On July 1, the Netherlands took over the rotating presidency of the European Union. On January 1, they handed the reins to neighbor Luxembourg. On a per capita basis, the Netherlands contributes the most to Brussels' coffers. Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot threatened the Sudanese government with sanctions if it didn't stop the violence in Darfur. But he had to back down after the EU was unable to agree on a common position.
On Sunday, The EU said it was ready to unblock financial aid if progress was made in Darfur. The Commission said it was ready to provide financial aid worth more than 400 million euros (540 million dollars) over the next three years to Sudan. "This process will, however, depend on the additional efforts to be made by all parties in order to improve the situation in the Darfur," the E.U. head office said in a statement.
Despite the freeze on development aid, the E.U. commission has continued to provide emergency humanitarian relief to Sudan, at around EUR160 million a year.
Monday, January 03, 2005
UN says thousands of IDPs being relocated from crowded camp - WHO Polio Campaign 10-12 Jan
A UN report says half of the estimated 120,000 internally displaced persons in the swollen Kalma Camp in Darfur will be relocated to three new sites early this month. Excerpt:
During a recent visit to the area, Manuel Aranda da Silva, the Deputy Special Representative for the Secretary-General in Sudan, expressed satisfaction at the ongoing process of relocation of IDPs, for whom three new relocation sites have been identified. The sites would cater to 60,000 IDPs, with 20,000 at each site, and the relocation would be carried out in the first weeks of January.
Mr. Aranda da Silva, who is in charge of humanitarian affairs and development, met with Sudanese local authorities and representatives of the UN agencies, including those working at Kalma Camp.
Meanwhile, with 15 new cases of polio reported, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) said its anti-polio vaccination campaign for Sudan would run from 10 to 12 January and would target 5.9 million children. As of last week there were 94 cases of polio in the country, with 40 of those in Sudan's capital, Khartoum.
Bretton Woods institutions adopt initiative to offer Sudan debt relief - Arab League joins Darfur ceasefire monitoring body
Last week I wrote a vent about the following article that appeared at the Sudan Tribune online. I vented against the invisible mysterious "suits" that quietly give such important initiatives the nod without explaining what it is all about to us the general public. After I cooled down, I decided against posting it. Here is a copy of the article that triggered the vent:
KHARTOUM, Dec 23, 2004 (MENA) -- The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) adopted an initiative to exempt Sudan from its debts and lure international finance for reconstruction operations and arrangements for the post-peace stage.
An IMF-WB Joint Assessment Mission (JAM), at the end of talks it held with a host of Finance and National Economy Ministry officials, underlined a strategy to combat poverty with a view to macro-economy regarding economic growth rates and fair distribution of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The mission discussed with the Finance Ministry and the Bank of Sudan institutional reforms to apply the government statistics system in the budget and upgrade the efficiency of cash flow management.
Further reading:
Dec. 23: Jim Moore writes: "What? Unbelievable, if it weren't true: Great time for the World Bank and the IMF to show support for the genocidal regime in Sudan. ... on the same day that Kofi Annan called for emergency help to stop the fighting in Darfur, and just after George W. Bush signed into law a new set of sanctions against Sudan, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund gave Sudan a high sign!"
Dec. 29: Sudan Tribune article: The Arab League head visits Sudan and denies discussing troop deployment: as for the role of the Arab League in settling the Darfur problem, he said the Arab League attended Abuja negotiations between the Sudanese government and the Darfur rebels and took part in all the follow-up committees of the negotiations. When asked about the Arab League reform file, he said new reform steps will be discussed during the Arab summit in Algiers in March, pointing out that the main step is to establish a joint Arab parliament and the formation of joint Arab troops. He called for unifying Arab ranks in confronting dangers facing the Arab world.
Dec. 2: Sudan Tribune article: The Arab League joins Darfur ceasefire monitoring body: the Arab League will now become member of all three international mechanisms following up the situation in Sudan's troubled region. Members in the cease-fire monitoring committee are the African Union, Chad, Libya, Nigeria in addition to the US, France, Britain, the EU, the UN and now the Arab League.
KHARTOUM, Dec 23, 2004 (MENA) -- The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) adopted an initiative to exempt Sudan from its debts and lure international finance for reconstruction operations and arrangements for the post-peace stage.
An IMF-WB Joint Assessment Mission (JAM), at the end of talks it held with a host of Finance and National Economy Ministry officials, underlined a strategy to combat poverty with a view to macro-economy regarding economic growth rates and fair distribution of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The mission discussed with the Finance Ministry and the Bank of Sudan institutional reforms to apply the government statistics system in the budget and upgrade the efficiency of cash flow management.
Further reading:
Dec. 23: Jim Moore writes: "What? Unbelievable, if it weren't true: Great time for the World Bank and the IMF to show support for the genocidal regime in Sudan. ... on the same day that Kofi Annan called for emergency help to stop the fighting in Darfur, and just after George W. Bush signed into law a new set of sanctions against Sudan, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund gave Sudan a high sign!"
Dec. 29: Sudan Tribune article: The Arab League head visits Sudan and denies discussing troop deployment: as for the role of the Arab League in settling the Darfur problem, he said the Arab League attended Abuja negotiations between the Sudanese government and the Darfur rebels and took part in all the follow-up committees of the negotiations. When asked about the Arab League reform file, he said new reform steps will be discussed during the Arab summit in Algiers in March, pointing out that the main step is to establish a joint Arab parliament and the formation of joint Arab troops. He called for unifying Arab ranks in confronting dangers facing the Arab world.
Dec. 2: Sudan Tribune article: The Arab League joins Darfur ceasefire monitoring body: the Arab League will now become member of all three international mechanisms following up the situation in Sudan's troubled region. Members in the cease-fire monitoring committee are the African Union, Chad, Libya, Nigeria in addition to the US, France, Britain, the EU, the UN and now the Arab League.
Danish Minister tough in Khartoum - British minister calls for reform of UN relief efforts
A report in The Copenhagen Post says as an incoming member of the UN Security Council from January, Denmark's diplomatic role carries new weight and if Sudan fails to shape up, Denmark will work actively for a UN crackdown on the African country. Read full story.
Note, as of January 1, 2005, Luxembourg takes over presidency of the European Union (EU) and Britain holds presidency of the G8.
- - -
British minister calls for reform of UN relief efforts
See Guardian UK special report December 30, 2004 Benn calls for reform of UN relief efforts.
Note, as of January 1, 2005, Luxembourg takes over presidency of the European Union (EU) and Britain holds presidency of the G8.
- - -
British minister calls for reform of UN relief efforts
See Guardian UK special report December 30, 2004 Benn calls for reform of UN relief efforts.
Obstacles remain for Sudan's new hopes of peace
The following report by Andrew England in today's Financial Times gives a good summary of the latest news on Sudan's new hopes of peace. Note it mentions SPLA links to the Darfur rebels - and concerns that eastern groups could take up arms with demands similar to the SPLA's:
African leaders and western diplomats are expected to gather in Nairobi on Sunday to witness what could be a historic agreement to end Sudan's 21-year civil war.
The signing of a peace deal between the Islamic government and the southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) will in theory mark the beginning of a new era for a nation blighted by decades of poor government and civil conflict.
The belligerents on Friday signed two protocols clearing the last obstacles to a comprehensive accord.
For war-weary Sudanese, the breakthrough offers the hope of much-needed development after millions of dollars were wasted on a conflict that killed an estimated 2m people.
It also holds the promise of elections after more than a decade of autocratic rule by a government accused of human rights abuses and of sponsoring terrorists including Osama bin Laden.
And there is the hope that it will help end Sudan's latest crisis, a separate insurgency in the western region of Darfur. Yet the challenges and potential pitfalls that lie ahead are numerous.
The deal gives the SPLA 28 per cent of the posts in a transitional government. The ruling National Congress will have 52 per cent, and other groups will fill the remaining positions. John Garang, the SPLA's leader, is to be sworn in as vice-president during a six-month period beginning on Monday.
Elections are to be held in three years. At the end of a transition period lasting six years, southerners will decide whether to secede.
But each side deeply mistrusts the other.
The SPLA took up arms for a second time in 1983 in pursuit of a greater share of wealth and power for the south, which is inhabited mainly by Africans who are Christians or who follow traditional beliefs.
Since independence, Sudan has been run by Arab-dominated administrations, and Africa's largest country remains very underdeveloped, despite vast resources.
People in the east, west and south complain of marginalisation. The Darfur crisis erupted in February 2003 when rebels took up arms with demands similar to the SPLA's. There have been concerns that eastern groups could follow suit.
Meanwhile, Darfur continues to cast a huge shadow over the north-south peace process and will be a key test of the ability of the SPLA and the National Congress to work together.
Diplomats hope the southern deal will help end the insurgency because the SPLA had links to the Darfur insurgents. Some also believe administrative arrangements planned for three disputed areas in central Sudan could be used as models for other marginalised areas.
But increasing violence threatens the peace dividends expected by Khartoum, which hopes to be welcomed back into the international fold after years as a pariah state.
The European Union has said it will begin the process of unlocking €400m (£280m, $540m) in development funds held back since 1990 but will be closely watching developments.
A UK-led international initiative to help with Sudan's $26bn debt is expected to be delayed, however.
And it is unlikely that the US Congress, which has described the violence in Darfur as genocide, will allow sanctions to be lifted unless there is a dramatic improvement there.
Still, the international community's support for the peace process will be critical to its success.
"If the international community is not diligent, [the process] will go off-line so quickly our heads will spin because there will be such unwillingness to do the things they have made concessions on," warns John Prendergast, of the International Crisis Group think-tank. "There's a tremendous gulf between expectations and reality."
Further reading:
Dec 29 Eric Reeves: report on a peace "agreement" between Khartoum and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army: Has the regime done anything but change the subject?
African leaders and western diplomats are expected to gather in Nairobi on Sunday to witness what could be a historic agreement to end Sudan's 21-year civil war.
The signing of a peace deal between the Islamic government and the southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) will in theory mark the beginning of a new era for a nation blighted by decades of poor government and civil conflict.
The belligerents on Friday signed two protocols clearing the last obstacles to a comprehensive accord.
For war-weary Sudanese, the breakthrough offers the hope of much-needed development after millions of dollars were wasted on a conflict that killed an estimated 2m people.
It also holds the promise of elections after more than a decade of autocratic rule by a government accused of human rights abuses and of sponsoring terrorists including Osama bin Laden.
And there is the hope that it will help end Sudan's latest crisis, a separate insurgency in the western region of Darfur. Yet the challenges and potential pitfalls that lie ahead are numerous.
The deal gives the SPLA 28 per cent of the posts in a transitional government. The ruling National Congress will have 52 per cent, and other groups will fill the remaining positions. John Garang, the SPLA's leader, is to be sworn in as vice-president during a six-month period beginning on Monday.
Elections are to be held in three years. At the end of a transition period lasting six years, southerners will decide whether to secede.
But each side deeply mistrusts the other.
The SPLA took up arms for a second time in 1983 in pursuit of a greater share of wealth and power for the south, which is inhabited mainly by Africans who are Christians or who follow traditional beliefs.
Since independence, Sudan has been run by Arab-dominated administrations, and Africa's largest country remains very underdeveloped, despite vast resources.
People in the east, west and south complain of marginalisation. The Darfur crisis erupted in February 2003 when rebels took up arms with demands similar to the SPLA's. There have been concerns that eastern groups could follow suit.
Meanwhile, Darfur continues to cast a huge shadow over the north-south peace process and will be a key test of the ability of the SPLA and the National Congress to work together.
Diplomats hope the southern deal will help end the insurgency because the SPLA had links to the Darfur insurgents. Some also believe administrative arrangements planned for three disputed areas in central Sudan could be used as models for other marginalised areas.
But increasing violence threatens the peace dividends expected by Khartoum, which hopes to be welcomed back into the international fold after years as a pariah state.
The European Union has said it will begin the process of unlocking €400m (£280m, $540m) in development funds held back since 1990 but will be closely watching developments.
A UK-led international initiative to help with Sudan's $26bn debt is expected to be delayed, however.
And it is unlikely that the US Congress, which has described the violence in Darfur as genocide, will allow sanctions to be lifted unless there is a dramatic improvement there.
Still, the international community's support for the peace process will be critical to its success.
"If the international community is not diligent, [the process] will go off-line so quickly our heads will spin because there will be such unwillingness to do the things they have made concessions on," warns John Prendergast, of the International Crisis Group think-tank. "There's a tremendous gulf between expectations and reality."
Further reading:
Dec 29 Eric Reeves: report on a peace "agreement" between Khartoum and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army: Has the regime done anything but change the subject?
Friday, December 31, 2004
Permanent truce signed in Sudan
The government of Sudan and South Sudan rebel group SPLM pledged in writing to the UN Security Council last month that they would sign a final peace agreement by December 31, when a temporary ceasefire was due to expire.
Today, within hours of the year-end deadline agreed with the U.N., two protocols were signed by middle-ranking officials of the government and the SPLM.
The newly signed agreements detail how to implement protocols worked out during two years of negotiations. The protocols cover how to share power and natural resources, including oil; what to do with their armed forces during a six-year transition period; and how to administer three disputed areas in central Sudan.
One protocol is a permanent cease-fire. The permanent truce will come into force some 72 hours after the cease-fire deal was signed, said Sayed El-Khatib, spokesman for the government delegation at the peace talks.
South African President Thabo Mbeki was in the Kenyan town of Naivasha to witness the ceremony along with his Sudanese counterpart Omar al-Bashir.
Mediators said a ceremony had tentatively been set for January 9 in Nairobi where both principal negotiators -- SPLM leader John Garang and Sudanese First Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha -- are due to sign the eight deals agreed by junior colleagues in two years of talks. The final peace deal calls for power sharing during a six-year transition period, after which the south will hold a referendum on whether to remain part of Sudan.
Two million people have died and four million people have been displaced since the war broke out in 1983, when rebels in the Christian and animist south demanded autonomy from the Muslim north.
The accords do not include Darfur in western Sudan. "The agreement that is being signed today is partial agreement," SLA chairman told Reuters by telephone from Darfur. "We in the SLA inform the government and SPLM clearly that this may be a step but is in no way a solution to the problem of Sudan."
Sudan, which on Saturday celebrates its 1956 freedom from Britain, has been embroiled in a series of civil wars for most of its independence.
QUOTATIONS OF THE DAY
"The peace deal is the beginning of real independence from Sudan," said Qamar Hasan al-Taher, a member of the SPLM.
"The war in the south is over," Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. "Our happiness will not be complete unless we solve the problem of Darfur," Bashir added.
In a statement issued by his spokesman, Mr. Kofi Annan said he looks forward to the official signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, ushering in "a new era of peace" in the Sudan, in which the U.N. is prepared to play a significant role.
Further reading:
Violence forces more charities to pull back from 'too dangerous' Darfur: The aid agencies are wary of criticising the Sudanese government in public, but a senior official said: "We are going to continue to see the humanitarian organisations drawing back. It is simply too dangerous. This means that the Sudanese government is effectively winning in its campaign to keep independent observers out of Darfur. It'll also be even more of a humanitarian disaster than it is now. It is astonishing the outside world does not realise this.
New group mounts pressure on Garang: It's emerging that radicals in and outside the movement are bent on putting up new demands that could pose a litmus test to Dr John Garang's grip in the south during the six-year interim period. A section of southern intelligentsia are saying absence of armed conflict in the south won't herald the beginning of peace as long as freedom fighters-both in and outside the country are not fully involved in the system. "If the southern Sudanese are not careful, the next strife in this country may emanate from southern Sudan, and between the southerners themselves," warned Lako.
Today, within hours of the year-end deadline agreed with the U.N., two protocols were signed by middle-ranking officials of the government and the SPLM.
The newly signed agreements detail how to implement protocols worked out during two years of negotiations. The protocols cover how to share power and natural resources, including oil; what to do with their armed forces during a six-year transition period; and how to administer three disputed areas in central Sudan.
One protocol is a permanent cease-fire. The permanent truce will come into force some 72 hours after the cease-fire deal was signed, said Sayed El-Khatib, spokesman for the government delegation at the peace talks.
South African President Thabo Mbeki was in the Kenyan town of Naivasha to witness the ceremony along with his Sudanese counterpart Omar al-Bashir.
Mediators said a ceremony had tentatively been set for January 9 in Nairobi where both principal negotiators -- SPLM leader John Garang and Sudanese First Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha -- are due to sign the eight deals agreed by junior colleagues in two years of talks. The final peace deal calls for power sharing during a six-year transition period, after which the south will hold a referendum on whether to remain part of Sudan.
Two million people have died and four million people have been displaced since the war broke out in 1983, when rebels in the Christian and animist south demanded autonomy from the Muslim north.
The accords do not include Darfur in western Sudan. "The agreement that is being signed today is partial agreement," SLA chairman told Reuters by telephone from Darfur. "We in the SLA inform the government and SPLM clearly that this may be a step but is in no way a solution to the problem of Sudan."
Sudan, which on Saturday celebrates its 1956 freedom from Britain, has been embroiled in a series of civil wars for most of its independence.
QUOTATIONS OF THE DAY
"The peace deal is the beginning of real independence from Sudan," said Qamar Hasan al-Taher, a member of the SPLM.
"The war in the south is over," Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. "Our happiness will not be complete unless we solve the problem of Darfur," Bashir added.
In a statement issued by his spokesman, Mr. Kofi Annan said he looks forward to the official signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, ushering in "a new era of peace" in the Sudan, in which the U.N. is prepared to play a significant role.
Further reading:
Violence forces more charities to pull back from 'too dangerous' Darfur: The aid agencies are wary of criticising the Sudanese government in public, but a senior official said: "We are going to continue to see the humanitarian organisations drawing back. It is simply too dangerous. This means that the Sudanese government is effectively winning in its campaign to keep independent observers out of Darfur. It'll also be even more of a humanitarian disaster than it is now. It is astonishing the outside world does not realise this.
New group mounts pressure on Garang: It's emerging that radicals in and outside the movement are bent on putting up new demands that could pose a litmus test to Dr John Garang's grip in the south during the six-year interim period. A section of southern intelligentsia are saying absence of armed conflict in the south won't herald the beginning of peace as long as freedom fighters-both in and outside the country are not fully involved in the system. "If the southern Sudanese are not careful, the next strife in this country may emanate from southern Sudan, and between the southerners themselves," warned Lako.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Insecurity increases - UN food agency suspends food convoys to Sudan's Darfur region
The latest from the UK Press Association (PA) via Reuters confirms the UN World Food Program has suspended food convoys to Darfur after rebel forces attacked the market town of Ghubaysh and the government retaliated.
WFP halted 3 convoys of 70 trucks carrying more than 1,300 tonnes of food destined for the capitals of North and South Darfur state, the UN's OCHA said Tuesday.
The attack Monday on Ghubaysh in West Kordofan follows weeks of insecurity in Darfur in which the warring parties have attacked each other. It was the second attack by the SLA rebel since Dec. 19 when the Sudanese government agreed to an immediate cessation of hostilities, UN officials said.
The recent insecurity has blocked access from central Sudan to Darfur for UN and other relief agencies, OCHA said. As a result, some 260,000 people will miss their December rations in South Darfur as well as eastern parts of West Darfur, it said.
The UN said it also was concerned about reports that Darfur-based rebel forces have stolen 13 commercial all-terrain trucks leased to WFP and loaded with food in the last two weeks.
These thefts are in addition to multiple losses of commercial and aid-agency vehicles to armed groups in recent months, OCHA said. More alarming are reports that the rebel group that stole them may now be using some of these trucks for military purposes, it said.
WFP halted 3 convoys of 70 trucks carrying more than 1,300 tonnes of food destined for the capitals of North and South Darfur state, the UN's OCHA said Tuesday.
The attack Monday on Ghubaysh in West Kordofan follows weeks of insecurity in Darfur in which the warring parties have attacked each other. It was the second attack by the SLA rebel since Dec. 19 when the Sudanese government agreed to an immediate cessation of hostilities, UN officials said.
The recent insecurity has blocked access from central Sudan to Darfur for UN and other relief agencies, OCHA said. As a result, some 260,000 people will miss their December rations in South Darfur as well as eastern parts of West Darfur, it said.
The UN said it also was concerned about reports that Darfur-based rebel forces have stolen 13 commercial all-terrain trucks leased to WFP and loaded with food in the last two weeks.
These thefts are in addition to multiple losses of commercial and aid-agency vehicles to armed groups in recent months, OCHA said. More alarming are reports that the rebel group that stole them may now be using some of these trucks for military purposes, it said.
Tony Blair on "A year of huge challenges"
Two particular tasks face the world's rich nations, argues Britain's prime minister in this article at the Economist today: sorting out Africa, and dealing with climate change. Unusually, it looks like the editorial is authored by Tony Blair, which is why it is copied here incase the article disappears into the archives or the link becomes broken:
BRITAIN takes over the presidency of the G8 this week. As each member-country holds this position in rotation, critics sometimes dismiss the presidency as little more than a chance to show-case the host nation at the annual summit. I believe they are wrong. I see it instead as an important opportunity to influence the international agenda of some of the world's most prosperous and powerful countries.
This doesn't mean, of course, that any country can successfully push the G8 in a direction the other members do not want to go. But the presidency can give an important impetus to tackling problems that the rest recognise need addressing. This is certainly the outcome I want from Britain's presidency in 2005. I have made it clear that our efforts will focus on progress on Africa and climate change.
Why? Firstly because, along with the threat from international terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, I believe they are the most serious problems facing the world today. Second, because they are both problems beyond the power of any single country, no matter how well-intentioned or powerful, to tackle on its own. A solution requires co-ordinated international action and, above all, leadership, which the G8 is uniquely placed to give.
Africa is a continent of breathtaking beauty and diversity with an extraordinary, energetic and resilient people. As I have seen from my own visits, given a chance, no matter how small, to better themselves, they seize it.
But Africa is also a place plagued with problems—debt, disease, conflict, corruption and weak governance—so embedded and widespread that no continent, no matter how prosperous, could tackle them on its own. And Africa is not prosperous.
It's the world's poorest continent. Half the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives in absolute poverty. And, uniquely, Africa is getting poorer. Average income per head is lower now than it was 30 years ago.
It is also the continent worst hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Twenty million Africans have already died from the disease, and it is going to get much worse. In some countries, four out of ten people are infected. Life expectancy is falling, and will soon be down to just 30 years. This catastrophe has single-handedly wiped out half a century of development gains.
In Sudan, and elsewhere, we have seen the tragic effects of war. At least 2m people have died in Sudan's north-south conflict over the past 21 years, and millions more have been affected. A comprehensive peace agreement could turn Sudan around; but Darfur remains a catastrophe, and we cannot turn our attention away from it. In Zimbabwe we see the great damage that can be done to a country, its economy, its people and their potential by the destruction of democracy and the failure of governance. We have worked with the international community to identify benchmarks to help Zimbabwe restore the rights and prosperity of its people.
Why we should care
Should this matter to the rest of the world? For democratic governments, it should, because it matters to our citizens. They give millions of dollars to help Africa and its people. They campaign for their governments to do more. They passionately believe, as I do, that it can't be morally right, in a world growing more prosperous and healthier by the year, that one in six African children still die before their fifth birthday. The worldwide campaign to make poverty history rightly challenges us to act.
But the state of Africa is also a case, unusual in politics, where heart and head are pushing us in the same direction. We must now all accept the utter futility of trying to shut our borders to problems abroad. Famine in Africa will affect our countries because it will be a trigger for mass migration. Conflict, too, drives millions to flee their homes. Both create the conditions for terrorism and fanaticism to take root and spread directly to Europe, to North America and to Asia. We spend billions on humanitarian aid to help pick up the pieces. A prosperous Africa, where its people have the chance to fulfil their talents, is in all our interests.
The sheer scale of Africa's problems can induce an understandable sense of hopelessness that progress can be made. It helps explain the shocking fact that aid to Africa, notwithstanding Britain's increased contribution, has fallen since 1995. But there are reasons for optimism. We have seen the emergence of a new generation of democratically elected African leaders, determined that their governments will work cleanly and effectively to improve life for their citizens. Their New Partnership for Africa's Development sets out a challenging agenda.
According to the World Bank, governance has been improving faster in Africa than in many other areas of the developing world. Conflict in Africa, although still devastating where it occurs, is also decreasing. Mozambique, a country brought to its knees by vicious fighting, has cut its levels of poverty by almost a third since peace. The civil war in Sierra Leone, thanks to the intervention of British forces, is over and the country is slowly recovering. The African Union is playing an increasing role in settling conflicts.
With a little more help, he can prosper
We know that the best way to reduce poverty is through economic growth. And we know that economic growth can be increased by aid. Fifteen countries in Africa had average growth rates above 4% throughout the 1990s. Half of Africa had growth of over 5.9% in 2001. Many of the countries which have benefited from increased aid, such as Uganda and Mozambique, have seen poverty fall over an extended period. Targeted British assistance, for example, has already enabled Uganda to introduce universal primary education and free basic health care.
We can also increase the effectiveness of our aid. Tied aid, directed by the priorities of the donor rather than the recipient and bypassing government systems, actually undermines effectiveness and internal accountability.
Getting others involved
I am proud that Britain's involvement is helping this progress. We are doubling our bilateral aid to Africa; it will reach £1 billion ($1.9 billion) in 2005, and will rise further. We have written off 100% of the debts of the poorest countries. We have dramatically increased help to tackle the big killers such as AIDS and malaria.
But to help Africa continue this progress we need a concerted, co-ordinated global effort. Ad hoc, short-term measures will not do. A comprehensive programme of action is needed with sustained commitment to implementation by Africa and by the international community. Truly, a new partnership is required. We need concerted action to improve opportunities and growth, to reduce debt, to tackle HIV, malaria and TB, to fight corruption and to promote peace and security. We also need to tackle trade barriers which push up prices for our consumers, prevent African countries exporting their products and see Europe spending more on subsidising its own farmers than on aid to Africa. This is an investment for our, and Africa's, future: more than half of Africa is under 15.
It is already clear what sort of measures are needed, and I believe the recommendations of the Commission for Africa, which will report in the spring, will take us further.
Action requires more resources, and now. There will be calls to double aid to Africa. I believe all the G8 members can do more: extending debt relief, providing more resources to tackle HIV, giving more girls the chance of education, reducing rates of infant mortality, building the infrastructure needed for private-sector growth. Investment is needed now, and we must look at ways to bridge the gap. Gordon Brown has set out one way we can do so through the International Finance Facility, which would raise extra aid money by leveraging capital markets and issuing bonds.
I hope the G8 will agree not only to a plan of action but also to its implementation, a process of monitoring and review. We all need to be accountable for carrying out the commitments we have made.
The changing climate
Africa, of course, is also seen by experts as particularly vulnerable to climate change. The size of its land-mass means that, in the middle of the continent, overall rises in temperature will be up to double the global rise, with increased risk of extreme droughts, floods and outbreaks of disease. It is estimated that African GDP could decline by up to 10% because of climate change.
But no country will escape its impact. And there can be no doubt that the world is getting warmer. Temperatures have already risen by 0.7°C over the past century, and the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1991. It's the fastest rise in temperatures in the northern hemisphere for a thousand years.
This temperature rise has meant a rise in sea level that, if it continues as predicted, will mean hundreds of millions of people increasingly at risk from flooding. And climate change means more than warmer weather: other extreme, increasingly unpredictable, weather events such as rainstorms and droughts will also have a heavy human and economic cost.
It is true, of course, that some scientists still contest the reasons for these changes. But it would be false to suggest that scientific opinion is equally split. It is not. The overwhelming view of experts is that climate change, to a greater or lesser extent, is man-made and, without action, will get worse. And as the evidence gets stronger by the day, the sceptics dwindle in number. From Arnold Schwarzenegger's California to China's Ningxia province, the world is taking climate change seriously.
But just as technological progress and human activity have helped cause this problem, it is also within our power to lessen its impact and adapt to change. Science has alerted us to the dangers our planet faces and will help us meet these challenges.
But we need to act now. Delay will only increase the seriousness of the problems we need to reverse, and the economic disruption required to move to more renewable forms of energy and sustainable manufacturing in the future. And the G8, again, needs to lead: not just because we currently account for 47% of global CO2 emissions, but also because it is our scientists, our industries and our economies that must help solve this problem.
Russian ratification of the Kyoto protocol means that we now have a new global treaty that is about to come into force. This is good news. But the level of change and ambition required will be far more than the Kyoto protocol is likely to provide. And with the United States, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, refusing to sign up to the protocol, this makes the measures we could secure through the G8 even more vital.
The melting ice-caps: a global responsibility
Although the United States will not ratify Kyoto, other approaches, such as the McCain-Lieberman bill now going through Congress, could stand a better chance of support. Some American states and businesses are also already taking a lead on initiatives to reduce greenhouse emissions. New York has a state emissions-reductions target of 5% below 1990 by 2010 and 10% by 2020. California has a string of policies in train, including regulating carbon emissions from vehicles and increasing the amount of energy generated from renewable sources to 20% of electricity sold into the state by 2010.
The United States is also leading investment and research in the new low-carbon economy. It is not a choice, as some suppose, between economic prosperity and tackling climate change. It is technological advances and economic development that will provide the realistic solution. It is the firms and countries that lead the way in adapting to this challenge that will have the competitive advantage in the future.
In Britain our economy grew by 36% between 1990 and 2002 while greenhouse gas emissions fell by 15%. British Petroleum has set and achieved targets, such as reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions by 10% in just three years. To achieve this, the company introduced an emissions-trading scheme: it cost $20m to implement, yet saved it $650m over the three-year period.
Those companies that adapt early to the demands of a future low-carbon economy know they gain competitive advantage. So this is not just the right thing to do for the sake of the planet. It is the right thing to do commercially.
Why we should act
Advocates for action on climate change must confront three economic arguments. First, if the case is so clear, why not just leave it to business? To that point I would say it is precisely in this kind of long-term challenge, where there are demonstrable and potentially irreversible social effects, with returns accruing over periods beyond commercial discounting, that government must play a clear role.
Second, critics charge that government is picking new, untried technologies that may fail. Here I would say the approach of clever governments is not to pick technologies, but to establish conditions where innovation is supported and encouraged into the market-place.
Finally, some argue that there are more immediate problems. In some senses, they are right: over the next five years, for example, water pollution will cause more harm worldwide. It is wrong, however, to see these problems as mutually exclusive. Without a stable climate, addressing other environmental threats will be impossible, ensuring a future of more degraded water and land. Every year lost on tackling climate change will take us further along the path where the costs of action multiply. And I have never believed that simple discounting can be an adequate tool for potentially catastrophic outcomes 50 or more years ahead.
We are at a stage where the role of government and global policy must be to encourage the development and commercial viability of the new technologies that have the potential to mitigate the effects of climate change. There is no single “silver bullet” that will solve the problem, despite what some enthusiasts for nuclear or hydrogen power may tell you. But a whole range of technologies are either available now, or will become available, which, taken together, can make a huge difference.
I believe the G8 can take a global lead both in making the world aware of the scale of the problem and in proposing ways to tackle them. Through the G8, we have the opportunity to agree on what the most up-to-date investigations of climate change are telling us about the threat we face. We could also endeavour to identify and support the technological measures necessary to meet the threat, which would complement rather than undercut the Kyoto protocol. And the G8 must also engage actively with other countries with growing energy needs—such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa—to ensure that they meet their needs sustainably and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, which seem inevitable.
Given the different positions of the G8 nations on this issue, such agreement will be a major advance. But I believe it is achievable and necessary.
I have no doubt that some may argue that aiming so high both on climate change and Africa is a hostage to fortune. I recall that fictional Whitehall mandarin, Sir Humphrey Appleby of “Yes, Prime Minister”, describing such ambitions as “courageous” when he hoped to put Jim Hacker off a particular course of action. But I remain hopeful that we can succeed in these aims. It is vital for the world that we do.
Photo courtesy AP - British Prime Minister Tony Blair on a recent trip to Africa for the launch of his Commission for Africa that is due to report by February/Spring 2005.
BRITAIN takes over the presidency of the G8 this week. As each member-country holds this position in rotation, critics sometimes dismiss the presidency as little more than a chance to show-case the host nation at the annual summit. I believe they are wrong. I see it instead as an important opportunity to influence the international agenda of some of the world's most prosperous and powerful countries.
This doesn't mean, of course, that any country can successfully push the G8 in a direction the other members do not want to go. But the presidency can give an important impetus to tackling problems that the rest recognise need addressing. This is certainly the outcome I want from Britain's presidency in 2005. I have made it clear that our efforts will focus on progress on Africa and climate change.
Why? Firstly because, along with the threat from international terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, I believe they are the most serious problems facing the world today. Second, because they are both problems beyond the power of any single country, no matter how well-intentioned or powerful, to tackle on its own. A solution requires co-ordinated international action and, above all, leadership, which the G8 is uniquely placed to give.
Africa is a continent of breathtaking beauty and diversity with an extraordinary, energetic and resilient people. As I have seen from my own visits, given a chance, no matter how small, to better themselves, they seize it.
But Africa is also a place plagued with problems—debt, disease, conflict, corruption and weak governance—so embedded and widespread that no continent, no matter how prosperous, could tackle them on its own. And Africa is not prosperous.
It's the world's poorest continent. Half the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives in absolute poverty. And, uniquely, Africa is getting poorer. Average income per head is lower now than it was 30 years ago.
It is also the continent worst hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Twenty million Africans have already died from the disease, and it is going to get much worse. In some countries, four out of ten people are infected. Life expectancy is falling, and will soon be down to just 30 years. This catastrophe has single-handedly wiped out half a century of development gains.
In Sudan, and elsewhere, we have seen the tragic effects of war. At least 2m people have died in Sudan's north-south conflict over the past 21 years, and millions more have been affected. A comprehensive peace agreement could turn Sudan around; but Darfur remains a catastrophe, and we cannot turn our attention away from it. In Zimbabwe we see the great damage that can be done to a country, its economy, its people and their potential by the destruction of democracy and the failure of governance. We have worked with the international community to identify benchmarks to help Zimbabwe restore the rights and prosperity of its people.
Why we should care
Should this matter to the rest of the world? For democratic governments, it should, because it matters to our citizens. They give millions of dollars to help Africa and its people. They campaign for their governments to do more. They passionately believe, as I do, that it can't be morally right, in a world growing more prosperous and healthier by the year, that one in six African children still die before their fifth birthday. The worldwide campaign to make poverty history rightly challenges us to act.
But the state of Africa is also a case, unusual in politics, where heart and head are pushing us in the same direction. We must now all accept the utter futility of trying to shut our borders to problems abroad. Famine in Africa will affect our countries because it will be a trigger for mass migration. Conflict, too, drives millions to flee their homes. Both create the conditions for terrorism and fanaticism to take root and spread directly to Europe, to North America and to Asia. We spend billions on humanitarian aid to help pick up the pieces. A prosperous Africa, where its people have the chance to fulfil their talents, is in all our interests.
The sheer scale of Africa's problems can induce an understandable sense of hopelessness that progress can be made. It helps explain the shocking fact that aid to Africa, notwithstanding Britain's increased contribution, has fallen since 1995. But there are reasons for optimism. We have seen the emergence of a new generation of democratically elected African leaders, determined that their governments will work cleanly and effectively to improve life for their citizens. Their New Partnership for Africa's Development sets out a challenging agenda.
According to the World Bank, governance has been improving faster in Africa than in many other areas of the developing world. Conflict in Africa, although still devastating where it occurs, is also decreasing. Mozambique, a country brought to its knees by vicious fighting, has cut its levels of poverty by almost a third since peace. The civil war in Sierra Leone, thanks to the intervention of British forces, is over and the country is slowly recovering. The African Union is playing an increasing role in settling conflicts.
With a little more help, he can prosper
We know that the best way to reduce poverty is through economic growth. And we know that economic growth can be increased by aid. Fifteen countries in Africa had average growth rates above 4% throughout the 1990s. Half of Africa had growth of over 5.9% in 2001. Many of the countries which have benefited from increased aid, such as Uganda and Mozambique, have seen poverty fall over an extended period. Targeted British assistance, for example, has already enabled Uganda to introduce universal primary education and free basic health care.
We can also increase the effectiveness of our aid. Tied aid, directed by the priorities of the donor rather than the recipient and bypassing government systems, actually undermines effectiveness and internal accountability.
Getting others involved
I am proud that Britain's involvement is helping this progress. We are doubling our bilateral aid to Africa; it will reach £1 billion ($1.9 billion) in 2005, and will rise further. We have written off 100% of the debts of the poorest countries. We have dramatically increased help to tackle the big killers such as AIDS and malaria.
But to help Africa continue this progress we need a concerted, co-ordinated global effort. Ad hoc, short-term measures will not do. A comprehensive programme of action is needed with sustained commitment to implementation by Africa and by the international community. Truly, a new partnership is required. We need concerted action to improve opportunities and growth, to reduce debt, to tackle HIV, malaria and TB, to fight corruption and to promote peace and security. We also need to tackle trade barriers which push up prices for our consumers, prevent African countries exporting their products and see Europe spending more on subsidising its own farmers than on aid to Africa. This is an investment for our, and Africa's, future: more than half of Africa is under 15.
It is already clear what sort of measures are needed, and I believe the recommendations of the Commission for Africa, which will report in the spring, will take us further.
Action requires more resources, and now. There will be calls to double aid to Africa. I believe all the G8 members can do more: extending debt relief, providing more resources to tackle HIV, giving more girls the chance of education, reducing rates of infant mortality, building the infrastructure needed for private-sector growth. Investment is needed now, and we must look at ways to bridge the gap. Gordon Brown has set out one way we can do so through the International Finance Facility, which would raise extra aid money by leveraging capital markets and issuing bonds.
I hope the G8 will agree not only to a plan of action but also to its implementation, a process of monitoring and review. We all need to be accountable for carrying out the commitments we have made.
The changing climate
Africa, of course, is also seen by experts as particularly vulnerable to climate change. The size of its land-mass means that, in the middle of the continent, overall rises in temperature will be up to double the global rise, with increased risk of extreme droughts, floods and outbreaks of disease. It is estimated that African GDP could decline by up to 10% because of climate change.
But no country will escape its impact. And there can be no doubt that the world is getting warmer. Temperatures have already risen by 0.7°C over the past century, and the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1991. It's the fastest rise in temperatures in the northern hemisphere for a thousand years.
This temperature rise has meant a rise in sea level that, if it continues as predicted, will mean hundreds of millions of people increasingly at risk from flooding. And climate change means more than warmer weather: other extreme, increasingly unpredictable, weather events such as rainstorms and droughts will also have a heavy human and economic cost.
It is true, of course, that some scientists still contest the reasons for these changes. But it would be false to suggest that scientific opinion is equally split. It is not. The overwhelming view of experts is that climate change, to a greater or lesser extent, is man-made and, without action, will get worse. And as the evidence gets stronger by the day, the sceptics dwindle in number. From Arnold Schwarzenegger's California to China's Ningxia province, the world is taking climate change seriously.
But just as technological progress and human activity have helped cause this problem, it is also within our power to lessen its impact and adapt to change. Science has alerted us to the dangers our planet faces and will help us meet these challenges.
But we need to act now. Delay will only increase the seriousness of the problems we need to reverse, and the economic disruption required to move to more renewable forms of energy and sustainable manufacturing in the future. And the G8, again, needs to lead: not just because we currently account for 47% of global CO2 emissions, but also because it is our scientists, our industries and our economies that must help solve this problem.
Russian ratification of the Kyoto protocol means that we now have a new global treaty that is about to come into force. This is good news. But the level of change and ambition required will be far more than the Kyoto protocol is likely to provide. And with the United States, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, refusing to sign up to the protocol, this makes the measures we could secure through the G8 even more vital.
The melting ice-caps: a global responsibility
Although the United States will not ratify Kyoto, other approaches, such as the McCain-Lieberman bill now going through Congress, could stand a better chance of support. Some American states and businesses are also already taking a lead on initiatives to reduce greenhouse emissions. New York has a state emissions-reductions target of 5% below 1990 by 2010 and 10% by 2020. California has a string of policies in train, including regulating carbon emissions from vehicles and increasing the amount of energy generated from renewable sources to 20% of electricity sold into the state by 2010.
The United States is also leading investment and research in the new low-carbon economy. It is not a choice, as some suppose, between economic prosperity and tackling climate change. It is technological advances and economic development that will provide the realistic solution. It is the firms and countries that lead the way in adapting to this challenge that will have the competitive advantage in the future.
In Britain our economy grew by 36% between 1990 and 2002 while greenhouse gas emissions fell by 15%. British Petroleum has set and achieved targets, such as reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions by 10% in just three years. To achieve this, the company introduced an emissions-trading scheme: it cost $20m to implement, yet saved it $650m over the three-year period.
Those companies that adapt early to the demands of a future low-carbon economy know they gain competitive advantage. So this is not just the right thing to do for the sake of the planet. It is the right thing to do commercially.
Why we should act
Advocates for action on climate change must confront three economic arguments. First, if the case is so clear, why not just leave it to business? To that point I would say it is precisely in this kind of long-term challenge, where there are demonstrable and potentially irreversible social effects, with returns accruing over periods beyond commercial discounting, that government must play a clear role.
Second, critics charge that government is picking new, untried technologies that may fail. Here I would say the approach of clever governments is not to pick technologies, but to establish conditions where innovation is supported and encouraged into the market-place.
Finally, some argue that there are more immediate problems. In some senses, they are right: over the next five years, for example, water pollution will cause more harm worldwide. It is wrong, however, to see these problems as mutually exclusive. Without a stable climate, addressing other environmental threats will be impossible, ensuring a future of more degraded water and land. Every year lost on tackling climate change will take us further along the path where the costs of action multiply. And I have never believed that simple discounting can be an adequate tool for potentially catastrophic outcomes 50 or more years ahead.
We are at a stage where the role of government and global policy must be to encourage the development and commercial viability of the new technologies that have the potential to mitigate the effects of climate change. There is no single “silver bullet” that will solve the problem, despite what some enthusiasts for nuclear or hydrogen power may tell you. But a whole range of technologies are either available now, or will become available, which, taken together, can make a huge difference.
I believe the G8 can take a global lead both in making the world aware of the scale of the problem and in proposing ways to tackle them. Through the G8, we have the opportunity to agree on what the most up-to-date investigations of climate change are telling us about the threat we face. We could also endeavour to identify and support the technological measures necessary to meet the threat, which would complement rather than undercut the Kyoto protocol. And the G8 must also engage actively with other countries with growing energy needs—such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa—to ensure that they meet their needs sustainably and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, which seem inevitable.
Given the different positions of the G8 nations on this issue, such agreement will be a major advance. But I believe it is achievable and necessary.
I have no doubt that some may argue that aiming so high both on climate change and Africa is a hostage to fortune. I recall that fictional Whitehall mandarin, Sir Humphrey Appleby of “Yes, Prime Minister”, describing such ambitions as “courageous” when he hoped to put Jim Hacker off a particular course of action. But I remain hopeful that we can succeed in these aims. It is vital for the world that we do.
Photo courtesy AP - British Prime Minister Tony Blair on a recent trip to Africa for the launch of his Commission for Africa that is due to report by February/Spring 2005.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
From 1 January British and French forces begin to prepare for EU Rapid Reaction Force missions
This morning, a report at the Scotsman mentions another rebel group called the National Movement for Reform and Development in a piece titled "World put to shame as Sudan heads for disaster."
Also today, reports by the Independent and Agence France-Presse via Space War and Turkish Press say British Prime Minister Tony Blair has asked for plans to be prepared to deploy 3,000 British troops in Sudan.
Unsurprisingly, a Reuters report a few hours later, confirmed a spokeswoman for Mr Blair's office said she was unaware of any such request. "We're trying to help find a solution -- clearly there are difficulties in the Sudan -- but working through the U.N. and the African Union," she said.
The Independent's report rings more true than the Reuters report that was based on the view of a spokeswoman. The British government has been known in the past to "leak" tantalising news snippets as part of a wider strategy that also helps gauge public opinion. Here is why I believe Mr Blair has ordered military chiefs to prepare to send British troops to intervene in Sudan in the New Year, and why I have eagerly awaited and expected such news in the run up to January 1, 2005:
Various reports over the past few months led one to believe that Britain would consider British troops as part of the 10,000 peacekeepers it proposed at the UN Security Council meeting in Nairobi last month.
Several weeks ago, Mr Blair travelled to Ethiopia for the launch meeting of his new Commission for Africa. He personally delivered a five point plan to Sudan's President in Khartoum with the warning of a January deadline and serious consequences if the plan was not carried out.
In July, the head of the British Army said he could provide 5,000 troops for Sudan at short notice.
A British military reconnaissance team visited Sudan to investigate the possibility of sending medics and logistical personnel to assist in any United Nations operation to provide aid to the people of Darfur. The 30-strong team from the Permanent Joint Headquarters, led by a colonel, included medics, logistics staff and communications experts.
Britain has been working with its partners in the European Union to form Rapid Reaction Forces in teams of 1,500 soldiers that could respond to hotspots, anywhere in the world, within just a few weeks. January was consistently mentioned as a date when the troops could be ready. Note, the Independent's report states:
It is not clear if the new EU Rapid Reaction Forces would require a U.N. resolution to intervene against the will of another country. Or whether instead they could get a mandate via the African Union's security council. If members of the EU agree to deploy their own EU army, while the EU are financially supporting the African Union, why would the EU need a mandate from the UN Security Council?
UPDATE: China and South Africa news has picked up on the story so it should be reaching Khartoum's ears any time now :-) Nothing yet from the BBC. I've read the rebels keep their ears glued to the BBC's Arabic radio station. Word should be getting around like wildfire by now: the Brits are coming! Heh.
UPDATE: South African news has now picked up on the denial story but with a slight variation: "I don't recognise that story at all," a Blair spokesperson said on condition of anonymity.
- - -
BRITAIN WILL SEND TROOPS TO DARFUR
Here is a same day update on post above. Dozens of foreign news agencies around the world are circulating reports announcing that Britain is preparing to send thousands of British troops into Darfur. The reports mostly contain the same information. However, news just out by the UK Herald provides greater detail, mentioning France and the French Foreign Legion but does not reveal sources. Please read the Herald's report in full. Note, nothing of this news has yet been covered by the BBC, Scotsman or Guardian. It seems likely current reports are springing out of news that from 1 January British and French forces begin to prepare for EU Rapid Reaction Force missions. Darfur may be their first mission. More later.
Further reading:
See my post Dec. 11, 2004 entitled "European Union must act to stop violence in Darfur" and other posts on the EU at Passion of the Present.
Note Google search box for EU posts here, and at personal blog here and here.
Dec 23 Good News (bringing the UK Christian online community together) issues a Statement on Sudan.
Dec 26 Scotsman report: World put to shame as Sudan heads for disaster.
Dec 26 Pakistan Daily news: US sanctions bill harmful to peace efforts.
Dec 25 BBC report: Satellite mapping aids Darfur relief.
Also today, reports by the Independent and Agence France-Presse via Space War and Turkish Press say British Prime Minister Tony Blair has asked for plans to be prepared to deploy 3,000 British troops in Sudan.
Unsurprisingly, a Reuters report a few hours later, confirmed a spokeswoman for Mr Blair's office said she was unaware of any such request. "We're trying to help find a solution -- clearly there are difficulties in the Sudan -- but working through the U.N. and the African Union," she said.
The Independent's report rings more true than the Reuters report that was based on the view of a spokeswoman. The British government has been known in the past to "leak" tantalising news snippets as part of a wider strategy that also helps gauge public opinion. Here is why I believe Mr Blair has ordered military chiefs to prepare to send British troops to intervene in Sudan in the New Year, and why I have eagerly awaited and expected such news in the run up to January 1, 2005:
Various reports over the past few months led one to believe that Britain would consider British troops as part of the 10,000 peacekeepers it proposed at the UN Security Council meeting in Nairobi last month.
Several weeks ago, Mr Blair travelled to Ethiopia for the launch meeting of his new Commission for Africa. He personally delivered a five point plan to Sudan's President in Khartoum with the warning of a January deadline and serious consequences if the plan was not carried out.
In July, the head of the British Army said he could provide 5,000 troops for Sudan at short notice.
A British military reconnaissance team visited Sudan to investigate the possibility of sending medics and logistical personnel to assist in any United Nations operation to provide aid to the people of Darfur. The 30-strong team from the Permanent Joint Headquarters, led by a colonel, included medics, logistics staff and communications experts.
Britain has been working with its partners in the European Union to form Rapid Reaction Forces in teams of 1,500 soldiers that could respond to hotspots, anywhere in the world, within just a few weeks. January was consistently mentioned as a date when the troops could be ready. Note, the Independent's report states:
[British] Chiefs of staff have been told to prepare plans to send up to 3,000 troops to the troubled Darfur region amid concern that the humanitarian crisis will dramatically worsen. The deployment will be discussed early next month at a meeting with senior military officials.
"When you decide to make an intervention you have got to be able to move fast," a minister told The Independent on Sunday.
Troops would be sent as part of the new European Union Rapid Reaction Force which Mr Blair has said he wants to be operational "as soon as possible in 2005". Senior military figures now expect Darfur to be the first major test for the EU Rapid Reaction Force, if it is sanctioned by the UN or African Union.
From 1 January British forces begin major command exercises with France to prepare for missions. If British troops are sent, the most likely candidates are the Marines' 3 Commando Brigade in Plymouth or 16 Air Assault Brigade from the Army, now at Colchester. There could be two battlegroups, of about 850 to 1,000.
It is not clear if the new EU Rapid Reaction Forces would require a U.N. resolution to intervene against the will of another country. Or whether instead they could get a mandate via the African Union's security council. If members of the EU agree to deploy their own EU army, while the EU are financially supporting the African Union, why would the EU need a mandate from the UN Security Council?
UPDATE: China and South Africa news has picked up on the story so it should be reaching Khartoum's ears any time now :-) Nothing yet from the BBC. I've read the rebels keep their ears glued to the BBC's Arabic radio station. Word should be getting around like wildfire by now: the Brits are coming! Heh.
UPDATE: South African news has now picked up on the denial story but with a slight variation: "I don't recognise that story at all," a Blair spokesperson said on condition of anonymity.
- - -
BRITAIN WILL SEND TROOPS TO DARFUR
Here is a same day update on post above. Dozens of foreign news agencies around the world are circulating reports announcing that Britain is preparing to send thousands of British troops into Darfur. The reports mostly contain the same information. However, news just out by the UK Herald provides greater detail, mentioning France and the French Foreign Legion but does not reveal sources. Please read the Herald's report in full. Note, nothing of this news has yet been covered by the BBC, Scotsman or Guardian. It seems likely current reports are springing out of news that from 1 January British and French forces begin to prepare for EU Rapid Reaction Force missions. Darfur may be their first mission. More later.
Further reading:
See my post Dec. 11, 2004 entitled "European Union must act to stop violence in Darfur" and other posts on the EU at Passion of the Present.
Note Google search box for EU posts here, and at personal blog here and here.
Dec 23 Good News (bringing the UK Christian online community together) issues a Statement on Sudan.
Dec 26 Scotsman report: World put to shame as Sudan heads for disaster.
Dec 26 Pakistan Daily news: US sanctions bill harmful to peace efforts.
Dec 25 BBC report: Satellite mapping aids Darfur relief.
The Pope's "Urbi et Orbi"
Thousands of locals, tourists and pilgrims turned out in freezing rain at noon yesterday in St Peter's Square Rome to hear the Pope's traditional "Urbi et Orbi" (Latin for "to the city and to the world") message and holiday wishes in dozens of languages. Dissapointingly, it was not transmitted on British television.
The Pope has called for peace in Iraq and Sudan and said he hoped that peace-building efforts will bring the world a more tranquil future.
"Babe of Bethlehem, Prophet of peace, encourage attempts to promote dialogue and reconciliation, sustain the efforts to build peace, which hesitantly, yet not without hope, are being made to bring about a more tranquil present and future for so many of our brothers and sisters of the world," John Paul said, slowly pronouncing each word and often pausing to catch his breath.
"I think of Africa, of the tragedy of Darfur in Sudan, of the Ivory Coast and of the Great Lakes Region," John Paul said of those conflict areas.
Pope John Paul II at Midnight Mass. Report courtesy UKTelegraph
The Pope has called for peace in Iraq and Sudan and said he hoped that peace-building efforts will bring the world a more tranquil future.
"Babe of Bethlehem, Prophet of peace, encourage attempts to promote dialogue and reconciliation, sustain the efforts to build peace, which hesitantly, yet not without hope, are being made to bring about a more tranquil present and future for so many of our brothers and sisters of the world," John Paul said, slowly pronouncing each word and often pausing to catch his breath.
"I think of Africa, of the tragedy of Darfur in Sudan, of the Ivory Coast and of the Great Lakes Region," John Paul said of those conflict areas.
Pope John Paul II at Midnight Mass. Report courtesy UKTelegraph
Saturday, December 25, 2004
A Christmas Hello and Advent service and prayer for refugees
Christmas greetings and a warm hello from England, UK to Jim and friends and visitors to this site.
[Image via Netlex France]
CAFOD online published a service designed for use during Advent with ecumenical congregations that could also be used with members of just one church. The theme of the service is refugees. During the service, Jesus' experience as a refugee is linked with the experience of today's refugees. Here is a special prayer:
We pray for the 19 million refugees and 25 million displaced people in the world today. We pray that they may find safety, shelter, food and water.
We pray that the reasons why people are forced to leave their homes may be recognised and tackled. We pray that there may be peace, not war. We pray that all people may see that they are equal, that nobody has the right to persecute others because of their race, their gender, their culture or way of life.
We pray for those people who are forced to leave their homes because of hunger, or drought, or because their land has been taken from them. We pray for those who are effectively refugees in their own land, attacked by their own government.
We pray for ourselves, that we may not be too afraid to be welcoming. We pray that we have the courage to get involved.
We pray for all asylum seekers, particularly those who are kept in detention centres and prisons in this country while their claim is processed.
We pray for those people who have to make decisions about claims for asylum. May they be fair and unprejudiced. Give them compassion and real wisdom. We pray too for those who make the laws and draw up the guidelines about asylum. May they abide by the spirit of international law and be guided by the spirit of truth and justice.
Amen.
[Image via Netlex France]
CAFOD online published a service designed for use during Advent with ecumenical congregations that could also be used with members of just one church. The theme of the service is refugees. During the service, Jesus' experience as a refugee is linked with the experience of today's refugees. Here is a special prayer:
We pray for the 19 million refugees and 25 million displaced people in the world today. We pray that they may find safety, shelter, food and water.
We pray that the reasons why people are forced to leave their homes may be recognised and tackled. We pray that there may be peace, not war. We pray that all people may see that they are equal, that nobody has the right to persecute others because of their race, their gender, their culture or way of life.
We pray for those people who are forced to leave their homes because of hunger, or drought, or because their land has been taken from them. We pray for those who are effectively refugees in their own land, attacked by their own government.
We pray for ourselves, that we may not be too afraid to be welcoming. We pray that we have the courage to get involved.
We pray for all asylum seekers, particularly those who are kept in detention centres and prisons in this country while their claim is processed.
We pray for those people who have to make decisions about claims for asylum. May they be fair and unprejudiced. Give them compassion and real wisdom. We pray too for those who make the laws and draw up the guidelines about asylum. May they abide by the spirit of international law and be guided by the spirit of truth and justice.
Amen.
Friday, December 24, 2004
Bush signs Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act, 2004
On August 18, 2004, I wrote a post linking to Wikipedia that explained the Sudan Peace Act is a US law condemning Sudan for genocide and was signed into law October 21, 2002 by President George W. Bush.
Yesterday, a bill passed by the U.S. Senate in a voice vote on December 7 was signed by President Bush and the White House released a Statement.
The bill authorises $200 million in aid, including money for the deployment of more African peacekeepers in the region, and another $100 million as an incentive for reaching a final peace agreement in the 21-year war between the Sudanese government and the southern rebel group, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, led by John Garang.
The bill authorises the money but does not actually provide the funds. The money would have to come from a separate spending bill or by shifting of funds from other programs.
Note, the above pertains to a north-south conflict that is separate from the Darfur rebellion in western Sudan. Darfur is a 22-month long uprising that is not (yet) included in the peace deal to be signed December 31, 2004.
As noted here earlier, the latest news reports say the Darfur rebel group JEM has refused to continue peace talks. So, unless a miracle happens, Darfur will not be included in the upcoming deal (if it ever gets signed). And, even when deals do get signed, who can believe any agreements will hold? U.S. Ambassador John Danforth said in his experience he came to learn that Sudanese agreements tend to be written in disappearing ink.
Massive amounts of development funding and aid, along with thousands of U.N. peacekeepers as part of the peace agreement, from many governments around the world await the signing of a peace agreement. But please do not hold your breath. War is a way of life in Sudan. They don't really know the meaning of peace.
After 50 years of independence, Sudan is in a time warp and needs a good deal of outside help. The present regime in Khartoum are not up to the job and have proved untrustworthy. The people of Sudan deserve better. Sudan is rich in natural resources and has a lot going for it but only with good governance. The perpetrators of atrocities in Sudan should be behind bars.
Yesterday, a bill passed by the U.S. Senate in a voice vote on December 7 was signed by President Bush and the White House released a Statement.
The bill authorises $200 million in aid, including money for the deployment of more African peacekeepers in the region, and another $100 million as an incentive for reaching a final peace agreement in the 21-year war between the Sudanese government and the southern rebel group, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, led by John Garang.
The bill authorises the money but does not actually provide the funds. The money would have to come from a separate spending bill or by shifting of funds from other programs.
Note, the above pertains to a north-south conflict that is separate from the Darfur rebellion in western Sudan. Darfur is a 22-month long uprising that is not (yet) included in the peace deal to be signed December 31, 2004.
As noted here earlier, the latest news reports say the Darfur rebel group JEM has refused to continue peace talks. So, unless a miracle happens, Darfur will not be included in the upcoming deal (if it ever gets signed). And, even when deals do get signed, who can believe any agreements will hold? U.S. Ambassador John Danforth said in his experience he came to learn that Sudanese agreements tend to be written in disappearing ink.
Massive amounts of development funding and aid, along with thousands of U.N. peacekeepers as part of the peace agreement, from many governments around the world await the signing of a peace agreement. But please do not hold your breath. War is a way of life in Sudan. They don't really know the meaning of peace.
After 50 years of independence, Sudan is in a time warp and needs a good deal of outside help. The present regime in Khartoum are not up to the job and have proved untrustworthy. The people of Sudan deserve better. Sudan is rich in natural resources and has a lot going for it but only with good governance. The perpetrators of atrocities in Sudan should be behind bars.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
China would consider further U.N. action on Darfur if both sides are targeted
On reading a Guardian report Yesterday in parliament, I kept the following snippet aside as it sounded rather odd that British Foreign Office Minister Chris Mullin made such a pointed statement to the House:
"... Both sides in the Darfur conflict are behaving badly despite BBC reports that concentrate on government forces, Mr Mullin said. He told MPs: "I continually hear reports, often on the BBC, of the situation in Darfur as though there is only one party, the government of Sudan, involved; there are actually two parties, and according to UN special representative Jan Pronk, in the last two months at least the rebel forces have been responsible for a greater number of violations than the government side. ..."
Also this morning, a similar statement appears in a report from the Guardian titled Annan Calls for Sudan Reassessment which says:
"... China, which imports Sudanese oil, has been most reluctant, but China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said Wednesday his government would consider further action if both sides are targeted. "Whatever measure it is, we are going to study it, but it has to be targeted on both sides, not just on one side," Wang said. "Clearly the information from the ground is that both sides are making the troubles, not one side. So we need to take a balanced approach." ..."
Note, perhaps Mr Mullin's statement was "diplomatic speak" signalling a message to politicians and the media (in particular the BBC who have done some great reporting on Darfur) that both Khartoum and the rebels need to be targeted.
It is interesting to see the Scotsman ending a news report this morning, Annan calls for rethink on Darfur, admitting that UN stance is failing, with this line:
"China, which imports oil from Sudan, has been most reluctant but China's UN ambassador, Wang Guangya, said his government would consider action if both sides in the conflict were targeted."
- - -
Annan advises UNSC to reassess and take further action
A report in the FT says Kofi Annan has said the Security Council should look at ways to increase the international presence in Darfur, as well as consider imposing targeted sanctions and taking other measures against the Sudanese government.
"We also see that the situation on the ground is deteriorating," Mr Annan said. "So there comes a time when you have to make a reassessment as to whether the approach you've taken is working or not. “And if it's not working, then what measures do you take?"
He added: "Those who are perpetrating these crimes must not be allowed to get away, and impunity must not be allowed to stand."
- - -
UN Diplomats spar over Darfur
According to a Voice Of America report, the U.S. urged Kofi Annan to visit Darfur after Mr. Annan criticised the Security Council's approach to ending the violence there.
The report says Mr. Annan's comments appeared to annoy several Security Council diplomats, who were meeting behind closed doors to hear what they called a "disturbing briefing" on conditions in Darfur.
- - -
Annan rejects US suggestions he visit Darfur now
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Wednesday rejected an immediate trip to Sudan, as the U.S. suggested, saying the Security Council first had to take new decisions on stopping the conflict in Darfur.
- - -
Neither side are really hurrying towards peace
See China Daily News report Parties optimistic about peace deal in Sudan, covered by several other new agencies, that says Sudan foreign ministry spokesman Mohamed Ahmed Abdel Gaffar told VOA a deal is near. "... and at most [an agreement will be signed] within the first week of January if not at the end of this month," said Mr. Gaffar.
A Reuters report says Darfur rebel group JEM refuses to return to talks: JEM will not return to African Union-sponsored peace talks in Abuja and is rejecting the pan-African body as mediator to end the 22-month-old conflict in Western Sudan.
The leader of JEM, told Reuters today it would only accept the U.N. as lead mediator in any peace talks and wanted U.N. troops stationed in Darfur. He said the AU had failed to hold the Sudanese government to account.
- - -
UK offers £100m to start global aid fund
Britain has offered £100m to launch a new billion-dollar global emergency fund to ease the suffering of people caught up in humanitarian disasters on the scale of Darfur.
- - -
Khartoum troops reportedly kill MSF aid worker in Darfur Sudan
A BBC news report says an aid worker was shot and killed. MSF said it happened at the front of a warehouse used by MSF in south Darfur last week during an attack by government troops. He was the second Sudanese MSF worker to be killed in three months.
Some 29 other Sudanese workers for the medical aid group are still missing following the Dec. 17 raid on Labado, a town in South Darfur, MSF said in a statement. Quoting eyewitnesses, MSF said Labado, formerly a town of 27,000 people, had been emptied and destroyed following several days of fighting. "Any Darfuri is at risk in Darfur," an MSF spokesman said.
"The deployment of the African Union troops and police needs to be speeded up," Mr Annan told reporters on Tuesday evening. [Note the word 'police']
"... Both sides in the Darfur conflict are behaving badly despite BBC reports that concentrate on government forces, Mr Mullin said. He told MPs: "I continually hear reports, often on the BBC, of the situation in Darfur as though there is only one party, the government of Sudan, involved; there are actually two parties, and according to UN special representative Jan Pronk, in the last two months at least the rebel forces have been responsible for a greater number of violations than the government side. ..."
Also this morning, a similar statement appears in a report from the Guardian titled Annan Calls for Sudan Reassessment which says:
"... China, which imports Sudanese oil, has been most reluctant, but China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said Wednesday his government would consider further action if both sides are targeted. "Whatever measure it is, we are going to study it, but it has to be targeted on both sides, not just on one side," Wang said. "Clearly the information from the ground is that both sides are making the troubles, not one side. So we need to take a balanced approach." ..."
Note, perhaps Mr Mullin's statement was "diplomatic speak" signalling a message to politicians and the media (in particular the BBC who have done some great reporting on Darfur) that both Khartoum and the rebels need to be targeted.
It is interesting to see the Scotsman ending a news report this morning, Annan calls for rethink on Darfur, admitting that UN stance is failing, with this line:
"China, which imports oil from Sudan, has been most reluctant but China's UN ambassador, Wang Guangya, said his government would consider action if both sides in the conflict were targeted."
- - -
Annan advises UNSC to reassess and take further action
A report in the FT says Kofi Annan has said the Security Council should look at ways to increase the international presence in Darfur, as well as consider imposing targeted sanctions and taking other measures against the Sudanese government.
"We also see that the situation on the ground is deteriorating," Mr Annan said. "So there comes a time when you have to make a reassessment as to whether the approach you've taken is working or not. “And if it's not working, then what measures do you take?"
He added: "Those who are perpetrating these crimes must not be allowed to get away, and impunity must not be allowed to stand."
- - -
UN Diplomats spar over Darfur
According to a Voice Of America report, the U.S. urged Kofi Annan to visit Darfur after Mr. Annan criticised the Security Council's approach to ending the violence there.
The report says Mr. Annan's comments appeared to annoy several Security Council diplomats, who were meeting behind closed doors to hear what they called a "disturbing briefing" on conditions in Darfur.
- - -
Annan rejects US suggestions he visit Darfur now
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Wednesday rejected an immediate trip to Sudan, as the U.S. suggested, saying the Security Council first had to take new decisions on stopping the conflict in Darfur.
- - -
Neither side are really hurrying towards peace
See China Daily News report Parties optimistic about peace deal in Sudan, covered by several other new agencies, that says Sudan foreign ministry spokesman Mohamed Ahmed Abdel Gaffar told VOA a deal is near. "... and at most [an agreement will be signed] within the first week of January if not at the end of this month," said Mr. Gaffar.
A Reuters report says Darfur rebel group JEM refuses to return to talks: JEM will not return to African Union-sponsored peace talks in Abuja and is rejecting the pan-African body as mediator to end the 22-month-old conflict in Western Sudan.
The leader of JEM, told Reuters today it would only accept the U.N. as lead mediator in any peace talks and wanted U.N. troops stationed in Darfur. He said the AU had failed to hold the Sudanese government to account.
- - -
UK offers £100m to start global aid fund
Britain has offered £100m to launch a new billion-dollar global emergency fund to ease the suffering of people caught up in humanitarian disasters on the scale of Darfur.
- - -
Khartoum troops reportedly kill MSF aid worker in Darfur Sudan
A BBC news report says an aid worker was shot and killed. MSF said it happened at the front of a warehouse used by MSF in south Darfur last week during an attack by government troops. He was the second Sudanese MSF worker to be killed in three months.
Some 29 other Sudanese workers for the medical aid group are still missing following the Dec. 17 raid on Labado, a town in South Darfur, MSF said in a statement. Quoting eyewitnesses, MSF said Labado, formerly a town of 27,000 people, had been emptied and destroyed following several days of fighting. "Any Darfuri is at risk in Darfur," an MSF spokesman said.
"The deployment of the African Union troops and police needs to be speeded up," Mr Annan told reporters on Tuesday evening. [Note the word 'police']
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Hotel Rwanda opens today
Hotel Rwanda, which stars Don Cheadle, is a film by Terry George based on the true story of a hotel manager who sheltered more than 1,200 refugees after the West turned a blind eye to that country's genocidal violence a decade ago.
So far, it looks like some 500 bloggers have given it publicity. Here are a few - this list is likely to be ongoing - more later:
French blog Netlex: Films and the making sense of a genocide; American Conservative Life: Hotel Darfur; Indian Express article here at Sudan Watch titled "Rwanda film hits raw nerve for Clinton aide."
PS Please note this page is currently under DIY construction, by me who hasn't a clue how to change a blog template design. Started teaching myself yesterday by trial and error, poking around and guessing. Not sure what I have done wrong, or if it is the Veranda Serif font that is incorrect for this page, but if you see strange symbols and characters scattered throughout: sorry, they will be fixed, as soon as I know how (I keep amending them but they change back after saving).
So far, it looks like some 500 bloggers have given it publicity. Here are a few - this list is likely to be ongoing - more later:
French blog Netlex: Films and the making sense of a genocide; American Conservative Life: Hotel Darfur; Indian Express article here at Sudan Watch titled "Rwanda film hits raw nerve for Clinton aide."
PS Please note this page is currently under DIY construction, by me who hasn't a clue how to change a blog template design. Started teaching myself yesterday by trial and error, poking around and guessing. Not sure what I have done wrong, or if it is the Veranda Serif font that is incorrect for this page, but if you see strange symbols and characters scattered throughout: sorry, they will be fixed, as soon as I know how (I keep amending them but they change back after saving).
Darfur peace talks suspended until January - U.N. moves on two fronts
Peace talks between the Sudanese government and Darfur's main rebel movements have been suspended until January, according to a join statement from the parties released by the African Union.
Note, the statement calls for contributing countries to rapidly deploy the remaining African Union personnel.
- - -
U.N. moves on two fronts
Today, the U.N. moved on both the political and aid fronts to halt the resurgence of violence and prepare for a possible new flood of refugees.
Meeting in New York, the security council enjoined all parties in the conflict to abide by previous ceasefire accords under threat of an unspecified "full range of options" to enforce compliance.
At the same time the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) announced plans to deal with a potential new influx into neighbouring Chad. Please click here for full story.
Note, the statement calls for contributing countries to rapidly deploy the remaining African Union personnel.
- - -
U.N. moves on two fronts
Today, the U.N. moved on both the political and aid fronts to halt the resurgence of violence and prepare for a possible new flood of refugees.
Meeting in New York, the security council enjoined all parties in the conflict to abide by previous ceasefire accords under threat of an unspecified "full range of options" to enforce compliance.
At the same time the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) announced plans to deal with a potential new influx into neighbouring Chad. Please click here for full story.
UK Parliament List of MPs and Constituency Locata
In response to Jim's post titled "Call your elected representatives today!" here is how a UK resident can contact their representative:
* Enter your postcode here to identify your MP.
* Phone your MP. You can contact your MP at Westminster by calling the House of Commons switchboard on 020 7219 3000 and asking to be put through.
* Fax your MP (via the internet) using FaxYourMP.com.
* Email your MP. Find your MP's email address here or here and email them directly.
* Write to your MP. MPs are often most responsive to hand-written correspondence. Send letters to: (Your MP's name), House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA.
PS Note to Jim: I will check out Capwiz and do a search to see if there is an equivalent for the UK. Yes, it's a great idea to make such a directory and publish it on the Passion. If any readers here know of a Capwiz like site for other countries, pointers would be gratefully received and much appreciated. Please comment here or email me via my main blog or to Jim at the Passion. Thank you.
* Enter your postcode here to identify your MP.
* Phone your MP. You can contact your MP at Westminster by calling the House of Commons switchboard on 020 7219 3000 and asking to be put through.
* Fax your MP (via the internet) using FaxYourMP.com.
* Email your MP. Find your MP's email address here or here and email them directly.
* Write to your MP. MPs are often most responsive to hand-written correspondence. Send letters to: (Your MP's name), House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA.
PS Note to Jim: I will check out Capwiz and do a search to see if there is an equivalent for the UK. Yes, it's a great idea to make such a directory and publish it on the Passion. If any readers here know of a Capwiz like site for other countries, pointers would be gratefully received and much appreciated. Please comment here or email me via my main blog or to Jim at the Passion. Thank you.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
U.N. Security Council to meet today at Britain's request
The United Nations Security Council is due to meet today, at Britain's request, for a briefing on the latest developments which have prompted strong condemnation from British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and International Development Secretary, Hilary Benn.
"Recent rebel attacks on Tawilla and on humanitarian convoys in Darfur, along with the murder of two Save the Children UK staff are particularly horrific," Mr Benn said in a statement. "It is imperative that all parties return to the AU-mediated negotiations in Abuja [the capital of Nigeria], which is the only way that the suffering of the people of Darfur can be brought to an end."
"The recent actions by the government of Sudan have been carried out in defiance of the obligations placed upon it by three UN Security Council resolutions on Sudan," Mr Straw said. If the council received confirmation of additional ceasefire violations, he said Britain would expect it to take "further action."
Today's briefing could provide the ammunition for the Security Council to take such action, amid calls for the AU mandate to be toughened. At present, the 800 AU soldiers deployed in a region the size of France only have the task of monitoring the ceasefire and not of peacekeeping or protecting the civilian population.
"Recent rebel attacks on Tawilla and on humanitarian convoys in Darfur, along with the murder of two Save the Children UK staff are particularly horrific," Mr Benn said in a statement. "It is imperative that all parties return to the AU-mediated negotiations in Abuja [the capital of Nigeria], which is the only way that the suffering of the people of Darfur can be brought to an end."
"The recent actions by the government of Sudan have been carried out in defiance of the obligations placed upon it by three UN Security Council resolutions on Sudan," Mr Straw said. If the council received confirmation of additional ceasefire violations, he said Britain would expect it to take "further action."
Today's briefing could provide the ammunition for the Security Council to take such action, amid calls for the AU mandate to be toughened. At present, the 800 AU soldiers deployed in a region the size of France only have the task of monitoring the ceasefire and not of peacekeeping or protecting the civilian population.
UK charity pulls out of Darfur - 360,000 needy beyond reach in north and south Darfur Sudan
UK-based charity Save the Children today announced that it is withdrawing all 350 of its staff from Darfur after attacks that have killed four of its employees. The charity said it was "devastated" it could no longer serve some 250,000 children in the area but the risks facing its workers were "unacceptable".
Mike Aaronson, the charity's director, described the withdrawal as "probably the worst decision I have ever had to take in my time at Save the Children". "We hope to one day resume operations in Darfur, with a view to helping people rebuild their lives and communities, once the security situation has stabilized," he added. Full story at the Guardian and BBC.
Note, the BBC report says Mr Aaronson told BBC News world leaders must effect a ceasefire deal before setting out to solve Darfur's political problems and warned that other charities could follow Save the Children's lead. He blamed ineffectual efforts from the international community to secure stability. "This is not just about one agency deciding to leave. There is a real threat to the whole humanitarian operation at the moment," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
UN World Food Programme last week announced that security issues have now put 360,000 formerly accessible and needy civilians in north and south Darfur beyond humanitarian reach.
Rafe Bullick (right) is among one of the four Save the Children UK employees killed recently
Meanwhile there is a water shortage obstacle for Darfur refugees in Chad and the Sudanese government is still negotiating with rebels from the south, to try and establish a final ceasefire agreement by the end of the year. The Sudanese parliament has voted to extend the country's five-year state of emergency by a further year.
Mike Aaronson, the charity's director, described the withdrawal as "probably the worst decision I have ever had to take in my time at Save the Children". "We hope to one day resume operations in Darfur, with a view to helping people rebuild their lives and communities, once the security situation has stabilized," he added. Full story at the Guardian and BBC.
Note, the BBC report says Mr Aaronson told BBC News world leaders must effect a ceasefire deal before setting out to solve Darfur's political problems and warned that other charities could follow Save the Children's lead. He blamed ineffectual efforts from the international community to secure stability. "This is not just about one agency deciding to leave. There is a real threat to the whole humanitarian operation at the moment," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
UN World Food Programme last week announced that security issues have now put 360,000 formerly accessible and needy civilians in north and south Darfur beyond humanitarian reach.
Rafe Bullick (right) is among one of the four Save the Children UK employees killed recently
Meanwhile there is a water shortage obstacle for Darfur refugees in Chad and the Sudanese government is still negotiating with rebels from the south, to try and establish a final ceasefire agreement by the end of the year. The Sudanese parliament has voted to extend the country's five-year state of emergency by a further year.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Rwanda film hits raw nerve for Clinton aide
Here is a copy of an interesting review dated December 20, 2004, by John Darnton of the new movie Hotel Rwanda:
In a pivotal scene in Hotel Rwanda the colonel in charge of a beleaguered UN peacekeeping force rushes to talk with the commanding officer of a fresh UN contingent that has just arrived at a hotel packed with refugees from the genocide outside its walls. The colonel, played by Nick Nolte, suddenly throws his blue beret on the ground in anger. The eyes of the hotel manager, played by Don Cheadle, slowly register concern, then fear. The truth becomes clear: the soldiers are there to evacuate the mostly white foreigners, leaving the black Rwandans to their fate.
"That gets to you - they were counting on the UN and they were abandoned," whispered Anthony Lake, as he watched the scene in an otherwise empty theatre. Lake, the national security advisor in the Clinton administration, played a role in determining US policy in Rwanda a decade ago, and he had agreed to attend the screening of a movie that, even before its release, is provoking uncomfortable memories of the collective failure by Western powers to confront an atrocity.
Hotel Rwanda, from MGMs United Artists unit, directed by Terry George, depicts the events of 1994, when Hutu extremists slaughtered some 800,000 of their countrymen. To deal with its burden of horror, the film searches out a bright spot. Like Schindler's List, it concentrates on a real-life hero, in this case Paul Rusesabagina, the manager of a luxury hotel in Kigali, who was able to save the lives of 1,268 people who took refuge in his hotel, the Milles Collines, including his Tutsi wife and their four children.
Lake requested two ground rules in agreeing to see and discuss the film: that he not be made to appear "self-serving or self-exculpatory" (a rule that tended to take care of itself), and that he be allowed to air his views on the current situations in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo. The loss of civilian life in those places, he believes, is a direct echo of the Rwandan genocide, and this time, he asserts, international powers should not sit idly by, as they have largely done to date.
In Rwanda, the United States did not simply not intervene. It also used its considerable power to discourage other Western powers from intervening. At the height of the carnage, when Belgium lost 10 peacekeepers, the United States demanded a total UN withdrawal. Some African countries objected, and eventually Washington settled for a severe cutback in the 2,500-man UN force. The commander of the force in Kigali, Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire of Canada, who had asked for 5,000 troops, was left with 270.
The withdrawal, Paul Rusesabagina noted, was a critical turning point. In an interview in New York, where he was promoting the film, he said it signalled to the Hutu militia, known as the Interahamwe, that their planned killing of Tutsis and moderate Hutus could continue unabated.
Lake, now a professor of international diplomacy at Georgetown University, said he had reviewed memos of the time in an attempt to reconstruct the government's position. The goal was not to "wallow in guilt," he said, but to understand why the slaughter in Rwanda registered so faintly in the Washington decision-making apparatus. "My retrospective anger and dismay is not that we made a wrong decision," he said, "but that we didn't make any decision."
Source courtesy: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=61223
Further reading: Netlex great post and pictures on "Films and the making sense of a genocide" dated December 21, 2004.
In a pivotal scene in Hotel Rwanda the colonel in charge of a beleaguered UN peacekeeping force rushes to talk with the commanding officer of a fresh UN contingent that has just arrived at a hotel packed with refugees from the genocide outside its walls. The colonel, played by Nick Nolte, suddenly throws his blue beret on the ground in anger. The eyes of the hotel manager, played by Don Cheadle, slowly register concern, then fear. The truth becomes clear: the soldiers are there to evacuate the mostly white foreigners, leaving the black Rwandans to their fate.
"That gets to you - they were counting on the UN and they were abandoned," whispered Anthony Lake, as he watched the scene in an otherwise empty theatre. Lake, the national security advisor in the Clinton administration, played a role in determining US policy in Rwanda a decade ago, and he had agreed to attend the screening of a movie that, even before its release, is provoking uncomfortable memories of the collective failure by Western powers to confront an atrocity.
Hotel Rwanda, from MGMs United Artists unit, directed by Terry George, depicts the events of 1994, when Hutu extremists slaughtered some 800,000 of their countrymen. To deal with its burden of horror, the film searches out a bright spot. Like Schindler's List, it concentrates on a real-life hero, in this case Paul Rusesabagina, the manager of a luxury hotel in Kigali, who was able to save the lives of 1,268 people who took refuge in his hotel, the Milles Collines, including his Tutsi wife and their four children.
Lake requested two ground rules in agreeing to see and discuss the film: that he not be made to appear "self-serving or self-exculpatory" (a rule that tended to take care of itself), and that he be allowed to air his views on the current situations in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo. The loss of civilian life in those places, he believes, is a direct echo of the Rwandan genocide, and this time, he asserts, international powers should not sit idly by, as they have largely done to date.
In Rwanda, the United States did not simply not intervene. It also used its considerable power to discourage other Western powers from intervening. At the height of the carnage, when Belgium lost 10 peacekeepers, the United States demanded a total UN withdrawal. Some African countries objected, and eventually Washington settled for a severe cutback in the 2,500-man UN force. The commander of the force in Kigali, Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire of Canada, who had asked for 5,000 troops, was left with 270.
The withdrawal, Paul Rusesabagina noted, was a critical turning point. In an interview in New York, where he was promoting the film, he said it signalled to the Hutu militia, known as the Interahamwe, that their planned killing of Tutsis and moderate Hutus could continue unabated.
Lake, now a professor of international diplomacy at Georgetown University, said he had reviewed memos of the time in an attempt to reconstruct the government's position. The goal was not to "wallow in guilt," he said, but to understand why the slaughter in Rwanda registered so faintly in the Washington decision-making apparatus. "My retrospective anger and dismay is not that we made a wrong decision," he said, "but that we didn't make any decision."
Source courtesy: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=61223
Further reading: Netlex great post and pictures on "Films and the making sense of a genocide" dated December 21, 2004.
Move America Forward petition
Two-year-old refugee Alhadi Zacaria Abakar is so malnourished he weighs under 12 pounds and is only 28 inches tall. Photo courtesy MSNBC via Beck's insightful post "Your UN Contribution at Work."
Note, Beck's post "Kofi Annan Resignation Watch" points to Move America Forward's online petition that collected more than 50,000 signatures calling for the 'U.N. to Get Out of the U.S." But there is no suggestion of an alternative to the U.N. or any mention of current proposals for UN reform.
Further reading: Today's FT UN puts its future up for debate in biggest challenge yet - US advocates for the UN suggest that the administration has realised it still needs the organisation. “It is very difficult to think of an exit strategy from Iraq, even in the long-term, without the UN,” notes William Luers, head of the United Nations Association in the US. But the next few months still promise to be tempestuous. UN members will hold a series of meetings to discuss the high-level panel's reform proposals.
- - -
Blogger's Sudan Mission at Easter
Rev. Mike Kinman, Episcopal Campus Missioner, Washington University in St. Louis announces he is travelling with several others to the Sudan at Easter.
- - -
Filipino car firm exports vehicles for Malaysian company in Sudan
A company engaged in used-vehicle trading has penetrated the international market, sending its first batch of “remanufactured” sports utility vehicles and pick-up trucks to Sudan on Monday.
Subic Bay Motors Corp. (SBMC), a Filipino company shipped 14 Isuzu Bighorn SUVs and six Mitsubishi Strada pick-up trucks with a market value of P19.6 million. The vehicles were ordered by Ranhill Engineers and Contractors Sdn. Bhd., a Malaysian firm engaged in the construction of power and water supply facilities, for its Sudan-based affiliate, Petrodar Operating Company Ltd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)