A December 5 report via Jordan Times says African forces should be fully deployed to Darfur by the end of the year despite some delays in building the infrastructure to house them, the new head of the African Union (AU) mission said.
Jonah Fisher of BBC News Khartoum explains the year-end target for Darfur troops.
- - -
Note, according to the above, the new head of the African Union observer mission to Sudan said he is hopeful that they will have completed deployment by the end of the year. Baba Gana Kingibe, a former Nigerian foreign minister, arrived in Khartoum on Saturday to take over control of the observer mission in Darfur.
It seems much longer ago than six weeks since the African Union voted to increase its mission to Darfur. Deployment has been slow. Less than one third of its planned mission of 3,300 troops are in place. Mainly Rwandan and Nigerian observers have arrived.
Speaking in Khartoum, Mr Kingibe said more troops would reach the area soon. "We have taken measures three days ago to speed up this and we have established certain timelines," he said. "By the end of December we should have all the complements of the troops on the ground."
According to Mr Kingibe, both the funding and the troops for the mission are now ready - it is just a question of the American contractors building enough camps to house them.
- - -
VIEWS OF NEW AU MISSION CHIEF FOR DARFUR
On his arrival in Sudan, AU mission chief Baba Gana Kingibe said that a joint declaration of principles should be signed within the first two weeks of Darfur peace talks, due to reconvene in the Nigerian capital Abuja around December 10.
"We expect that before long within a week or two the declaration of principles which was negotiated and largely agreed upon will be finalised and signed," Kingibe, a former Nigerian foreign minister, told reporters in Khartoum.
"We believe that early in the new year we will be making a robust approach towards inching to a final peace deal."
Kingibe, who was the AU's special envoy to south Sudan, where a separate war has raged for more than two decades, said a peace deal for the south would help solve the Darfur conflict when the southern rebel group, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), joins the post-peace central government in Khartoum.
"A deal in the south will also involve the participation of the SPLM in the government of national unity in Khartoum and I am sure that they will make their contributions to perhaps approaching more creatively the solutions to the other problems facing the country," he said.
- - -
GERMANY APPROVES DARFUR MISSION
At long last, the German parliament unanimously agreed Friday to provide up to 200 troops to help transport AU soldiers into Darfur. December 5 report by Deutsche Welle says German soldiers will not be based in Darfur and that Germany will use two of its military transport planes to fly Tanzanian African Union troops into Darfur from Tanzania and a third plane will be put on standby. Around 760 troops from Rwanda and Nigeria are already in Darfur having been transported by France and the United States.
The international community must not allow "a genocide in slow motion" to take place in Darfur, Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul told the German parliament.
Germany has set aside €2.25 million ($2.9 million) for aid for Darfur out of the European Union total of €92 million.
AU EXPLAINS SLOW PROGRESS
A report by Reuters yesterday says the African Union has been slowly increasing its force in Darfur toward a 3,300-strong contingent with a stronger mandate which includes monitoring a shaky April cease-fire, monitoring Sudanese police and limited powers to protect civilians:
"AU mission chief Baba Gana Kingibe said the slow progress was not because of lack of funding or difficulties in finding suitable troops.
"It is better that we synchronize the deployment of the troops to the availability of facilities on the ground. We are working on how we can speed up the provision of infrastructure on the ground to the deployment of the troops," he said.
"I think that by December 15 we should have quite a number of troops in. By the end of December we should have all the complements of the troops on the ground," he said." [Full Story]
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
UN Security Council discuss Annan report today warning chaos looms in violent Darfur
A report in today's UK Guardian re UN report released yesterday says the number of desperate people in need of humanitarian aid in Darfur reaches nearly 2.3 million.
The 15-page report details daily attacks, village burnings, rapes, hijackings of relief goods, theft of livestock, the forced movement of thousands of displaced people, and numerous deaths.
It says the Sudanese government has denied any air attacks and the SLA denied attacking Tawila, which Annan speculated could mean that both sides were not in control of their field commanders on the ground.
'There has been a continued breakdown in law and order as banditry, looting of livestock and abductions continued. In Darfur, chaos is looming as order is collapsing,' Annan said in the report which the Security Council is discussing today.
- - -
UPDATE: Dec. 7 United Nations (AFP) - The international community is "getting nowhere" with the crisis in Sudan's troubled Darfur region, the US ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, said. [Full Story]
The 15-page report details daily attacks, village burnings, rapes, hijackings of relief goods, theft of livestock, the forced movement of thousands of displaced people, and numerous deaths.
It says the Sudanese government has denied any air attacks and the SLA denied attacking Tawila, which Annan speculated could mean that both sides were not in control of their field commanders on the ground.
'There has been a continued breakdown in law and order as banditry, looting of livestock and abductions continued. In Darfur, chaos is looming as order is collapsing,' Annan said in the report which the Security Council is discussing today.
- - -
UPDATE: Dec. 7 United Nations (AFP) - The international community is "getting nowhere" with the crisis in Sudan's troubled Darfur region, the US ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, said. [Full Story]
African mothers gather to fundraise for Darfur - Save Darfur green wristbands
A meeting on Friday in New York organised by United Nations African Mothers Association (UNAMA) and chaired by Angola, gathered various African Mothers from around the world, in its annual activity (the Buffet), with the objective of collecting funds for the relief programme in benefit of women, children and refugees from Darfur, (Sudan).
Nane Annan, wife of Kofi Annan described the meeting and African mothers gathering and fundraising for Darfur as "a true act of solidarity".
- - -
Save Darfur green wristbands
Pictured below are the "Not On My Watch" green wristbands now available from Save Darfur.org
Nane Annan, wife of Kofi Annan described the meeting and African mothers gathering and fundraising for Darfur as "a true act of solidarity".
- - -
Save Darfur green wristbands
Pictured below are the "Not On My Watch" green wristbands now available from Save Darfur.org
U.N. Ambassador John Danforth calls for European security for Darfur Sudan IDP camps
Georgetown University reports today on a speech by Ambassador John Danforth in which he urges European countries to provide soldiers or police officers to provide security at the camps.
John C. Danforth
Calling Sudan “one of the great tragedies of the world today and a very long-standing tragedy,” Danforth emphasized the importance of educating Americans about the current conflict in Darfur.
Speaking specifically about Darfur, Danforth emphasized that the international community’s best course of action is to “increase the outside presence [in the region] particularly of the African Union.”
“There’s no chance the Security Council would agree to military action. As a practical matter, it’s not going to happen,” he said. “People say what about sanctions? We passed two resolutions in the Security Council that hinted at the possibility of sanctions. But to show the resistance to sanctions, we couldn’t even use that word in resolutions.”
Danforth said that “international observers would have a chilling effect on the worst incidences of abuse,” and urged European countries to provide soldiers or police officers to provide security at displaced persons camps. “Sudan is never going to be a place where we can cross it off the international to-do list,” he said. “I don’t think there’s ever a point that a country can stop the ongoing work of gluing itself together.”
- - -
CAN THE U.N. ACHIEVE PEACE IN SUDAN?
Readers have their say - via BBC News Online
The United Nations will provide aid to Sudan's government and southern rebels if they fulfil their promise to finalise a peace deal by the end of the year. The Sudanese parties signed the pledge at a special UN Security Council meeting in Kenya.
The council adopted a resolution backing the commitment. It also called for an immediate end to violence in Darfur but aid agencies said the resolution was weak and urged further action.
Will the meeting of diplomats really change anything? Is it an important step on the road to reconciliation - or just a token gesture? Click here to read the comments BBC News Online have received so far.
John C. Danforth
Calling Sudan “one of the great tragedies of the world today and a very long-standing tragedy,” Danforth emphasized the importance of educating Americans about the current conflict in Darfur.
Speaking specifically about Darfur, Danforth emphasized that the international community’s best course of action is to “increase the outside presence [in the region] particularly of the African Union.”
“There’s no chance the Security Council would agree to military action. As a practical matter, it’s not going to happen,” he said. “People say what about sanctions? We passed two resolutions in the Security Council that hinted at the possibility of sanctions. But to show the resistance to sanctions, we couldn’t even use that word in resolutions.”
Danforth said that “international observers would have a chilling effect on the worst incidences of abuse,” and urged European countries to provide soldiers or police officers to provide security at displaced persons camps. “Sudan is never going to be a place where we can cross it off the international to-do list,” he said. “I don’t think there’s ever a point that a country can stop the ongoing work of gluing itself together.”
- - -
CAN THE U.N. ACHIEVE PEACE IN SUDAN?
Readers have their say - via BBC News Online
The United Nations will provide aid to Sudan's government and southern rebels if they fulfil their promise to finalise a peace deal by the end of the year. The Sudanese parties signed the pledge at a special UN Security Council meeting in Kenya.
The council adopted a resolution backing the commitment. It also called for an immediate end to violence in Darfur but aid agencies said the resolution was weak and urged further action.
Will the meeting of diplomats really change anything? Is it an important step on the road to reconciliation - or just a token gesture? Click here to read the comments BBC News Online have received so far.
Monday, December 06, 2004
U.N. peacekeeper Birnback calls upon students to pressure politicians - John Danforth asks questions
Tufts alum Nick Birnback, pictured below, is currently a political officer with United Nations peacekeeping operations and has participated in missions in far-flung locations including East Timor, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ethiopia and Liberia.
On Friday night Birnback received the Light on the Hill award and offered anecdotes and pointed commentary to an intimate group of students and faculty in Cabot Auditorium: he was introduced by Tufts Community Union (TCU) President Dave Baumwoll and Director of the Institute for Global Leadership Sherman Teichman, who was Birnback's teacher and mentor at Tufts through the Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC) program.
Here is an excerpt from The Tufts Daily report on the talk:
Birnback said peacekeeping missions require realistic goals. "Don't try to keep the peace where there is no peace to keep," he said.
"If two groups decide that if it is in their best interests to resort to violence, it is difficult to stop them physically given the resources at our disposal."
Birnback said he first learned this principle while bartending. "If two guys at the bar have already started to fight, don't jump in front, or you'll get hit," he said.
Thirdly, Birnback said peacekeeping "has to be part of a whole set of activities, probably by the entire international community," he said, stressing the importance of long-term investments in health care and education. "If you don't stay long enough, you end up back there."
Finally, he spoke about the international community's resistance to taking action even when the situation clearly requires it. Sometimes, "it's impossible to do certain things in the international system that you feel deeply you should be doing," he said.
Birnback said the current humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan is an example of U.N. member nations' lack of initiative. "It's a massive crisis and people are dying every day," he said. "You don't read about it most of time because there is no political will to address the issue in a serious matter."
What then, he asked, can one do? "You take a page out of the book of Teichman and ring a bell," Birnback said, calling upon students to pressure politicians to take action in matters of international concern.
- - -
WOULD STUDENT UNIONS AND MEMBERS
Pressure politicians to take action in Darfur?
In Nick Birnback's talk (see above) he called upon students to pressure politicians to take action in matters of international concern.
Could we reach out to student unions around the world and ask their members to put pressure on politicians and the UN Security Council? If anybody has an insight into how best to do this, or knows somebody who does, please email here or the Passion with ideas, suggestions, tips (and what action you would like politicians to take) asap. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you.
- - -
WHAT ACTION COULD WE PUSH FOR?
Armed intervention ... and for how long ... a regime change ...no fly zone ...sanctions ...or what?
Note the following excerpt from a December 4 report by Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau Chief, Jon Sawyer, and the questions asked of human rights groups and media by John Danforth, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations:
" ... Danforth railed at the human-rights groups and media, especially The Washington Post, that have faulted the administration for not pressing hard enough on Darfur, where an estimated 70,000 individuals have died and 1.6 million have been driven from their homes.
"The Washington Post said Darfur was another Rwanda, that the U.S. government and Bush don't care and that if they cared they could stop this," Danforth said. "But they didn't have the gut to say how they would do it. Did they propose armed intervention? An attack on Khartoum [the Sudan capital]? They wouldn't say. Did they propose occupying an area the size of France in perpetuity? They didn't say. They pulled their punch. "What's the chance of the Security Council authorizing a military response if we can't even use the word 'sanctions'?" ..."
Photo: John C. Danforth, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
If we are to push politicians to take action, we need to be clear what it is we are asking them to do. It'd be interesting to know what readers think - and what Mr Danforth would advise students to push for as he's most likely to know what would work. The peace agreement Mr Danforth worked so hard for over the last three years is the only hope for Sudan. If there are not tens of thousands of protection troops in Darfur, the situation could get worse especially if new rebel groups spring up.
On Friday night Birnback received the Light on the Hill award and offered anecdotes and pointed commentary to an intimate group of students and faculty in Cabot Auditorium: he was introduced by Tufts Community Union (TCU) President Dave Baumwoll and Director of the Institute for Global Leadership Sherman Teichman, who was Birnback's teacher and mentor at Tufts through the Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC) program.
Here is an excerpt from The Tufts Daily report on the talk:
Birnback said peacekeeping missions require realistic goals. "Don't try to keep the peace where there is no peace to keep," he said.
"If two groups decide that if it is in their best interests to resort to violence, it is difficult to stop them physically given the resources at our disposal."
Birnback said he first learned this principle while bartending. "If two guys at the bar have already started to fight, don't jump in front, or you'll get hit," he said.
Thirdly, Birnback said peacekeeping "has to be part of a whole set of activities, probably by the entire international community," he said, stressing the importance of long-term investments in health care and education. "If you don't stay long enough, you end up back there."
Finally, he spoke about the international community's resistance to taking action even when the situation clearly requires it. Sometimes, "it's impossible to do certain things in the international system that you feel deeply you should be doing," he said.
Birnback said the current humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan is an example of U.N. member nations' lack of initiative. "It's a massive crisis and people are dying every day," he said. "You don't read about it most of time because there is no political will to address the issue in a serious matter."
What then, he asked, can one do? "You take a page out of the book of Teichman and ring a bell," Birnback said, calling upon students to pressure politicians to take action in matters of international concern.
- - -
WOULD STUDENT UNIONS AND MEMBERS
Pressure politicians to take action in Darfur?
In Nick Birnback's talk (see above) he called upon students to pressure politicians to take action in matters of international concern.
Could we reach out to student unions around the world and ask their members to put pressure on politicians and the UN Security Council? If anybody has an insight into how best to do this, or knows somebody who does, please email here or the Passion with ideas, suggestions, tips (and what action you would like politicians to take) asap. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you.
- - -
WHAT ACTION COULD WE PUSH FOR?
Armed intervention ... and for how long ... a regime change ...no fly zone ...sanctions ...or what?
Note the following excerpt from a December 4 report by Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau Chief, Jon Sawyer, and the questions asked of human rights groups and media by John Danforth, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations:
" ... Danforth railed at the human-rights groups and media, especially The Washington Post, that have faulted the administration for not pressing hard enough on Darfur, where an estimated 70,000 individuals have died and 1.6 million have been driven from their homes.
"The Washington Post said Darfur was another Rwanda, that the U.S. government and Bush don't care and that if they cared they could stop this," Danforth said. "But they didn't have the gut to say how they would do it. Did they propose armed intervention? An attack on Khartoum [the Sudan capital]? They wouldn't say. Did they propose occupying an area the size of France in perpetuity? They didn't say. They pulled their punch. "What's the chance of the Security Council authorizing a military response if we can't even use the word 'sanctions'?" ..."
Photo: John C. Danforth, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
If we are to push politicians to take action, we need to be clear what it is we are asking them to do. It'd be interesting to know what readers think - and what Mr Danforth would advise students to push for as he's most likely to know what would work. The peace agreement Mr Danforth worked so hard for over the last three years is the only hope for Sudan. If there are not tens of thousands of protection troops in Darfur, the situation could get worse especially if new rebel groups spring up.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
John Danforth: Hope to bring peace in Darfur. Danforth's tenure was marked by frustration with U.N. weaknesses
After reading the below copied report, it seems we are clutching at straws hoping for the UN Security Council to take action against Sudan when they won't even mention the word sanctions.
Considering what the African Union President said yesterday, just a few hours after meeting with President Bush at the White House- that he did not believe Darfur was genocide - one has to start coming to terms with the probability that the UN Commission investigating genocide in Darfur, may declare Darfur as ethnic cleansing and maybe crimes against humanity, but not genocide.
After seven months of blogging almost daily about Darfur, the whole horrific mind blowing story and ways of the world get more sickening as each day passes. Maybe it's too late at night right now to feel any glimmer of hope for Darfur. Perhaps things will look more hopeful in the morning. Doubt it though - unless something drastic happens, like Khartoum falling to the rebels or Kofi Annan stepping down. What else is there? There's no way a state of emergency will be declared and Darfur turned into a UN Protectorate. Who else can do anything except a new Secretary-General during a honeymoon period? Any of those options are not an overnight deal. My hopes are that the international community are working behind the scenes to support the rebels (which is what I believe they have been doing all along) and the regime in Khartoum will soon be overthrown.
Whatever, nothing much will happen until January. Back in May, it was agreed by Sudan that thousands of peacekeepers would enter the country to monitor the newly signed peace deals and ceasefire agreements. Final peace agreements are scheduled to be signed December 31. Right now, blogging about Darfur feels so pointless. Some days it's soul destroying. Imagine what John Danforth must have been thinking in the still of the night after meetings with the UN Security Council and Khartoum. Like I said, it's late at night and I am going to sleep now. God bless everyone on the ground in Sudan - and God help them, they sure need a miracle to happen. I'll pray for them.
The following editorial by reporter Jon Sawyer appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch New York Daily News today. It gives a good insight into the frustrating time Ambassdor Danforth had in his post and, reading between the lines, the no-hope situation for millions of Sudanese if the peace deals and ceasefire agreements fall apart.
John C. Danforth
( Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON - He was seen as a moderating influence within a conservative administration, a conciliatory figure with the potential to soothe tensions on a U.N. Security Council where anti-U.S. hostilities still ran strong.
As U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John C. Danforth met those expectations, to an extent, by embracing compromise proposals to nudge Sudan toward peace while forging unusually warm relations with other U.N. ambassadors. Yet as he leaves the post, announcing Thursday that he wants to return home to St. Louis to spend more time with his wife and family, the irony is that Danforth is more skeptical himself of the United Nations, and certainly more frustrated, than when he took the job in July.
The frustrations spilled out during a long conversation with the Post-Dispatch Nov. 20, two days before Danforth formally submitted his resignation to President George W. Bush. The interview took place aboard Air Force Two, en route home from what was arguably Danforth's greatest triumph, taking the entire Security Council membership to Nairobi, Kenya, to press for an end to Sudan's 21-year civil war.
It was the first time in 14 years that the council had met outside New York, only the fourth in half a century, and the gamble appeared to have paid off. The two-day meeting ended with all 15 council members united, standing behind representatives of Sudan's government and the main Southern rebel group as they signed a memorandum pledging to conclude final peace talks by Dec. 31.
U.N. weaknesses
Yet as Danforth reviewed the trip, and his overall tenure, he appeared more conscious of what hadn't been done, of what - given the current U.N. environment - couldn't be done.
"What's the Security Council?" he mused. "It is the only real power within the United Nations, and it's a very weak power."
Danforth said that in his view the Nairobi trip had demonstrated the council's main strength - "the ability to put serious problems front and center" - but also its weakness, the system of vetoes and super majorities that prevented it from exercising "its power to do more than that, to actually act."
He was even more dismissive of the General Assembly ("basically just a debating society") and of a secretariat that has become bogged down in the Iraq oil-for-food inquiry and other scandals.
The five months since Danforth was sworn in by his old friend, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, have seen a litany of setbacks:
No progress on what had been billed as a major goal: Getting the United Nations to take on a larger role in planning and oversight of the Iraq elections now set for Jan. 30.
A quick shootdown of the suggestion he floated in September: That the United Nations create a group of leaders from different religious faiths to address the religious component in so much current violence. It set off nearly as many alarms within the State Department as among countries like China and Russia.
On Israel and the Palestinians, more of the same. Danforth had no more success than previous U.S. ambassadors at getting the world body past the posturing that has been reflexively anti-Israel. The one Security Council veto he cast was to block a resolution condemning Israel.
"It was unbelievable when Yasser Arafat died," Danforth said, recalling the speeches by council members following the death of the Palestinian leader last month that portrayed him "in the most heroic terms."
Petty bureaucratic rules, from having to vet what he said with the State Department to ethics rules that said his wife couldn't ride alone in his official limousine even if it was only to pick him up en route to an official engagement.
The council's trip to Nairobi was itself the product of frustration, Danforth's inability over the preceding three months to get the council even to threaten sanctions against Sudan for its alleged human-rights violations in the western region of Darfur.
Danforth railed at the human-rights groups and media, especially The Washington Post, that have faulted the administration for not pressing hard enough on Darfur, where an estimated 70,000 individuals have died and 1.6 million have been driven from their homes.
"The Washington Post said Darfur was another Rwanda, that the U.S. government and Bush don't care and that if they cared they could stop this," Danforth said. "But they didn't have the gut to say how they would do it. Did they propose armed intervention? An attack on Khartoum [the Sudan capital]? They wouldn't say. Did they propose occupying an area the size of France in perpetuity? They didn't say. They pulled their punch.
"What's the chance of the Security Council authorizing a military response if we can't even use the word 'sanctions'?"
Whether the government of Sudan and the leading rebel group in southern Sudan follow through on a promised peace deal by Dec. 31 remains to be seen, as does the council's premise that resolution of the north-south civil war will make possible an end to violence in Darfur.
Danforth said he alone had decided to take the council to Nairobi - "I woke up one morning and thought we should go," he recalled. Darfur had been on center stage since before he took up the U.N. post. But in the face of strong opposition from China, Russia and pro-Sudan Muslim members of the council, the resolutions he got through the council skirted even the mention of sanctions.
So Danforth took a risk, persuading the council to make the unusual trip to Africa and then persuading the Pentagon to supply the U.S. jet that ferried them there. What he especially liked, he said, was the opportunity for the 15 Security Council ambassadors to spend time together and to work toward a common goal.
"I think this has been a great thing for the council," he said. "Little stuff, like having this plane - it created a camaraderie that's very helpful. The council really felt good" when the peace memorandum was signed, he added. "They felt they were acting together, doing something important, that they had accomplished something."
Danforth insisted that in orchestrating a potentially risky trip he was simply carrying out Bush administration policy.
"The president has an interest in Sudan, in fixing Sudan. That was the impetus of my being asked to do this job.
"So the question was: What do we do about it? I've not viewed myself as having a policy role. I don't know where policy stops and where going out and making it work begins."
That Sudan preoccupied Danforth during most of his U.N. tenure made sense, given his role as Bush's envoy for that country's peace process since 2001 and the prominence of Darfur now. In his resignation letter to the president Danforth said he was open to taking on such specific tasks again, so long as he could do them from a St. Louis base.
Even as he vented on the parts of the job he disliked, Danforth made it clear that home and family, especially his wife, Sally, were the overwhelming factors that had led him to cut short his diplomatic career.
"Projects are one thing," he said. "A full-time job outside of St. Louis is another. Basically what I am is a St. Louis guy married to a St. Louis girl for 47 years. I would like to spend more time with both of them."
- - -
John Danforth: Hope to bring peace in Darfur
The following editorial appeared online at NewsFromRussia.Com December 4, 2004.
The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, says the recently signed peace memorandum between the government of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement offers the best hope to end the humanitarian crisis and bring peace in Darfur, in the western part of country.
The 15-member UN Security Council traveled to Nairobi, Kenya last month to oversee the signing of the memorandum, which calls for a signed peace agreement between the two sides to end civil war that has ravaged Sudan for 21 years. It was only the fourth time in its history that the Security Council has met outside of the United Nations' New York headquarters, says Voice of America.
According to Reuters, Danforth, 68, wrote his resignation letter on Nov. 22 but it was not released by the White House until Thursday. He told reporters he did not want "to sign on for a four-year stint at this point in my life."
"What I really want to do is go home. I mean it's really just as simple as that," he said. "What's most important to me is my wife and my home and having more time with both. I'm a St. Louis guy."
In a speech in St. Louis last month, Danforth said that as a former senator, he was not accustomed to having a policy statement vetted by Washington bureaucrats and transformed into "mush" before he could issue it.
But he said this was not the reason for his resignation because he knew the job entailed representing the view of the U.S. government and not an individual.
UN diplomats said Danforth's tenure at the UN would be remembered for his efforts to press the Sudanese government to end the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, including the Nov. 18-19 Security Council meetings in Kenya that produced a commitment by government and rebel forces to end a 20-year civil war in Sudan.
Danforth "was seen as someone passionate about this issue but, unfortunately, for reasons beyond his control, the Security Council wasn't willing to act on Darfur, which is another stain on the institution," Feinstein said.
The former senator "was frustrated because we have to do all this work to get language that everyone can support, so at the end we do not get anything bold and clear," said Ambassador Abdallah Baali of Algeria, president of the Security Council this month. "I will miss him because he brought a new spirit to the council and I really bonded with him", reports Bloomberg.
Considering what the African Union President said yesterday, just a few hours after meeting with President Bush at the White House- that he did not believe Darfur was genocide - one has to start coming to terms with the probability that the UN Commission investigating genocide in Darfur, may declare Darfur as ethnic cleansing and maybe crimes against humanity, but not genocide.
After seven months of blogging almost daily about Darfur, the whole horrific mind blowing story and ways of the world get more sickening as each day passes. Maybe it's too late at night right now to feel any glimmer of hope for Darfur. Perhaps things will look more hopeful in the morning. Doubt it though - unless something drastic happens, like Khartoum falling to the rebels or Kofi Annan stepping down. What else is there? There's no way a state of emergency will be declared and Darfur turned into a UN Protectorate. Who else can do anything except a new Secretary-General during a honeymoon period? Any of those options are not an overnight deal. My hopes are that the international community are working behind the scenes to support the rebels (which is what I believe they have been doing all along) and the regime in Khartoum will soon be overthrown.
Whatever, nothing much will happen until January. Back in May, it was agreed by Sudan that thousands of peacekeepers would enter the country to monitor the newly signed peace deals and ceasefire agreements. Final peace agreements are scheduled to be signed December 31. Right now, blogging about Darfur feels so pointless. Some days it's soul destroying. Imagine what John Danforth must have been thinking in the still of the night after meetings with the UN Security Council and Khartoum. Like I said, it's late at night and I am going to sleep now. God bless everyone on the ground in Sudan - and God help them, they sure need a miracle to happen. I'll pray for them.
The following editorial by reporter Jon Sawyer appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch New York Daily News today. It gives a good insight into the frustrating time Ambassdor Danforth had in his post and, reading between the lines, the no-hope situation for millions of Sudanese if the peace deals and ceasefire agreements fall apart.
John C. Danforth
( Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON - He was seen as a moderating influence within a conservative administration, a conciliatory figure with the potential to soothe tensions on a U.N. Security Council where anti-U.S. hostilities still ran strong.
As U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John C. Danforth met those expectations, to an extent, by embracing compromise proposals to nudge Sudan toward peace while forging unusually warm relations with other U.N. ambassadors. Yet as he leaves the post, announcing Thursday that he wants to return home to St. Louis to spend more time with his wife and family, the irony is that Danforth is more skeptical himself of the United Nations, and certainly more frustrated, than when he took the job in July.
The frustrations spilled out during a long conversation with the Post-Dispatch Nov. 20, two days before Danforth formally submitted his resignation to President George W. Bush. The interview took place aboard Air Force Two, en route home from what was arguably Danforth's greatest triumph, taking the entire Security Council membership to Nairobi, Kenya, to press for an end to Sudan's 21-year civil war.
It was the first time in 14 years that the council had met outside New York, only the fourth in half a century, and the gamble appeared to have paid off. The two-day meeting ended with all 15 council members united, standing behind representatives of Sudan's government and the main Southern rebel group as they signed a memorandum pledging to conclude final peace talks by Dec. 31.
U.N. weaknesses
Yet as Danforth reviewed the trip, and his overall tenure, he appeared more conscious of what hadn't been done, of what - given the current U.N. environment - couldn't be done.
"What's the Security Council?" he mused. "It is the only real power within the United Nations, and it's a very weak power."
Danforth said that in his view the Nairobi trip had demonstrated the council's main strength - "the ability to put serious problems front and center" - but also its weakness, the system of vetoes and super majorities that prevented it from exercising "its power to do more than that, to actually act."
He was even more dismissive of the General Assembly ("basically just a debating society") and of a secretariat that has become bogged down in the Iraq oil-for-food inquiry and other scandals.
The five months since Danforth was sworn in by his old friend, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, have seen a litany of setbacks:
No progress on what had been billed as a major goal: Getting the United Nations to take on a larger role in planning and oversight of the Iraq elections now set for Jan. 30.
A quick shootdown of the suggestion he floated in September: That the United Nations create a group of leaders from different religious faiths to address the religious component in so much current violence. It set off nearly as many alarms within the State Department as among countries like China and Russia.
On Israel and the Palestinians, more of the same. Danforth had no more success than previous U.S. ambassadors at getting the world body past the posturing that has been reflexively anti-Israel. The one Security Council veto he cast was to block a resolution condemning Israel.
"It was unbelievable when Yasser Arafat died," Danforth said, recalling the speeches by council members following the death of the Palestinian leader last month that portrayed him "in the most heroic terms."
Petty bureaucratic rules, from having to vet what he said with the State Department to ethics rules that said his wife couldn't ride alone in his official limousine even if it was only to pick him up en route to an official engagement.
The council's trip to Nairobi was itself the product of frustration, Danforth's inability over the preceding three months to get the council even to threaten sanctions against Sudan for its alleged human-rights violations in the western region of Darfur.
Danforth railed at the human-rights groups and media, especially The Washington Post, that have faulted the administration for not pressing hard enough on Darfur, where an estimated 70,000 individuals have died and 1.6 million have been driven from their homes.
"The Washington Post said Darfur was another Rwanda, that the U.S. government and Bush don't care and that if they cared they could stop this," Danforth said. "But they didn't have the gut to say how they would do it. Did they propose armed intervention? An attack on Khartoum [the Sudan capital]? They wouldn't say. Did they propose occupying an area the size of France in perpetuity? They didn't say. They pulled their punch.
"What's the chance of the Security Council authorizing a military response if we can't even use the word 'sanctions'?"
Whether the government of Sudan and the leading rebel group in southern Sudan follow through on a promised peace deal by Dec. 31 remains to be seen, as does the council's premise that resolution of the north-south civil war will make possible an end to violence in Darfur.
Danforth said he alone had decided to take the council to Nairobi - "I woke up one morning and thought we should go," he recalled. Darfur had been on center stage since before he took up the U.N. post. But in the face of strong opposition from China, Russia and pro-Sudan Muslim members of the council, the resolutions he got through the council skirted even the mention of sanctions.
So Danforth took a risk, persuading the council to make the unusual trip to Africa and then persuading the Pentagon to supply the U.S. jet that ferried them there. What he especially liked, he said, was the opportunity for the 15 Security Council ambassadors to spend time together and to work toward a common goal.
"I think this has been a great thing for the council," he said. "Little stuff, like having this plane - it created a camaraderie that's very helpful. The council really felt good" when the peace memorandum was signed, he added. "They felt they were acting together, doing something important, that they had accomplished something."
Danforth insisted that in orchestrating a potentially risky trip he was simply carrying out Bush administration policy.
"The president has an interest in Sudan, in fixing Sudan. That was the impetus of my being asked to do this job.
"So the question was: What do we do about it? I've not viewed myself as having a policy role. I don't know where policy stops and where going out and making it work begins."
That Sudan preoccupied Danforth during most of his U.N. tenure made sense, given his role as Bush's envoy for that country's peace process since 2001 and the prominence of Darfur now. In his resignation letter to the president Danforth said he was open to taking on such specific tasks again, so long as he could do them from a St. Louis base.
Even as he vented on the parts of the job he disliked, Danforth made it clear that home and family, especially his wife, Sally, were the overwhelming factors that had led him to cut short his diplomatic career.
"Projects are one thing," he said. "A full-time job outside of St. Louis is another. Basically what I am is a St. Louis guy married to a St. Louis girl for 47 years. I would like to spend more time with both of them."
- - -
John Danforth: Hope to bring peace in Darfur
The following editorial appeared online at NewsFromRussia.Com December 4, 2004.
The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, says the recently signed peace memorandum between the government of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement offers the best hope to end the humanitarian crisis and bring peace in Darfur, in the western part of country.
The 15-member UN Security Council traveled to Nairobi, Kenya last month to oversee the signing of the memorandum, which calls for a signed peace agreement between the two sides to end civil war that has ravaged Sudan for 21 years. It was only the fourth time in its history that the Security Council has met outside of the United Nations' New York headquarters, says Voice of America.
According to Reuters, Danforth, 68, wrote his resignation letter on Nov. 22 but it was not released by the White House until Thursday. He told reporters he did not want "to sign on for a four-year stint at this point in my life."
"What I really want to do is go home. I mean it's really just as simple as that," he said. "What's most important to me is my wife and my home and having more time with both. I'm a St. Louis guy."
In a speech in St. Louis last month, Danforth said that as a former senator, he was not accustomed to having a policy statement vetted by Washington bureaucrats and transformed into "mush" before he could issue it.
But he said this was not the reason for his resignation because he knew the job entailed representing the view of the U.S. government and not an individual.
UN diplomats said Danforth's tenure at the UN would be remembered for his efforts to press the Sudanese government to end the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, including the Nov. 18-19 Security Council meetings in Kenya that produced a commitment by government and rebel forces to end a 20-year civil war in Sudan.
Danforth "was seen as someone passionate about this issue but, unfortunately, for reasons beyond his control, the Security Council wasn't willing to act on Darfur, which is another stain on the institution," Feinstein said.
The former senator "was frustrated because we have to do all this work to get language that everyone can support, so at the end we do not get anything bold and clear," said Ambassador Abdallah Baali of Algeria, president of the Security Council this month. "I will miss him because he brought a new spirit to the council and I really bonded with him", reports Bloomberg.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
No U.S. release for Band Aid 20 - Fran Healy called criticism of the single for Darfur "disgraceful"
Band Aid 20's version of the 1984 charity hit "Do They Know it's Christmas" for Darfur is a smash hit in its opening days on the British charts. The updated tune sold nearly 100,000 copies on Monday, its first day in stores, and was moving 2,500 copies an hour at Woolworth stores, according to Britain's Sun newspaper. UK music magazine NME predicted that first-week sales of the single will hover near 500,000--which would make it the year's second fastest-selling single.
In the UK, the song is expected to be at number one and stay at the top of the Brit pops until Christmas. But it has been dealt a massive blow in its bid to raise awareness and funds for Darfur - the track might not make it to US record shops before Christmas, if at all, according to industry sources - it's not going to be released in America.
Record company Universal is responsible for the global distribution of the single, which will be available across Europe, Asia, South America and Canada. Although US record stores are selling imports of the tune - which is proving popular in Los Angeles and New York - a rep for Universal in New York says there are no immediate plans to release the single in America.
One report says, "The last we heard it is not coming out in the U.S.," says Jerry Suarez, Virgin Megastore's senior music product manager for North America. The chain is selling an import version of the CD single.
"Historically, the American marketplace has proven averse to much of what has been incredibly successful in England," says HITS magazine editor and E! News Live correspondent David Adelson. "Despite the success of the first Band Aid, as well as the noble cause behind this latest one, the chance of replicating the song's U.K. success Stateside is slim at best," he said.
Another report suggests Universal's apparent ambivalence at releasing the tune has something to do with the lukewarm critical reaction. British critics harshed on it ("Nobody's idea of a great record," opined the Guardian), and in New Zealand, one radio station has even banned the tune--calling it "rubbish."
Travis frontman Fran Healy called criticism of the single for Darfur "disgraceful."
The song is available on Apple's iTunes music download service, but only on UK and European versions of the online store.
US fans wanting to hear the new version can go to the official Website, BandAid20.com - and may have to keep trying. I tried to access it a few minutes ago but it wouldn't open on screen. Perhaps it's swamped with other visitors.
Proceeds from the sales are going towards relief for Darfur and to combat HIV and Aids across Africa.
Going by the above news, it would appear that criticism of the single, and doubts that Americans would buy it, have deterred Universal from releasing it in the US. Hey come on USA, please prove the naysayers wrong and help raise awareness by spreading the word.
Public demand could result in the single being released in the USA and millions of copies sold before Christmas. Who knows, it may even reach the ears of the members of the UN Security Council (and their famillies and friends) and shame them into action.
Also, please do not miss Jim's latest post at the Passion: "You can help: Remove Kofi Annan from the United Nations."
INDEPENDENCE OF REBEL COMMANDERS IN DARFUR THREATENS EFFORTS TO BRING PEACE
The latest news from the UN is that raping and fighting are continuing in Darfur despite the peace accords
UN officials say they're noticing splits within the rebel movement. There appears to be little coordination between the military forces in Darfur and the rebel political wing that's negotiating peace. Dozens of local commanders now control their own territories. "The world might soon find Darfur ruled by warlords," warned Jan Pronk, the top UN envoy in Sudan.
RAPES, FORCED MOVES CONTINUE IN DARFUR
Arab Janjaweed militia continued to rape women and girls in Darfur last month while authorities forcibly moved refugees, says the UN. There is very little the UN monitors can do to prevent it while it is happening. Forced relocations are usually undertaken by police and law enforcement officials.
The number of UN human rights monitors is set to double shortly to 32, but they remain basically helpless to halt violations in Darfur, where about 1,000 African Union ceasefire monitors are also deployed.
AFRICAN UNION SOLDIERS ATTACKED AND SHOT
The mandate of the 1,000 AU soldiers currently in Sudan is to observe and protect the UN monitors who are there to observe ceasefire agreements. Fighting between warring parties has escalated. AU troops have come under fire and one has been shot.
The shooting of the AU peacekeeper occurred as a team of ceasefire monitors were travelling to the village of Adwah in north Nyala, to investigate an alleged bombing by the government in breach of a ceasefire agreement with rebels.
On Thursday, an AU spokesman told IRIN: If they come under fire, then they will shoot back. "They have to protect their lives - and they will." The current 830-strong peacekeeping force in Darfur would "not give in to intimidation" he said.
The monitors find their task daunting. AU troops can intervene militarily only if the civilians and aid workers they encounter are "under imminent threat and in immediate vicinity" of attacks. AU monitors frequently witness human rights abuses they are powerless to stop.
"It's not an easy job," an AU spokesman says. "This is not a peacekeeping mission where you can exert some kind of force. Nobody ever agreed to that."
ANARCHY AND LANDMINES
With anarchy breaking out in Darfur, there is no ceasefire to observe. After decades of war in Sudan, landmines are all over the country. A freshly laid mine recently killed two British aid workers. A no-fly zone has not been imposed. Government of Sudan forces still continue to bomb.
Sudan has called for international help to eliminate landmines. "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," an official said.
A report out today "UN Agency appeals for funds to de-mine Sudan roads" states that a six-year mine action strategy sealed in Nairobi in August between Khartoum and southern rebels has now allowed the UN to begin work in southern Sudan, clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance. Perhaps this is the work that is planned for UN peacekeepers when they enter Sudan to monitor peace agreements, after they're signed December 31, 2004.
KHARTOUM'S CLAMPDOWN
Several days ago, Sudan's government tried to expel two British aid workers for speaking to the press and mentioning recent bombings by Sudan's government forces, without clearing it through Khartoum first. Hard news from the field is not easy to come by. Whatever news comes out of Sudan, the regime in power are such masters at spinning propaganda you can't trust a word they say.
Patrick Hall points out that in June 2004 there was an urgency to speak to foreigners about the massive abuses committed in Darfur among the displaced community. But since September the displaced have become afraid of talking. They are being watched by the security forces and the police within the camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and fear being arrested after being seen speaking to foreigners.
Patrick says Amnesty International's latest report on Sudan, titled "No one to complain to - no respite for the victims, impunity for perpetrators" describes in detail exactly what the refugees are now afraid to report to the outside world.
UN troops are often criticised for not being allowed to intervene
U.N. PROTECTION TROOPS
More UN monitors and AU observers without a mandate to protect and defend? There is no ceasefire to observe and no peace to keep. Tens of thousands of protection troops from the UN are urgently needed in Darfur to back up the AU troops. Everyone on the ground in Sudan - and the people of Darfur - need all the help and publicity they can get. Please spread the word. Thank you.
Please do not miss Jim's post at the Passion "You can help: Remove Kofi Annan from the United Nations." A new broom at the UN could do wonders for Sudan and Africa as a whole.
BLAIR BUYS COPIES OF BAND AID 20 SINGLE
Prime Minister Tony Blair purchased two copies of Band Aid 20 yesterday.
Staff were surprised when the Prime Minister walked into HMV at 0900 GMT, accompanied by aides and local police.
"When Mr Blair came in unannounced, we were all pretty gobsmacked," said HMV manager Clive Smith.
"Our customer helper approached him... it was only then we realised he wanted to buy copies of the Band Aid single, rather than the latest Eminem album."
In the UK, the song is expected to be at number one and stay at the top of the Brit pops until Christmas. But it has been dealt a massive blow in its bid to raise awareness and funds for Darfur - the track might not make it to US record shops before Christmas, if at all, according to industry sources - it's not going to be released in America.
Record company Universal is responsible for the global distribution of the single, which will be available across Europe, Asia, South America and Canada. Although US record stores are selling imports of the tune - which is proving popular in Los Angeles and New York - a rep for Universal in New York says there are no immediate plans to release the single in America.
One report says, "The last we heard it is not coming out in the U.S.," says Jerry Suarez, Virgin Megastore's senior music product manager for North America. The chain is selling an import version of the CD single.
"Historically, the American marketplace has proven averse to much of what has been incredibly successful in England," says HITS magazine editor and E! News Live correspondent David Adelson. "Despite the success of the first Band Aid, as well as the noble cause behind this latest one, the chance of replicating the song's U.K. success Stateside is slim at best," he said.
Another report suggests Universal's apparent ambivalence at releasing the tune has something to do with the lukewarm critical reaction. British critics harshed on it ("Nobody's idea of a great record," opined the Guardian), and in New Zealand, one radio station has even banned the tune--calling it "rubbish."
Travis frontman Fran Healy called criticism of the single for Darfur "disgraceful."
The song is available on Apple's iTunes music download service, but only on UK and European versions of the online store.
US fans wanting to hear the new version can go to the official Website, BandAid20.com - and may have to keep trying. I tried to access it a few minutes ago but it wouldn't open on screen. Perhaps it's swamped with other visitors.
Proceeds from the sales are going towards relief for Darfur and to combat HIV and Aids across Africa.
Going by the above news, it would appear that criticism of the single, and doubts that Americans would buy it, have deterred Universal from releasing it in the US. Hey come on USA, please prove the naysayers wrong and help raise awareness by spreading the word.
Public demand could result in the single being released in the USA and millions of copies sold before Christmas. Who knows, it may even reach the ears of the members of the UN Security Council (and their famillies and friends) and shame them into action.
Also, please do not miss Jim's latest post at the Passion: "You can help: Remove Kofi Annan from the United Nations."
INDEPENDENCE OF REBEL COMMANDERS IN DARFUR THREATENS EFFORTS TO BRING PEACE
The latest news from the UN is that raping and fighting are continuing in Darfur despite the peace accords
UN officials say they're noticing splits within the rebel movement. There appears to be little coordination between the military forces in Darfur and the rebel political wing that's negotiating peace. Dozens of local commanders now control their own territories. "The world might soon find Darfur ruled by warlords," warned Jan Pronk, the top UN envoy in Sudan.
RAPES, FORCED MOVES CONTINUE IN DARFUR
Arab Janjaweed militia continued to rape women and girls in Darfur last month while authorities forcibly moved refugees, says the UN. There is very little the UN monitors can do to prevent it while it is happening. Forced relocations are usually undertaken by police and law enforcement officials.
The number of UN human rights monitors is set to double shortly to 32, but they remain basically helpless to halt violations in Darfur, where about 1,000 African Union ceasefire monitors are also deployed.
AFRICAN UNION SOLDIERS ATTACKED AND SHOT
The mandate of the 1,000 AU soldiers currently in Sudan is to observe and protect the UN monitors who are there to observe ceasefire agreements. Fighting between warring parties has escalated. AU troops have come under fire and one has been shot.
The shooting of the AU peacekeeper occurred as a team of ceasefire monitors were travelling to the village of Adwah in north Nyala, to investigate an alleged bombing by the government in breach of a ceasefire agreement with rebels.
On Thursday, an AU spokesman told IRIN: If they come under fire, then they will shoot back. "They have to protect their lives - and they will." The current 830-strong peacekeeping force in Darfur would "not give in to intimidation" he said.
The monitors find their task daunting. AU troops can intervene militarily only if the civilians and aid workers they encounter are "under imminent threat and in immediate vicinity" of attacks. AU monitors frequently witness human rights abuses they are powerless to stop.
"It's not an easy job," an AU spokesman says. "This is not a peacekeeping mission where you can exert some kind of force. Nobody ever agreed to that."
ANARCHY AND LANDMINES
With anarchy breaking out in Darfur, there is no ceasefire to observe. After decades of war in Sudan, landmines are all over the country. A freshly laid mine recently killed two British aid workers. A no-fly zone has not been imposed. Government of Sudan forces still continue to bomb.
Sudan has called for international help to eliminate landmines. "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," an official said.
A report out today "UN Agency appeals for funds to de-mine Sudan roads" states that a six-year mine action strategy sealed in Nairobi in August between Khartoum and southern rebels has now allowed the UN to begin work in southern Sudan, clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance. Perhaps this is the work that is planned for UN peacekeepers when they enter Sudan to monitor peace agreements, after they're signed December 31, 2004.
KHARTOUM'S CLAMPDOWN
Several days ago, Sudan's government tried to expel two British aid workers for speaking to the press and mentioning recent bombings by Sudan's government forces, without clearing it through Khartoum first. Hard news from the field is not easy to come by. Whatever news comes out of Sudan, the regime in power are such masters at spinning propaganda you can't trust a word they say.
Patrick Hall points out that in June 2004 there was an urgency to speak to foreigners about the massive abuses committed in Darfur among the displaced community. But since September the displaced have become afraid of talking. They are being watched by the security forces and the police within the camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and fear being arrested after being seen speaking to foreigners.
Patrick says Amnesty International's latest report on Sudan, titled "No one to complain to - no respite for the victims, impunity for perpetrators" describes in detail exactly what the refugees are now afraid to report to the outside world.
UN troops are often criticised for not being allowed to intervene
U.N. PROTECTION TROOPS
More UN monitors and AU observers without a mandate to protect and defend? There is no ceasefire to observe and no peace to keep. Tens of thousands of protection troops from the UN are urgently needed in Darfur to back up the AU troops. Everyone on the ground in Sudan - and the people of Darfur - need all the help and publicity they can get. Please spread the word. Thank you.
Please do not miss Jim's post at the Passion "You can help: Remove Kofi Annan from the United Nations." A new broom at the UN could do wonders for Sudan and Africa as a whole.
BLAIR BUYS COPIES OF BAND AID 20 SINGLE
Prime Minister Tony Blair purchased two copies of Band Aid 20 yesterday.
Staff were surprised when the Prime Minister walked into HMV at 0900 GMT, accompanied by aides and local police.
"When Mr Blair came in unannounced, we were all pretty gobsmacked," said HMV manager Clive Smith.
"Our customer helper approached him... it was only then we realised he wanted to buy copies of the Band Aid single, rather than the latest Eminem album."
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?"
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?"
Friday, December 03, 2004
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
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.
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.
“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.
If anyone has problems using FeedBurner here, please let me know. There's a good introduction to Podcasts here.
Monday, November 29, 2004
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]
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.
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
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
Sunday, November 28, 2004
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!
Saturday, November 27, 2004
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)