes to spurning international pressure and exposing the vacuity of Western rhetoric, President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan has proved himself a master.

More than two years after Colin Powell, then America's secretary of state, declared the civil war in western Sudan a "genocide" - and after the passage of no fewer than 11 UN resolutions on Darfur – Mr Bashir feels confident enough to launch yet another offensive. At this moment, his forces are laying waste to villages and forcing more families into squalid refugee camps.

Mr Bashir has made a fool of the West. The fighting now raging in North Darfur province, near the local capital of El Fasher, compares with the heaviest since the war began in 2003. UN officials expect it to escalate, for Khartoum is pouring more troops into the area. Mr Bashir, a dour, harsh and unscrupulous general who seized power in a coup 17 years ago, must scarcely believe his good fortune. How has he managed it?

First, a brief look at how we reached this juncture. When Darfur's war broke out, Mr Bashir's Arab-dominated regime faced a grave threat from black African rebels. He could not trust his regular army to suppress this challenge, because most of its rank-and-file were recruited in Darfur and hailed from the same tribes as the insurgents.

So he relied on the notorious Janjaweed militias. These mounted gunmen, drawn from Khartoum's traditional allies among Darfur's Arab tribes, were given carte blanche to pillage the regime's enemies. This dealt the rebels a heavy blow – but also forced two million into refugee camps. The result was an avalanche of international condemnation.

In the summer of 2004, one Western foreign minister after another visited Darfur and spoke words of grave concern. Mr Powell went so far as to accuse Khartoum of carrying out a genocidal campaign, targeted largely on the Fur, Zaghawa and Masalit tribes. He was probably wrong: a UN investigation later ruled that genocide had not taken place. There is no evidence that Mr Bashir intended to eradicate these tribes – and proving genocide turns on whether one party intended to destroy a specific ethnic group.

Yet for a few months in 2004, Sudan felt the full glare of international scrutiny and a succession of UN resolutions followed. Resolution 1556 demanded that Sudan disarm the Janjaweed by August 30, 2004. Mr Bashir solemnly pledged to do so. Four months earlier, Sudan had signed a ceasefire agreement. In December 2004, it promised to ground its warplanes.

It scarcely needs to be said that Khartoum ignored each of these deals. But Mr Bashir never felt strong enough to reject them out of hand. In public, he bowed to every UN resolution and promised obedience, even if his behaviour exposed the mendacity of his words. Contrast this with his response to the Security Council's latest missive on Darfur. Resolution 1706, passed last Thursday, called for the deployment of a fully fledged peacekeeping force in Darfur, consisting of 17,300 troops and 3,300 civilian police.

But the newly emboldened Mr Bashir reacted with scorn. After spending months accusing the UN of "plotting" to "re-colonise" Sudan, he gathered his cabinet on Sunday and announced a "decisive rejection" of the resolution, urging his country to prepare "for the confrontation" with the UN. The unpalatable fact is that Mr Bashir has been watching the West since the onset of Darfur's agony and believes he can get away with almost anything.

In fact, the miscalculations of Western governments have actually strengthened him. Instead of placing pressure on Khartoum, they chose to sponsor a wholly ineffective African Union force of 5,000 troops and 2,000 civilians to Darfur – which made no impact.

The West also backed an endless round of peace talks between Khartoum and Darfur's rebels in Nigeria's capital, Abuja. In retrospect, this was probably the most disastrous move of all. The outcome of the talks was a half-baked peace agreement concluded in May. Mr Bashir's regime signed the deal – but the rebel movement split over whether to follow suit. One faction of the rebel Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), dominated by the minority Zaghawa tribe, signed up. But another SLA group, drawn from the much larger Fur tribe, refused to follow. So Mr Bashir's enemies tore themselves to bits, thanks largely to a peace deal mediated by Hilary Benn, the International Development Secretary, and Robert Zoellick, then America's deputy secretary of state.

This deeply flawed agreement also gave the regime an opening to buy off Minni Minawi, the Zaghawa leader, making him "special adviser" on Darfur affairs. Mr Minawi's rebels, now allied with the Khartoum regime, will fight alongside Mr Bashir's army in the offensive against their former comrades. This has given Khartoum the confidence to launch the new offensive. Having withstood the pressure of 2004 and seen his rebel enemies obligingly fall apart, Mr Bashir feels under no pressure from the West.

What should have been done? Instead of waiting until last Thursday, a resolution calling for peacekeepers should have been passed in 2004. That was the moment to call for an international force, backed by a robust mandate allowing the protection of civilians. Instead of using Sudan's moment of maximum weakness, the West dithered for two years. Mr Bashir weighed his opponents in the balance and found them wanting. Tragically, the resolution was eventually passed at the hour of his greatest strength – and the people of Darfur are paying the price.

UK's MEP Glenys Kinnock calls for extended AMIS mandate with adequate EU funding

4 Sep 2006 UK News Wales report excerpt:

Speaking at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Glenys Kinnock said: "There is now the risk of a massive humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur as the hard-line Sudanese Junta refuses to accept UN troops agreed last week by the security council.

"Tension is building up and a large-scale military confrontation is threatened as thousands of Sudanese troops move into Darfur with trucks, bombs and guns.

"There is a real risk that Darfur will be closed to all external organisations and we will not know the extent of the catastrophe until after the event."

Mrs Kinnock, Co-President of the African, Caribbean and Pacific States - EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, called for the European Commission to work to extend the mandate of the AU peacekeeping force until a UN force can be deployed. She also urged the EU to ensure the necessary funding was available to sustain the force.

She said: "The EU's High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, must make urgent representations to the Sudanese and to the African Union to ensure that the mandate of the AU can be extended until such a time as a UN force can be deployed.

AU must accept deal - EU, UK warn of dire consequences

AFP report 4 Sep via CFD says African Union Must Accept Deal. Excerpt:

European Union spokesman Amadeu Altafaj Tardio warned of dire consequences if the 7,000 African Union peacekeepers are made to pull out before a U.N. force can take over.

"There would be a very difficult scenario," Altafaj Tardio said in a telephone interview. "We need a stronger force on the ground to ensure security. It is crucial to reach an agreement with the Sudanese before that deadline."

Britain's Foreign Office warned Monday that "there could potentially be significant humanitarian repercussion if this (UN) force is not in place. It looks clear to us that there is a significant buildup of the Sudan government military in Darfur."

12th aid worker killed in Darfur

IRC statement 4 Sep 2006 via ReliefWeb

The International Rescue Committee is saddened to report the death of an IRC nurse during fighting in Hashaba, North Darfur, on Friday, Sept 1. The victim, a 37-year-old Sudanese national, ran the IRC's health center in Hashaba, about 100 kilometers north of El Fasher.

The health center, along with a pharmacy and guesthouse managed by the IRC, were also looted during the fighting there.

With this tragic death, the toll of humanitarian workers killed in Darfur since May rises to 12.

AU Security Council meeting 18 Sep to consider AMIS mandate

Sudan Tribune 5 Sep 2006 says Darfur mission will end in Sept, but consultations continue - AU:

African Union peace and Security Council has reiterated its decision to end the mandate of the African forces in Darfur by the end of September 2006.

AU Security Council will convene at ministerial level a meeting in New York on 18 September to consider the mandate of the African forces in Darfur.

Note, the article provides the full text of a Sep 4 press release by AU peace and Security Council on the AU mission in Darfur.

UPDATE: -- AU Darfur meeting in New York delayed -- Reuters SA 18 Sep 2006:

AU meeting to discuss the situation in Darfur, scheduled for New York on Monday, will now "possibly" take place later in the week, South Africa's Foreign Ministry said.

"The reason for the postponement is to allow AU Heads of State and Government comprising the 15-member AU Peace and Security Council, currently attending the United Nations General Assembly, to participate in the Peace and Security Council meeting," the ministry said in a statement.

South Africa said President Thabo Mbeki would represent it at the AU meeting. Sudanese President al-Bashir was also expected to attend the meeting.

Sudan says "US's strategy is regime change"

Speaking at SUNA press forum Monday, Presidential Advisor Mustafa Osman Ismail, said that the UN resolution No 1706 is violating the sovereignty of the Sudan directly because it gives the responsibility of protection of the Sudanese and the borders to the international forces.

Full story Sudan Tribune 4 Sep 2006. Excerpt:

"Monitoring the borders ... protection of civilians ... creating an independent judiciary have all become the responsibility of the international forces, so what is left for the government?" he said, referring to clauses in the U.N. resolution.

"The United States has a clear strategy ... of trying to weaken this government ... or trying to change the government."

Ismail doubted the American intentions towards Sudan, saying US insisted on the issuance of the recent resolution to carry out its strategy, which aims to weaken the government.

According to Ismail many evidences lead to the US bad intentions towards Sudan: the US describes the dispute in Darfur as genocide. Washington after the issuance of UN resolution 1706 announced that no consent is required from Sudan government to deploy UN troops in Darfur; and US Administration continues to impose economic sanctions and put Sudan on the list of countries harboring terrorism.

On the other hand, the Presidential Press Secretary Mahjoub Fadl Badri added another charge against the US Administration. He said US scheme aims at breaking Sudanese unity.

Speaking to the Voice of the Arabs Radio in Cairo, Badri said US “plan aims at breaking Sudanese unity, which is a very progressive step in case the international forces were deployed in Darfur, to be able to separate the Darfur region from the rest of Sudan".

Sudan's Darfur: The next Rwanda? (The Times)

The Times September 5, 2006 - leading article:

The next Rwanda?
Arab governments must joint the West in condemning Khartoum

As his country slides back to civil war, the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, has denounced Western moves to intervene as a colonialist conspiracy and likened Khartoum's situation to Lebanon's a month ago. It is true that villages in Darfur are being bombed -- by Sudanese government aircraft. And it is true that troops are massing for a major offensive; these are Sudanese army troops. But what truly distinguishes this crisis from any other international emergency, and shames those leaders apparently willing to let it run its course, is genocide.

The remorseless "ethnic cleansing" of the black Sudanese tribespeople of Darfur constitutes the worst atrocity in Africa since the Rwandan genocide of 1994. At least 200,000 villagers - and possibly double that, according to credible US estimates - have been killed by government-backed Janjiwid militias. Two million survivors of their raids are homeless. A lull in the slaughter followed a peace deal brokered this year between Mr al-Bashir and one of three main rebel groupings ranged against him in Darfur. But he now appears determined to exploit the West's preoccupation with the Middle East and Afghanistan, and finish what the Janjiwid began.

The tools available to stop him do not inspire confidence. With the mandate for an ill-supplied and ineffective African Union peacekeeping force due to expire on September 30, the United Nations Security Council has approved a resolution to replace it with a far larger UN force. But diplomats made clear that that force would not be deployed without Mr al-Bashir's consent, which last week he withheld. And yesterday he insisted that the AU force could only stay on if it was not part of a larger UN deployment.

Aid agencies run ever-greater risks delivering food and medicines to Darfur, where 12 of their workers have been killed this year. Acute shortages have swelled refugee camps across the border in Chad, while those who have stayed behind are dying at an alarming rate. They may not have been shot by his army, but Mr al-Bashir is complicit in their deaths. Yet he is as unmoved by the latest UN resolution as by ten others that he has ignored during this crisis, and last week he received a senior US envoy but offered no hint of compromise.

Sudan has correctly judged that even if the UN had the stomach to attempt to send a peacekeeping force without Khartoum's consent, the logistical obstacles to deploying a multi-national force of 20,000 in a desert the size of France would prove insurmountable. Sudan will also remain impossible to isolate internationally as long as Qatar, representing the Arab League, continues to support it in the UN out of misplaced ethnic solidarity; and China continues to abstain in relevant UN votes out of fondness for Mr al-Bashir's oil reserves.

A UN meeting on Darfur is scheduled for Friday. It is not too late to reach a deal on humanitarian aid corridors; nor for the Arab League to see that defending barbarity is ultimately self-defeating. In the meantime, the next Rwanda looms.

2 students killed, 10 injured by riot police at Sudan's El Fasher University

Two students were killed on Sunday and more than 10 injured when Sudanese riot police broke up a discussion forum on achieving peace in Darfur at El Fasher University, IRIN reported today. Excerpt:

According to local observers, truckloads of armed forces surrounded the university and entered the grounds, using electric batons, tear gas and guns against the students. Dozens of students were reportedly injured and about 20 were detained.

On the same day, in an apparent show of force, a military procession of up to 50 vehicles carrying government special forces drove through El Fasher town. The vehicles proceeded to circle Abu Shouk camp for internally displaced persons on the town's outskirts with two Mi-24 helicopter gunships flying closely overhead.

African peacekeepers cannot transfer to UN, says govt

4 Sep 2006 IRIN report- excerpt:

Sudanese presidential adviser Mustafa Osman Ismail told reporters in Khartoum on Monday that the AU would have to leave the country only if it couldn't maintain its existing force.

"The AU has refused to extend its mandate beyond September 30. If they don't want to extend their mandate, they have to go," said Ismail.

AU spokesman Noureddine Mezni said he was still waiting to hear how latest developments might affect the AU mission.

"We have been following the issue through the media, but we haven't received any official notification so far," AU spokesman Noureddine Mezni told IRIN on Monday.

Rather than accepting a UN force, the Sudanese government has proposed its own protection plan, which involves deploying another 10,500 troops to "consolidate the security situation" in Darfur.

Sudan delivers one week deadline to AMIS to reject a UN mandate and accept Arab/Sudanese funding

Today, Sudan gave AMIS a week to accept a deal on their continued presence in the country or get out.

Sudan's President Bashir, gave the AU a weeks deadline to accept a deal on the AU's presence without a UN mandate.

The Sudanese government said that AU troops could stay in the country only if they reject a UN mandate and accept funding from Sudan and the Arab League.

Full story Johannesburg (AND) 4 Sep 2006.

Sudan says AU can stay in Darfur if it accepts Arab/Sudanese funding

This is interesting. Let's hope Arab League countries come up with the right level of funding. Reportedly, the current African Union force in Darfur costs one billion US dollars per annum. AP report AU Must Accept Deal on U.N. force:

Sudan said Monday that African Union peacekeepers will have to leave Darfur unless they accept a deal within a week that would effectively block a proposed U.N. force.

Sudan's Foreign Minister Ali Ahmed Kerti said the AU troops, whose formal mandate expires on Sept. 30, can only stay on in the remote, war-torn western region if they accept Arab League and Sudanese funding.

The foreign minister gave the African body a week to respond to its offer or withdraw its troops from the country, a government statement said.

European Union spokesman Amadeu Altafaj Tardio warned of dire consequences if the AU is forced to pull out before a U.N. force can take over.

"There would be a very difficult scenario," Altafaj Tardio said in a telephone interview. "We need a stronger force on the ground to ensure security. It is crucial to reach an agreement with the Sudanese before that deadline."

"There are 2.4 million internally displaced, those people will never come back to their villages unless they have security," he said.

Sudan earlier had ordered the African Union troops out by the end's month after the bloc insisted it would hand over its mandate to the United Nations, but the ultimatum apparently marked a final attempt to keep the weak African force in Darfur.

Kerti said he issued the ultimatum at a meeting Monday with the African Union representative in Khartoum, Nigerian Ambassador Baba Gana Kingibe.

"The foreign minister indicated to Kingibe that the Sudan has always advocated the presence of African force in Darfur, and sought funds for the maintenance of that presence," the statement said.

"The Arab League has offered support to cover the presence of the African Union forces after September 2006," he said.

Sudan says AU can stay in Darfur but not under UN - expelling AMIS would end implementation of DPA

The following report tells us that expelling the African Union mission in Darfur would end all implementation of the AU-brokered May peace deal for Darfur.

Sudan will allow African Union troops to remain in Darfur but only if their AU mandate was extended beyond Sep 30 and not as part of a UN force, a presidential advisor said today - Sep 4 2006 Reuters' Opheera McDoom report excerpt:

Sudan raised alarms that its turbulent west could descend into full-blown war after a Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Sunday AU troops monitoring a shaky ceasefire must leave when their mandate expired. The spokesman called the decision final.

Presidential Advisor Mustafa Osman Ismail said the government was responding to the AU's stated position that it could not sustain its 7,000 troops in Darfur beyond its mandate.

"The AU has refused to extend its mandate beyond Sept. 30. If they don't want to extend their mandate, they have to go," he said.

One African diplomat said the government softened its position overnight because they realised expelling the AU would end all implementation of an AU-brokered May peace deal.

"I am sure the Foreign Ministry spokesman and others were not talking from the tops of their heads yesterday," the diplomat said.

A U.S-British backed U.N. resolution passed on Thursday, which Khartoum rejects, said more than 20,000 U.N. troops would take over peacekeeping from AU forces who have been unable to end the violence that has ravaged Darfur for 3 1/2 years.

AU troops were expected to fill the gap before the arrival of the U.N. and ultimately be absorbed into the U.N. operation according to the resolution.

Ismail said the government rejected that transition and argued the U.N. mandate's goal was "regime change".

"Sudan will not accept those troops to be transformed into part of a U.N. force," he said.

"Monitoring the borders ... protection of civilians ... creating an independent judiciary has all become the responsibility of the international forces, so what is left for the government?" he said, referring to clauses in the U.N. resolution.

"The United States has a clear strategy ... of trying to weaken this government ... or trying to change the government," Ismail told reporters.

EX REBELS DISAGREE

Washington calls the rape, pillage and murder that has forced 2.5 million from their homes in Darfur genocide and blames the government and its allied militia known locally as Janjaweed.

Khartoum rejects the charge but the International Criminal Court (ICC) is investigating alleged war crimes in Darfur, where tens of thousands of people have been killed.

Critics say Khartoum fears U.N. troops would be used to arrest officials likely to be indicted by the ICC.

Aid workers and security analysts say the violence has escalated since the peace deal signed in May by one of three negotiating rebel factions.

Former rebels who are now part of government with the dominant National Congress Party said they did not agree with the decision to ask the AU to leave.

"It is endangering the Darfur peace agreement and endangering Sudan's relations with the African and the international community," said Yasser Arman, spokesman for the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM).

He said there had been no consultation on the decision with the partners in government such as the SPLM and the former Darfur rebel Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), which recently joined government after the May deal.

"The SPLM does not want a confrontation with the international community," he added.

The EU's executive Commission called on Sudan on Monday to recognise the broad international consensus for the AU to hand over to a stronger U.N. mission, citing the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Darfur. (additional reporting by Ingrid Melander in Brussels)

Sudan's Cabinet said it would take over Darfur security

Sep 3 2006 AP report by Mohamed Saeed - via BDT. Excerpt:

The Sudanese news agency SUNA quoted President Omar al-Bashir as saying UN attempts to deploy peacekeepers was a bid by the international community to take over his country.

"The call for deployment of international forces in Darfur is part of a comprehensive conspiracy for confiscating the country's sovereignty and imposing guardianship on the Sudanese people," al-Bashir said.

State media reported the Cabinet said it would take over Darfur security, which "has improved, except for some violations perpetrated by the National Redemption Front which has refused to sign the (peace) agreement."

Rebel commander Abubakar Hamid Elnur said by satellite telephone from northern Darfur that there were many civilian casualties.

"The government is still bombing with aircraft. It is very difficult for us to protect our civilians, especially from the air," he told The Associated Press. Many civilians have fled their villages for the hills and valleys, according to the rebels.

A government armed forces spokesman denied any aerial bombing of villages in northern Darfur and described current army activities in the area as administrative operations.

"The allegation that the army used military aircraft and bombed the area is false and unfounded," said the spokesman on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

JEM rebels phone AFP from London - willing to open peace talks with Khartoum

AFP report via CFD 2 Sept 2006 - excerpt:

"We welcome this resolution which is a victory for the people of Darfur as it will put a stop to the genocide under way," the movement's spokesperson Ahmed Hussein Adam told AFP by telephone from London.

"The Movement will co-operate fully in the implementation of the resolution and calls on the international community, and particularly the United States, to continue efforts for a comprehensive political settlement."

"The Movement is ready to resume negotiations to iron out the failings which were not addressed in the Abuja process," he said referring to the talks in the Nigerian capital that led to the May deal between Khartoum and the mainstream faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement.

They want peace with Khartoum? Yeah sure, whatever.

Sudan asks AMIS to leave Darfur by Sep 30

"We are asking them to leave since they indicated that they will not be able to continue their mission," said Foreign Ministry Spokesman Jamal Ibrahim. "This is a final decision."

Full story Reuters' Opheera McDoom 3 Sept 2006 [hat tip POTP]

African Union confirms renewed fighting in Sudan's Darfur

VOA News - AU: Fighting Renewed in Sudan's Darfur Region - excerpt:

An official with the African Union peacekeeping force, reached in the the Darfuri capital of El Fasher, said six villages have been attacked.

A rebel commander in the Darfur region says several civilians have been killed and thousands more displaced.

Commander Jar El Neby is a member of the National Redemption Front, an alliance of Darfur rebels that did not sign the May 5 Darfur Peace Agreement. He told VOA that he believes the Sudanese government is trying to expand its territory in the region.

"Since three days ago, they are in the area of Um Sidir," he said. "They have burned the village of Um Sidir, and kidnapped all the villages around Um Sifir area, and killed about five civilians yesterday in Um Sidir area. Until now, I hear the sound of Antonovs in this area. "

El Neby's group and another rebel faction have refused to sign on to the accord, saying it does not grant enough political power to Darfuris, nor enough compensation to victims of the three-year war.

African Union peacekeepers in Darfur unpaid since May

Darfur villages burn as army tramples on UN peace plan - Sunday Times excerpt:

Last Friday their new uniforms filled the streets of El Fasher and foreigners were warned to stay indoors.

General Collins Ihekire, the Nigerian head of the African Union's (AU) 7,000-strong peacekeeping force, believes the perception that it is implementing an unfair peace agreement is hampering its efforts even more than a lack of resources.

"They (the rebels) are not seeing us as partners in the peace process but as legitimate targets," he said by telephone from Darfur. Two AU soldiers were killed last month in an ambush, and more attacks were expected, he added. Most of the peacekeepers had not been paid since May.

African Union received no official notice from Khartoum to leave Darfur Sep 30

Sep 2 2006 Aegis Trust media release [via ST] - excerpt:

Disturbing reports in the past 48 hours indicate that the Sudanese Government is on the point of expelling the African Union Mission from Darfur.

According to a report yesterday in London-based Arabic daily Asharq Al-Awsat, Sudan's Vice-President, Ali Osman Mohammed Taha, on a visit to Kordofan, stated that Khartoum had asked the AU to withdraw its troops immediately, and told them that their withdrawal should be finished by 30 September.

"Their troops are no longer required"

"We will write to all African countries with troops in Darfur," he is quoted as saying. "We thank them for their previous work, but at the same time we say that their troops are no longer required in Sudan. This is because they are trying to change into being a UN force. This clearly contradicts their original mandate. Omar Bashir himself has told the AU before that if it agreed to a UN takeover, he would ask its countries to remove their troops immediately. However, we leave the door open for the rebuilding of confidence between Khartoum and the AU if it withdraws its support for UN Resolution 1706."

Resolution 1706, passed Thursday 31 August, authorised a transferral from the AU mission in Darfur to a UN peacekeeping mission comprising 17,000 troops, on condition of Khartoum's acceptance. Khartoum immediately rejected the resolution.

Late Saturday, senior AU representatives stated that though they had seen media reports indicating Khartoum was ordering the AU mission to leave Darfur, they had received no official notification from the Government of Sudan.

Christian Science Monitor: "Quite simply, Reeves is a gadfly - a blogger with a high wattage audience"

The Christian Science Monitor's Clara Germani has a nice profile of gadfly Eric Reeves "A Wired Prospero" . [hat tip VOGP]

Juba Blog: Fictional assassination films

See Juba Blog: President Bush Assassinated!

Pajamas Media in Sydney & Counterterrorism Blog - Darfur Peacekeeping mission OK'd

Via Pajamas Media in Sydney Aug 31, 2006.

Darfur Peacekeeping mission okayed

"The UN Security Council approved a plan to reinforce the African Union 7,000-strong force, unable to quell the violence there. The Sudan has objected. (CNN) Counterterrorism Blog has comments and Sudan Watch has background.

Sudan to expel AU force from Darfur

Sudan has decided to expel African Union force from Darfur.

The decision is taken by Khartoum 24 hours after the adoption of a UN resolution on Darfur peacekeeping mission.

According to London based Asharq Al-Awsat, the Sudanese government has decided to end the AU mission in Darfur after the AU approval for UN takeover in Darfur.

Sudanese president had warned the AU against any support to the UN takeover.

Full story Sudan Tribune 1 Sep 2006

Taha vows resistance - Who would donate peacekeepers in face of opposition from Khartoum?

Sep 1 2006 AFP report via CFD - excerpt:

Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Taha has vowed the regime would maintain its opposition to a UN peacekeeping force for Darfur and hailed Hezbollah as a model of resistance, official media said.

Diplomats in New York said it was highly unlikely that countries would contribute troops to a mission in the face of opposition from the Khartoum government, which has vowed to attack any forces sent uninvited to the area.

Darfur's peacekeepers 'not paid' - BBC

Reportedly, the African Mission in Darfur (AMIS) costs $1 billion pa. Where are the millions of dollars in donations for Darfur while much needed peacekeepers in Darfur are not even getting paid? If peackeepers are not paid or fed decently while on active duty, what is all the money for?

BBC report today, excerpt:

Rwanda's army spokesman says there have been delays in paying peacekeepers in Sudan's Darfur region because the African Union is short of cash.

Some of the Rwandan troops who make up over 2,000 of the 7,000-strong AU force in Darfur have complained they have not received their $25 daily allowance.

Maj Jules Rutaremara told the BBC the AU mission is reliant on international funding which has not been forthcoming.

"The AU has financial problems emanating from the fact that it is heavily dependent on partners outside Africa - mainly the European Union, the US and Canada, whose contributions have not been forthcoming," Maj Rutaremara told the BBC's Focus on Africa programme.

But he said that he was confident the entitlements due to the Rwandan soldiers would be settled.

"The AU has registered delays in payments of allowances and salaries, sometimes going up to two months, but that does not mean that they will not be paid," he said.

The decision about whether to withdraw the AU mission was a political decision, not a military one, he said, although the Rwandan army was concerned about logistical problems in Darfur.

Two Rwandan soldiers in Darfur died in an ambush earlier this month.

[hat tip CFD via POTP]

Ireland welcomes Darfur peackeeping deployment

Irish Independent, Ireland - 10 hours ago
The Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern is welcoming the deployment of a peacekeeping force to Darfur. - DARFUR - Google News

Somalia peace talks kicks off in Khartoum

The Secretary-General's top envoy to Somalia is taking part in peace talks starting today in Khartoum between the troubled Horn of Africa's disputing parties, the Transitional Government and the Supreme Council of Islamic Courts. Full story UN News Centre 1 Sep 2006.

Sweden welcomes UN Resolution 1706 on Darfur

Government of Sweden statement via ReliefWeb today - excerpt:

"I welcome this Resolution. It will lay the basis for a vigorous international commitment to bring an end to the conflict in Darfur. The government in Khartoum has not been able to shoulder its responsibility to protect its people. I would therefore urge the government in Sudan to accept the UN initiative," says Minister for Foreign Affairs Jan Eliasson.

"We cannot tacitly accept a situation in which Darfur collapses into an even deeper spiral of violence and suffering. It is important that the Resolution can be fully implemented," says Mr Eliasson.

SLM-Bassey urges UN to get Sudan consent for peacekeepers deployment

Note, this report points out that Bassey replaced Nur. SLM-Nur is the rival group to SLA-Minnawi. SudanTribune Aug 31 , 2006 (PARIS):

The rebel Sudan Liberation Movement welcomed the UN Security Council resolution No 1706 for the deployment of an international force in Darfur region, the SLM urged the international community to put pressure on Khartoum to accept its implementation.

In a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the chairman of the SLM, Ahmed Abdelshafi Bassey, It described the resolution as "workable plan to protect innocent civilians in Darfur".

The UN Security Council on Thursday authorized the creation of a United Nations peacekeeping mission to halt the bloodshed in Darfur. The resolution No 1706 called for as many as 17,300 troops and 3,300 civilian police but invited the government's consent before deployment.

"Resolution 1706 has undoubtedly rekindled fresh hopes for the destitute in the IDPs camps, the majority of whom are women, children, orphans and the elderly;" Bassey said.

The mission would aim to bolster the Darfur peace process, secure the camps and demilitarized zones, and ease regional tensions amid the security vacuum.

Baasey was designated as chairperson of a faction of the SLM dominantly represents Fur ethnic group, the biggest Darfur tribes, last July to replace Abdelwahid al-Nur .

Below, the letter sent by Mr. Ahmed Abdulshafi Bassey, Chairman Designate, to Mr. Koffi Annan, UN Secretary General regarding Resolution No. 1706.
Date: August 31, 2006
To The Right Honorable: Mr. Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General
Subject: United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1706

Dear: Mr. Secretary General

The SLM/A has received the adoption of Resolution No. 1706 with jubilation but not without skepticism. Our call for an expeditious deployment of the UN peacekeeping forces into Darfur goes back to the adoption of the N'Djamena Ceasefire Agreement in April, 2004. We believe that, the UN Security Council has finally put together a workable plan to protect innocent civilians in Darfur.

Resolution 1706 has undoubtedly rekindled fresh hopes for the destitute in the IDPs camps, the majority of whom are women, children, orphans and the elderly. The new Resolution also gives more hope to provide protection against the brutal attacks of GoS forces and its militias. We would like, however, to bring to the attention of the President and the honorable members of the SC, as well as the entire international community that, the latest round of deployment of more arms and forces to Darfur by GoS will cause more suffering of innocent civilians in the region. The SLM/A would like to take this opportunity to assure you our full commitment to abiding by all previously signed ceasefire agreements and protocols.

While we strongly commend and support the firm stance and commitments made by the honorable members of the UNSC, we look upon the entire international community to join hands to pressurize the GoS to favorably respond to the implementation of the SC Resolution 1706. We should all focus on the urgency to stop more losses of human lives, the need for providing humanitarian assistance and to stop further human rights violations. Please help restore the dignity of the people of Darfur.

Sincerely,
Ahmed Abdulshafi Bassey Chairman Designate Sudan Liberation Movemet/Army

HRW & AU: Sudan gov't launches new anti-rebel offensive in Kulkul, North Darfur

Aug 31 2006 Reuters report via ST Darfur rebels say govt attacks as UN vote nears:

The rebels said the new offensive began two days ago as government forces attacked and occupied Kulkul about 35 km (22 miles) north of Darfur's main town el-Fasher.

"Government forces have moved north of Kulkul with about 90 vehicles and are attacking the area of Um Sifir, bombing with Antonov planes," said Jar el-Neby, a rebel leader from a faction which did not sign a May peace deal.

A Sudanese armed forces spokesman said the army did have forces in Kulkul but that the area had always belonged to them.

"There are no new operations. Only before many days to confront an attack by the (rebel) National Redemption Front (NRF)," he added.

- - -

Sep 1 2006 AP report via Easy bourse:

The Sudanese government has launched a major offensive against rebels in war-torn Darfur in recent days, human rights activists and African Union officials said Friday.

The fighting, which according to Human Rights Watch has involved government aircraft bombing villages, began as a senior US envoy was in Khartoum to press the government to accept the deployment of UN peacekeepers in the western region.

Sudan on Thursday rejected as "illegal" a UN Security Council resolution paving the way for the replacement of an ill-equipped 7,000-strong African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur with more than 20,000 UN troops and police.

Government troops Monday attacked and later occupied Kulkul, a rebel-held village north of Darfur's provincial capital el Fasher, David Buchbinder of Human Rights Watch said by telephone from New York, citing local reports. Two other rebel-controlled villages have since reportedly fallen under government control.

An African Union official in Khartoum, Sam Ibok, said that more than 20 civilians have been killed and more than 1,000 have been displaced since major clashes started early this week according to reports from the affected areas.

He said that these northern areas were a "no-go" zone for AU forces and therefore he had no precise information.

International observers in north Darfur reported that civilians attempting to flee the attacks in Kulkul were turned back by Sudanese government troops, according to Human Rights Watch.

Sudanese officials could not be reached on Friday, a weekend day, to comment on the reports. Rebel commanders didn't answer calls. [edit]

Eric Reeves, a professor from Smith College in the U.S. who is a prominent campaigner for an end to the Darfur conflict, said he had information that Minni Minnawi, leader of the only rebel faction to sign the peace deal, was collaborating with the government offensive.

He said his contacts told him that thousands of troops and janjaweed militias backed by Antonov planes that have been carrying out bombing missions have taken control of three villages north of el Nasher, Kulkul, Bir Maza and Sayeh.

"They are bombing villages without any regard for civilians, it is more genocidal violence. The end game is to take full control of northern Darfur and isolate the rebels," he said.

John Prendergast, an expert from the International Crisis Group, a global think-tank, who was in Darfur until the end of last week, said the government offensive was provoking spiraling violence and reduced humanitarian access to the region.

Earlier this week the U.N.'s top humanitarian official, Jan Egeland, warned that "a man-made catastrophe of an unprecedented scale" loomed within weeks in Darfur unless the Security Council acted immediately.

Egeland said there could be hundreds of thousands of deaths if aid operations - already at grave risk because of rising numbers of attacks against aid workers, dramatically reduced access to those in need, and massive funding shortfalls - collapsed.

- - -

Sep 1 2006 IRIN report: Army unleashes military offensive in Darfur - Sudanese government forces have recaptured the rebel-held town of Um Sidir near El Fasher, capital of North Darfur State, raising fears that a major new offensive has started in the region, observers said on Friday.

Darfur conflict could spread in days - EU

Darfur conflict could escalate into widespread fighting within days or weeks, the European Union's special envoy said on Friday, Reuters reported today:

Another 100,000 or 200,000 people could be forced to flee their homes in the northern part of the remote province, envoy Pekka Haavisto said.

"It could be a matter of days or weeks for the conflict to escalate into a widespread military operation," Haavisto told journalists on his return from a visit to Darfur.

He said EU officials working in the area had told him the situation was getting worse.

He also said it was worrying the Sudanese government was planning to send 10,000 troops to Darfur.

"We think this does not comply with the May peace agreement and appears as a vast military operation ... Some representatives say the intention is to wipe the non-signatories (of the peace agreement) off the map."

The United Nations Security Council voted on Thursday to create a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur to avert a new humanitarian disaster, which was welcomed by Haavisto. But the Sudanese government rejected the resolution as "illegal".

Haavisto said the government's objections sprang from its attitude towards the West, as it mistakenly feared Darfur would become another Iraq or Afghanistan.

As the rebel groups' main goals appear to include overthrowing the government, there are also fears that the conflict and current humanitarian crisis would spread out of Darfur, he said.

Haavisto said he had met the Sudanese government and Darfur rebel movements during his visit to Khartoum and Darfur.

"Through the EU we have worked hard all summer to bring alive the Darfur peace agreement signed in early May. We believe we will have to persuade the non-signatory parties to agree with the peace process," he said.

UK's Lord Triesman says Darfur's headed for humanitarian disaster

Reuters via The Star 31 Aug 2006. Excerpt:

Darfur is headed for a humanitarian calamity unless Sudan's Khartoum-based government ends renewed fighting in the western region and allows a UN peacekeeping force in, Britain said today.

Hours ahead of a UN Security Council vote on a US-British resolution proposing up to 22,500 U.N. troops for Darfur, British Foreign Office Minister David Triesman said the humanitarian crisis there had reached a decisive moment.

Rebels have reported renewed fighting in the north of the region in the last two days between the government and rebel groups who refused to sign a May peace accord.

"The chances of the humanitarian and food distribution operations working in an environment where war has broken out again are very, very poor indeed," Triesman said.

"We were in a bad situation two days ago. We are rapidly going towards a calamity."

"The vital thing to say is that this resolution does address the international humanitarian catastrophe and it does address the security issues which would make it possible to do something about that catastrophe," Triesman said.

Triesman was adamant that the resolution was no threat to Sudan's government.

"This is very strongly about the UN providing the security in which the humanitarian effort can succeed.

Darfur rebels say govt attacks as UN vote nears

"It is now clear that the wrangling over the deployment of international forces has turned into a confrontation between the Sudanese people and foreign parties," said the state-owned Sudan Vision paper in an editorial on Thursday. - Reuters via Sudan Tribune 31 Aug 2006.

Sudan rejects UN Darfur resolution as illegal

Aug 31 2006 Reuters:

Sudan rejected a Security Council resolution passed on Thursday to deploy more than 20,000 U.N. troops and police to its violent Darfur region as illegal and contravening a May peace accord, officials said.

"Our stand is very clear, that the Sudanese government has not been consulted and it is not appropriate to pass a resolution before they seek the permission of Sudan," said Presidential Advisor Ali Tamim Fartak.

The presidential advisor responsible for Darfur, Majzoub al-Khalifa, told Al Jazeera television that the resolution was completely rejected by Sudan.

"We completely reject this resolution ... which is illegal," he said. "This resolution is opposing the Darfur peace agreement."

The Security Council vote on Thursday was 12 in favour, with abstentions from Russia, China and Qatar, the only Arab council member, despite Sudanese and Arab requests the vote be postponed.

But the troops cannot be deployed until Sudan agrees. The United Nations wants to replace or absorb an African Union force in Darfur, which has funds until mid-October and whose mandate expires on Sept. 30.

TEXT: UN Resolution 1706

Genocide Intervention Network has made the text of the UN resolution [pdf] available - see link to pdf copy at Coalition for Darfur.

Reactions to Resolution

Aug 31 2006 Genocide Intervention Network: "Sudan should immediately allow the expansion of the current UN force in Southern Sudan into Darfur," says GI-Net Executive Director Mark Hanis.

Reactions from Save Darfur and Human Rights First - see Coalition for Darfur.

Aug 31 2006 Vatican Radio: Peace Hopes for Sudan - Reverend James Alexander works in Sudan for the World Council of Churches. He says though there is hope for peace with this new vote, there is still much ambiguity.

TEXT- Sudan's plan for restoration of stability in Darfur

Today, Sudan Tribune published copy of Sudan's plan for Darfur in Arabic and English.

Click here to read TEXT- Sudan's plan for restoration of stability in Darfur

UN Security Council approves UN Resolution 1706 to create a UN peacekeeping force for Darfur, inviting Khartoum to consent

The UN Security Council today voted to create a UN peacekeeping force for Darfur, but the troops would be deployed only with the approval of the Sudanese government, IRIN reported Aug 30. Excerpt:

Resolution 1706, backed by the United States and Britain, passed with 12 votes and three abstentions: China, Russia and Qatar. It provides for the transfer of African Union peacekeepers currently in Darfur to the UN force.

"Paragraph one of the resolution invites the government of Sudan to consent to deployment, though nothing in this language requires their consent," John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, told council members after the vote. "We expect their full and unconditional cooperation and support with the new UN peacekeeping force. Failure on the government of Sudan's part to do so will significantly undermine the Darfur peace agreement and prolong the humanitarian crisis in Darfur."

Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters before entering the council chamber that China disagreed with the timing of the resolution.

In his explanation of the vote, Wang said, "We feel [the vote] ... will not stop further deterioration of the situation in Darfur ... and will cause problems in implementing the Darfur peace process".

China had complained that the draft resolution seemed to impose the UN force on Sudan.

Last-minute changes to the resolution on Wednesday appeared to address this issue by reaffirming the council's "strong commitment to the sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity of Sudan, which would be unaffected by transition to a United Nations operation in Darfur".

"The council is here to help Sudan not threaten it. It is here to aid Sudan, not undermine it," said Karen Pierce, deputy British ambassador to the UN.

- - -

Email just received from Save Darfur Coalition

Dear Supporter,

I have critical news to report.

This morning, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorizing a peacekeeping force in Darfur. The presence of a peacekeeping force is the only measure that will provide the security the people of Darfur desperately need.

This morning's vote is unmistakable evidence of the effectiveness that the pressure you, and hundreds of thousands of Darfur activists like you, have applied to world leaders. The international community has shown that the will now exists to end the genocide in Darfur.

Yet, before peacekeepers can be deployed, the resolution says the Sudanese government must first agree to permit them.

This means that we cannot yet let up on the pressure. One way to continue to make your voice heard is to attend the "Save Darfur Now: Voices to End Genocide" rally and concert in New York City's Central Park on September 17. Click here for more information.

If you cannot make it to New York, there are other September 17 events taking place all over the country and the world as part of a Global Day for Darfur. For more information on US events, click here. And for more information on international events, click here.
As always, thank you for everything you do.

Sincerely,

David Rubenstein
Save Darfur Coalition

http://www.savedarfur.org

Save Darfur Coalition is wrong to give up on AU (Daniel Davies)

Another great piece at Comment is free Aug 30, 2006 by British economist Daniel Davies. I'm copying the whole thing here below (except for hyperlinks) because I agree with what Daniel says. I hope it is true that "the central message that the Save Darfur Coalition will be promoting in New York on September 17 is similar to that of Jan Egeland: peace on all sides, funding for the humanitarian effort and resumption of the peace talks and Darfur dialogue." When is the Darfur dialogue to commence? Why hasn't a date been set?

Drawing distinctions in Darfur
There is an important difference between the humanitarian lobby for Darfur and the military intervention lobby.

Following on from my last piece about Darfur, I've had an interesting email exchange with David Rubinstein, coordinator of the Save Darfur Coalition. He wanted to point out that the SDC is not a part of the "Darfur intervention lobby", and that it shouldn't be placed in the same bracket as those who see Darfur as yet another test case for military action in accordance with the doctrine of Responsibility To Protect.

I disagree with David on a number of points: I think that SDC is wrong to implicitly give up on the African Union Mission In Sudan (AMIS) by making the deployment of a UN force a key demand (but right to insist that in the meantime, AMIS and the humanitarian relief effort should be immediately and fully funded). I also think that a number of groups which seem to be affiliated with the SDC website (specifically, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Res Publica/Darfurgenocide.org and the Stop Genocide Now campaign) appear to be promoting an agenda which goes well beyond the humanitarian campaign of SDC and into demands for either coercive military intervention or the break-up of Sudan as a state. And finally, I don't agree with the SDC's emphasis on referring to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur as a genocide; this is not what the UN commission found to be the case, and the campaign in the west to have Darfur designated as a genocide appears to be very caught up with the belief of the Darfur intervention lobby that this would create an automatic legal trigger justifying military action.

However, the central message that the SDC will be promoting in New York on September 17 is similar to that of Jan Egeland: peace on all sides, funding for the humanitarian effort and resumption of the peace talks and Darfur dialogue. As a result, I think I was probably unfair in failing to draw a distinction between the specific organisation SDC and the more general "Darfur lobby". I'll apologise to David for this and it seems to me that the programme the SDC will be pushing is a sensible one.

There remains, however, a very large and vocal lobby for "Darfur intervention", and I think my broader critique of this tendency remains valid. The question is: why do you think you know so much better than the United Nations what the United Nations ought to be doing? If you are so certain that something must be done, why have you no specific proposal for what must be done? And most importantly, has the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan really been such a success that you are prepared to export the model to a country with poor food security? There seems to be an inverse correlation between the amount that people seem to know about Darfur and the amount of violence that they think the solution to the crisis will contain.

The Euston Manifesto Group is planning a meeting entitled "Darfur: An Urgent Case For Humanitarian Intervention", on September 5. I have applied for tickets and if possible, will try to make the point that there surely ought to be at least a question mark in that title.

Excellent Daniel. Loved these two new think pieces of yours. Why can't everyone just pull together? Look forward to reading your follow up. [Click into Daniel's commentary to see hyperlinks provided]

UN: There can be no military solution to Darfur war (Daniel Davies)

"Ill-informed demands for unspecified action are counterproductive, and it is dangerous to let the rebels believe that they have a supporting army when they don't," writes British economist Daniel Davies in great commentary today at the Guardian's Comment is free. Copy:

There is apparently going to be a major "Save Darfur" march across the USA on September. Since the "Save Darfur Coalition" clearly have their hearts in the right place, I don't want to sound like I'm criticising them. However, I am very worried that the coalition seems to be quite short of a specific plan for saving Darfur, and is thus rather vulnerable to being exploited by people who do not have the best interests of Darfur at heart. (This would hardly be the first time that a well-intentioned humanitarian campaign got hijacked by dangerous ideologues.) For this reason, I suggest below a few concrete proposals and outline the dangers posed by the current campaign.

In May, I was writing about the peace agreement in Darfur as the only realistic prospect for improving the situation there and suggesting that developed world commentators should shut up for a while and give it a chance. It appears that I was doubly wrong; nobody shut up and it did not have a chance. There was a period in June and early July when the level of violence was definitely abating and it looked as if the holdout groups could be brought into the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), but instead, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) has fallen apart into a myriad of factions and a new and extremely violent guerrilla force (the National Redemption Front or NRF) has been formed. Things are now, according to Jan Egeland and Jan Pronk, the two commentators who I trust the most - as bad as they have been for at least two years.

Although the situation is as bad or worse than it was before the peace agreement, it is now bad in a different way. Most of the violence is now being carried out not by the Sudanese state and Janjaweed irregular militias, but by the various rebel group factions.

Drawing distinctions can get quite confusing. The convention is that each SLA faction is named after its main commander. Thus, SLA/Minawi is Minni Minnawi's faction, which is the largest, mainly identified with the Zarghawa tribe, and which signed the peace agreement. (I use the word "tribe" because it is conventional, but note that it is a racially loaded word and these groups ought to be thought of as ethnicities rather than as organised tribal power structures.)

During the Abuja peace talks, Abdel Whalid Mohammed el-Nur split from Minawi, forming the group that is now known as SLA/Whalid or SLA/Nur (and which is better represented among the Fur tribe). The SLA/Nur also split during the talks, as 19 of its military commanders accused Nur himself of harbouring dictatorial ambitions. This group is known as SLA/G19.

As well as the SLA, the other main rebel grouping was the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), a group which had its roots in Hassan al-Turabi's Islamist movement, but which appeared (to Jan Pronk at least) to have dropped most of its specifically Islamic demands in the peace negotiations and probably ought to be regarded as a Sudanese political movement rather than a Darfuri nationalist one. The JEM has always been very violent, opposed to peace, and has always seemed to be very well resourced with weapons and money. It has now blocked with SLA/G19 to form the National Redemption Front (NRF), and the worst of the violence over the last few weeks has been taking place as the NRF has taken over territory in North Darfur that was previously held by SLA/Minnawi.

The situation in the refugee camps has become unspeakably grim. SLA/Nur has allegedly been press-ganging men into joining their militia, while other rebel factions, private militias and freelance Janjaweed have been running riot around the camps, attacking and raping women as they venture out to collect firewood. The proportion of Sudan that is accessible to aid agencies keeps shrinking, and the donor community has failed to fund the aid effort properly. Mass starvation is now imminent.

The Khartoum government have not actually been responsible for the majority of the violence. However, they also bear their share of responsibility for the current disaster. Most press coverage appears to be criticising them most severely for refusing to allow a UN peacekeeping force to be brought in. However, they have stubbornly required that every rebel group sign the DPA before they are prepared to negotiate with them, which has resulted in the effective disbanding of the Ceasefire Commission and made diplomacy far more difficult than it needed to be. Even worse, Khartoum has decided that by failing to sign the agreement, the holdout rebel factions have become "terrorists" and subsequently permitted the Sudanese national army to suppress them. Observers in north Darfur have been witnessing the amassing of troops and helicopters, suggesting a forthcoming attack on the NRF forces in support of SLA/Minnawi. Such a large attack would be bound to have significant civilian casualties, even if carried out with the best of intentions, and the world is right not to trust the Sudanese government.

So what is to be done? Well, the demand that has been made for the last several months is for a UN peacekeeping force to be put into Sudan. But this is not nearly specific enough. A UN peacekeeping force is not a panacea and has no specific magical ability to keep peace. In order to do better than the existing AU force, any UN peacekeeping force would have to either a) be much larger or b) have very different mission terms and rules of engagement.

The first of these possibilities - a much bigger UN peacekeeping force - raises as many questions as it answers. The implicit message from a number of western governments is that they are not prepared to fund the African Union mission properly, but would make much more resources available for a UN mission. I don't understand why anyone would take this point of view. There is no reason to believe that African troops are incompetent, or that they are incompetently led, or that they are partisan. The international community just seems to be allergic to funding a mission to Darfur unless it is the UN getting the credit. This seems so incomprehensible to me that I have to believe that the international community is being insincere, and that they are using the lack of a UN force as a fig leaf to cover up a general reluctance to commit resources. I'm agnostic here. The important issue is clearly to get a properly resourced peacekeeping force guarding the refugee camps as soon as possible. It's very doubtful that any feasible size of peacekeeping force could have a material effect on the factional conflicts, but genuine help could be given here.

The second possibility - that a UN peacekeeping force could have different mission terms or rules of engagement - is part of the whole problem. If we look through the rhetoric about "colonialism", the reason that Khartoum doesn't want a UN mission in Sudan is that they suspect that such a mission would at a minimum start arresting them on International Criminal Court charges and quite likely be the prelude to a removal of the Khartoum government and a partition of Sudan into separate countries.

A lot of the organisations affiliated to the Save Darfur coalition do in fact want to see Sudan broken up, and this is one of the first reasons why I think that some of the statements of the coalition have been highly counterproductive to the aim of getting a proper peacekeeping force put in place. When people like Eric Reeves start talking about a "non-consensual deployment of UN troops" (I don't know why he can't bring himself to use the word "invasion"), and are treated as mainstream commentators by the Save Darfur lobby, it is not surprising that the Sudanese government is suspicious of the true motives of the humanitarian lobby.

Neither Pronk nor Egeland view a "non-consensual deployment" as a realistic option, because of course it isn't. It would involve fighting a war against the Sudanese army which could only end in Sudan requiring a similar reconstruction effort to that needed in Iraq or Afghanistan, neither of which have gone so well as to make a neutral observer think it would be a good idea to try a repeat in a country with poor food security. Looking back at the list of what is going wrong in Darfur, they are all currently consequences of anarchy.

Promoting more anarchy seems like a bad idea. Sudan does not yet exhibit all the worst problems of Somalia, Iraq Afghanistan and Congo, but it has a plentiful supply of nascent warlords, insurgents, Islamists and border resource disputes, so it could yet show us exactly how bad things could be. Some things, unfortunately, cannot be achieved by force, and the fact that their absence is an intolerable state of affairs does not in and of itself mean that it is worth giving violence a try anyway.

As well as making it diplomatically more difficult for a peacekeeping force to be put in place, there are two more baleful effects of the more militant wing of the "Save Darfur" lobby. First, there is a kind of catch-22 effect created by the lobby's insistent focus on the evils of the Khartoum regime as the sole cause of the problems. In order to create a meaningful peace in Darfur, everyone has to sign up to the DPA or its successor treaties. However, at present, every group that signs the agreement is being treated as if they were cronies of Khartoum and therefore obvious enemies of the Darfurians. This has to be unconstructive; at present, humanitarian organisations are being stigmatised and having their impartiality called into question, which interferes with their ability to do their job.

And more perniciously, as I said in the earlier piece, there is a real danger of creating perverse incentives for the Darfurian rebels (who, one has to emphasise, are responsible for the current slaughter more than anyone). If a mass movement in the west appears to be simultaneously calling for a decapitation of the Khartoum government and denigrating the peace agreement, then this must surely encourage the rebel groups to follow the NRF strategy rather than joining the peace agreement.

So what should we be asking for? I can't think of anything more sensible or realistic than Jan Egeland's suggestions, which I'd summarise as follows:

1. A diplomatic effort to persuade Sudan's government to stand down its military operation and allow a UN force into Sudan. This is not as macho and satisfying as an invasion but it will be less horribly destructive. Even if this means giving commitments about ICC prosecutions that turn to ashes in our mouths, it is the only way forward that does not involve disastrous loss of life. Certainly, if the UN is going to retain the credibility of its peacekeeping operations, it needs to establish the principle that they are not fronts for an invasion and regime change, and anyone interested in humanitarian intervention ought to respect that.

2. Proper funding of the African Union mission and the relief effort, now and unconditionally. It is a scandal that funding has been delayed for these vital operations because of the negotiations over the UN force. Contrary to what news reports might suggest, the full title of AMIS is not "The Poorly Equipped And Funded African Union Mission". It is poorly equipped and funded because a lot of donor nations made big promises to fund it. A promise they have not kept.

3. Respect for the peace process and even-handedness among all parties to the conflict. As Egeland says, there can be no military solution. No indication should be given at all to the NRF that they can gain more outside the peace process than within it, or that they can depend on a UN force being sent to protect them if they start an attack on SLA/Minnawi. Similarly, Khartoum and SLA/MInnawi need to be held to the terms of the ceasefire they have agreed and not allowed to believe that they can weasel out of it by pretending to be carrying out anti-terrorist activities.

Once more, Darfur is on a knife edge, and once more there is considerable potential to make things worse. And so once more, there is a positive duty on all western commentators to be sure that before opening their mouths, they know what they are talking about.

Great. Well said Daniel. Thanks.

China emerges as world's third largest food aid donor, UN agency says

In the same year it stopped receiving food aid from the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), China emerged as the world's third largest food aid donor in 2005, according to the latest annual Food Aid Monitor from INTERFAIS, the International Food Aid Information System, the agency said today. - 20 July 2006 UN News Centre.

JEM-Ibrahim leader says Draft UN resolution undermines sustainable peace in Darfur

Chairperson of Darfur rebel group JEM, Khalil Ibrahim, criticised the draft UN Resolution, saying it undermines the right of Darfur people for political solution and for a sustainable peace in Darfur, Sudan Tribune reported today - excerpt:

[Ibrahim] told Radio France Internationale, that this Draft resolution tries to impose unacceptable peace of Abuja while Darfur people reject this agreement.

Khalil Ibrahim, who rejected to sign the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) last May, considers priority must be to find an agreement over the demands of the Darfur holdout rebels groups constituting the majority in the troubled region.

"Increasing the number of the troops only will not solve the problem of Darfur, but the political solution should come first. The DPA should be reconsidered and made comprehensive and then, the international troops should come to maintain the peace process," he said.

He's got a nerve. How come he is permitted residency in France?

Sudan's Taha not in favour of UNMIS in Darfur

Taha who was in favour of the UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur, shifted his position and started since one week to denounce any role of international force in Darfur. - SudanTribune - UN draft resolution shows US voracity for oil 30 Aug 2006.

Sudanese riot police teargas protestors and Reuters vehicle

"They give out sweets at one protest and tear gas bombs at the other," said one Sudanese bystander.- Reuters via Gulf Times 31 Aug 2006.

War looms again over Sudan's Darfur (Lydia Polgreen)

International Herald Tribune
By Lydia Polgreen The New York Times
August 30, 2006
EL FASHER, Sudan

War looms again over Darfur

There is plenty of frantic shuttle diplomacy happening in the corridors of power in Khartoum, Washington and New York to avoid a new bloodbath in Darfur.

But here in the tense heart of the region, where the bombs will drop and the bullets will fly, everyone is nervously watching the Ilyushin cargo planes landing on El Fasher's busy airstrip, their holds packed with the stuff of war: troops, trucks, bombs and guns.

"The planes land, day after day, week after week, night after night," said a foreign military official at the airport who had seen the planes land and unload their cargoes.

As negotiations over a proposed UN force to shore up the shaky peace in Darfur limp along with no sign of compromise, the opposing sides in the conflict seem headed toward a large-scale military confrontation.

"Unfortunately, things seem to be headed in that direction," said General Collins Ihekire, commander of the beleaguered 7,000-member African Union force that is enforcing a fragile peace agreement between the government and one rebel group.

Nearly four months after signing the agreement, the government is preparing a new assault against the rebel groups that refused to sign, bringing Darfur to the edge of a new abyss, perhaps the deepest it has faced.

The conflict has killed hundreds of thousands of people and forced 2.5 million to flee their homes. But that may be a prelude to the deaths likely to come from fighting, hunger and disease.

In the past few months, killings of aid workers and hijackings of their vehicles, mostly by rebel groups, have forced aid groups to curtail programs to feed, clothe and shelter hundreds of thousands of people.

"We have less access now than we did in 2004 when things were really bad," said a senior aid official in El Fasher, speaking on the condition of anonymity because outspoken aid workers have been sanctioned and expelled by the government. "If there were a major military offensive you could be looking at a complete evacuation of humanitarian workers in North Darfur, which would leave millions without a lifeline."

Diplomatically, Sudan has taken a hard line, refusing to allow any international peacekeepers other than the small and powerless African Union force already in place, despite a request from the union to hand over its command to the United Nations.

A visit to Khartoum this week by Jendayi Frazer, assistant secretary of state for African affairs, failed to produce an agreement, and Sudan has so far snubbed the United Nations, potentially leaving the people of Darfur without any international peacekeepers to protect them.

The African Union force has enough money to keep going only until Sept. 30, when its mandate ends. It is perpetually running short of fuel, food and equipment, and its suppliers - like its soldiers - have waited months for payment and are reluctant to make new deliveries.

Worse, the force is finding itself increasingly drawn into battles between the government and the rebels.

Rebel leaders deny they were involved in an ambush on a fuel convoy this month in which two Rwandan soldiers were killed, but they say that the African Union is biased in any case because it brokered a peace agreement that they reject.

Most ominous is the looming confrontation between government troops and rebel holdouts, set to take place on a battlefield that is home to a quarter- million people and could easily set off a chain of battles across Darfur.

"In terms of loss of life it could dwarf the killings in 2003 and 2004," said a senior aid official, asking not to be named.

In that period alone, at least 180,000 people died from attacks on villages by government forces and their allied Arab militias, known as the janjaweed, and in battles with non-Arab rebel groups seeking greater power for their fellow tribesmen in the long marginalized region. The violence brought on widespread hunger and disease, often the most lethal killers here.

El Fasher was once a sleepy state capital in an impoverished, backward part of Sudan. Now it is a garrison town swarming with government troops in crisp new uniforms driving shiny trucks mounted with guns.

The government has made no secret of its intentions - it submitted a plan to the Security Council this month in response to a resolution calling for 20,000 UN troops here. Instead, the government said it planned to use 10,500 of its own troops to crush the rebellion, a move that would violate the peace agreement it just signed, according to Ihekire.

The rebel movements that refused to sign the Darfur Peace Agreement have massed in a vast swath of territory north of here, gaining strength and flexing their muscle in attacks on government troops and its allies, as well as on the African Union forces.

In an interview deep in the territory they hold, commanders of the new rebel alliance, the National Redemption Front, said they were ready for a fight. "Our capabilities are unlimited, on the air and on the ground, to repel them," said Jarnabi Abdul Kareem, a commander.

The splintering and reforming of the rebel groups in the chaotic period since the peace agreement was signed was evident in their makeshift logos. On one truck, the initials of the rebel group had been changed so many times that the jumble of acronyms had become a collection of illegible smears.

Seated in a circle under a thorny tree, leaders of the front, joined in collective hatred for the signers of the peace agreement, say they came back to the battlefield reluctantly. "We are holding arms in our left hand but an olive branch in our right," said Abubakar Hamid Nour, a commander of the Justice and Equality Movement, an Islamist group that has joined with a faction of the Sudan Liberation Army to fight the government.

The battles over this patch of earth have already exacted a terrible toll. On the outskirts of Hashaba, people displaced by the fighting as far back as 2003 have settled, their camps becoming semi-permanent villages. There are few men here - just a handful among dozens of drawn-faced women and wiry children with ochre-tinted hair, a telltale sign of malnourishment.

At a clinic run by the International Rescue Committee, an aid organization, Hassan Ibrahim Isaac said he opens the clinic every day, writing futile prescriptions for the sicknesses that kill here: malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia. But the clinic's pharmacy ran out of antibiotics and anti-malarial drugs long ago.

"I still come because I don't want people to give up hope," Isaac said. "But now fewer people come. They know I have nothing to give them."

Military officials for the African Union said the new government assault could take shape in two ways - government troops could build up along an axis between El Fasher and the towns of Mellit and Kutum, using a scissor-like advance aided by Antonov bombers and attack helicopters to wipe out as many rebels as they can, then force the rest to flee north.

Another possibility is that the government will attack from the south, where it holds ground north of El Fasher, and airlift troops to swoop down from the north as well.

Bombing attacks on Kulkul, a town that has changed hands several times in the chaotic period since the Darfur Peace Agreement was signed but had been a stronghold of the newly united rebel groups, already have pushed those rebels north to Umm Sidir and beyond, African Union commanders said.

Armed conflict on a vast scale seems so likely and the hope of a UN peacekeeping force arriving to ease the tensions so distant that a joke has been making the rounds of the military and aid officials here: The most important peacekeeper in Darfur now is the rain.

It turns the rough, dusty tracks that crisscross the arid plains and mountains into impassable bogs, and swells once-dry riverbeds into rivers easily capable of carrying off a Toyota Landcruiser, the military vehicle of choice.

But the rains end in the next couple of weeks.

Sudanese forces seizing laptops to scan for porn

Reuters/tvnz Aug 31, 2006:

Sudanese security forces have begun temporarily seizing laptop computers entering the country to check information stored on them as part of new security measures.

A state security source said on Wednesday the procedure was introduced because pornographic films and photographs were entering Sudan. "We return the laptops after one day," he said.

UN officials, aid agency workers, businessmen and journalists who regularly visit Sudan worry, however, that the security of sensitive and confidential information such as medical, legal and financial records could be at risk.

"They could download email systems, passwords, even get into people's bank accounts," said one source in Khartoum's aid community, who declined to be named for fear of retribution.

Other innocent material could also be construed to be subversive, like maps or photos, the source added.

Seizing laptops to stop porn entering a country doesn't make sense. The material the Sudanese government say it is concerned about doesn't need to be carried into Sudan. It can be transmitted over the Internet. Avoid taking modern gadgets to Sudan, I guess. Sudan doesn't do its image of being in the dark ages much good when it makes such backward moves. Why aren't Sudanese officials focusing on munitions entering the country and crime?

African countries shun fibre-optic cable deal

African countries shun fibre-optic cable deal, Reuters/ST reported today.

Only seven out of 23 countries signed the accord for the long-delayed East African Submarine System (EASSy), which aims to slash phone and Internet costs.

Only Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda signed the protocol in Kigali.

The EASSy cable was originally expected to be operational in the first quarter of 2008. The project is expected to cut Internet costs to nearly one third of current levels over the next five years and boost investment in Africa.

Back to the dark ages. Africa is putting itself behind the rest of the world.

Illicit ivory sales globally is being driven by new demand from China - Poachers kill 100 elephants in Chad

Greedy moronic barbarians. The remains of 100 African elephants killed for their tusks have been found in Chad not far from Darfur, conservationists said on Wednesday. - Reuters report excerpt:

The discovery was made earlier this month by a team led by Mike Fay, a renowned conservationist and explorer with the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation Society and National Geographic.

"... his team discovered five separate elephant massacre sites totalling 100 individuals during a survey made August 3-11 from their small plane," Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) said in a statement.

WCS said most of the animals had their tusks removed and more than 50 of them appeared to have been slain just days before the team found their carcasses.

Note the report tells us wildlife groups say a rise in illicit ivory sales globally is being driven by new demand from China and that elephants are especially at risk in lawless or violence-prone regions where their tusks are a ready source of income. Sad.

Red Cross worker killed in Darfur after abduction�

Reuters 31 Aug 2006 excerpt:

A Sudanese national working for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), who was abducted in Darfur by an armed group two weeks ago, is dead, the humanitarian agency said on Wednesday.

The Swiss-based agency said that it had not yet recovered the body of the 31-year-old man, who was not named, nor had it any details of how he was killed.

The man was abducted east of the Jebel Marra mountains in north Darfur on August 16 after an ICRC team was stopped by an armed group -- also not identified in the statement.

The team had been distributing food and the man was forced to drive one of two vehicles stolen in the attack, the agency said.

Sudanese Thinker: Debating UN Troops & the Conspiracies

Excerpt from Drima's blog entry at The Sudanese Thinker - Debating UN Troops & the Conspiracies:

If people want to talk about Darfur from a humanitarian perspective, then UN troops will make things worse and Darfur will become a warzone. However if people want to talk about Darfur from a political perspective, then a bloody revolution is the only way to settle the problem. Both are bad scenarios and that's why I support strengthening the AU troops. Nobody is opposed to them and if strengthened they can provide the protection needed in Darfur. I don't understand why it's so hard for others to understand that.

Me neither, Drima. Thanks. I'd like to see a joint force of everyone pulling together for the sake of Sudan's children.

US, UK seek quick vote on UN force for Darfur - UN Resolution requires Sudan's consent before actual deployment

Reuters report via Washington Post via CFD 30 Aug 2006 - excerpt:

Britain and the United States called for a vote on Thursday on a U.N. resolution to allow the United Nations to begin assembling a peacekeeping force for Sudan's Darfur region, despite opposition from the government in Khartoum.

The resolution would require the Sudanese government's consent before actual deployment, but Western powers expect Khartoum to eventually accept a U.N. presence in Darfur, as it already has in southern Sudan.

"I think council colleagues understand why we really do need to act" in Darfur, British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said on Tuesday after two weeks of Security Council deliberations on the measure drafted by Washington and London.

"Our judgment here is that we think we've found a formulation that would win acceptance on the council and achieve the objective we've been seeking, which is the early transfer of (peacekeeping) responsibility in Darfur to the United Nations," said U.S. Ambassador John Bolton.

The envoys spoke with reporters a day after U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland warned the 15-nation council of a looming new humanitarian disaster in Darfur and said U.N. inaction could lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The two ambassadors said a revised text would be circulated before council talks set for Wednesday.

Diplomats said it would state explicitly that the force could go in only with the Sudan government's consent, since council members agreed deployment would be impossible without it.

"It will address consent among other issues and will be clear on how the transition will take place," Jones Parry said.

Highlights from revised UN Resolution for UN troops in Darfur circulated Aug 29

Britain and the US on Tuesday circulated a revised UN Security Council resolution on a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur to take over from 7000 Africa Union troops. Following are highlights from the six-page, 2600-word draft that both countries hope to put to a vote on Thursday. [via Reuters/IOL 30 Aug 2006]:

Deployment Of Force

- To deploy a peacekeeping force in Darfur "on the basis of the acceptance" by the Sudan government, as an addition to the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), which has 10 000 personnel in southern Sudan.

- Creates an UNMIS mission in Darfur of up to 22 600 military and police personnel: 17 300 military, 3300 police and 2000 in formed police units.

The final number has not yet been agreed.

- Asks UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to consult with African Union and Sudanese parties on a plan and timetable for transition from the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) to a UN operation.

Deployment should begin no later than October 1.

During the transition AMIS is to be provided with air assets, ground mobility training, engineering and logistics and mobile communications capacity.

Mandate

- Support implementation of the May 5 Darfur Peace Agreement; investigate violations; establish a buffer or demilitarised zones inside and around camps of villagers driven from their homes.

- Monitor armed groups in Darfur and along Sudan's borders with Chad and the Central African Republic.

- Help develop a disarmament program for combatants and their families.

- Work with the national police, including training and restructuring and mentoring and monitor their performance on joint patrols; help support an independence judiciary and professional corrections system to combat impunity.

- Help co-ordinate voluntary return of refugees and other displaced people to their homes by establishing the necessary security conditions.

Mandate Provisions Under Chapter (which allows use of force)

- UNMIS is authorised to "use all necessary means" within its capabilities to protect UN personnel and facilities; prevent disruption of the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement by armed groups, and prevent attacks and threats against civilians.

- UNMIS is to seize or collect arms whose presence in Darfur is in violation of the peace agreements and to "dispose of such arms and related material as appropriate."

Chad, Central Africa Republic

- Sets up political, humanitarian, military and civilian police liaison officers in key locations in Chad, where Sudan refugees had fled and villagers along the Sudanese border have been evicted from their homes.

If necessary, the same system can be set up in the Central African Republic.

- Requests Annan to report to the Security Council on the protection of civilians in refugee and displaced persons camps in Chad and on how to improve the security situation on the Chadian side of the border with Sudan.

Sanctions

The measure threatens, in response to a request by the African Union, to impose sanctions, such as an an asset freeze or travel ban, against any individual or group that violates or attempts to block the implementation of the Darfur agreement or commits human rights violations.

US's Frazer took up with Sudanese president the arrest of journalist Paul Salopek - Sudan to send envoy to US to discuss Bush plea for Darfur

AP report Aug 29 via ST Aug 30:

Sudan's president is sending an envoy to Washington to discuss a request by President Bush to allow a UN force into the war-torn Darfur region, a State Department spokesman said Tuesday.

The request was delivered to President Omar al-Bashir by Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi E. Frazer in a meeting at his home, spokesman Tom Casey said.

"She made a very clear case of what U.S. policy is, and he certainly listened to what she had to say," Casey said.

"President Bashir said in response to the message from the president that he would be sending an envoy to Washington and that he would then provide a direct response," Casey said.

The Sudanese president has opposed a U.N. force on Sudanese territory and has said he plans to send government troops to Darfur to pacify the region.

Frazer also took up with the Sudanese president the arrest of an American journalist by pro-government forces in the Darfur region.

The reporter, Paul Salopek of the Chicago Tribune, his driver and interpreter were arrested Aug. 6. He was charged with espionage, passing information illegally, writing "false news" and entering the African country without a visa.

The State Department has said any judicial process should be fair and speedy.

Casey said he did not know what al-Bashir's response might have been. He said Salopek was in good health and receiving frequent visits from U.S. diplomats assigned to the country.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a U.S. official said later there was no foundation to the spy charges but that some technical violation of immigration regulations could not be ruled out.

- - -

Aug 29 2006 AP report via ST: Sudan to consider case of US journalist accused of spying:

President Bashir said during a meeting with Frazer that he would consider Chicago Tribune reporter Paul Salopek's "case out of a humanitarian standpoint," said Bashir's spokesman Mahjud Fadul Bedry.

Despite saying he would consider Salopek's case, al-Bashir also said Tuesday that the conflict in Darfur was "exaggerated by the Western media by repeatedly publishing allegations of ethnic cleansing and rape," Bedry said.

Sudanese leader meets with US's Frazer after snub

Sudan's president met with US Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer in the capital Khartoum on Tuesday after failing to secure a meeting with him a day earlier, John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said.

Frazer went to Khartoum at the weekend to deliver a strong message to Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir that he must accept UN peacekeeping troops in the war-torn western Darfur region. She extended her stay on Monday after she was unable to meet with him.

"My understanding is he (Bashir) was maybe too busy yesterday but he did meet with her this morning," Bolton told reporters at UN headquarters in New York. "I know that she saw President Bashir."

He said he had no details of what was said during the meeting, however.

Source: Reuters 29 Aug 2006.

Norway to call international conference on Darfur

Norway's Minister of International Development, Erik Solheim, is to call an international emergency meeting on Wednesday to discuss the crisis in Darfur, Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) reported on Tuesday.

Full story by Xinhua via People's Daily Online

Uganda Sudan Border Project - Stephen Alvarez photos

Excerpt from The Uganda Sudan Border Project:

For the past four years, photographer Stephen Alvarez has journeyed to the Uganda Sudan border area to document the effects of civil war and rebel insurgencies and the plight of refugees, night commuters, and civilians attempting to rebuild their lives.

Prints are available for purchase, all proceeds will suport the education of children at Amazing Grace Orphanage in Adjumani, Uganda and its sister orphanage, St Bartholomew's, in Kajo Keji, Sudan.

Susan Tabi founded Amazing Grace Orphanage in Adjumani, Uganda in 1994 to care for orphans of the Sudanese civil war. Ebzon Wudu joined her to help with admin of the orphanage.

Amazing Grace cares for over 30 children. The facility has 5 dorms, an office, kitchen and bathrooms. The team of 7 caretakers has created livestock and agricultural projects to help support themselves and the children.

Uganda: ICC still calling for Kony's arrest

Take this report and change the name of Kony to Bashir (and Uganda to Sudan) to get an idea of what Khartoum regime and its followers must be thinking when it comes to Darfur rebels getting UN troops onside.

Aug 28 2006 Reuters/CFD ICC Still Calling for Kony's Arrest:

International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutors said on Monday they still hoped for the arrest of leaders of the rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) despite an offer of amnesty by Uganda under the terms of a truce.

Leaders of the cult-like rebels, who are infamous for massacring civilians, mutilating survivors and kidnapping thousands of children, are wanted by the Hague-based Court to face war crimes charges.

"We believe that the countries or the states which have an obligation to execute the arrest warrant will do so," the court's deputy prosecutor Fatou Bensouda told journalists.

"We still maintain that because we think those persons who bear the greatest responsibility should not go unpunished."

He was speaking at a news conference called to discuss a separate case and reiterating the Court's position.

The ICC issued arrest warrants against LRA leader Joseph Kony and his deputies last year but has no police force to hunt down its targets, so must rely on Ugandan, Sudanese and former southern Sudanese rebel troops to bring them to justice.

Under the terms of a truce agreed on Saturday, Uganda has offered amnesty to LRA leaders, including those hunted by the ICC, if they abandon their hideouts and assemble at two Sudanese camps within the next three weeks to thrash out a final deal.

The LRA said all leaders including the ICC indictees would come to the camps.

Asked about Uganda's truce offer, Bensouda said: "We certainly hope that they will execute the warrant that has been issued against the top leaders of the LRA."