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

Sudan Tribune attributes the following report to Xinhua.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ST/Xinhua)

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

BBC's repentant Janjaweed is a fraud - Sudan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpts: Ex-Janjaweed fighter story (BBC)

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

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

Salva Kiir and al-Mirghani to mediate with Darfur rebels

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

Full story ST 17 Oct 2006.

UN's Pronk outlines Darfur rebel groups

Jan Pronk - Weblog 14 Oct 2006:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muslim clerics reach out to Pope

Oct 13 2006 BBC report - excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

AU launches Darfur dialogue to revive moribund peace deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via arabesquespress Oct 13 2006:

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

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

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

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

Eastern Sudan rebels obtain post of presidential assistant

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

France, Germany urge UN Forces deployment in Darfur

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

Egypt, Libya discuss Sudan's Darfur crisis

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

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

Oct 12 2006 Irish Examiner report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sudanese national anthem: the call to arms

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

ARABIC LYRICS

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

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

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

Sounds like they are their own worst enemies.

'Genocide' developing in Darfur - Nigeria's Obasanjo

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

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

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

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

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

Amnesty International's new report

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

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

Wireless internet tower at AMIS HQ Darfur, W Sudan

See photo and caption at Soldier of Africa: Wireless.

The Right Time To Declare Victory (Drima)

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

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

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

Why Egypt Won't Press Sudan: the Nile

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

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

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

UN OHCHR Report - Darfur: Hundreds Killed in August Attacks

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

Darfur: OHCHR Report.

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

Sudan accepts to compensate Darfur IDPs - AU official

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S Korean proposed as new UN chief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also:

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

Note, Paul tells us:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fluid loyalties

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

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

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

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

Off to the 'ghost house'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A fruitless hunger strike

I knew hunger briefly in prison in Darfur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roots of discord run deep

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

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

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

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

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

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

psalopek@tribune.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawkish call to arms ignores realities of Darfur

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

Hawkish call to arms ignores realities of Darfur

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

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

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

USA calls emergency Security Council meeting over Sudan letter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

Head of UN peacekeeping says Darfur needs peace pact before troops

Oct 4 2006 Reuters Evelyn Leopold report [via POTP]

The United Nations cannot send peacekeepers to stop atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region unless a political agreement was in place or no one could find enough troops to patrol the area, the head of U.N. peacekeeping said on Wednesday.

Jean-Marie Guehenno, the U.N. undersecretary-general for peacekeeping, said an enormous number of troops "which are not forthcoming" would be needed to patrol Darfur.

"When you try to apply peacekeeping to any kind of situation and confuse peacekeeping with peace enforcement, you run very quickly into great difficulties," Guehenno said.

Normally, he said peacekeepers would find some basis for law and order based on a political agreement and then "hit hard on anybody who doesn't really abide by the agreement."

But he said that anyone "who tells me that a half million square kilometers can be policed, that law and order can be imposed by an outside force ... is wrong."

President George W. Bush has called several times for a U.N. force to go into Darfur, which to U.N. officials could mean the troops would have to fight Sudan's army, for which there would be few volunteers.

But human rights groups also have said the world body should not wait any longer. Some diplomats as well as Jan Pronk, the U.N. representative in the Sudan, have suggested that the international community should push for a prolonged and beefed up African Union force.

But Guehenno rejected a "Plan B" and noted that the United Nations was helping the AU with trainers, equipment and logistics experts as a prelude to a U.N. operation.

"Our ... support package may help create a different set of conditions that will allow to a transition to the United Nations," Guehenno told a news conference.

Neighboring Chad, which would welcome peacekeepers, would also prove difficult to mount a U.N. operation, he said.

"We are looking at Chad to see what could be done," Guehenno said, adding that it was "very difficult" and almost as forbidding as Darfur itself.

"I would not want to leave any illusion that a Chad operation would be any easier than in Sudan, in Darfur," he said. Both countries have fractious rebels and armed gangs, fighting for control of refugee camps.

Sudan warns participation in Darfur UN forces is hostile act

Oct 4 2006 AFP report (United Nations) via ST:

Sudan on Wednesday warned African and Arab countries against contributing troops to a proposed UN peacekeeping force for war-torn Darfur, saying doing so would be seen as "a hostile act."

The warning came in a letter sent Tuesday by the Sudan's UN mission to all African and Arab missions here.

In the letter, Sudan restated its "total rejection" of the deployment of up to 20,000 UN peacekeepers as mandated by the Security Council in late August to shore up the fragile Darfur peace agreement.

"In the absence of Sudan's consent to the deployment of UN troops, any volunteering to provide peacekeeping troops to Darfur will be considered as a hostile act, a prelude to an invasion of a member country of the UN," it added.

The letter noted that Khartoum "fully supports" the African Union (AU)'s decision to extend the mandate of its cash-strapped 7,200-strong force in Darfur for three months until December 31 after receiving promises of financial and logistical support from the United Nations and Arab states.

The AU said last month it would boost its contingent in Darfur to 11,000 troops and the UN agreed to send 105 staff officers and technical experts to bolster the AU force there.

Also last month, the Security Council unanimously agreed to extend the mandate of the 12,273-strong UN force in southern Sudan for two weeks until October 8 and boosting it to up to 20,000 so that it could be shifted to Darfur.

In Khartoum earlier Wednesday, the Sudanese foreign ministry sounded a conciliatory note.

"Sudan's rejection of the resolution does not imply that the country wants a confrontation with the UN or defiance of the international community," ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadek told SUNA.

"The contacts that have been made and those yet to be made all lie in the context of efforts to find a way out of Sudan's rejection of the resolution in view of the insistence by some countries on implementing it," he added, in an apparent allusion to Britain and the United States.

And Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir gave his approval Wednesday for the UN offer of logistical support to the AU force in Darfur.

- - -

Also, see Oct 4 2006 report - Sudan's Bashir says if the international community insists on UN peacekeepers in Darfur, then Sudan has to choose confrontation.

Sudan's Bashir welcomes UN's support for AMIS

Oct 4 2006 Xinhua report excerpt:

Sudan welcomed the UN support for the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur, the official SUNA news agency reported on Wednesday.

Sudanese President Omer al-Bashir made the announcement in a letter to reply a joint message submitted by the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and Chairperson of the AU Commission Alpha Oumar Konare last month.

"This support will enable the AU peacekeeping forces in Darfur to carry out their tasks stipulated by the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA)," al-Bashir said.

Sudanese presidential spokesman Mahjoub Fadel Badri said on Tuesday that Annan and Konare's message "contains a plan to provide assistance to the African Union forces in Darfur in the logistic, equipment and consultancy domains."

The exchange of letters between the Sudanese president and the UN and AU chiefs took place as the parties concerned were seeking an outlet to the deadlock on a proposed deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in Darfur. [Xinhua Editor: Mu Xuequan]

Two killed in Janjaweed militia attack on Darfur's Kalma camp

Oct 4 2006 SOAT Human Rights Alert [via ST] Two killed in Janjaweed militia attack on Darfur's Kalma camp

Darfur: Attack on and Killing of IDPs in Kalma IDP Camp

On 04 October 2006, in the early morning, armed militias allegedly the Janjaweed militias attacked Kalama IDP camp in South Darfur. During the attack 2 internally displaced persons (IDPs) were killed and one wounded. The injured man is currently receiving medical care at the IRC clinic in Kalama Camp.

JEM/NRF rebels respond to Bashir statement: JEM/NRF not part of any Darfur ceasefire agreement

On Friday, Sudan's JEM/NRF rebels shelled SLA-Minnawi forces nr Greida, S Darfur - 40 killed. This happened a day after it published its letter to UN SRSG Jan Pronk.

Today, Oct 4 2006, Sudan Tribune published a JEM/NRF press release, issued in response to President Bashir's recent statement pointing out the fact that because the JEM/NRF rebel group has never signed a peace agreement, it is not part of any ceasfire agreement. Copy of JEM/NRF press release, in full:

Sudan's Bashir intends to pursue military solution in Darfur - NRF:

The National Redemption Front (NRF)

Albashir says: "he does not have a ceasefire agreement with the NRF"

October 3, 2006 - Just hours after our positive response to Mr. Pronk's appeal to honour holy Ramadan with a ceasefire in Darfur and give peace mediation a chance, Albashir came up with his declaration of Monday 2nd October that he has no ceasefire agreement with the NRF. Albashir's unfortunate declaration effectively re-affirms his declared intention to pursue military solution as his sole and only way out of the Darfur conflict. We on our part would like to re-assure the peace loving people of Sudan and the international community at large that we will never give in to his military muscles and will not accept any settlement that is not based on a negotiated just peace. Albashir will be responsible for any repercussions that his statement entails.

The Executive Secretariat

National Redemption Front

Bashir-Moussa meeting centered on reinforcing AMIS with Arab-African forces in addition to UN logistical and material support

News reports that say Sudan is considering UN logistical and material support, usually make clear the support does not include UN troops. The following report reminds us Sudan is president of Arab League. Next year, it hopes to preside over the African Union. Surely these are huge opportunities for Khartoum to do what's right for Sudan and all of its citizens.

Oct 3 2006 AFP report via ReliefWeb - Sudan open to dialogue with UN over Darfur:

Sudan continues to opposes deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force to war-torn Darfur but is open to discussing UN support for an African Union force already there, an official said Tuesday.

"The Sudanese government is sticking to its position of rejecting UN Security Council Resolution 1706 but does not reject dialogue with the UN because the Sudan is a member of the organisation," said presidential press Secretary Mahjub Fadul Bedry.

The Sudanese government has come under mounting pressure to agree to the deployment of up to 20,000 UN peacekeepers as mandated by Resolution 1706 to replace weak, underfunded African Union (AU) troops, but President Omar al-Beshir has repeatedly rejected any such deployment.

Bedry was speaking after a meeting in Khartoum of Beshir with Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa and Foreign Minister Lam Akol, during which Akol handed Beshir a message from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

He said Annan's message contained "a plan for backing African Union forces in Darfur with logistics, equipment and consultative expertise."

The Khartoum government, Bedry said, "is seeking a way out of the crisis the UN put itself in with the Sudan."

He added: "We support any effort that can assist the African mission in carrying out its duties of keeping peace and sponsoring the Abuja agreement." That was a reference to a peace deal signed between Khartoum and one of the rebel groups in Darfur.

Bedry described Annan's message as good, adding that Beshir would respond positively.

Bedry said Mussa had pledged to continue efforts for rallying support to the African Union and its forces. The Beshir-Mussa meeting "centered on improving the situation in Darfur and reinforcing the AU mission with Arab-African forces in addition to UN logistical and material support."

He explained that those reiforcements should hail from Arab countries in Africa.

Mussa arrived in Khartoum late Monday. Earlier Tuesday he conferred with Akol on the developments in the Darfur crisis.

"The talks also covered the Arab position towards the current issues as well as the Arab League programmes and meetings as the Sudan is the president of the current Arab summit," Mussa said after his meeting with Akol.

"President Beshir is planning to launch a comprehensive initiative in the coming period for reactivating cooperation with the United Nations and the African Union for implementation and expansion of the Abuja umbrella," he said.

Commenting on a suggestion for deploying Arab-Muslim troops in Darfur, Mussa said: "It is left to the Sudan to decide on whether to accept or turn down this proposal."

He said his visit to Sudan came as part of an Arab diplomatic drive for dealing with the international position towards the situation in Darfur and finding a way out of the problem which "is aggravated by time due to the erroneous information reported about it."

The Arab League Secretary General reiterated his commitment to "absolute cooperation between the Arab League and the African Union for finding a comprehensive settlement to the Darfur issue and achieving stability in the region."

Sudan's Bashir says if the international community insists on UN peacekeepers in Darfur, then Sudan has to choose confrontation

Oct 3 2006 Xinhua report via ST - Sudan's president says no ceasefire with new Darfur rebel group. Excerpt:

"We do not have a ceasefire with the NRF, which was formed after the signing of Darfur Peace Agreement," Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir told a Ramadan breakfast party organized by Sudanese Copt Church Monday evening, according to the report.

He said that the rebel group was set up in order to disrupt the peace agreement by attacking the forces of Minni Menawi, the leader of a former rebel faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement who signed the peace agreement with the government on May 5.

This statement is considered as an official recognition of the last month government attacks on Darfur rebel positions.

Al-Bashir reiterated his government's refusal of the UN Security Council resolution 1706, which calls for the deployment of international peacekeeping forces in Darfur.

"If the international society insists on the UN peacekeepers deployment in Darfur, then the country has to choose confrontation," the Sudanese president said.

Note, Sudan's president has said all along, his word is final.

Darfur activists' priority is UN peacekeepers - Alex de Waal says putting UN troops on the ground would "inflame the situation"

Oct 4 2006 Christian Science Monitor report - Student activists rise again - this time for Darfur. Excerpt:

"The grass-roots people have really kept the issue alive and forced the hand of the governments," says Alex de Waal, a fellow of the Global Equity Initiative at Harvard University, who has been advising the African Union on Darfur. He says the UN Security Council's decision in March 2005 to refer Darfur war crimes cases to the International Criminal Court and the US move two years ago to label the conflict "genocide" would not have happened without advocates' pressure.

Activists' priority: UN peacekeepers

As the situation has worsened, activists have pushed for change. Most advocates want UN peacekeepers sent to Darfur.

"I think [grass-roots efforts] have made [Darfur] almost a top-tier issue for the Bush administration," says John Prendergast, a senior adviser of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group. "There's no question [President] Bush feels political pressure to respond."

Mr. Bush said Monday the UN should send peacekeepers without delay.

One reason the Darfur movement has succeeded - where many similar international efforts have failed - is the US move to label the crisis genocide. "The comparison of Darfur to [the 1994 genocide in] Rwanda is what has been most potent here," says Eric Reeves, a Darfur analyst and Smith College professor.

While appearances by celebrities like George Clooney have been crucial, grass-roots efforts have made the difference - especially those of young people, he adds. "A lot of students now really only know Rwanda as historical event, and there is a resolve that this will not happen on their watch.... You have to go back to apartheid-era South Africa to find [a movement] this powerful for an issue that doesn't involve US blood or treasure."

STAND, the student antigenocide group, is an example. Since April, it has grown from seven to 55 chapters. When Ms. Cato brought Paul Rusesabagina, the Rwandan whose story inspired the movie "Hotel Rwanda," to her campus last Wednesday, he packed the 750-seat auditorium with an overflow audience of at least 1,200 people. "We're young, idealistic, and we're horrified that genocide can go on in this world," Cato explains.

Still, activists face an uphill battle. The Sudanese government has rejected a Security Council resolution passed last month that calls for 22,000 UN troops to replace the underfunded 7,000-member African Union force.

Conflicting priorities for US

The US also has reasons not to push the Khartoum-based government too hard, observers say. Sudan has helped the US penetrate terror networks it might never have been able to on its own. Also, the US does not want to provoke further instability, says Mr. de Waal. Putting UN troops on the ground would "inflame the situation," he says.

Many ideas to solve Darfur's crisis -- Moussa

Oct 3 2006 Cairo Kuna:

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa stressed on Tuesday that there are "many" proposed ideas to solve the conflict in Darfur, saying the solution must not be regarding security only.

Speaking to Sout Al-Arab (Voice of the Arabs) radio via phone from Khartoum, Moussa said solving the conflict needs rebuilding the region and achieving reconciliation.

He pointed out that he met, during his current visit to Khartoum, with Sudanese officials and the UN delegate to Sudan, stressing that the talks concentrated on how to defuse the crisis in a way that assures achieving security and stability in the region.

Meanwhile, Moussa emphasized in an interview published in Cairo on Tuesday that the situation in Darfur is still disturbing, saying he believes there are "opportunities" to reach an agreement that will satisfy the Sudanese government and will allow the UN and the African Union (AU) to work together.

Prior to leaving Cairo to Sudan on Monday, Moussa called Arab countries to financially fund the AU forces in Darfur, as agreed upon in the last Arab summit.

Darfuris find refuge with SPLM in Kauda, central Sudan

Oct 2 2006 AFP report [via ST] re IDP camp in Kauda, central Sudan, a stronghold of the SPLM.

SPLM warns against sabotage of CPA

The deputy secretary general of SPLM Yasir Arman said there are those who seek to use Darfur crisis to sabotage South Sudan's Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). He invited Sudan's political leadership to act with wisdom, saying statements on the CPA cancellation will lead to more confrontations in the country.

Ibrahim Ahmed Omar, the deputy chairman of the ruling National Congress Party threatened last week to cancel the CPA if the UN troops intervene in Darfur with the SPLM support. Full story Sudan Tribune 3 Oct 2006.

We must mobilise pressure and fear to save Darfur (Tom Lantos)

Tom Lantos, author of an opinion piece published by the FT 26 Sep 2006 [hat tip POTP] is the senior Democrat on the House International Relations Committee and the founding co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. Excerpt from the piece:

"I will continue to push for the immediate deployment of Nato assets as part of a transitional operation to stop the atrocities while the UN forces are deployed. If Khartoum persists in pursuing genocide, I support military action to neutralise those military forces employed by Sudan to attack civilians or to inhibit peacekeepers from their deployment."

Yee Haw! You and whose army Mr Lantos?

Sudan's Bashir seems open to idea of strengthening AMIS with more support from the UN

Oct 3 2006 Reuters report - AU will not abandon Darfur - AU chairman - excerpt:

The African Union will not abandon Darfur but it needs more international support if it is to continue its peacekeeping mission, the AU commission chairman said in a meeting with European Union leaders on Monday.

"Under no circumstance can we leave Darfur without peacekeeping forces. But we know we must strengthen our forces," AU Commission Chairman Alpha Oumar Konare told a news briefing at the group's headquarters in Addis Ababa.

The chairmen of both the AU Commission and the European Commission vowed to work with the government of Sudan to find an acceptable formula for maintaining troops in Darfur.

"We want to avoid the Rwanda syndrome where the international community goes out and does not fulfil its responsibility," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, referring to the 1994 genocide.

"In the current situation, the African Union cannot assume completely the job if it does not have an important contribution from the U.N.," Michel told reporters.

Talks in Addis Ababa followed a 24-hour visit by the EU group to Sudan to try to break the impasse over peacekeepers.

Faced with a stalemate over peacekeepers, aid officials and diplomats have begun discussing an option called AU-Plus. This would involve an extended AU Darfur mission, augmented by U.N. support, with greater policing power for African troops.

During talks with the EU envoys on Saturday evening in Khartoum, Bashir seemed open to the idea of strengthening the AU mission with more support from the United Nations, the head of the EU in Sudan, Kent Degerfelt, told Reuters.

"It would not be troops but logistical and financial support," Degerfelt said.

Konare and Michel said they still supported a transfer to the United Nations but admitted that could not happen as long as Khartoum rejected the plan.

They stressed that the international community needed to reassure the Sudanese government that there was no hidden agenda, and that one way to do so was to put more pressure on rebels who had not signed the Darfur peace agreement.

The EU is the biggest contributor to the AU mission in Darfur, giving 242 million euro ($307 million) since it was launched.

Asked whether the EU would continue to fund the AU forces if it needed to extend its mission, Barroso said he was confident it would be possible.

Theatre in London aims for debate on Darfur

Oct 2 2006 BBC:

A north London theatre is to stage seven plays which it hopes will be "a forum for debate" about the conflict in Darfur. The season at the Tricycle in Kilburn will also feature panel discussions. The project was inspired by a BBC interview where actress Mia Farrow called for greater action after 2m people were displaced from their homes. Director Charlotte Westenra said she hoped to "get people talking and encourage them to find out more".

THE TRICYCLE'S DARFUR PLAYS

Michael Bhim - Distant Violence
Amy Evans - Many Men's Wives
Jennifer Farmer - Words Word Words
Carlo Gebler - Silhouette
Juliet Gilkes - Bilad al-Sudan
Lynn Nottage - Give, Again?
Winsome Pinnock - IDP

The work of writers such as Michael Bhim, Juliet Gilkes and Lynn Nottage will be seen at the theatre from 24 to 28 October.

I hope Daniel Davies is able to attend and report on it. Daniel lives in North London and blogs at D-squared Digest and Crooked Timber.

Read Daniel's Strange bedfellows. Excerpt:

If one takes seriously the fact that Darfur is facing immediate humanitarian crisis, then the only priority at the moment has to be to get some sort of peacekeeping force in there which is sufficient to allow the aid agencies to work. The Sudanese government definitely ought to let UNMIS in, and their attempt to run out the clock on AMIS definitely ought to count against them (in hell if not in the ICC, as I have said before). I frankly consider the UN's behaviour with respect to AMIS to be absolutely scandalous and would vastly rather see a credible African mission being funded, but this does not look politically possible at present, so UNMIS it is, although not at the expense of war.

The relentless urge to action rather than inaction

British economist Daniel Davies has a blog entry at Crooked Timber on The relentless urge to action rather than inaction - and writes this gem of a line:

As I've said repeatedly with respect to Darfur, it's the height of irresponsibility to demand "action" without saying what that action might be, or to provide some kind of sensible assessment of its likely consequences.

I wish the Eric Reeves' of this world would read that line and remember the last part of it when they call for "non-consensual intervention."

UN's Pronk: We need mature diplomacy and a package of give and take - Darfur needs a peacekeeping force that can stay many years

UN SRSG Jan Pronk Weblog Oct 1 2006 - excerpt:

Military presence is required to keep a cease fire and to protect the people against attacks from all sides. Peace keeping by military has to go hand in hand with political efforts to tackle the root causes of the conflict. That may take years and for that reason we need a peace keeping force that can stay many years.

We need mature diplomacy. We may even need to negotiate a package, whether we like it or not, consisting of give and take: Sudan could be offered, for instance, the lifting of trade sanctions, debt relief, the normalization of diplomatic relations (all due since the signing of the Nairobi peace agreement between North and South) and cooperation in the field of security.

In my statement [to the UN Security Council] I argued that, in order to break through the stalemate, all parties should get off the present collision course. We cannot afford to lose time anymore. We lost already too much time this year.

Note, Mr Pronk reveals that in meetings Sudan's President Bashir is polite, rather soft spoken, but firm, leaving no room for doubt but in his public appearances he is eloquent, using harsh language and statements that incite the people.

Who in Sudan benefits from Western sanctions and disinvestment campaigns?

This caught my eye - a line from an opinion piece [via ST 2 Oct 2006] by Magoub El-Tigani, a member of the Sudanese Writers' Union:

President al-Bashir emphasized his government "would find the support it needs from trade with non-Western nations."

It seems to me, sanctions and disinvestment campaigns are counter productive if they force Sudan to trade with non-Western nations and unscrupulous operators.

Oct 1 2006 Observer report by Conal Walsh - Stop investing in Sudan's genocide, MPs tell firms [via POTP] Excerpt:

British exports to Sudan were worth GBP 140m last year - up more than 50 per cent on the figure for 2004. Shell, one of a few western companies involved in Sudan's fledgling oil industry, declined to comment on the call for disinvestment.

Minnawi helped create the violence and suffering in Darfur and may be the only one able to end it?

Excerpt from Rolling Stone report by Dinaw Mengestu in Chad, 21 Sep 2006. [Note, it says Minnawi accuses the Chadian government, "which until recently was one of the SLA's biggest supporters, of sending troops into Darfur to attack his forces."]

If anyone embodies the conflicting nature of the war in Darfur, it's Minnawi. A poor village boy turned revolutionary, he is emblematic of any of the hundreds of men who have tried to lead a crumbling army into power in Africa, using violence and intimidation to simultaneously free and destroy their countries.

Born in 1969, Minnawi taught grade school until 2001, when he became one of eighteen rebels in the newly formed Darfur Liberation Army, the precursor to the SLA. For two decades the Sudanese government had failed to provide even the most basic assistance to Darfur's black African tribes and had stood by passively as thousands were slaughtered at the hands of Arab militias. In 2003, Minnawi and the SLA issued a manifesto calling for a "united democratic Sudan," one that would grant equal rights and protection to all of its citizens, regardless of race.

The rebellion grew quickly, but by 2005, as rumors swirled that Minnawi was planning to kill the group's first president, Abdelwahid al-Nur, the SLA had split into two factions. One faction remained loyal to Minnawi, who is from the Zaghawa tribe, the other to al-Nur, who is from the larger Fur tribe. That split left Minnawi with more territory and soldiers than any other rebel leader, while at the same time dividing Darfur along ethnic lines, setting the stage for an inter-rebel war.

The peace agreement was supposed to bring calm to Darfur, but instead it has brought even more violence. Minnawi was the only rebel leader to sign the treaty, a move that further split the rebellion into warring factions.

"The first rule of thumb in almost every profession is 'do no harm,'" says John Prendergast, a senior analyst who studies Africa for the International Crisis Group. "I think the mediators of the peace agreement potentially made things worse by securing a deal with only one rebel faction and leaving the other two outside the tent."

Calling him a traitor, Minnawi's former allies began attacking his forces. In response, the SLA has killed and tortured hundreds of people in Northern Darfur believed to be sympathetic to the other rebels. According to Amnesty International, Minnawi's forces went on a four-day rampage in July, raping thirty-nine women and killing seventy-two people in the village of Korma. Even those in Darfur who once supported Minnawi now refer to his SLA as "janjaweed 2."

Some of the rebels have taken to forcibly recruiting refugees from the camps in Chad and pressing them into battle - with the assistance of the Chadian government. In March, one faction of the SLA kidnapped 4,700 boys from Bredjing and Treguine and herded them into trucks with whips and clubs. Suleyman Abdeulaye, who lives in Bredjing, had left the camp to walk to the nearby market when a group of rebels ordered him to get in their truck.

"They said, 'If you don't get in the truck we will beat you,'" Abdeulaye told me. "They had guns and knives. Twenty-seven people were already in the truck." After staying overnight at a Chadian military base, Abdeulaye says, the rebels drove the boys to the Darfur border. There, for the next twelve days, they were forced to march for hours at a time in the blazing heat. "We are going to fight against the janjaweed," the rebels told them. "We are going to kill them, take their guns and then bring those guns for you. Then we will go back together to fight them."

Abdeulaye managed to escape and return to Bredjing, but he remains terrified. "We don't feel safe here," he says. "But I can't go anywhere else. All I want is a moment of peace without fighting."

I had come to Chad on my way to Darfur, where I hoped to meet Minnawi face to face. For years, his forces have been the only thing separating tens of thousands of Darfurians from the janjaweed. Until the peace treaty, most photographs of him showed him behind the wheel of a jeep, surrounded on all sides by armed men with their heads and faces wrapped in cloth. Now, photos tend to show him dressed in a suit, shaking hands with Sudanese officials or President Bush. Minnawi finds himself trapped between the good intentions and unfulfilled promises of the West, and the unrelenting violence of the Sudanese military and his former allies who feel betrayed by his move toward peace. He helped create the violence and suffering in Darfur, and, in the end, he may be the only one able to end it.

One night, outside one of the refugee camps, I dial the number of a satellite phone given to me by one of Minnawi's supporters. The rebel leader answers. He is exceedingly, almost excessively polite, while at the same time evasive and paranoid. There is a strong wind blowing, and I picture him standing in the wind-swept desert, his phone pointed eastward into the sky.

I ask Minnawi if he will be returning to Chad. He accuses its government, which until recently was one of the SLA's biggest supporters, of sending troops into Darfur to attack his forces.

"No," Minnawi says. "I will not be going back to Chad anytime soon."

The conversation is brief. "I am in Northern Darfur," he finally tells me. "If you come to Darfur, I think we will meet."

(This is an excerpt from the September 21st issue of "Rolling Stone" magazine, on sale September 8 2006.)

[via An Unforgivable Hell on Earth blog]

Fast for Darfur 5 Oct 2006

On October 5, students and notable fasters such as Don Cheadle, Nicholas Kristof, members of the cast of "The West Wing" and more in STAND's DarfurFast pledge to give up one luxury item for the day and donate the money they would have spent toward civilian protection in Darfur. [via timetoprotect.org via Darfur Alert]



Another new site: Florida Darfur Coalition

UPDATE: God bless American activisit Jay McGinley and his new blog DARFUR Dying for Heroes.

Sudanese SLA member Abulgasem Ahmed Abulgasem arrested at home in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Unsourced report at Darfur Daily News 2 Oct 2006:

Abulgasem Ahmad Abulgasem, a political opponent of the Sudanese government, prominent figure in Abuja Peace Negotiations and member of a faction of the Sudan Liberation Army, was arrested by the Saudi Arabian security forces on 26 September at his home in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he lived for 28 years.

The reason for his arrest is unclear but is believed to be connected to a speech in which he criticized the Sudanese government at the Sudanese Embassy prior to his arrest.

According to our source, Abulgasim was already deported on Saudi Arabia Airlines flight 453 from Jeddah to Kartoum, at 18:50 local time. His life is at imminent risk of torture and unfair trial if not at great danger of being sentenced to death.

More from Darfur Alert and Amnesty International Alert: Action needed to release Mr. Abu al-Ghassem.

Letter from JEM/NRF to UN SRSG Jan Pronk

On Friday Sep 29, 2006 Sudan's insurgent group JEM attacked and mortar bombed SLA-Minnawi forces near Greida, South Darfur - 40 killed.

The day before, JEM Leader Khalil Ibrahim, co-founder of NRF, published the following letter to Jan Pronk, UN special representative to Sudan, dated Thursday Sep 28 [via Sudan.net]

Dear Sir;

Thank you very much for your letter dated September 22nd 06. We respond to your Excellency with Ramadan greetings; greetings of piety, charity, peace and reflection. As an honour to the holy month of Ramadan, we are pleased to respond positively to your appeal and dedicate this festive month for peace and tranquillity for our people in Darfur. We seek this opportunity to reconfirm to you that our forces on the ground are clearly instructed all through not to act except in situations of self-defence and that instruction will be closely watched during the holy month. We hope that our adversaries will behave likewise.

As for your call to use this month for dialogue for peace, it is our conviction that the problem of Darfur is essentially political and can at best be resolved through peaceful negotiations. Military confrontation has never been our first choice and we look forward to dropping the gun out of the politics of Sudan all together. We are ready for a call from your office for resumption of peaceful settlement of Darfur conflict, any time, any where. The people of Darfur have suffered too much. They cannot wait any longer.

Sincerely yours;
[signed]
Dr. Khalil Ibrahim Mohamed
Chairman JEM
Co-founder of NRF

Good guys or what?

Mills joins Aegis Trust's Darfur campaign

Heather Mills is in negotiations with Aegis Trust to become a patron and even visit Sudan. A spokesman for Aegis confirms, "Ms Mills is very supportive of our Darfur campaign and wants to help push that on. She is lending her profile to the campaign. We are in dialogue with her." [via contactmusic.com]

Privatization of peacekeeping raises concerns

Oct 2 2006 World Peace Herald - Privatization of peacekeeping raises concerns:

Shortly after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell visited Darfur in 2004, Blackwater put together a proposal to go in there and stop the two sides from killing each other, Mr. Pelton said.

"The problem is, if you look at the presentation, it includes not only men with guns. They're offering helicopter gunships, a fighter bomber that has the capacity to drop cluster bombs and [satellite-guided weapons], armored vehicles. You say: "Wait a minute? That's a lot of offensive force. What does that have to do with peacekeeping?"