Sudan: Oil and Darfur - India signed new pipeline deal - France interested in Uranium and has drilling rights

The following is a copy of Jim Moore's post dated July 12, 2004, at the Passion. As I have needed to refer to the links and map quite often, I am posting them here for ease of reference.

Oil and Darfur, from Ingrid Jones

Ingrid Jones has done a fascinating and important piece of investigative reporting on the role of oil in the Darfur genocide. The struggle over resources is not about cattle and water, farmer and herder--but about who will control the next big reserve of oil. An excerpt:



"Perhaps the GoS knew all along that there was oil in Darfur. And they presumed (wrongly) we in the Western world wouldn't notice that black Africans were being eliminated to make way for the Arabisation of Sudan. The GoS are keen on getting the Peace Accord signed and sealed because it will legitimise their standing (they're an unelected dictatorship that stole power through a coup) and it will help pave the way for doing deals with Asian oil companies, which may in turn help attract back the big players (ie British Petroleum) that pulled out of Sudan because of human rights issues."

A must read! The graphic alone is worth the whole price of a click. Thanks Ingrid. BTW, read Ingrid every day for in-depth analysis of various aspects of the Sudan genocide, from oil economics to why weren't the aid agencies prepared (something Eric Reeves raised at the Harvard discussion, as well)?
- - -

Further reading:

ME AND OPHELIA ARAB SOURCES SAY OIL DISCOVERED IN DARFUR - Sudan and India sign new pipeline deal

Sudan: OIL AND MINERAL RICHES IN DARFUR Uranium discovered in Hofrat Al Nihas: France is interested in Uranium and has drilling rights in Sudan

Sudan: "OIL, CHINA AND GENOCIDE IN SUDAN AND SOUTH DARFUR: USA and Sudan Peace Act -- And where are 4 million Darfuris?"

Sudan calls for international help to eliminate landmines - Sudan's Land Act could Thwart Darfurians' return

Here below is a copy of a report by China news highlighting an interesting plea by the Sudanese government on Thursday.

What's unusual too is that it's the longest report I've seen at China News online. I am copying it here in full. It is dated December 2, 2004 and contains a variety of useful snippets and information.

Also, note to self: it's the second time this week I've seen mention of new reasons that could delay the return of the IDPs to their homes. A few days ago, Voice of America published a piece titled "Sudan's Land Act could Thwart Darfurians' return" - see copy of report here below.

Here's the report by China News titled "Sudan calls for international help to eliminate landmines." [Update: German news agency covered the story UN Agency appeals for funds to de-mine Sudan roads on Dec 4, 2004]

Khartoum appealed to the international community to provide the mine-affected country with financial assistance to eradicate landmines and help the victims.

Addressing the ongoing international meeting on landmines in the Kenyan capital Nairobi, Sudan's Minister for Humanitarian Affairs Ibrahim Mahmoud Hamid described landmines as "our greatest problem."

"We appeal to the international community to assist Sudan to remove this terrible threat to the lives of peoples and much needed recovery and development in this country," Hamid said.

"We think landmines will be the biggest challenge facing us after the signing of the peace protocol. The continued support of the UN and the international community to mine action in Sudan is sincerely appreciated," he added.

The minister told delegates attending the Nairobi Summit on Mine-Free World clearing landmines in the Africa's largest countrywould sharply cut the cost of humanitarian aid by making road transport possible and allowing the return of refugees.

He said with anticipated peace, the return of more than 500,000 refugees will be impossible until mines are cleared, noting efforts aimed at eradicating the deadly weapons need to be strengthened.

"With imminent comprehensive peace agreement and a large numbers of refugees and IDPs (internally displaced persons) expected to return to their communities of origin and the influx has already started by nearly 500,000 returnees, therefore the momentum of the mine action program needs to increase significantly," Hamid told the delegates.

He said a six-year mine action strategy sealed in Nairobi in August between Khartoum and southern rebels has now allowed the United Nations to begin work in southern Sudan, clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance.

"This will allow displaced people to return home, open up routes for business and aid deliveries, and allow the expansion of farm land," he said.

He said there are around 10,000 landmine victims in Sudan at present, many with missing limbs. "Help for these people is very important to us,'' said the minister.

Sudan ratified the Mine Ban Treaty last year and the main southern rebel group, Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) has signed a deed of commitment, which essentially make it a non-state actor.

The Khartoum government and the SPLM/A have fought for the past 21 years, littering the massive region with mines and unexploded weapons. Overall, the United Nations Mine Action Service believes 800,000 sq. km in 21 of Sudan's 26 states are affected.

The SPLM/A and the Sudanese government two weeks ago pledged to finalize a peace accord that has dragged for several years by the end of this year, after pressure from an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council in Nairobi.

"We are expecting peace before the end of this year and this will strengthen efforts towards eliminating landmines," he noted.

The UN World Food Program (WFP) also appealed for urgent funding for de-mining of key transport routes in southern Sudan to help people return after decades of war, and connect the region to northern Sudan and neighboring countries.

In a news release issued Thursday, WFP said it faced an immediate shortfall of 4.8 million US dollars for the first phase and would need 64 million for a special operation in 2005.

The Nairobi Summit is reviewing progress made toward a mine-free world over the past five years and preparing an action plan for the future.

The Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty, also known as the Ottawa Convention, entered into force in March 1999 and prohibits the manufacture, trade and use of antipersonnel landmines. It also obliges countries to destroy stockpiles and clear their own mined territory.

The summit is expected to come up with two documents. One of them will be a program of action on how the goals of the convention are to be achieved, while the second one will be a political declaration by parties reaffirming their commitment to the convention.
- - -

Sudan's Land Act could Thwart Darfurians' return

Months ago, I wrote a post for my main blog about Oil in Darfur. I still can't shake the feeling that land in Sudan is being cleared by the government to make way for oil exploration, drilling and the laying of an oil pipeline through Darfur. There have been rumours of an oil pipeline being planned for Darfur.

This could be one of the many reasons why the black Africans in Darfur are being decimated: to crush the rebellion and not lose power. Here's an interesting twist reported yesterday by Raymond Thibodeaux in VOA news:

Unlike in much of Sudan, people in the western Darfur region have for centuries owned and distributed land according to their own tribal customs. But a little-known land act, if imposed on Darfur, could have serious consequences for Darfurians displaced by the fighting in western Sudan.

Sudan's 1984 Civil Transaction land act could keep nearly two million people who fled their villages and farms in the wake of atrocities in western Sudan from reclaiming their ancestral homelands. Under the Sudanese law, people who abandon their property for one year forfeit their right to own it. The land can then be occupied by tenants who could claim ownership after living on it for 10 consecutive years.

As hundreds of thousands of Darfurians near their first year away from their villages, United Nations observers and human rights groups are pressuring Sudan's government to suspend the law. Land expropriation, they say, could become one of the most explosive issues in Darfur's 22-month conflict.

Daniel Lewis is head of the post-conflict section for the U.N.'s human settlement program. He has been researching Sudan's land tenure laws, and speaks by telephone from the U.N. regional headquarters in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi.

"Anytime there is displacement, whether it's Darfur or anywhere else, there is rarely a vacuum," said Mr. Lewis. "In other words, when they are displaced, someone else moves in and asserts a certain amount of control over the property that's been, in their minds, abandoned. The more prolonged the displacement, the deeper entrenched are the new occupants. Therefore, the more difficult and potentially volatile the process of reacquisition or reoccupation of land and property."

In Darfur's case, it is mainly Arab herders who are poised to take over land traditionally owned by black African tribes, including that of the Fur, the region's largest tribe and the tribe for which this dar, or homeland, is named. Some analysts say Arab tribes, driven southward in recent decades by the creep of the Saharan Desert and increasingly prolonged droughts, have the backing of Sudan's government and its allied Arab militias who, to help put down a rebel uprising, have carried out a campaign of violence that has claimed the lives of up to 70,000 people.

So far, Sudan's top officials differ on whether to implement the controversial land law in Darfur or temporarily suspend it so people displaced by the conflict can return home, especially now with the prospect of a peace deal in coming weeks between the Khartoum government and Darfur's two rebel groups.

Hussain Ibrahim Karshoum, a lawyer who heads the government's Humanitarian Affairs Commission in Nyala, where he oversees some of the region's largest refugee camps, says the longer families from Darfur stay in the camps, the more difficult it will be for them to return to their homelands.

"It's true. But the Sudanese laws are very flexible, they adopt the customs and traditions of the people," he said. "I just suggest that they have to make a very special enactment for the region - concerning the land. They need it so."

Several U.N. agencies and aid groups have called for a meeting on this issue later this month, partly to discuss ways to educate Darfurians in the refugee camps on this land act, which most of them have never heard of.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-12-01-voa63.cfm

African Union President believes the real issue of Darfur is governance

Indian blogger Jitendra is a software engineer who works in Lagos, Nigeria and writes about local issues. Some of his recent posts feature the President of Nigeria who presides over the African Union and owns a private farm that earns him 250,000 USD every month.

Yesterday, hours after a meeting with President Bush at the White House, Mr Obasanjo said, "the government of Sudan can be condemned, but it's not as ... genocide."

When asked in an interview with CNN if he agreed with the call by the administration of US President George W Bush, Obasanjo replied: "Now, what I know of Sudan it does not fit in all respects to that definition."

Mr Obasanjo said he agreed with President Bush there is an acute problem in the region that needs to be addressed, but added "the real issue of Darfur is governance." "It is a political problem which has mushroomed into a military (one) when the rebels took up arms," the Nigerian leader said.
- - -

Note: One would hope Mr Obasanjo could speak out and condemn the government of Sudan for poor governance and speed things along to help the people of Sudan. It is not easy to understand the reasons behind the lack of urgency or why African countries refuse to condemn the government of Sudan. Last week they voted against a UN General Assembly resolution that would have condemned Sudan for human rights violations. The vote must have been music to Khartoum's ears and encouraged them to think they were off the hook.

It's no wonder the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Danforth resigned yesterday. He must be so disillusioned after working hard to help Sudan over the past three years. He's had to handle what's going on in Iraq and Sudan while dealing with a rift between the UN and the US. Some news reports say he was hoping to replace Colin Powell.

An API news report out today explains that in recent months, Ambassador Danforth had been pressing Kofi Annan to send more election staffers to help with the January 30 vote in Iraq. According to the report, "Annan recently raised the ceiling on UN international staff allowed in the country from 35 to 59, but won’t go higher because of escalating violence — to the annoyance of US officials."

Seems Mr Annan can wield power when he wants. Here's hoping he will step down to make way for UN reform. Perhaps the findings of the current investigation into the U.N.'s Oil for Food program will be the catalyst.

No doubt Mr Annan has tried his best and the UN has had some successes. But the UN, even as it stands today, is better than nothing at all. It is all we have and the world is changing fast. The US refuses to pay its subs to the UN on time and channels aid through its USAID organisation rather the UN. It would be good to see a Nobel Prize winning woman in as Secretary-General of the UN and President Bush bringing the US back into the fold while the UN is reformed.

What price the life of an African?

Today, the International Development Select Committee sits in Westminster to consider the UK’s handling of the Darfur crisis. I have left a comment at the blog Clive Soley MP asking for any news of the meeting, and pointed out the following:

The co-founder of the Aegis Trust (which works towards the prevention of genocide) has an article in today's Times saying the committee should ask itself if our response is determined by a view that the lives of black Africans in Sudan merit food but not protection. Here are a few excerpts from the piece, "What price the life of an African?" written by James Smith:

“The Sudanese Government knows it’s off the hook,” a representative of the rebels informs me. “Their officials told me ‘the international community is just not interested in Darfur any more’.”

Blaming the rebels for starting the crisis, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is now doing, is like holding the Jews of Warsaw, who rose up against the Nazis, responsible for the Holocaust.

It takes the death of 3,000 Americans to start a war on terrorism. It takes the killing of nine French peacekeepers to destroy an air force. It is time we knew: how many black Africans must be killed before the UN will even enforce a no-fly zone or arms embargo? A hundred thousand, it seems, is not enough.

Why does the international community drag its feet so slowly and reluctantly over Darfur?
- - -

Further reading:

Nov 30, 2004: Aegis published a new report on the situation in Darfur, titled ‘Blueprint for Genocide’. A summary of this report, ‘Darfur: management of a genocidal crisis’, can be read by clicking here.

Nov 29, 2004: An edited version of the article "What price the life of an African?" was published in The Times, Nov 29. Here is the full story.

Nov 19, 2004: The UN's incremental actions in Western Sudan amount to fiddling while the region burns. Something more radical must be done, but this will require a massive shift in political will. What is to be done? Find out in UN fiddles while Darfur burns.

Long awaited UN plan demands more intervention

Clive Soley MP mentioned in his blog that Kofi Annan's high level panel reports this week on intervention and failed states.

Today, Gavin writes the Iraq war wounded the UN, but it won’t be fatal and points to the BBC's UN plan demands more intervention which gives a run down on the report.

Seems the route the panel is set to advocate is much more interventionist, moving away from the UN's traditional emphasis that it cannot meddle in the internal affairs of a member state.

It says the UN should be reformed to make intervention in failing states easier. The panel, which examined how the UN could respond better to global threats, also calls for the Security Council to be enlarged. It is thought that if the UN shows greater readiness to act, unilateralism by member states would be less likely.

The report will now be considered by the Secretary General and then by the member states. Any institutional changes are likely to come only slowly but the thrust is clear - the UN must reform or lose its role.

Should the United Nations be reformed to make intervention in failing states easier? Of course it should. Reform or be scrapped is my view. The report raises some great points but it's difficult to imagine how the Security Council can be sorted. Why should any country be willing to give up power for the "greater good"?

Note, the panel wants member states to accept a new obligation - a "responsibility to protect" their own citizens. This is interesting, as it would have applied to the dictators in Khartoum over the past 15 years. But, given Khartoum's genocidal policies and total disregard for human rights, so what if there is a new obligation - what are the UN going to do about it? Nothing, if the set up on the security council does not change.

U.N. General Assembly refuse to denounce human rights violations in Sudan

John Fitzgerald writes about the U.N. General Assembly's recent refusal to hold a vote on a resolution denouncing human rights violations in Sudan - and describes the reaction of John Danforth, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. (the “motion to take no action” on the proposed resolution was put forth by South Africa):

“One wonders about the utility of the General Assembly,” Danforth said, “on days like this. One wonders if there can’t be a clear and direct statement on matters of basic principle. Why have this building? What is it all about?” Danforth summed up the Assembly’s attitude to Sudanese refugees as “‘You may be suffering, but we can’t be bothered.’”
- - -

Note, After three years of dealing with Khartoum, Ambassador Danforth must be feeling disillusioned. He was the person who suggested holding the recent UN Security Council meeting in Nairobi in order to demonstrate the importance the Council places on finalising a peace agreement for Sudan. After the meeting, all they came away with was a promise from the warring parties to sign a peace agreement on December 31, 2004 - six weeks away. There was little reference to Darfur. The warring parties started fighting 48 hours later.

I've seen a photo of the meeting. It was a large gathering, like a mini UN General Assembly. Imagine the expense in terms of security, flights, hotels, etc. Everyone attended. And that same week they went on to hold Council meetings in other African countries. Like a Grand Tour. No objections from China or Russia. Must have cost millions. I wonder how many bags of flour could have been bought instead.

Meanwhile, for security reasons, the U.N. World Food Program pulled back from most of Darfur, leaving 300.000 Darfurians cut off from aid.
- - -

Update: A friend has just visited me. We talked about Darfur. The friend (the second one to tell me the same thing) told me I am completely wasting my time and energy blogging about it. And asked me why I was not more concerned for the poor people in this country; why did I need to concern myself over people on the other side of the world; the whole world's problems can't be attended to all at once; and the only people that can help are the people on the ground; apart from going out there myself, there is nothing I can do except make myself feel better that I think I am doing something to help.

I explained as best as I could that we in the blogosphere were trying to raise awareness and put pressure on politicians to act to provide security for the aid effort, provide a safe route for the aid and protect the civilians. The friend said some things cannot be helped straight away, that thousands of people were helping and things were happening politically behind the scenes.

My argument was simply "it is not good enough" - and I asked, if 300,000 people had been killed in the State of Texas or in France - and 10,000 each month continued to die - would more help have been provided? My friend answered yes, because it was closer to home and there would be the political will.

My answer to that was, it doesn't matter whether someone is near or far - if they are suffering the most dismal life on this planet and being killed off by their own government who at the same time refuses all offers of outside help, we must do everything we can to help them, whether they are living next door or in Africa - it doesn't matter - we are all human beings. I pointed out the atrocities in Sudan have happened over the last 20 years. Two million Sudanese have been slaughtered. Genocide in Darfur has been happening for well over 1.5 years. The U.N. has had enough advance warning.

I brought up the subject of the Holocaust and how millions of people, who knew what was happening, turned the other cheek. After everything that's been said about genocide in Germany, Bosnia and Rwanda - and "never again" - with today's technology, we watch genocide unfolding in slow motion - and find there is still nothing we can do to stop it. Who is listening? Do our voices don't count? So yes, my friend may be right.

What is the point of being aware of what is going on and not being able to do anything about it? What has changed since WWII? If the political will is not there, and we can't push the politicians to take action, what are we to do - what can be done?

Sorry for this depressing post. The first one of its kind I believe. My friend made me feel stupid, like I was being silly and naive. I know I am probably all of those things. But over the past seven months, an inner voice tells me differently.

FeedBurner for Atom or RSS

Stayed up late last night setting up FeedBurner. I still don't understand how feeds work. According to FeedBurner, it sidesteps the format wars and distributes Atom or RSS versions of your feed automatically. Whatever, it's pretty simple to install and has features like protecting original work with Creative Commons licensing and linking into Flickr. I couldn't remember my Flickr ID code so passed on including it on the set up.

If anyone has problems using FeedBurner here, please let me know. There's a good introduction to Podcasts here.

Time for a Kofi Break - by Glenn Reynolds, WSJ

Don't you love the title of Instapundit's column in today's Wall Street Journal? I do. Our top blogger Glenn Reynolds deserves to be applauded for having the guts to speak out about the U.N. and promoting the idea of replacing Kofi Annan with Vaclav Havel. It's such a milestone of an essay, I am copying it here in full incase the link gets broken. I'll comment more on this later. Just want to get this up here, and at M+O, asap.

Things are going badly for Kofi Annan. The oil-for-food scandal has revealed U.N. behavior regarding Saddam Hussein's Iraq that ranges from criminally inept to outright corrupt. Rape and pedophilia by U.N. peacekeepers haven't gotten the kind of attention they'd get if American troops were involved, but the scandals have begun to take their toll. And the U.N.'s ability to serve its crowning purpose -- the "never again" treatment of genocide that was vowed after the Holocaust, and re-vowed after Cambodia and Rwanda -- is looking less and less credible in the wake of its response to ongoing genocide in Darfur. And finally, the U.N. has so far played no significant role in defusing the Ukrainian crisis.

Things have gotten bad enough that some are calling for Mr. Annan's resignation, amid talk of former Czech President Vaclav Havel as successor. ("Havel for Secretary General" bumper stickers are on the Web.) But however you assess Mr. Havel's chances of becoming secretary general, for Mr. Annan the comparison is devastating. Mr. Havel, after all, is a hero on behalf of freedom: A man who helped bring about the end of communist dominance in Eastern Europe, despite imprisonment and the threat of death -- a man who could write that "Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can't be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by the use of force." Mr. Annan, by contrast, is a trimmer and temporizer who has stood up for tyrants far more than he has stood up to them.

If the comparison is damning to Kofi, it's even more damning to the U.N. Mr. Havel once wrote Czech dictator Gustav Husak, "So far, you . . . have chosen . . . the path of inner decay for the sake of outward appearances . . . of deepening the spiritual and moral crisis of our society, and ceaselessly degrading human dignity, for the puny sake of protecting your own power." One might say the same of the U.N. bureaucracy.

And that, perhaps, is the only argument against bringing Mr. Havel to the U.N. (Besides the obvious: He probably wouldn't take the job.) The U.N. is losing what shreds of moral legitimacy remain, even among those who were once sympathetic, as the extent of its corruption becomes too obvious to ignore. There's talk of replacing -- or, more diplomatically, supplementing -- the U.N. with a Community of Democracies that would draw its support from legitimate governments, not thugs and kleptocrats. At the very least, it seems likely that the U.N. will soon come under enormous pressure to reform.

But here's a paradox: It's hard to imagine that Mr. Annan could parry the pressure. But a U.N. headed by Mr. Havel might derive enough reflected legitimacy to resist such changes. According to Mr. Annan's Web site, the secretary general is supposed to serve as a "symbol" of U.N. "ideals." It may well be that he's doing that more accurately than Vaclav Havel ever could.

Mr. Reynolds, professor of law at the University of Tennessee, publishes InstaPundit.com.
- - -

Further reading - see previous post here below, and Nov 28, 2004 report Annan stonewalls on U.N. scandal.

UPDATE - what bloggers are saying - this list will be ongoing and added to - please let me know if you post on the U.N. and I will link to you. Thanks.


UPDATE - what bloggers are saying - this list will be ongoing and added to - please let me know if you post on the U.N. and I will link to you. Thanks.

Christopher Johnson at Mayflower: US Senator calls for Annan's resignation; when it comes to Oil-For-Food, Annan is guilty of, as Senator Coleman said, nothing "other than incompetence and mismanagement."

Jim Moore at the Passion: Glenn Reynolds on replacing Kofi Annan with former Czech President Vaclav Havel.

Norman Geras of normblog in England writes on the UN's biggest scandal.

Christopher Johnson of Mayflower Hill in America links to the Vaclav Havel for Secretary-General banner.

A rant about Kofi Annan by Blimpish on October 17, 2004. In a comment here today, Blimpish says: "Chrenkoff reckons Polish President Kwasniewski would be a better bet, and I think I agree. Much though Havel is one of my heroes, he's not enough of a pol to make it work."



October 17, 2004 Cox & Forkum: Hot Water
- - -

ANNAN THREAT



November 19, 2004 Cox & Forkum Annan Threat

[Thanks to Misspent in the October 17, 2004, comments at Blimpish]

Darfur population, IDPs and mortality figures

Christopher at Mayflower Hill has written some great posts on Sudan. It's comforting to know there is someone else out there willing to get their teeth into what is happening in the Sudan. As far as I know, Jim Moore and I are the only bloggers in the world posting almost daily on Darfur over the past seven months.

I first picked up on the news of genocide in Darfur when Jim brought it to the world's attention last April. Around that time, Jim and his wife Joanne started "Sudan: Passion of the Present".

In August, Jim invited me co-author at the Passion. By that time, my main blog had become swamped with postings on Darfur, so I created this blog Sudan Watch to file and find posts more easily. Most of what I have posted at Passion since September also appears here.

All of my posts between April - August can be found in my main blog at http://meandophelia.blogspot.com. (Use the search bar at the top of the page and type in Darfur - do the same for keyword Sudan and you will get another list of posts)

Recently, I made a decision to start paying more attention to this blog, and its development. Over the past three months I have only had time to either copy stuff I'd posted at the Passion or quickly copy and paste a news report I wanted to file for future reference. At the best of times I couldn't manage to maintain my personal blog as well as writing original commentary for the Passion - and different commentary for here.

The sort of posts I envisage for here are more personal opinion pieces, exploring ideas and suggestions, sharing in-depth reporting; round ups of what other bloggers are saying about the Sudan, the UN, EU, US and aid agencies - and something that Madhu has picked up on here: the International Criminal Court at The Hague. It's interesting to see that the US has aligned itself with several rogue states refusing to be subject to proceedings.

China, Japan and Germany - and the European Union - are coming up for some interesting times ahead and so I'd like to explore what this means in relation to Europe and more particularly, UN reform and failed states.

I'm looking forward to writing and linking to original commentary, opinion pieces and more in-depth posts within the blogosphere. - even if it means posting less frequently. Soon I'll complete a list of "Sudan Watchers" for the sidebar here and link to bloggers. And in time, I hope to introduce more colour to this blog's template, header and increase the font size a smidge.

I'd like to connect more with other bloggers and get feedback and interaction. Comments would be appreciated - I will respond to each one received even if it takes a few days or more. It gets lonely writing about such heartbreaking subject material and without feedback or emails. Most days, I feel like a lone voice in the ether, never knowing if anyone is listening.

Over at the Passion, Jim and Joanne have access to their visitor stats and the email feedback so at least they must feel connected, that people are visiting, taking note, interacting and responding. Prior to devoting my energies to the Passion I used to know who was visiting my blog and got great feedback from my readers. I miss the two-way interaction, swapping thoughts, ideas, linking and pinging posts to each other.

I'm glad to have found Mayflower Hill blog. I came across it at Technorati while tracking posts about the UN, Kofi Annan and Darfur. The kind of posts Christopher writes at Mayflower are especially interesting for me as I follow mainstream media news so closely that by the time I read posts by other bloggers they are just repeats of Reuters reports - if they don't provide at least a few words of original commentary to share their thoughts.

This is not a political blog. I am independent and can say what I wish here. And link to anyone in the world. The sort of people I want to speak to and reach out with this blog are those who are likeminded and want to do something on a global scale. At the Passion I am conscious of it being an American site that is mainly aimed at American activists and political grassroots and so, when it comes to participating in initiatives, I feel isolated and excluded here in England.

Someone (Joi Ito I think) recently blogged about BLOGGERS WITHOUT BORDERS. What a neat title. It says what I was thinking in my posts over at the Zone of Peace: A Fenceless World. How can we in the blogosphere be a power to contend with if blogs put up the same fences that exist in their homeland? This is why many of my posts are UN centric and not US centric.

The United Nations comprises 191 member states. There are some 200 countries in the world. The UN is the closest thing we have to a world government. It will be interesting to see how the UN, EU and AC (Asian Community) and International Criminal Court (ICC) develop.

A few days ago, Christopher left a comment here asking if I knew where Eric Reeves got the numbers he uses for the dead and displaced of Darfur, as they are larger than any he's seen yet. Back in August, I asked myself the same question while trying to understand why the UN and its World Food Program were getting their numbers wrong.

In the previous post here is an edited copy of an email I sent to Dr Reeves on August 19, 2004. And a copy of his reply. The longer you follow news on Darfur, the more you come to realise that Dr Reeves' figures are not so far out.

Note, the UN places the death toll for Darfur as 70,000. This figure has remained static for what seems the past three months. The figure is from March 2004 onwards only. The killing in Darfur started around February-March 2003. It's estimated 10,000 Sudanese are dying in the camps each month, mainly from malnutrition and disease. The UN provides no figures for those who were killed since February 2003.

As you can see from his email, Dr Reeves bases population figures on those used by US Aid. Mortality figures are complicated to work out. More on this can be found in his reports at Darfur Genocide site. Several months ago, US Aid predicted the death toll for Darfur would reach at least 300,000 by Christmas.

Darfur population figures: 6 million, 6.5 million, or 6-7 million

This post is for Christopher (see next post above) of Mayflower Hill blog in appreciation of his posts on the Sudan. The following is an edited copy of my email to Sudan expert Prof Eric Reeves at Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA. It is dated August 18, 2004.

Dear Dr Reeves,

The reason for this email is to ask you which of the population figures that I have copied below are, in your opinion, the best for me to use as a basis for future posts.

As time goes on, I become more and more puzzled over the refugee numbers used by UN and USAID -- their sums keep changing -- which helps to explain why I feel the aid operation is 50% failiure -- and why many news reports seem to contain conflicting numbers.

Back in April, I got the impression that the population of Darfur was around 6 to 7 million. A few months later, I thought I'd been mistaken and the figure was around 3 million. Then recently I thought I got it all wrong: that the real population figures were between 1 and 2.5 million.

Whenever I came across these different figures, I wondered where all the people from Darfur are located. Recently, a US official was quoted in a news report as saying 80,000 had been killed: I wondered how the official knew: where were all the bodies, who dug all the graves -- why is there not a single photograph. Many questions. Too many to go into here.

Your latest update "Darfur III" report has helped shed light on some of my questions. You are the first person I have come across that seems to be saying what I am thinking -- and I am itching to talk to. But since I can't talk to you, I am hoping you will send me a little note. Nothing arduous or complicated that will take up much of your time. I'm hoping you deal with these figures so often, that you know them from the top of your head and can talk off the cuff without having to take a lot of time out looking things up.

QUESTION ONE:
I would like you please to look over (see below) the eight points I have numbered. They are the figures I am working from. The trouble I am having is this: which set of figures are likely to be the most accurate? Can you say?

QUESTION TWO:
My main question is: what do you think about the figures in (3) from the Government of Sudan, compared to (4) from the Darfur Information Center website, compared to (5) U.N. 2004 report? How do you suppose Darfur Information Center came by figures in (4) for 2004?

All of the below figures are so different. It makes me wonder how the UN World Food Programme knows how many to cater for.

(1) Here is information according to the 1911 encyclopedia.org at
http://www.darfurinfo.org/dialup/mainFrameset-4.htm

Darfur has an estimated population of 750,000

DARFUR, a country of east central Africa, the westernmost state of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. It extends from about 10 N. to 16 N. and from 21 E. to 27 30 E., has an area of some 150,000 sq. m., and an estimated population of 750,000. It is bounded N. by the Libyan desert, W. by Wadai (French Congo), S. by the Bahr-el-Ghazal and E. by Kordofan. The two lastnamed districts are mudirias (provinces) of the Anglo-Egyptian. Suda

- - -
(2) Here is information according to
http://www.darfurinfo.org/dialup/mainFrameset-4.htm

Darfur population confirmed in 1983 = 3,093,700

North Darfur = 1,327,900 in 1983
South Darfur = 1,765,800 in 1983
West Darfur = not given

TOTAL: 3,093,700 (not including West Darfur)

At a glance here are some figures from the above site for the years
1937 - 1983.

c1983 = 3,093,700
e1973 = 1,869,000
e1969 = 1,683,000
1968 = 1,650,000
1966= 1,467,700
1961 = 1,538,700
c1955/56= 1,328,800
1950? = 1,005,600
1948 = 882,800
c1938 715,500
e 1937 763,300
- - - -

(3) Here are figures from the Government of Sudan website that show
the Darfur population figures for the year 2000 = 8,386,007 -
11,094,014

http://www.sudan.gov.sd/English/engstate.htm
http://www.sudan.gov.sd/English/engstates5.htm#nd (for north - Samal)
http://www.sudan.gov.sd/English/engstates5.htm#sd (four south - Janub)
http://www.sudan.gov.sd/English/engstates6.htm#wdd (for west - Garb)

Year 2000: North Darfur = 2,708,007
Year 2000: South Darfur = 2,708,007
Year 2000: West Darfur = 5,678,000

Therefore, added together,
TOTAL POPULATION OF DARFUR, AS AT 2000 = 8,386,007 - 11,094,014
according to Government of Sudan site.
- - - -

(4) Here are figures from the Darfur Information Center website that
show the Darfur population figures for the year 2004 = 897,500

(a) North Darfur - Samal: al Fasir, Kutum, Umm Kaddadah:
http://www.darfurinfo.org/dialup/mainFrameset-4.htm
Year and population figures in 1000
2004 = 212,200
1993 = 141,900 - this is for al Fasir only
1983 = 97,400
1973 = 61,400

(b) Total for South Darfur - Janub: ad-Duayn, Niyala:
http://www.darfurinfo.org/dialup/mainFrameset-4.htm (south)
Year and population:
2004 = 511,800 - this includes 17,100 in Rahid-al-Bardi
1993 = 300,500
1983 = 133,300
1973 = 78,400

(c) Total for West Darfur Garb: al-Junaynah, zalinjay:
Year and population:
2004 = 173,500
1993 = 92,800 - this excludes zalinjay
1983 = 74,000
1973 = 49,200

WHOLE OF DARFUR TOTAL (adding up figures for north, south and west by
year) =
2004 = 897,500
1993 = 535,200
1983 = 304,700
1973 = 189,000

Therefore, TOTAL POPULATION OF DARFUR, AS AT 2004 = 897,500 according
to Darfur Information Center site.
- - -

(5) SUDAN TRANSITION & RECOVERY DATABASE
http://www.unsudanig.org/STARBASE/Reports/index.jsp?fid=main

(a) North Darfur State Version 2, 21 June 2004
North Darfur has a population of approximately 1,603,000 80% of which is rural based. The main ethnic groups are the Fur and Zaghawa, while the minor groups are the Meydob, Massleit, Bargo, Borgo, Gomor and Bedyat.

(b) South Darfur State Version 2, 17 June 2004
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in 2003, estimated the population of South Darfur State as 123,064,000, of which 140,343 were Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). The state has an annual population growth rate of 3.48 (1998-2003). The population density was estimated at 17 persons per 4square km. The sex ratio, the number of males per 100 females was 99.41. The Crude Birth Rate (CBR) and Crude Death Rate (CDR) for 1998-2003 was 41.0 and 11.0 respectively, while the Infant Mortality 5Rate (IMR) for males and females in 1993 was 120 and 103 respectively. In 2003, 78.69 % of the population was classified as rural (mainly farmers and pastoralists) and 21.31 % as urban. The major ethnic groups include the Rezieghat, Habanya, Falat'a, Bni Halba, Taisha, and Fur in addition to other minority groups. The conflict in the Great Darfur region began in the early 1980's but intensified in 2003. The conflict has lead to displacement of over one million people who have either fled to safer locations within the region or across the border into Chad.

(c) West Darfur State Version 2, 23 June 2004
West Darfur State covers a total area of 150,000 square kilometres. It borders Chad to the west, South Darfur State to the east and North Darfur State to the north. The state's population was estimated at 121,693,000 in 2003, with a growth rate of 2.38% annually between 1998 and 2003. In addition to this, 3there are approximately 200,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs).

Summary of above UN figures:

North Darfur = 1,603,000
South Darfur = 123,064,000 - this would make sense if two zeros were
deleted - have they made a typo error here -- twice?
West Darfur = 121,693,000 - ditto

Therefore, TOTAL POPULATION OF DARFUR, ESTIMATED AS AT 2003 =
246,360,000 according to the United Nations' website (or 2,463,600 if
they have added too many zeros)
- - -

(6) RECENT UN RAPPORTEUR REPORT EXCERPTS:

PAGE 15.5 - POINT 6: In parallel to the conflict in the South, the situation in the western part of the country, the Darfur region, generally deteriorated in the course of the 1990s and finally erupted into civil conflict in February 2003. Approximately 6.5 million persons divided into a number of ethnic/tribal affiliations live in the mainly rural and underdeveloped region of Darfur.

In 1994 the current regime implemented an administrative reform and divided the region into three states (North, South and West Darfur). In February 2003, the SLA and the JEM initiated an armed rebellion against the Government, citing discrimination, neglect and underdevelopment as the reasons. In the ensuing months, a large part of the civilian population was displaced by the fighting.

While there was no official statistical information confirming the number of displaced inside the country, estimates indicated that more than 1 million persons had been displaced within the region and approximately 150,000 had fled to Chad.

I was deeply concerned at the situation I witnessed of the large numbers of internally displaced persons and other civilians in Darfur. They were and continue to be in desperate need of humanitarian assistance and protection. Most of the camps I visited received no regular humanitarian assistance or protection, and there appeared to be practically no national protection actors present. The right to life of all these people continued to be seriously threatened even following their displacement. Some reports indicate that the displaced are still being harassed by Government-controlled groups. Even after my mission I received reports that extrajudicial executions were still taking place. It is very likely that the humanitarian situation will deteriorate significantly with the coming rainy season and that more people will die.
- - -

(7) UN STARBASE DATATABASE AT UN WEBSITE

Population estimates, northern Sudan (2000-2002)
http://www.unsudanig.org/STARBASE/Statistics/index.jsp?fid=population

North Darfur 1,455,000 (2000) 1,503,000 (2001) 1,552,000 (2002)
South Darfur 2,760,000 (2000) 2,859,000 (2001) 2,960,000 (2002)
West Darfur 1,577,000 (2000) 1,614,000 (2001) 1,653,000 (2002)

Year Totals:
2000 = 5,792,000
2001 = 5,976,000
2002 = 6,165,000

Which, I believe, is probably where the figures that I read, originated from: ie population of around 6 - 7 million in Darfur.
- - -


From: ereeves
Subject: Re: The Sudan - Darfur population figures?
Date: 19 August 2004
To: ingrid.jones at virgin.net

Hello, Ingrid---I can send you some recent things, and add your name to my email distribution list; that should clarify a good deal. Sorry to have to respond so briefly, but I'm under deadline and have a lot to do in the coming few days.

Darfur population: we simply don't know. The US Agency for Intl Development uses a figure of 6.5 million, and I know many of the people there working on Darfur---by and large very good. For this reason I use the figure, but know that it is probably somewhere between 6 and 7 million, but quite possibly lower. There are a host of complicating demographic factors and a lack of detailed knowledge. There is no reliable census number.

Never trust any information coming from the Khrtm govt: they lie like rugs. They are absolutely shameless.

In the absence of certainty, I suggest you use a single figure (6 million, 6.5 million, or 6-7 million) and stick with it, explaining as necessary

Cheers, Eric

Eric Reeves
Smith College
Northampton, MA 01063

Kofi out, Havel in. It's an idea whose time has come, says InstaPundit

Thanks to InstaPundit for speaking out about the UN and saying:

Kofi out, Havel in. It's an idea whose time has come.

See the HAVEL-FOR-SECRETARY-GENERAL bumper stickers.

And a related post here.

The juggernaut is rolling!

UN needs an expanded mandate to intervene when nations fail to stop internal violence

The following is an edited version of a comment I left at Clive Soley's blog today.

After genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia and Sudan, many bloggers have lost respect for the UN and Kofi Annan. Even Instapundit thinks the time is right now for Annan to step down and not to continue in office until 2006, and says if Kerry had called for Kofi Annan's resignation, he might have won more votes in Ohio [see next post, above].

Clive says Kofi Annan's "High Level Panel" (on intervention and failed states) reports next Thursday. But it won't help the people of Darfur. For every four weeks that go by, another 10,000 Sudanese die.

After the past seven months of blogging almost daily on Darfur, I no longer believe much what the politicians are saying or doing. Sudan is one of many issues where I am starting to get completely disillusioned in the political process and wondering what is so great about democracy. All it seems to be is a handful of men in each country doing what they will. Our voices only count at election times.

On Sudan, the only thing that makes sense to me as to what is really going there, is that the international community is supporting the rebels. How else can one explain the UN Security Council's inaction and the six weeks of delay between its last meeting in Nairobi (must have cost millions of pounds) to the expected signing of Sudan's agreement on December 31 which does not include Darfur? What are the warring parties in Sudan to do in those six weeks: twiddle their thumbs?

If the international community is not behind the rebels trying to overthrow Bashir's regime, there's no way there will be peace. It's a hellhole. The rebels are as bad as the regime they are trying to overthrow. The international community (or we the people more like) have been - what one news report referred to as - "duped".

At least the Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin is trying to do something. He's invited 47 Francophonie member-states to a Canadian summit aimed at reforming the UN to better protect suffering peoples. He's spoken of his visit to Sudan this week and pointed to it as proof the UN needs an expanded mandate to intervene when nations fail to stop internal violence.

The only way to help those in Sudan is to intervene militarily. Several months ago I felt Sudan should have been declared a state of emergency and Darfur turned into a UN Protectorate so that people could go home and start planting their food. Now, it will turn out far more costlier in terms of lost lives and the huge amount of aid needed to keep two million or more people in camps over the next 1-2+ years.

Germany and France ought to send troops asap. What about China? Why is there no news as to why China is getting away with not doing anything. Why can't they be made to send 70,000 police? China has just struck a 30-oil deal with Iran which means if the UNSC has to take action against on Iran on nuclear issues, China will block it, just like it is doing for Sudan.

UN Chutzpah: UN slams British jails

Thanks to AlphaPatriot for 'UN Chutzpah'.

At first I thought 'UN slams British jails' was a joke, but Reuters is the source.

Now I'm thinking the UN is a joke as there's not a more civilised country in the world than Britain.

Here's an excerpt from the post.

"... The UN Committee Against Torture is criticizing Britain for "unsatisfactory conditions" in its prisons and for a "substantial number of deaths in custody, inter-prisoner violence, overcrowding ...". It is the fourth time that this committee has focused on Britain, although they also had some unkind words for Greece and Argentina.

There was no word of any criticism for Germany's military even though instructors "allegedly tied up their charges, covered their heads with hoods and in some cases, administered electric shocks" -- even though the number of reported cases has grown. Must be because these were "volunteers" rather than criminals imprisoned against their will. ..."

Read the full story.

A prayer for the janjaweed rape babies

This photo from Abu Shouk, Sudan, shows Suad Abdalaziz, 28, who was raped and became pregnant during an attack by the janjaweed in the village of Tawila, holding her 3-day-old baby girl.

There were no smiles, blessings or joy at the birth of Suad's light-skinned girl with ebony eyes and curly black hair. For a family still bleeding from war, the baby was like salt on their wounds.



"My father didn't speak for the entire day," recalled Suad, her voice cracking and her face streaming with tears. "He was not angry at me. He was angry at the janjaweed and the government for giving me this baby."

"'These are the babies of the janjaweed,' said Hassan Abdallah Bakhur, a tribal elder from the town of Tawilla, 40 miles south of here. 'I don't know how we can solve this problem. They and their mothers face a bad future.'



Above, Medina Muhammed, 18, who lives in the Abu Shouk refugee camp in northern Darfur, Sudan, faces a uncertain future after being raped by the janjaweed.

Read the full story at Parkview blog.

Photos courtesy David P. Gilkey, Detroit Free Press

The Sudan Peace Accord: Why It Doesn't Stand a Chance

Christopher Johnson at Mayflower Hill says it should be abundantly clear at this point there is no way to resolve this conflict without military intervention. And he says:

"It should also be clear that the failure of the international community to live up to the commitments it made in the wake of the Second World War, and reiterated time and again throughout the last 50 years, is an embarrassment on a scale we will only begin to understand when the results of Bashir's policy towards Darfur is exposed as the holocaust that it is."

[Thanks to Christopher and Duncan - and for the handy map now showing in the sidebar here]
- - -

Darfur, Sudan: The dying is only just beginning

Once again, Prof Eric Reeves in his latest post argues for outright military intervention. Here is an excerpt:

" ... The US-convened Security Council meeting in Nairobi has made painfully clear that nothing will be done to change the fundamental dynamics of insecurity in Darfur---and thus the genocide will continue remorselessly. 300,000 have already died; as many as 2.5 million have been displaced; and 3 million are conflict-affected and in need of humanitarian assistance. But we know now that this assistance will not be adequate, and thus we may be sure that at least 30,000 human beings will continue to die monthly for the foreseeable future.

We have seen precisely this ghastly indifference and obfuscation in Africa before, and no one speaks more authoritatively of international failure in Rwanda than Romeo Dallaire, the general in charge of the UN peacekeeping force during the 1994 genocide. General Dallaire has recently found a more articulate voice on Darfur, but his first public utterances were among his most powerful:

"'What should be done is an outright intervention,' he said. 'When I compare it to Rwanda, there are so many similarities it makes you sick.' Khartoum, he said, is 'getting away with slaughter and genocide,' while the world reacts, much as it did then, with embargos and restrictions, [Dallaire said]."

Disgracefully, a complacent international community can't bring itself even to impose "embargoes and restrictions." On the contrary, as UN Security Council Resolution 1574 of November 19, 2004 proves beyond reasonable doubt, there will be no actions of consequence to compel Khartoum to halt genocide in Darfur. We are as far today from humanitarian intervention as we were when the genocide became apparent a year ago. The dying is only just beginning. ..."

U.N. food relief in Darfur halted

Associated Press reported today that a UN envoy and Britain blamed Sudanese rebels for renewed fighting in Darfur, and the World Food Program pulled its staff from the region yesterday because of the lack of security.

The World Food Program said that renewed fighting in Darfur has forced the U.N. agency to suspend a large part of its food relief operations there, leaving 300,000 refugees without aid. The suspension comes as demand for emergency food in the region increases because no crops were planted the past season.

Britain called for an end to the fighting, and an international commission, including the United States, said it would take measures to keep humanitarian aid flowing. Jan Pronk, the UN envoy, called for a doubling of peacekeepers in Darfur.

The latest fighting between rebels and government forces came despite a cease-fire earlier this month. An April truce was violated by both sides, according to U.N. officials and aid agencies.

UN says world should hold Darfur rebels accountable -U.N. rejects Sudan human rights resolution - EU passes resolution

Reuters quotes Jan Pronk as saying the world should hold Darfur rebels accountable for breaking their promises to end violence in western Sudan. He did not say what measures should be taken. "I do really think that the international community should hold them (SLA) accountable for not complying with international agreements and their own promises," Pronk told reporters after meeting Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit in Cairo.

You have to wonder who he thinks he is talking to when he says such things to the press. Probably to Khartoum I guess. If Khartoum are listening, they must be taking it as seriously as everyone else.
- - -

UN Assembly Rejects Sudan Human Rights Resolution

You can't make this stuff up. A UN General Assembly committee rejected a resolution that would have condemned human rights violations in Sudan.

The action drew a sharp rebuke from the United States and the European Union, and a spirited defence from African nations.

Ninety one of the 191 U.N. member countries voted for the "no action" motion. The United States and European Union countries, which sponsored the resolution, were among 74 nations that tried in vain to save it.

Ambassador Scott called the refusal to condemn atrocities in Sudan "an indefensible parochially motivated action". He said "three consecutive failures of member states of the United Nations to present a unified front against well-documented atrocities would represent nothing less than the complete breakdown of the U.N.'s deliberative bodies related to human rights. If these bodies cannot speak with one voice on an issue as clear as Darfur, what can they do?"

Netherland's Ambassador Dirk Jan Van den Berg, representing the European Union, noted that the Security Council had passed several tough resolutions on Sudan in recent months, going so far as to threaten sanctions against Khartoum unless it took action to stop atrocities in Darfur. He said the General Assembly must follow suit or risk becoming irrelevant.

"How can we explain that the Security Council speaks out on the human rights situation in Sudan while the General Assembly remains silent," he said. "The European Union strongly urges delegations to vote against this motion to adjourn the debate, for reasons of principle, and to prevent the General Assembly from fading away into irrelevance."

But African countries, backed by many Islamic nations, stood firmly with Sudan in voting to kill the resolution.

South Africa, representing the African group at the world body, said it opposed all resolutions condemning a specific country.

Pitso Montwedi, director of human rights in South Africa's foreign ministry, denied that the "no action" motion constituted a defense of Sudan's rights record. He said condemning the Khartoum government would have undermined African efforts to end the country's long-running civil war.

"I should emphasize at the beginning that the African group had chosen to use this rule not as a denial of violations of human rights in Africa but only for the purposes of countering the double standards of the European Union," he said.

The General Assembly also adopted a "no action" motion Wednesday on a similar resolution critical of Zimbabwe.

Anticipating the no-action motion Tuesday, Washington's U.N. Ambassador John Danforth called it tantamount to "condoning atrocities". He said the move would send a message from the General Assembly to the people of Sudan that, "you may be suffering, but we can't be bothered".
- - -

Joint EU-ACP parliamentarians pass resolution

A resolution was passed calling for a comprehensive peace deal for Sudan.

Delegates also called for a halt to the sale of weapons to all sides in Sudan's conflicts, and for the main perpetrators of the violence and crimes related to the wars to be identified and brought to justice.

EU development aid to Sudan -- some 450 million euros (600 million dollars) -- will remain blocked until a peace pact is signed and implemented in Sudan.

The resolution also calls for a fact-finding mission to evaluate the situation in Sudan. It was passed unanimously, but "after long and difficult negotiations," one observer said.

Damien Hirst's Band Aid cover banned

Digital Spy says "controversial contemporary artist Damien Hirst has shown record bosses what he has come up with for the sleeve artwork for Do They Know It's Christmas? but it has been rejected on the basis that it would frighten small children, reports the Mirror.

Despite having reportedly been given a free reign as to how to adorn the single's sleeve, Hirst's work has been rejected on grounds of unsuitability. The potential artwork in fact seemed very appropriate. On one side it depicts the Grim Reaper cradling a starving African child in his arms, set against a blue sky with fluffy clouds, and on the other is a white child flaunting money.

There is to be a child with some baby reindeer (see picture of cover - in previous post here).

A spokesperson said: "The design Damien produced was for the front and back of a CD but we were later told they only wanted something for a front cover. It's a shame. Damien really wanted to do his bit.

"People have said it's a bleak picture but starvation and death are bleak subjects and there's no getting away from that."

Damien now plans to sell limited edition of his rejected work in order to raise money for Sudan."

Good. No doubt they will sell like hot cakes - his original cover design would have sold well too. I was looking forward to seeing his design. They should have let it go ahead. But, on second thoughts, maybe not. The Disney style cover is perhaps more inviting to the masses. Parents would probably not buy Damien's cover for their children's Christmas stocking even though it would have become a collectors item.

Protests at Band Aid for Darfur whitewashing poverty issues - Alternative Band Aid lyrics

International development campaigners, the World Development Movement (WDM) condemned the lyrics of the UK's Band Aid 20 single “Do They Know It's Christmas?” as promoting a negative and inaccurate picture of Africa and its problems. The soon to be launched Band Aid 20 initiative is for famine relief in Darfur, Sudan.

Twenty years ago, the Band Aid single and Live Aid concert, for the benefit of Ethiopia, raised awareness around the world of problems in Africa. The "feed the world" concert rocked all over the world and had great impact on a countless number of youngsters who went on to build careers in politics and humanitarian fields.

Recently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was quoted as saying Band Aid changed his life. He has spent years pushing for the cancellation of debts of the world's poorest nations. Earlier this year, he set up a Commission for Africa and attended its first meeting in Africa. Next year, the UK holds presidency of the G8 summit.

The Band Aid 20 initiative will generate worldwide publicity for Darfur for many months, if not years. Already, in the campaign's first week, tens of millions people have heard the word Darfur, probably for the first time, thanks to Band Aid. No other campaign for Africa has achieved such widespread interest for so long, especially among the young.

Band Aid cannot simply be measured in terms of funds raised. The song may be regarded by some as "cheesey" but had it been more "heavy" it might not have captured the attention of the world's media or the imagination of young and old alike. Band Aid's incredible success in raising awareness among all age groups is unmatched by any other campaign for Africa, or for Darfur.

Those who see it as fashionable to knock Band Aid are probably the ones that have done the least to help the Sudanese. Anyone who is aware of the catastrophe in Darfur would know how long it has taken to get the world's attention, and that any contribution is better than no contribution at all. The people of Darfur need all the help and publicity they can get.

Some visitors at the WDM and UK Indymedia sites have submitted alternative Band Aid lyrics. Can you do better?

Note, as an aside, according to the Pan African News Agency in 2002 alone, Africa paid $21.9 billion in external debt while official development assistance (ODA) to the region was $22.2 billion.

Further reading:

Nov 24: Westlife have been invited to sing Do They Know It's Christmas? at London's Wembley Arena for a charity Popworld concert on December 2. The concert is to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the single and to raise money for refugees in Darfur, Sudan.

Nov 18: UK Indymedia - Protests at Band Aid whitewashing poverty issue.

Nov 14: UK Indymedia - Action against the recording of Band Aid 3 single - protester arrested.

July: UK Indymedia - Stop the Killing in Sudan - protest in London Wednesday 28th July, 2004.

According to Indymedia, the wars in Africa are all about the plundering of resources by the wealthiest economies and, increasingly oil:

Human Rights Watch Report, Sudan, Oil and Human Rights
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/

Sudan: Oil companies Complicit in Rights Abuses: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/11/sudan112503.htm
- - -

SALGADO TAKES PHOTOS OF SUFFERING

In 1985, Brazlian-born photographer Sebastião Salgado carried out a 15-month project documenting the human toll of the extreme drought that then afflicted Chad, Mali, Ethiopia and the Sudan.

No one foresaw that his book would appear in English 20 years later, soon after the catastrophe in Darfur surfaced as a media topic in the West.

Salgado's photos taken in Ethiopia during the African famine of 1985 are being published in the United States for the first time. Here are a few:



Above, Sebastião Salgado's photo of Ethiopia's Korem Camp is among the many images he took in 1985 during a 15-month project documenting the toll of extreme drought in Africa.



Above, a woman and the rags that shelter her, on the outskirts of Tokar, Sudan, where drought hit hard. Photo by Sebastião Salgado, 1985.

Rebels attacked and seized town of Tawilla in North Dafur yesterday

A boy sleeps in the shade of a grass shelter at Zam Zam camp near El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur state, November 22, 2004.

Rebels attacked and seized the town of Tawilla in North Darfur state yesterday, and officials said fighting was continuing as police and army struggled to regain control over the town, where about 30,000 refugees are encamped.

Sudan said today clashes with rebels in Darfur had killed more than 30 policemen, and denied accusations from aid workers that government planes had bombed a town captured by the rebels.

Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail denied the town had been bombed. "There are clear instructions to the army that they should not use any bombing. There is no bombing," he told reporters in Khartoum. But he added helicopter gunships may have been used.

Photo by Reilly/Reuters