Politics Delay U.S. Airlift Of Peacekeepers to Sudan

It's galling to learn that two U.S. planes were ready and waiting on the tarmac in Rwanda to fly African troops to Darfur yesterday. The soldiers could have been there by now. The regime in Khartoum are quick to defend themselves and their own positions but are as slow as slugs when it comes to anything that involves saving other people's skins. Here is an extract from today's report out of Kigali in Rwanda by Emily Wax of the Washington Post's Foreign Service:

Well before the sun rose over the city's winding hills Monday, Col. Charles Karamba was wide awake, ready to give his 120 Rwandan army troops an energetic send-off to western Sudan.

They were to be the first troops airlifted to Darfur on U.S. military planes as part of a two-week mission to move African Union peacekeepers quickly into the war-torn region, where 1.5 million people have been driven from their homes and where violence, hunger and disease have killed tens of thousands.

Two C-130 transport planes, sent by the U.S. Air Force from Ramstein Air Base in Germany, stood ready on the rain-soaked tarmac outside the Rwandan capital. Karamba sat by his phone, waiting for the orders to board.

Instead, just after 10 a.m., word came that the Rwandans would not be leaving quite yet. According to diplomats, that was because Nigeria, whose president heads the African Union, had demanded to go first. Although the airlifts from Kigali were planned last week, diplomats said, Nigerian officials wanted their troops to arrive first as a matter of prestige. Full Story

Sudan rejects US offer to airlift AU mission to Darfur

According to China News, the US Embassy in Khartoum has recently delivered an offer to Sudan's government, asking for permission to use two US aircraft to send the AU monitoring mission to Darfur.

The US Air Force had announced earlier that it would begin airlifting AU troops to Darfur this week.

Yesterday (Monday) Khartoum refused to allow AU soldiers to fly in to Sudan on U.S. planes .

The soldiers are due to monitor a ceasefire between government troops and rebel forces in Darfur.

"This is not a bilateral issue and the matter should be handled by the African Union in accordance with clear-cut guarantees and a certain time period," Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail told reporters. He said the Sudanese government had informed the AU of its position but had "not yet had any response".

The more than 3,000-strong AU force is to be made up of troops from the Gambia, Rwanda, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Algeria and Tanzania, the foreign minister said. The first contingent had been expected to arrive Monday.

Ismail said he would brief the Sudanese parliament on Tuesday on the expansion of the mandate and the length of the AU mission in western Sudan.



Photo (above) Troops from the U.S. Air Force's 86th Airlift Wing unload boxes of weapons upon arrival in the Rwandan capital Kigali October 23, 2004, aboard three U.S. Air Force C-130 cargo planes. The planes will transport Rwandan forces and equipment to Darfur over the next two weeks to assist an African Union peacekeeping effort in western Sudan. It is the first U.S. military deployment in the Darfur conflict.

US sends 3 cargo planes for African Darfur peacekeepers

The U.S. has sent three C-130 cargo planes to central Africa to provide transport and other help for African peacekeepers going to Darfur.

They will operate out of Kigali, Rwanda, and fly African troops and supplies into the Darfur region. A US official did not have a count on how many U.S. personnel would be involved. C-130s are rugged, propeller-driven cargo planes that can operate with a minimum of four or five crew members but often carry more. A number of mechanics and other personnel accompanied them.



Photo (above) Members of the U.S. Air Force board a C-130 aircraft at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, early Friday, Oct. 22, 2004. Three Ramstein C-130 aircraft and approximately 90 airmen departed Ramstein Friday morning for Kigali, Rwanda, to begin an airlift mission to the Darfur region of Sudan. The airmen and two of the C-130s from the 38th Airlift Squadron will transport Rwandan peacekeepers to the Darfur region over a two-week period. (AP).

European Union will provide $125 million to support African peacekeepers in Darfur

On Friday, officials in Brussels, Belgium, said the European Union will provide up to $125 million to support African peacekeepers in Darfur.

The African Union's Peace and Security Council agreed Wednesday to increase its peacekeeping force in Darfur from 390 to 3,320 troops and civilian police. The one-year operation is to cost $220 million, mainly paid for by the EU and the United States.

Officials said besides the United States, Canada and Australia also had offered to help fly the African peacekeepers into Darfur. Much of the EU's financial aid would go to providing rations, shelter and fuel for the force, officials said.

The African Union force will include 450 unarmed military observers, a major increase from the 80 currently deployed to monitor a shaky cease-fire.

An armed security force of 310 troops has been protecting the observers. That force will be increased to 2,341. The new one-year mission will also include 815 civilian police officers and 164 civilian staff.
- - -

UNITED STATES HAS PROVIDED OVER $300 MILLION
In aid for for Darfur and leads the world in responding to the crisis

On Friday the White House urged the world community to work together to bring an end to the crisis "We also urge the international community to respond generously to fund the vital programs that support the victims in both Chad and Sudan."

"We commend the African Union's efforts to stem the violence and call on the world to support their efforts," the statement added.

HARVARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY - Coming under pressure to drop its shares in PetroChina

Crikey. Who would guess that Harvard has more than $3 billion in the stock market? As of June 30, 2004, Harvard Management Company holds shares in over a thousand corporations, from Abercrombie & Fitch to Zebra Technologies.

Outside activists have called on Harvard University to shed its stake in PetroChina, says The Harvard Crimson Online. Excerpt:

"Several faculty members said they would be more than willing to join an effort aimed at convincing Harvard to drop its shares in PetroChina, the oil stock linked to the Sudanese government.

With more than $3 billion in the stock market, the University’s holdings in PetroChina likely represent less than 0.02 percent of the entire endowment.

Activists hope that a move by Harvard to sell its shares of PetroChina could jump-start a broad divestment effort.

Harvard’s stake in PetroChina is “a highly symbolic investment,” Reeves* said. He said the University would “send a chill up the spine of all institutional shareholders of PetroChina” if the endowment fund dropped its stake in the company.

“This divestment campaign is going to explode off the blocks,” Reeves said."
- - -

*Professor Eric Reeves

Eric Reeves is an English Professor at Smith College, Mass., and a recognised expert on Sudan and Darfur. He has provided testimony to Congressional Committees, been widely published in the US and International Press, and frequently provides expert analysis for Non-Governmental Organisations addressing the crisis in Sudan. For a full biography/bibliograhpy of his work on Sudan and Darfur, click here.

HARVARD PROFS PLEDGE TO BACK SUDAN DIVESTMENT - And drop its shares in PetroChina

Several Harvard faculty members said they would be more than willing to join an effort aimed at convincing Harvard to drop its shares in PetroChina, the oil stock linked to the Sudanese government.

Here are some excerpts from today's report at The Crimson authored by Staff writer Daniel J. Hemel:

In the spring of 1979, more than 100 faculty members signed a petition urging Harvard to sell its stakes in companies that conducted dealings with South Africa’s apartheid regime. Ultimately, Harvard divested itself from about a half-dozen companies.

In 1990, the University sold its last holdings in the tobacco industry after a committee of faculty, students and alumni recommended that the University divest itself from cigarette firms.

Richard Wilson, the Mallinckrodt research professor of physics, was an outspoken critic of the Khartoum regime during its conflict with rebels in the south of Sudan.

“The Israeli divestment community would be overwhelmingly enthusiastic about any sincere effort to ease the suffering in Sudan by supporting divestment,” Assistant Professor of Neurobiology John A. Assad wrote in an e-mail. If “students do make a sincere effort to push Harvard to divest from holdings in Sudan,” Assad wrote, “you will find no stronger ally.”

Professor of Psychology Patrick Cavanagh also urged students to initiate a petition, and said he would help bring “all the publicity we can generate” to any such effort.

Cavanagh and his family adopted two refugee children from the south of Sudan in July 2002. “Their experiences have taught us much about the horrors of that conflict,” Cavanagh wrote in an e-mail.

“Urging some organization to divest themselves…is a powerful tool that sends a powerful message, but I don’t think you use it for any little problem that comes along,” Moseley said in an interview Friday. But, he said, “I do think the situation in Darfur deserves this.”

—Harvard's Crimson Staff writer Daniel J. Hemel can be reached at hemel@fas.harvard.edu.

MOVEMENT TO DIVEST - Divestment Campaign for Sudan: Harvard Students Act

Harvard has invested millions of dollars in a Chinese oil company whose financial dealings with the Sudanese government, human rights activists say, have funded that regime's ongoing slaughter of its own people.

Divestment Campaign for Sudan: Harvard Students Act by Daniel J. Hemel and Zachary M. Seward October 25, 2004 - excerpt:

Sudan activists can claim a record of success in their past efforts to spur divestment.

Canada’s Talisman Energy came under heavy fire from activists two years ago for its stake in the Greater Nile Oil Project—the same joint venture with the Sudanese government that PetroChina’s parent company has undertaken.

Talisman held a 25 percent stake in the project, while the Chinese firm owns 40 percent of the venture.

In October 2002, Talisman sold its Sudan holdings to an Indian company for $766 million.

And in January of this year, BP Amoco sold its $1.65 billion stake in PetroChina. The move came on the heels of a four-year campaign by black churches and human rights groups in the U.S. to boycott Amoco stations in protest of BP’s links to Sudan—although BP’s decision to drop the shares was likely made due to economic considerations and not humanitarian concerns.

Meyer, who oversees Harvard’s $22.6 billion endowment, said in an interview that the University attempts to consider social issues in its investments.

“Overall, we try in all of our investment decisions to be pretty principled in the companies with which we deal, and I think we’re very successful at that,” Meyer said.

In 1990, the University divested its shares in tobacco companies following objections by students, faculty and alumni. Explaining the divestment in their annual report last year, Harvard’s Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility noted, among other reasons, “the desire not to be associated as a shareholder with companies engaged in significant sales of products that create a substantial and unjustified risk of harm to human health.”

Several activists contacted by The Crimson said PetroChina’s connection to the Sudanese regime warranted divestment under the University’s standards.

“Harvard is confronted with a stark choice,” wrote John Eibner, a London-based human rights activist affiliated with Christian Solidarity International, in an e-mail. “It can stand on the side of the slavers, ethnic cleansers and gang rapists of Sudan. Or it can stand in solidarity with the powerless, impoverished victims at a cost of only 0.02 percent of the total Harvard endowment.”

—Staff writer Daniel J. Hemel can be reached at hemel@fas.harvard.edu.
—Staff writer Zachary M. Seward can be reached at seward@fas.harvard.edu.

THE SECOND SUPERPOWER - Targets Siemens, ABB, Alcatel, Tatneft, PetroChina

Paul F. Hoffman, the Hooper professor of geology at Harvard, said that “a broad divestment campaign aimed at pressuring the Sudanese government might have a positive impact, as it did in South Africa.”

The Second Superpower (we the citizens of the world) are perfectly placed to support the Divest Campaign.

Anyone who holds shares in Siemens, ABB, Alcatel, Tatneft, PetroChina: please beware - and drop them - it is blood money.

Last week, I left a comment at British MP Clive Soley's blog suggesting that Germany contributes to the humanitarian effort in Darfur BIG TIME. Germany has just won huge contracts from Sudan to build a Sudan-Kenya railway.

German company Siemens provided the gas chambers for the Nazi's concentration camps - and have kept quiet about it ever since. Yes, times have changed - and I know we are not supposed to mention The War - but some Jewish people are still struggling to have returned to them what was stolen and stashed away in Swiss bank accounts. There is still unfinished business. Siemens could go a lot way and make good PR by contributing to help the victims of Darfur. Siemens has a big operation on the periphery there.

SIEMENS, ABB, ALCATEL, TATNEFT, PETROCHINA - Are the targets of a divest campaign

Here is one of the plots and schemes from the remarkable Mark at fightordie. You've got to love Mark's way with words. Note this excerpt from his email:

" ... We would like to make these five corporations, each listed on NYSE, targets of a divestiture campaign to start here in New York City:

Germany's Siemens AG - electric generation
Switzerland's ABB Ltd - electrical, oil production
France's Alcatel - telecommunications
Russia's Tatneft - oil
China's PetroChina - oil

Once-a-week event (say, every Wednesday noon-2) with an impressive, good-looking show will do it. I see the kick-off one to be a “wake-up, wall street” thing, from 7 to 10 in the morning.

To achieve this, we hope to target the stock exchange area first with a "walking vigil", the purpose of which is to gain media attention.

As our goal will be media attention, which is different from our goal at the embassy, we will not be able to do a "show-as-you-can" type of thing like we're running now in front of the mission. Since we're made up of working stiffs and we do not have the bodies to keep a constant vigil in front of the stock exchange, we figure maybe a once-a-week event (say, every Wednesday noon-2) with an impressive, good-looking show will do it. I see the kick-off one to be a “wake-up, wall street” thing, from 7 to 10 in the morning.

This plan has a whole lot (a real understatement) of room for growth and varied areas where all our friends can easily lend a hand.

Other possible early targets: Columbia U, NYC Council, NYU, etc... "divest!" Anyone remember the anti-apartheid campaigns?? All we need is a stack of Village Voices from the 1980's to plot our game plan. Coca-Cola. Remember when they went after apartheid-loving Coca-Cola? Well, there's this thing called "gum arabic." Don't ask me. But one thing I know is soda pop uses gum arabic like it's going out of style. Perhaps we could siphon the great Coke media sponge once again. It's going to take a bit of research.

Many Sudanese fellows yesterday were telling me how effectively they felt our campaign was unnerving the Khartoum representatives.

Our central contact in Darfur Rehabilitation Project told a story of how he was visiting the embassy, and, on the way in, he saw one of our very dedicated people (a lady) out front, alone, holding up her sign.

When he came out, two hours later, she was still there, still holding the sign high. He said he was deeply moved by the dedication she showed, and he felt he'd rarely seen a sight as powerful as this one lady's vigil.

IF YOU ARE STILL A DEDICATED EMBASSY VIGIL WORKER (OR WOULD LIKE TO BECOME ONE,) we are changing the vigil times again. Effective immediately, we will have two shifts per day, every day: 11:30-2:30 and 2:30-5:30. PLEASE EMAIL ME ASAP, telling me what day and what shift you will cover every week. If you would like to cover a shift you make the times up for yourself, let me know. That will be very cool. ..."

Farewell to Sudan Hero Rafe Bullick

The following is a copy of an October 23 2004 report from the Daily Record in Scotland:

FRIENDS and family yesterday gathered to say a last goodbye to a Scots charity worker killed by a landmine.

At the the same time a two-minute silence was held in the Sudan, where he died.

Rafe Bullick, 34, who worked for the Save the Children charity, died when his Land Rover was blown up by a landmine in North Darfur.

As his memorial service was held at Warriston Crematorium in Edinburgh, refugees and co-workers in the African country stopped to pay tribute.

Some of those he had helped made the emotional journey from Sudan to say goodbye.

Rafe's coffin was scattered with tiny white flowers and draped in a purple cloth sent from Sudan.

Dedicated

Addressing the 140 mourners, co-worker Jennifer Martin described Rafe as a strong and dedicated man who helped save the lives of hundreds of children.

She said: 'I remember watching him one day giving his last toffee to a little girl in a pink dress.

'He did all he could to make life better for these children.'Rafe knew a successful life wasn't about an accumulation of savings and pensions but about hugs and kisses.

'These children used to watch Rafe stride away as if their time with him was too short - as was ours'.

African music was played during the 25-minute service at the request of Rafe's family

His mother, Molly, was comforted during the service by husband Donald McAllester.

Rafe's father, Michael, died a few years ago.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news
- - -

Also, copy of October 15, 2004 post from here in Sudan Watch:

Save the Children U.K. employees Rafe Bullick, 34, a program manager from Scotland, and Nourredine Issa Tayeb, 41, a water engineer from Sudan, were killed last Sunday when their vehicle hit an anti-tank landmine in the Ummbaro area of Darfur. Another Sudanese, the driver, was seriously injured.

U.N. humanitarian coordinator Manuel Aranda Da Silva told reporters preliminary reports showed there was a strong possibility the mine had been freshly laid, which constituted a breach of international humanitarian law.

"The outcome of the preliminary inquiries also confirm that the road was travelled recently by other humanitarian agencies so indicate a strong possibility that this is new land mine laid down recently," he said, adding the mine was planted in a narrow place between two trees where every car would have to drive through.

“We extend our deepest sympathies to the friends and families of our two colleagues,” said CEO of Save the Children USA. “Their deaths are tragic reminders of the dangers that thousands of our workers face every day as they seek to bring real and lasting change to children in need around the world.”

Chris Mullin, British Foreign Office minister with responsibility for Africa accuses Sudan over Darfur tragedy

Copy of report in today's Scotsman: "A British government minister criticised Sudan today for not doing enough to disarm militias blamed for killing thousands of people and forcing more than 1.5 million others from their homes in the western Darfur region.

Chris Mullin, Foreign Office minister with responsibility for Africa, said security in Darfur must be restored quickly to enable those who fled their homes to return in time for the planting season that begins in March.

“If we go past that and there are still people in the camps, then the crisis is going to last for much longer and is going to require large amounts of international aid,” he said during a visit to neighbouring Kenya.

The UN says more than 70,000 people have also been killed in Darfur since February 2003. Originally a clash between African farmers and Arab nomads, the conflict has been inflamed by a counterinsurgency in which pro-government Arab militia have raped, killed and burned the villages of their enemy.

Mr Mullin said Sudanese authorities “have not done enough to rein in the local militia.”

International pressure has compelled Sudanese authorities to open up Darfur to international aid, allow in foreign workers and deploy police officers from outside the region, he said.

The UN food aid agency warned today that Darfur remains dangerous, with road closures cutting into its ability to provide aid."

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3660358

EU Set to Announce Funding for AU Darfur Force

Copy of report Fri Oct 22, 2004 By Tsegaye Tadesse:

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - The European Union is likely to announce a contribution of more than 100 million euros to an African Union force in Darfur, amid calls for extra AU soldiers to be deployed in Sudan's troubled region.

"The EU is ready to help finance this operation. It could finance more than half the cost of the operation. Over 100 million euros ($126 million) could be given together with technical support, expertise and planning," an EU diplomat said on Friday.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is expected to land in Ethiopia, headquarters of the AU, on Friday, where he will hold talks with AU Commission chairman Alpha Oumar Konare and other top officials on Saturday.

The AU's Peace and Security Council agreed on Wednesday to send more than 3,000 additional troops to Darfur, an area the size of France, to restore security and monitor violations of a shaky cease-fire between rebels and government forces.

Deployment could begin next week, the EU diplomat, speaking in Brussels, said.

There are currently only 300 AU soldiers in Darfur tasked with protecting 150 AU cease-fire monitors.

On Thursday, U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland called for more troops in Darfur, where insecurity is hampering efforts to deliver food and supplies to 2 million needy people.

"We are alone. We have 780 international and 5,500 local aid workers, and we feel very alone in Darfur at the moment," Egeland said after briefing the U.N. Security Council.

"We need to have the African Union presence and they need to be funded by the donors to be able to deploy. We are waiting endlessly to get the people on the ground."

AID TRUCKS ATTACKED

Insecurity poses the biggest threat to humanitarian aid in Darfur. The World Food Program (WFP) said on Friday that unidentified men, some in civilian clothing and others in uniform, had attacked dozens of WFP-contracted trucks in South Darfur in the past week.

In one case, 36 trucks were attacked on Oct. 15. Although no food was looted, the attackers beat some drivers and took their personal belongings.

The WFP said it had successfully delivered enough food to feed 632,000 people between Oct 1. and Oct.18, but said if the insecurity worsened, further deliveries might become difficult.

More than 1.5 million people have been made homeless since two rebel groups, accusing the government of neglect, launched a revolt in early 2003 following years of skirmishes between African farmers and Arab nomads over land.

Rebels say the government has used Arab militias known as Janjaweed to put down their rebellion and to loot and burn villages. The Sudanese government admits arming some militias but denies links to the Janjaweed, calling them outlaws.

The United Nations estimates 70,000 people have died from malnutrition and disease in the last seven months alone, although the Sudanese government disputes this.

A fresh round of peace talks between Darfur rebels and the government had been due to begin in Abuja, Nigeria this week but a transport mix-up left delegates stranded across the continent.

Preliminary consultations on the timetable and agenda of the Abuja talks between the AU and delegations were due to start on Friday afternoon, but rebels said they wanted to make changes to a proposed AU agenda.

AU officials hope the talks will begin on Monday.

(Additional reporting by Sebastian Alison in Brussels, Ross Colvin in Nairobi and Silvia Aloisi in Abuja)

Annan Calls for Funds, Urges African Union to Deploy Quickly in Darfur, Sudan

UN News Service (New York) October 21, 2004 - Posted to the web October 22, 2004 http://allafrica.com/stories/200410220032.html

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today hailed the African Union's decision to send an expanded force of troops and police with a broad mandate to protect monitors, aid workers and civilians in the conflict in western Sudan and he called on countries to contribute urgently and generously to the AU as it prepares to deploy.

The AU Peace and Security Council announced yesterday that it would increase its observer mission of 465 to a full peacekeeping force that would include 2,341 military personnel, among them 450 observers, and up to 815 civilian personnel.

Mr. Annan told journalists that he learned from the AU Commission Chairman, currently Alpha Oumar Konare, that "in addition to monitoring the ceasefire, they are supposed to help create an environment that would be conducive to delivery of humanitarian assistance and the return of displaced persons to their homes. And that they also have a mandate to protect civilians in the immediate vicinity, if they are in threat."

He added that he hoped that they would proceed quickly and that, meanwhile, pressure must be maintained on the Sudanese Government and the rebels to honour their commitments. Mr. Konare had said the AU would work towards a breakthrough in the talks between the Sudanese Government and rebel delegates that started today in the Nigerian capital, Abuja.

Through a spokesperson, Mr. Annan also said the planned AU deployment "requires complex and massive planning and logistical support."

"The Secretary-General considers it essential that the African Union receive the urgent, adequate and continuing support of the international community, not only to quickly deploy but also to sustain effectively its mission," the statement said.

"The UN will continue to offer the AU whatever assistance it can. The Secretary-General urges all Member States with capacity urgently and generously to provide the required support."

In Abuja, the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Sudan, Jan Pronk, began meetings with representatives of the Sudanese Government, and the Darfur rebel groups - the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).

Mr. Pronk, too, welcomed the AU Council's decision to expand the size and mandate of its force, taking into account recommendations made by the UN.

"The AU has done its part. It's time now for the others to do theirs: the countries that are in a position to provide the required assistance to the AU must do it without delay, and the Government and the other parties to the Darfur conflict must extend full cooperation with the African Mission," he said.

"Time is of the essence. Any effort must be exerted to ensure the speedy deployment of the Mission."

Canada helps African Union improve security in Darfur

Copy of October 21, 2004 news report http://www.news.gc.ca/cfmx/CCP/view/en/index.cfm?articleid=103899

The Government of Canada today announced that it will provide approximately $2 million for five chartered helicopters to assist the African Union (AU) in carrying out its mission to help end the violence and human rights abuses in Darfur, Sudan. Today’s funding is the first phase of Canada’s $20 million commitment to the AU mission, announced by Prime Minister Paul Martin in September 2004 at the United Nations General Assembly.

Canada’s contribution comes as a timely response to the AU’s decision to expand its mission to 3,320 from 390 people. The AU mission will help foster stability and enhance civilian protection in the region. It is composed of contingents from a number of African countries.

“Canada has responded to the African Union’s urgent appeal for help,” said Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew. “These helicopters will allow the AU to move troops and supplies around Darfur, a region the size of Manitoba, but with very few roads.”

“Today’s funding will help support African efforts to find a solution to an African crisis,” said Minister of National Defence Bill Graham. “We are providing advice and support for this initiative.”

“This contribution will allow the observers to do their jobs in some of the most remote areas of the region,” said International Cooperation Minister Aileen Carroll. “Today’s contribution is part of a coordinated effort of international donors to help protect the Sudanese and alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. This is part of Canada’s ongoing support to the African Union to build its capacity to respond to crises.”

The five helicopters are due to arrive in Darfur at the end of this month. Canada will continue to monitor the situation and provide further assistance, including additional transportation support, as requested by the AU.

Canadians want to contribute to alleviating the suffering of the Sudanese. Canada’s approach to the crises in Sudan has been both to help address the underlying political problems, and to provide urgently needed humanitarian assistance, protection for those affected by the conflict and support for peacebuilding efforts. Since October 2003, Canada has contributed some $37 million in humanitarian assistance to the crises in Sudan, including $25.9 million to respond specifically to the Darfur crisis. Canada is vigorously pursuing diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts in Sudan, particularly Darfur and the southern civil war. Canada is urging the Government of Sudan to live up to its commitments made to the UN Security Council.

For more information on Canada’s role in Sudan, please visit http://www.international.gc.ca/africa/sudan-crisis-in-darfur-en.asp and

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind.nsf/vall/3DA49BA30696A42285256E94004970E7?OpenDocument.

My vent over Darfur at the blog of British Labour MP Clive Soley

Here is a copy of a comment I have just posted at the blog of British MP Clive Soley:

Hi guys, sorry it's me here again to bug you about Darfur. Thanks for discussing the hugely important issue of aid. I've blogged about the Darfur crisis almost every day for the past six months now and the refugees' situation appears to be as dire as ever.

Back in April, the death toll in Darfur was reported as 10,000. Now it stands at 70,000 since March. 10,000 are now dying every month. 85% of those now in camps who are dying, are losing their lives because of food shortages and disease.

Today, the Scotsman's report on Sudan is headed "DARFUR FACING FOOD CRISIS ON A SCALE NEVER SEEN BEFORE"

If we, who have so much in the West, cannot help the people of Darfur who are being killed off by their own government, what possible help can other people in countries like Uganda, Congo etc., hope for? Surely by now, they must be losing all hope. I know I am.

The U.S. and U.K. have given hundreds of millions of dollars for Darfur. Other countries around the world have given generously. But it seems that the whole of one years contribution for Darfur so far, is the equivalent of what is being spent on Iraq every 1 - 2 days.

(1) Why is the UN not getting the money it is asking for to help Darfur?

Are the UN crying wolf and don't really need the money for Darfur? Are they and the aid agencies using ploys and hyping the crisis every two months to fundraise? Whenever news breaks through on how the situation in Darfur is worsening, it seems to coincide with fundraising initiatives by aid agencies from around the world - including the U.N.

(2) Why does the U.N. not name and shame the countries who have pledged but are not paying? Is the UK one of those countries?

(3) Why is the African Union saying the reason for not sending the 300 Rwandan troops into Darfur last weekend was due to lack of funding?

Maybe the reason for the delay in AU troops getting into Darfur is that nobody is providing back up to the African Union quickly enough. The only explanation I can think of is that countries are saying to the media they are doing this, that and the other, but in reality they are not paying their pledges on time. It is vital that the African Union do not fail. The African Union is a ray of hope for Africa. If it is seen to be failing, it will lose credibility. It must succeed in Sudan.

(4) Why is China that sits on the UN Security Council, with its huge oil interests in Sudan, getting away with not being a major donor? Can't the UK ask them to kindly pay for or send a whole load of food and aid - and trucks and helicopters to distribute the food - and 70,000 police to provide safe passage for the aid?

China has oil operations in the vicinity of Darfur and staff of 10,000 in Sudan. Can't China chivvy up the Asian countries to help? It would sure make them look good in the worlds eyes. China needs some good PR - especially when it comes to humanitarian issues.

And what about India, Pakistan, Brazil, Algeria ... and all those within the 191 member states under the UN umbrella.

(5) Why is the U.S. who makes a big deal about declaring genocide in Darfur, being so stingy (and slow) in only two military planes to transport the AU troops into Darfur? (note this was just announced a few days ago - after the AU troops were supposed to leave at the weekend - if they were set to leave, who was transporting them to Darfur? I thought Norway and Australia and Canada were going to help. Who is co-ordinating the Wests efforts with the AU? Sounds like a shambles.

The U.K. paid for the last batch of Nigerian troops to enter Sudan and funding their rations. You can fit the UK, size wise into the State of Texas.

(6) Why is Sudan still sitting on the UN panel for human rights while it allows its people to die of starvation and disease because it refuses outside help? And why is oil rich Sudan getting away with not paying to feed its own people?

The media are really doing a poor job of investigative journalism. And the politicians aren't telling the story as it really is. What are we the people - the citizens of the world - supposed to think, do and feel?

For all the press releases that are issued out of the U.N. and Washington, I really cannot understand the lack of hard news regarding the desperate shortage of food - and why 85% of those now in the camps who are dying, are losing their lives because of food shortages and disease.

Today, the Scotsman reports that Darfur is facing an "unprecedented food crisis" worse than the famines of recent decades, the Red Cross said yesterday.

I'm lost for words now when it comes to trying to understand why the refugees in the camps are dying unnecessarily, and what will become of them in the camps over the next year or two if they are not getting enough food now because of lack of funding.

Does anybody know what is really going on and what we can do to help? Communications technology is not really empowering us to get our voices heard, it's just forcing us into becoming helpless passive voyeurs. I feel sad. I have given my time, energy and money and contacted my MP. Bottom line is, nothing seems to have made any real difference. I am exhausted and disillusioned with the whole political and UN process - and lack of news and accountability. At least here at Clive's blog I feel there is somewhere to go and have a vent that at least has a good chance of being heard. Thanks.

Here is link to the Scotsman report:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=121749200

Darfur facing food crisis 'on a scale never seen before'

Does anyone know what is really going on with the U.N.'s World Food Program and US Aid? I've yet to see a report in mainstream media about the aid situation and how it works.

The U.S. and U.K. have given hundreds of millions of dollars for Darfur. Other countries around the world have given generously. I know I have banged on about this for nearly six months now.

Do the aid agencies use ploys every two months to fundraise? Whenever news breaks through on how bad the situation is in Darfur, it seems to coincide with fundraising initiatives by aid agencies from around the world - including the U.N.

Even the African Union are saying the reason for not sending the 300 Rwandan troops to Darfur last weekend was due to lack of funding. The only explanation I can think of is that countries are saying to the media they are doing this, that and the other, but in reality they are not paying their pledges on time.

And why is the U.S. who make a big deal about declaring genocide in Darfur, are being so stingy sending only two military planes to transport the AU troops into Darfur? The U.K. paid for the last batch of Nigerian troops to enter Sudan and funding their rations. Maybe the reason for the delay in AU troops getting into Darfur is that nobody is providing fast enough back up to the African Union. Who knows. The media are really doing a poor job of investigative journalism.

For all the press releases that are issued out of the U.N. and Washington, I really cannot understand the lack of hard news regarding the desperate shortage of food - and why 85% of those in the camps who are dying, are losing their lives because of food shortages and disease.

It will be interesting to see what comes of the talks in Libya between Col Gadaffi and the Darfur rebel groups. He is meeting with them separately for them to air their views. More later. Peace talks are key to getting the violence stopped and aid flowing. Aid workers need unimpeded access to all areas. Aid trucks and food are in danger of being attacked and looted. More on this later.

Today, the Scotsman reports that Darfur is facing an "unprecedented food crisis" worse than the famines of recent decades, the Red Cross said yesterday. Here is an excerpt from the report:

The warning was based on a study of food supplies in 20 selected villages across the huge region, where villagers - those who have not taken refuge in camps - reported they had more trouble coping than in earlier severe droughts.

"Most rural communities in north, west and south Darfur are facing an unprecedented food crisis, worse even than the famines they faced in the Eighties and Nineties," the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said in a statement. "Insecurity is the root cause of the collapse of agriculture and trade in Darfur," it added.

A spate of incidents over the past ten days near the West Darfur capital of El Geneina highlighted dangers for the displaced and aid agencies, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said yesterday.

An UNHCR team was stopped at gunpoint by police last week, days after two staff of Save the Children were killed by an anti-tank mine in North Darfur, spokesman Ron Redmond said.

"This gives some indication of the problems we are facing in just trying to provide some kind of protection presence in Darfur. We feel the more international staff on the ground who can go to these places - the more eyes and ears from the international community - the better for everybody," he said.

Mustafa Osman Ismail, the Sudanese foreign minister, said talks between Darfur tribal leaders, which include rebel group representatives, were due to begin in Libya yesterday to try to help restore stability in the troubled region.

US has made two military transport planes available to aid African peacekeeping forces heading for Sudan.

The planes will help take in fresh troops, part of a 4,500-soldier contingent to be deployed to Darfur by the African Union by the end of next month.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1217492004

Summit in Tripoli closed with emphasis on getting aid to the refugees - Sudan hints at Darfur power share - JEM says Libya can play a very vital role

The BBC's correspondent in Tripoli, Mike Donkin, filed a report on October 18, saying the summit meeting in Tripoli has, on the face of it, produced real signs of movement to end the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.

A Sudanese government delegate said that the summit had agreed that granting a federal Sudan might offer the best hope for a solution. That way the Darfur region would have its own governor and parliament, he notes.

No matter how many news reports I read re Darfur, it is still unclear what is going on with aid. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid by the US and UK but reports quote the U.N. as saying that since March 70,000 have died as a result of Darfur's civil war - many starving or succumbing to illness.

UN Security Council resolutions call on Khartoum to stop the violence so that humanitarian aid can reach those who need it, and threaten sanctions against Sudan as a way of solving the crisis. How will imposing no fly zones and sanctions feed and get flow of aid to the refugees? If there is an arms embargo - cheap arms and stuff are still bound to get in to Sudan via unethical countries.

Peace talks are the key -- it is absolutely crucial that the peace talks succeed. They start again in a few days time on Oct 21.

Summit bringing together leaders from Nigeria, Egypt, Chad and Sudan was chaired and hosted in Tripoli by Col Muammar Gaddafi of Libya

Sudan's government says it is ready to consider giving the crisis-stricken Darfur region its own federal state, following talks with African leaders.

Egyptian presidential spokesman Maged Abdel Fattah said "we should all try to help Sudan to implement its obligations in accordance with resolutions" and warned against "putting pressure on Sudan or threatening [it] with sanctions".

The summit also gave its backing to peace talks between Khartoum and rebels based in Darfur, which are due to resume on 21 October.

Journalists were barred from the meeting, which was convened and chaired by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, clad in brightly-coloured African robes.

Speaking before the summit, Libyan Foreign Minister Abdul Rahman Sharkum told the BBC: "These five leaders are helping the efforts of the African Union."

"We are going to accelerate and to facilitate the process of peace and the negotiation between all sides and also to find a way for more troops, African troops to come to Darfur on the ground."

The sending of the African Union troops to Darfur has been delayed by a lack of funds

Preparations to house the 300 Rwandan soldiers due to arrive in Darfur on Sunday were not made on time, Rwandan Foreign Minister Charles Muligande told the Associated Press news agency. The African Union hopes to have a 4,500-strong force in place by the end of November. It already has about 300 unarmed Nigerian and Rwandan troops in place.

Gaddafi to hear views of Darfur rebel groups separately - JEM say Libya can play vital role but doubt Egypt and Chad

Mr Gaddafi is due to meet two rebel groups separately to hear their views on Darfur. "We think Libya can play a very vital role," said Tag el-Din Bashir Nyam, a member of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). "[He] wants to listen directly to us so he can take some kind of an initiative."

But JEM seemed more sceptical about the role of other summit leaders. "Egypt and Chad want Libya to pressure Darfur rebels to avoid an internationalisation of the conflict and force them to sign agreement that will not meet their aspirations," an official told AFP news agency.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3751554.stm
BBC news Sudan's Darfur 'safer than Iraq'

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan set up a commission to determine whether genocide has taken place in the Darfur region of Sudan. What do you think?

Jim Moore's recent post at Passion of the Present asks this:

Question: Last week, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan set up a commission to determine whether genocide has taken place in the Darfur region of Sudan. What do you think?

Copied here below, is my response, emailed to Jim a few days before he proposed in his Journal that the U.S. bomb Sudan's air force and "Janjaweed" camps - with the aim of exterminating as many people in those camps as possible.

My email was not intended as a post, and so is not as complete as I'd like, but as a co-author of Passion of the Present, I feel a need to record, in my own space, my take on things as they can't be aired at Passion of the Present.

Jim is exhorting readers of his Journal to be more aggressive and creative. I'd like to see much more focus and pressure put on Sudan's peace talks. The talks are key to a united Sudan and imho are the quickest and safest route to stopping the violence, whilst at the same time, keeping the flow of aid going into Sudan. If Sudan is attacked or any troops go in without permission, Khartoum is bound to deny access to newcomers and for could dismiss all aid workers from the country.

As an aside, there is a big to do going on here in Britain. American soldiers in Iraq have disobeyed U.S. orders to drive fuel and supplies to their buddies on the front line - saying it was too dangerous - nevermind about those stuck in the thick of things without supplies and fuel.

Now, because the British are more respected and accepted by the people in Iraq, the U.S. are asking the UK for British forces and support in Iraq and for them to come under U.S. command. At the same time, some loud voices in America are pushing for the U.S. to attack and bomb Sudan.

If the Americans can't hack it in Baghdad they wouldn't last five minutes in the heat and sand of Africa surrounded by warring militia and saber rattling bedouins.

I think the UN's setting up of a commission to determine whether genocide has taken place in the Darfur region of Sudan:

(1) acts as a three-month long stick, instead of a one-month long stick, with which to beat the regime in Khartoum into action. By extending the psychological pressure, it increases, not delays, the pressure and keeps access open for aid workers and the flow of aid. It buys another three months for psychological warfare which - if it works - will succeed within a shorter space of time than military intervention. U.S. or European military intervention without permission from Khartoum could escalate and turn into a bloodbath that could last for years, halt the peace talks, fragment Sudan, stop aid from getting through and annihilate the very people the process aimed to help.

(2) genocide could have been officially declared five months ago but would have made the U.S. and other countries morally bound to intervene militarily with troops and identify, arrest and prosecute the perpetrators. By keeping diplomatic channels and lines of communication open, aid has a good chance of getting through to those most in need; provides pressure to keep peace talks going; allows international community to press for AU troops and expanded mandate; puts pressure on countries who are not paying their contributions pledged; gives international community time to gather more evidence of war crimes that will hold up in court if - and when - genocide is officially declared.

(3) in order to enter a country without its permission, you need a strong case and concrete evidence. How does one provide a cast iron case against a country where access is severely restricted? Seems impossible. When genocide is first suspected, evidence can only be gathered by intelligence services and civilians on the ground. Others on the ground may be there illegally. Aid workers may provide flimsy evidence for fear of losing their neutrality and confidence of those who need the most help, being accused of taking sides, and being denied access to those who are most in need.

Others on the ground, for example aid suppliers and distributers, might have vested interests and their perspectives may be biased. Citizens themselves could be biased and prejudiced against their attackers for all manner of reasons, or more likely be in such fear they feel too intimidated to speak out and provide evidence.

When access into a country is denied (such as Iraq and Sudan) diplomatic pressure allows observers and inspectors to legally enter a country - enabling them to look for hard evidence that will stand up in court. When a country has something hide it's like looking for a needle in a haystack - only those leading a country know where the needle is and have plenty of warning via U.N. resolutions to cover up. Suspecting - and then setting out to prove - crimes against humanity is painfully slow, laborious and time consuming, causing years of delay - that probably at this time (the way U.N. works) can't be helped and is what separates democracies from dictatorships.

Here in the West if security forces try to search a suspected criminal's home for evidence without a warrant, the evidence won't stand up in court. People who are up to no good learn how to duck, dive and survive. No trick is too low or too dirty - they see it as survival and a game where they can outwit those pose a threat.

The day the U.S. or U.N. is really forced to send in its troops -- against the will of the regime in Khartoum -- is the day genocide will be officially declared in order enter Sudan without permission. That day may never come -- which could mean genocide might not ever be officially declared.

My question is: at what point does a country lose its right to handle its own affairs and refuse help from the outside world?

At what point can security forces storm in onto private land and break down the front door of a suspected drugs baron? My guess is they'd have to watch and monitor the life and dealings of the drugs baron - and everyone else involved in the drug dealing, from growers to distributors - and gather solid evidence with which to make an arrest and succeed in stopping the drug baron's dealings. People who are suspected of crimes have rights too.

After years of weapons inspections in Iraq, countless numbers of UN resolutions against Iraq and all the while Saddam Hussein thumbing his nose at the West -- citizens of the world insisted evidence has to be concrete and documentation crystal clear. Voiciferous voters, with the aid of the media, have forced governments to make cast iron cases for intervening militarily into another country. These voters seem to be saying it is up to each country to do as it wishes in its own territory - including countries like Iraq and Sudan, regardless of the atrocities committed by genocidal dictators.

As for Darfur, by the time a cast iron case is made, the genocide will be over. And as in the case of Iraq, enough time was bought by Saddam Husseins years of stalling for WMD to be shipped out of the country and sold.

The whole U.N. process allows socio path dictators to survive - with some ending up being seen as the victims, while those who took the trouble and shouldered huge expense in terms of lives sacrificed and resources spent - to help stop atrocities from occurring - are seen, and accused of, as being the villains. It's a mad world.

Patrick Hall's Information Campaign and "Sudan Project" on Wikipedia

Patrick Hall, at the Horn of Africa weblog, says Wikipedia seems to be taking on a lot of importance on the web.

My sense of Wikipedia is that it's brilliant. I think it's a wonderful idea of Patrick's to record what has been going on in the Sudan, on Wikipedia. It is a project other bloggers might want to visit and get involved with.

There may be bloggers out there who are not able to take action to help the people suffering in Sudan. Many bloggers are shy, quiet and introverted. Wikipedia could be just the thing for some bloggers who are interested in documenting the history of the atrocities in Sudan and Darfur.

Wikipedia is special because it is a piece of work created voluntarily - a labour of love - an encyclopedia - by the citizens of the world. Maybe one day readers from Africa and Asia etc., will be able to press a button and see a wikipedia page translated into their own language.

If I, or anyone I knew, were one of the two million slaughtered in the Sudan, I would want someone to document the facts of what really went on - for future generations to read and learn - so deaths do not go unnoticed. It's sad to think of people lost and forgotten in unmarked mass graves.

Patrick writes at Wikipedia under the username Babbage. He has recently posted a little project called "Sudan Project" -
here's what the page contains. Bless you Patrick. Hope you keep us updated on your work at Wikipedia.

Note - Joi Ito's Web recently published a post about Wikepedia. If I find the post, I'll link it here later on.

How can we name the Darfur crisis in Sudan? Preliminary thoughts on Darfur

Warm thanks to Owukori for pointing to How can we name the Darfur crisis? by Mahmood Mamdani.

Owukori says Mahmood Mamdani's explanation and analysis of the Darfur crisis is excellent and one of the best pieces she has read. I agree, it's the best piece I have read too.

I'd like to read the report again and write more commentary on it here but am unable to right now and want to get this posted up here without further delay.

Note, Jim Moore has deleted the words "non-partisan" from the title banner of Passion of the Present and so I feel if I, as a co-author, publish a post at the Passion that points to Mahmood's report, I'd be interrupting something. (The war drums are beating over at Harvard and Jim is going ballistic in Boston. America's presidential election is just a few weeks away. Senator John Kerry's supporters are leaving no stone unturned looking for and providing ways to make him say things that might appeal to voters. Senator Kerry is Governor of Mass., and married to Heinz ketchup heiress. Harvard is in Boston, Mass. Join up the dots - and read Second Superpower campaigns for Kerry).

The following is a copy in full of Mahmood Mamdani's piece that reflects my view on the Darfur crisis. I completely agree with the report's proposed "solution" and "what we should do" - and love the line that says "we should organize in support of a culture of peace, of a rule of law and of a system of political accountability".

Mahmood Mamdani is Herbert Lehman Professor of Government and Director, Institute of African Studies, at University of Columbia, New York.

How can we name the Darfur crisis? Preliminary thoughts on Darfur

The US Congress, and now Secretary of State Colin Powell, claim that genocide has occurred in Darfur. The European Union says it is not genocide. And so does the African Union.

Nigerian President Obasanjo, also the current Chair of the African Union, told a press conference at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on September 23: "Before you can say that this is genocide or ethnic cleansing, we will have to have a definite decision and plan and program of a government to wipe out a particular group of people, then we will be talking about genocide, ethnic cleansing. What we know is not that. What we know is that there was an uprising, rebellion, and the government armed another group of people to stop that rebellion. That's what we know. That does not amount to genocide from our own reckoning. It amounts to of course conflict. It amounts to violence."

Is Darfur genocide that has happened and must be punished? Or, is it genocide that could happen and must be prevented? I will argue the latter.

Sudan is today the site of two contradictory processes. The first is the Naivasha peace process between the SPLA and the Government of Sudan, whose promise is an end to Africa's longest festering civil war. The second is the armed confrontation between an insurgency and anti-government militias in Darfur. There is need to think of the south and the west as different aspects of a connected process. I will argue that this reflection should be guided by a central objective: to reinforce the peace process and to demilitarize the conflict in Darfur.

Understanding Darfur Conflict Politically

The peace process in the South has split both sides to the conflict. Tensions within the ruling circles in Khartoum and within the opposition SPLA have given rise to two anti-government militias. The Justice and Equality Movement has historical links to the Islamist regime, and the SLA to the southern guerrilla movement.

The Justice and Equality Movement organized as part of the Hassan Turabi faction of the Islamists. Darfur, historically the mainstay of the Mahdist movement, was Turabi's major claim to political success in the last decade. When the Khartoum coalition - between the army officers led by Bashir and the Islamist political movement under Turabi - split, the Darfur Islamists fell out with both sides. JEM was organized in Khartoum as part of an agenda for regaining power. It has a more localized and multi-ethnic presence in Darfur and has been home to many who have advocated an 'African Islam'.

The SLA is linked to SPLA, which first tried to expand the southern-based armed movement to Darfur in 1990, but failed. The radical leadership of that thrust was decapitated in a government assault. Not surprisingly, the new leadership of SLA has little political experience.

The present conflict began when the SLA mounted an ambitious and successful assault on El Fashar airport on April 25, 2003, on a scale larger than most encounters in the southern civil war.

The government in Khartoum is also divided, between those who pushed the peace process, and those who believe too much was conceded in the Naivasha talks. This opposition, the security cabal in Khartoum, responded by arming and unleashing several militia, known as the Janjawid. The result is a spiral of state-sponsored violence and indiscriminate spread of weaponry.

In sum, all those opposed to the peace process in the south have moved to fight in Darfur, even if on opposing sides. The Darfur conflict has many layers; the most recent but the most explosive is that it is the continuation of the southern conflict in the west.

De-demonize Adversaries

For anyone reading the press today, the atrocities in Sudan are synonymous with a demonic presence, the Janjawid, the spearhead of an 'Arab' assault on 'Africans.' The problem with the public discussion of Darfur and Sudan is not simply that we know little; it is also the representation of what we do know. To understand the problem with how known facts are being represented, I suggest we face three facts.

First, as a proxy of those in power in Khartoum, the Janjawid are not exceptional. They reflect a broad African trend. Proxy war spread within the continent with the formation of Renamo by the Rhodesian and the South African security cabal in the early 1980s. Other examples in the East African region include the Lord's Redemption Army in northern Uganda, the Hema and Lendu militias in Itori in eastern Congo and, of course, the Hutu militia in post-genocide Rwanda. Like the Janjawid, all these combine different degrees of autonomy on the ground with proxy connections above ground.

Second, all parties involved in the Darfur conflict - whether they are referred to as 'Arab' or as 'African' - are equally indigenous and equally black. All are Muslims and all are local. To see how the corporate media and some of the charity-dependent international NGOs consistently racialize representations, we need to distinguish between different kinds of identities.

Let us begin by distinguishing between three different meanings of Arab: ethnic, cultural and political. In the ethnic sense, there are few Arabs worth speaking of in Darfur, and a very tiny percent in Sudan. In the cultural sense, Arab refers to those who have come to speak Arabic as a home language and, sometimes, to those who are nomadic in lifestyle. In this sense, many have become Arabs. From the cultural point of view, one can be both African and Arab, in other words, an African who speaks Arabic, which is what the 'Arabs' of Darfur are. For those given to thinking of identity in racial terms, it may be better to think of this population as 'Arabized' rather than 'Arab.'

Then there is Arab in the political sense. This refers to a political identity called 'Arab' that the ruling group in Khartoum has promoted at different points as the identity of power and of the Sudanese nation. As a political identity, Arab is relatively new to Darfur. Darfur was home to the Mahdist movement whose troops defeated the British and slayed General Gordon a century ago. Darfur then became the base of the party organized around the Sufi order, the Ansar. This party, called the Umma Party, is currently led by the grandson of the Mahdi, Sadiq al-Mahdi. The major change in the political map of Darfur over the past decade was the growth of the Islamist movement, led by Hassan Turabi. Politically, Darfur became 'Islamist' rather than 'Arab.'

Like Arab, Islam too needs to be understood not just as a cultural (and religious) identity but also as a political one, thus distinguishing the broad category of believers called Muslims from political activists called Islamists. Historically, Islam as a political identity in the Sudan has been associated with political parties based on Sufi orders, mainly the Umma Party based on the Ansar and the DUP based on the Khatamiyya. In sharp contrast to the strongly Sudanese identity of these 'sectarian' and 'traditional' parties is the militant, modernist and internationalist orientation of the type of political Islam championed by Hassan Turabi and organized as the National Islamic Front. Not only in its predominantly urban social base but also in its methods of organization, the NIF was poles apart from 'traditional' political Islam, and in fact consciously emulated the Communist Party. Unlike the 'traditional' parties which were mass-based and hoped to come to power through elections, the NIF - like the CP - was a cadre-based vanguard party which hoped to take power in alliance with a faction in the army. The fulfillment of this agenda was the 1989 coup which brought Turabi's NIF into power in alliance with the Bashir faction in the army.

As a political identity, 'African' is even more recent than 'Arab' in Darfur. I have referred to an attempt by SPLA in 1990 to confront the power in Khartoum as 'Arab' and to rally the opposition under the banner of 'African.' Both the insurgency that began 18 months ago and the government's response to it are evidence of the crisis of the Islamist regime and the government's retreat to a narrower political identity, 'Arab.'

Third, both the anti- and the pro-government militia have outside sponsors, but they cannot just be dismissed as external creations. The Sudan government organized local militias in Darfur in 1990, using them both to fight the SPLA in the south and to contain the expansion of the southern rebellion to the west. The militias are not monolithic and they are not centrally controlled. When the Islamists split in 1999 between the Turabi and the Bashir groups, many of the Darfur militia were purged. Those who were not, like the Berti, retained a measure of local support. This is why it is wrong to think of the Janjawid as a single organization under a unified command.

Does that mean that we cannot hold the Sudan government responsible for the atrocities committed by Janjawid militias that it continues to supply? No, it does not. We must hold the patron responsible for the actions of the proxy. At the same time, we need to realize that it may be easier to supply than to disband local militias. Those who start and feed fires should be held responsible for doing so; but let us not forget that it may be easier to start a fire than to put it out.

The fight between the militias on both sides and the violence unleashed against the unarmed population has been waged with exceptional cruelty. One reason may be that the initiative has passed from the communities on the ground to those contending for power. Another may be the low value on life placed by the security cabal in Khartoum and by those in the opposition who want power at any cost.

What is the solution?

I suggest a three-pronged process in the Sudan. The priority must be to complete the Naivasha peace process and change the character of the government in Khartoum. Second, whatever the level of civilian support enjoyed by militias, it would be a mistake to tarnish the communities with the sins of the particular militia they support. On the contrary, every effort should be made to neutralize or re-organize the militia and stabilize communities in Darfur through local initiatives. This means both a civic conference of all communities - both those identified as Arab and those as African - and reorganized civil defense forces of all communities. This may need to be done under the protective and supervisory umbrella of an African Union policing force. Finally, to build on the Naivasha process by bringing into it all those previously excluded. To do so will require creating the conditions for a reorganized civil administration in Darfur.

To build confidence among all parties, but particularly among those demonized as 'Arab', we need to use the same standard for all. To make the point, let us first look at the African region. The U.N. estimates that some 30 to 50,000 people have been killed in Darfur and another 1.4 million or so have been made homeless. The figure for the dead in Congo over the last few years is over 4 million. Many have died at the hands of ethnic Hema or Lendu militias. These are Janjawid-type militias known to have functioned as proxies for neighboring states. In the northern Ugandan districts of Acholiland, over 80% of the population has been interned by the government, given substandard rations and nominal security, thus left open to gradual premeditated starvation and periodic kidnapping by another militia, the Lord's Redemption Army (LRA). When the U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, flew to Khartoum recently, I was in Kampala. The comment I heard all around was: Why didn't he stop here? And why not in Kigali? And Kinshasa? Should we not apply the same standards to the governments in Kampala and Kigali and elsewhere as we do to the government in Khartoum, even if Kampala and Kigali are America's allies in its global 'war on terror'?

Internationally, there is the daunting example of Iraq. Before the American invasion, Iraq went through an era of U.N. sanctions, which were kept in place for a decade by the US and Britain. The effect of the sanctions came to light when UNICEF carried out a child mortality survey in 1999 at the initiative of Canada and Brazil. Richard Garfield, professor of Clinical International Nursing at Columbia University and chair of the Human Rights Committee of the American Public Health Association calculated 'on a conservative estimate' that there had been 300,000 'excess deaths' of children under 5 in Iraq during the sanctions. But the sanctions continued. Today, the US does not even count the number of Iraqi dead, and the U.N. has made no attempt to estimate them. Iraq is not history. It continues to bleed.

This backdrop, regional and international, should prompt us to ask at least one question: Does the label 'worst humanitarian crisis' tell us more about Darfur or about those labeling and the politics of labeling? Are we to return to a Cold War-type era in which America's allies can commit atrocities with impunity while its adversaries are demagogically held accountable to an international standard of human rights?

Some argue that international alignment on the Darfur crisis is dictated by the political economy of oil. To the extent this is true, let us not forget that oil influences both those (such as China) who would like continued access to Sudan's oil and those (such as USA) who covet that access. But for those who do strategic thinking, the more important reason may be political. For official America, Darfur is a strategic opportunity to draw Africa into the global 'war on terror' by sharply drawing lines that demarcate 'Arab' against 'African,' just as for the crumbling regime in Khartoum this very fact presents a last opportunity to downplay its own responsibilities and call for assistance from those who oppose official America's 'war on terror.'

What Should We Do?

First of all, we the civilians - and I address Africans and Americans in particular - should work against a military solution. We should work against a US intervention, whether direct or by proxy, and however disguised - as humanitarian or whatever. We should work against punitive sanctions. The lesson of Iraq sanctions is that you target individuals, not governments. Sanctions feed into a culture of terror, of collective punishment. Its victims are seldom its target. Both military intervention and sanctions are undesirable and ineffective.

Second, we should organize in support of a culture of peace, of a rule of law and of a system of political accountability. Of particular importance is to recognize that the international community has created an institution called the International Criminal Court to try individuals for the most heinous crimes, such as genocide, war crimes and systematic rights abuses. The US has not only refused to ratify the treaty setting up the ICC, it has gone to all lengths to sabotage it. For Americans, it is important to get their government to join the ICC. The simple fact is that you can only claim the moral right to hold others accountable to a set of standards if you are willing to be held accountable to the same standards.

Finally, there is need to beware of groups who want a simple and comprehensive explanation, even if it is misleading; who demand dramatic action, even if it backfires; who have so come to depend on crisis that they risk unwittingly aggravating existing crisis. Often, they use the call for urgent action to silence any debate as a luxury. And yet, responsible action needs to be informed.

For the African Union, Darfur is both an opportunity and a test. The opportunity is to build on the global concern over a humanitarian disaster in Darfur to set a humanitarian standard that must be observed by all, including America's allies in Africa. And the test is to defend African sovereignty in the face of official America's global 'war on terror.' On both counts, the first priority must be to stop the war and push the peace process.

[via Black Looks. Courtesy Pambazuka News. Copyright: Mahmood Mamdani. Reproduced at Pambazuka News with the permission of the author]