Nigeria condemns Sudanese govt over Darfur

Nigeria has condemned the Sudanese government for instigating the local population against African Union's efforts toward peace in Darfur, reported the Tide online March 23, 2006. Excerpt:

Nigeria's Foreign Affairs Minister, Olu Adeniji who appeared on a News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) Forum in Abuja at the weekend, said that such blunder was bad for the regional body's painstaking efforts.

With the government and rebel groups yet to agree on a deal toward permanent peace in Darfur, Adeniji said that the least the government could do was to allow the AU to explore all available peace initiatives.

"Before you get peace, you must talk and that is what the AU is doing. That is where we come in. It is imperative that the government takes note of this," he declared.

He said that the AU at its peace and security council meeting in Addis Ababa, resolved that it should maintain its 7,000 peace keeping force in Darfur, but also unanimously resolved that the UN must now be "greatly involved."

Sudan urges Arab support to African peacekeepers in Darfur

Sudan's Federal Minister of Finance and National Economy al-Zubair Ahmed al-Hassan called for contributions by Arab countries for logistical and financial support to African Union forces in Darfur.

He invited Arab league to convene - in coordination with the AU and Sudan Government - a conference for reconstruction and development in Darfur after signing a peace agreement in Darfur which is expected to be reached soon, reported Sudan Tribune Khartoum Mar 23, 2006.



Photo: Al-Zubair Ahmed al-Hassan (ST)

Peace agreement sparks huge investment in South Sudan

Foreign investors attending a 'Southern Sudan International Investment and Development Conference' held in Nairobi March 14-15, expressed fears over the availability of trained manpower in the country and the transparency in the oil industry, reported PDO/Xinhua March 23, 2006. Excerpt:

Southern Sudan's Minister for Industry and Mines Albino Akol said the transparency in the management of the oil resources in the country, especially in the management of oil fields in the south was a key concern the government is addressing.

"The oil industry is governed by the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) through the National Petroleum Commission. We need to demarcate borders of oil fields in the south to ensure transparency because sharing of the profits is based on the proceeds of the oil in the south," Akol told the investors.

Note, the article explains that despite the success of the conference, some regional experts predict uncertainties and difficulties ahead:

Southern Sudan has seen virtually no development since the 1950s. The peace accord allows the southern Sudanese to hold a referendum on independence in six years, setting up the possibility of more conflict with the north, analysts say.

Harvard divests from stock held by HMC in China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec Corporation)

Harvard Corporation's decision to direct Harvard Management Company (HMC) to divest itself of stock held by HMC in Sinopec Corporation (but no sale of stake in Russian firm with reported Sudan links) was announced by Harvard University in Boston today:

"This is the right thing to do in light of the ongoing events in Darfur," University President Lawrence H. Summers said in a statement today, reported Harvard Crimson March 23, 2006.

Sorry, it is difficult to understand any good that comes of divestment, unless of course it means the cash is re-invested into Western companies to benefit the people of Sudan. Sudan is burdened by terrible debt and relies heavily on foreign revenue, particularly from oil, generated by companies operating in the Sudan.

Let's hope that Harvard and all the others who are divesting, re-invest in Western companies that specialise in beneficial services such as water and agriculture, and encourage them to operate in the Sudan. That way, Sudan could diversify, develop and grow and would not need to rely so heavily upon its oil.
- - -

Divestment remains unproven solution

Mar 24 2005 (Yale Daily News by Matthew Gillum) Divestment remains unproven solution - excerpt:

"I can't help but think that Yale's divestment crew got caught up in do-gooder groupthink and actually has no idea if divestment is effective or not. This innocence of evidence is a problem that plagues many activists at Yale on both sides of the political spectrum (one example on the right would be those who moralize against homosexuality on religious grounds ignoring the vast abundance of same-sex activity in nature). I weep for America if this style of thinking is as prevalent among our future leaders as it seems. "

Response Mar 27, 2006 (Yale, Eric Bloom) Activists' work goes beyond divestment - "Divestment creates a lot of press that otherwise goes to Nick and Jessica. Whenever a university such as Yale divests, it gets noticed; within 24 hours of Yale's announcement of its divestment, for example, publications in places as diverse as North Dakota and South Africa had covered it. Take that and replicate it with Harvard, Stanford, Dartmouth, Amherst, Brown and the University of California system, and all of a sudden people are reading about the atrocities of Darfur instead of a few sick birds in Southeast Asia."

UPDATE: Another point of view published at Passion of the Present: A Wise Divestment: Harvard was right to dump its Sinopec shares ("Harvard Crimson" editorial)

Britain is to lead a UN Security Council mission to Sudan

Today's Times reported Britain is to lead a UN Security Council mission to Sudan in June as part of a series of diplomatic initiatives to press for peace in Darfur, diplomats said. It remains unclear if the officials, from the 15 council members, will visit the war-torn province.

Darfur sanctions on Sudanese and Chadian leaders still deadlocked as ICC considers prosecutions?

On Feb 28, 2006, Fred Bridgland noted at Institute For War & Peace Reporting that the UN Security Council met on Feb 27 to consider sanctions against officials deemed to be a threat to the peace effort or human rights in the area. Excerpt:

"The UN Security Council decided last March to impose an asset freeze and travel ban on anyone who hinders the peace process or violates human rights.

It asked a special panel headed by Antonio Cassese to come up with sanction recommendations, and last December the Italian judge gave the council a secret list of names of people he said should be punished.

The list, which was subsequently leaked to the press, includes Sudan's interior minister Elzubier Bashir Taha, intelligence chief Salah Abdalla Gosh and three rebel commanders of the Sudan Liberation Army, which has targeted civilians and aid workers during its insurgency against the Khartoum government. It also names five others against whom the panel is considering recommending sanctions, including Sudan's president Omar Hassan al-Bashir and President Idriss Deby of Chad."

Unless I've missed something, there has been no further news on this following the UN Security Council meeting on Darfur held March 21, 2006.



Photo: Britain's UN Ambassador Sir Emyr Jones Parry (left) Jackie Sanders, Deputy US Ambassador to the UN (center) and John Bolton, US Ambassador confer after a Security Council meeting on Darfur at UN HQ in New York March 21, 2006 (AP Photo/David Karp)
- - -

AU chief and UN chief pow-wow

On Monday, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for his fellow Africans to work together to end violence that is holding back the world's poorest continent.

Mr Annan also met with the new African Union chief Denis Sassou-Nguesso, saying afterward the two leaders discussed lynchpin elections in Ivory Coast and Congo and ongoing violence in Darfur.



Photo: Current head of the 53-nation African Union and President of the Congo, Denis Sassou-Nguesso (right) and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (left) seen during a meeting at the city of Brazzaville, Congo, March 20, 2006. (AP Photo/Anjan Sundaram)



Photo: NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer looks on as US President George W. Bush (R) makes remarks from the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC. See AFP/ST report Bush hopes to see NATO "take the lead" in Darfur (Photo AFP/JIm Watson/ST)

Note on Feb 22, 2005 The White House's website posted a transcript of a meeting that day between President Bush and NATO Secretary-General de Hoop Scheffer held at NATO HQ in Brussels, Belgium.

DARFUR: Sudan has all the potential ingredients to be a failed state - How to avoid another Iraqi quagmire in Sudan (Dr Paul Moorcraft)

People who cry out for military intervention (an act of war) in Darfur ought to take a few minutes to read a most insightful opinion piece by veteran war correspondent Dr Paul Moorcraft, a Brit who has worked in thirty war zones over twenty years and visits Sudan and Darfur regularly.

In my view, Dr Moorcraft's op-ed provides an excellent easy to read summary of Sudan's complex situation and rightly concludes Sudan has all the potential ingredients to be a failed state and that, quote:

"More important is the recognition that there is no military solution in Darfur. Neither side can win the war, nor can the AU (nor UN) impose peace where there is none. It will take nine months to a year for the AU to be beefed up. Use this precious time to enforce the peace process, not least in the Nigerian capital, Abuja."

Paul Moorcraft, formerly in the UK's Ministry of Defence, is now director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis, London. The op-ed entitled How to avoid another Iraqi quagmire, published at icWales 23 March 2006, is copied here below, in full, for future reference.

Last weekend the African Union delayed its decision to hand over its peacekeeping role in Darfur to the UN. The repercussions, for Africa and the West, could be significant, writes Paul Moorcraft:



GEORGE BUSH set the cat among the pigeons during an un-scripted question- and-answer session in Tampa, Florida, last month.

He said he wanted an expanded international role in Sudan's Darfur battleground, suggesting a "Nato stewardship". This statement caught many policy-makers off-guard, although there is a growing bi-partisan movement in the US Congress for a greater effort in the region, where hundreds of thousands have been displaced or killed.

At first glance there is much to be said for an augmented Nato role. Already the alliance and the European Union are assisting with logistics, especially American air transport, for the 7,000 peacekeepers of the African Union (AU) operating in Darfur. The US air force has transported tons of supplies and thousands of African troops, and provided some but not all of the promised $190m for training and building camps for peacekeepers. The idea is for the west to provide a stop-gap until a large UN force - perhaps 20,000 troops - can replace the AU. A more robust and better-led force could do much to prevent the tribal fighting.

This sounds good. The problem is: it won't work. Putting white, western, Christian troops on the ground in Darfur is the only thing which would unite all the warring tribes - but in a holy war against outsiders. Defence officials in London and Brussels caution Washington by invoking the debacle in Somalia in 1993. And, in the last few days, the Bush administration has been backpedaling.

Darfur has been consumed by a brutal conflict, but it is not genocide. Khartoum is accused of sending in Arab militiamen - the so-called Janjaweed - to wipe out African tribespeople. The complex origins are tribal and political, but not racial. Intermarriage makes it usually impossible to physically differentiate "African" from "Arab" among the 35 tribes and ethnic groups. Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous African Muslims - just like Darfur's non-Arabs.

Darfur's conflict is founded on historical banditry and the struggle for grazing lands and water. It is also about national politics - Islamic extremists in Khartoum, disciples of the disgraced spiritual leader, Hassan al-Turabi, have stirred the pot in Darfur. Turabi has backed one rebel Darfur group with the express purpose of destabilising the new government of national unity in Khartoum. Western intervention would play into the hands of Turabi's Jihadists. The tribal politics of next-door Chad have also intervened.

In 2003, when the renewed fighting began in Darfur, military intelligence in Khartoum - believers in a military solution - acted aggressively to crush the rebels who claimed that their region had been marginalised.

There is already a framework for peace. Sudan, Africa's largest state, ended the continent's longest war in 2004 - the 50-year on-off struggle between the Islamic government in Khartoum and the largely Christian/animist south. Washington - aided by London and Oslo - banged heads together during the complex haggling in Kenya. The west invested much time, patience and political energy in securing the peace deal, which will lead to more than 10,000 UN troops being positioned in the south.

Both sides in Darfur have committed terrible atrocities, and disrupted one of the world's largest humanitarian aid programmes. Rightly, the overstretch in Iraq and Afghanistan has not blinded the US and London to the killing grounds in the three Darfur states, an area bigger than France.

Khartoum violently opposes UN military intervention (though it accepts the 13,000-strong UN- led humanitarian workforce). The new government of national unity - involving former warring parties from north and south - has said it might quit the AU, if that body decides to hand over to the UN. The government in Khartoum is under great pressure already; many within the former ruling Islamic junta argue that too much has been given away.

The new government in Khartoum could implode, not just along north-south lines, but also because of bitter divisions among Islamic hardliners. All the years of international negotiations would have been in vain. Sudan has all the potential ingredients to be a failed state.

UN troops have been accepted in the largely non-Muslim south; they would be treated very differently in the fervently Islamic west. At the beginning of March nearly one million militant Sudanese in the north personally pledged to fight a Jihad if western troops intervened.

This is not a call for inaction. More people are being killed in African wars than in all the rest of the world. But the number of UN troops has nearly quintupled since 1999, from 12,700 to over 60,000 (and a lot more if you add police and UN civilians). The system is under acute strain.

African Union credibility is at stake. It should not be seen to fail in its first real attempt at international peacekeeping. On March 10, the AU decided to extend its Darfur peace mission until September at the earliest, before a possible handover to the UN. And, yes, the AU force should increase its size.

More important is the recognition that there is no military solution in Darfur. Neither side can win the war, nor can the AU (nor UN) impose peace where there is none. It will take nine months to a year for the AU to be beefed up. Use this precious time to enforce the peace process, not least in the Nigerian capital, Abuja. Despite some useful US assistance there, the peace talks and ceasefires in Darfur have been relatively ineffective. What is required is the same international effort put into Sudan's north-south peace agreement signed in Kenya in January 2005.

The independent Sultanate of Darfur was conquered by the British 90 years ago. It is surely time for London and Washington, who played a highly credible political role in ending Sudan's north-south war, to do the same in the west.

Further reading:

Feb 2005 (Paul Moorcraft Abstract) Sudan: End of the Longest War? - The Royal United Studies Institute Journal.

Nubians will be displaced from ancient seat by lake built for dam

Irish Times commentary [via Sudan Tribune] by Pieter Tesch Aug 9, 2006:

Far away from the war that has flared up again in Darfur in western Sudan, Nubian peasants in the Fourth Cataract of the Nile in northern Sudan are coming to terms with the fact that their centuries-old way of life is coming to an end soon.

Workers excavating an ancient church near the Nile’s fourth cataract, where a $1.8 billion dam is to be built. (NYT).

"Until the Chinese actually moved into Merowe a few years ago, we all thought that all government talk about a dam was just a joke. But now we have to accept that it is becoming reality and we all have to go within the next years," Ali Yousif Ali (47), the spokesman for the hamlet of ed Doma said.

The Merowe Dam Administration in Khartoum finally gave The Irish Times - through the intervention of Dr Salah Mohamed Ahmed, field director of the National Commission for Antiquities and Museums (NCAM) - permission to visit the area over Christmas. Living conditions for the peasants on the Nile bank in the Nubian desert and the numerous islands on the Nile are still very much as they were 2000 years ago.

Even though the Sudanese authorities are concerned about another region of strong opposition to the Khartoum government, Dr Salah said it was important to show the world the groundbreaking results of the archaeological salvage campaign in the Fourth Cataract area. This is the home of the civilisations of ancient Kush and medieval Christian Nubia.

The area in the big S-bend of the middle Nile in northern Sudan will be inundated by a 174km (108 mile) lake after the completion in 2008 of a dam under construction above the modern town of Merowe.

The $1.8 billion (1.52 billion) Merowe Dam, designed by Lahmeyer International of Germany and built by CCMD of China, is to produce 1,250 megawatts of electricity and provide water for the irrigation of the potentially very fertile Dongola reach of the Nile valley. It is understood that 5,000 of the 17,000 Chinese in Sudan work on the Merowe Dam, the remainder working in the burgeoning Sudanese oil industry.

It is the biggest project of its kind since the construction of the Aswan High Dam in southern Egypt in the 1960s. And it is just as controversial - not only because important archaeological sites will disappear under water, but also because of the resettlement of 49,000 local people who have lived for centuries along the banks of the Nile, tilling their small fields.

The memory of the traumatic resettlement of Nubian people in Egypt and northern Sudan as a result of the new Aswan High Dam is still fresh. Local people are anxious to secure strong guarantees for compensation from the Sudanese government for the loss of their family farms. They also want back-up to start new lives in the resettlement areas on four locations outside the inundated area.

Recently, villagers in the area held a number of meetings with Merowe Dam Administration that have been described as heated. "We have to accept that the dam is for the greater benefit of Sudan, but we want cast-iron guarantees that the government honour its promise to us," said Ali Yousif.

He explained that the people were unhappy with the impression that the dam administration was positioning itself between the people and the government in Khartoum, making direct contact impossible. The government was already so far away, he said.

Ali Yousif stressed that they wanted better relations with government and had rejected approaches from Sudan’s notorious Islamist politician Dr Hassan al-Turabi.

"We don’t want anything to do with people stirring up trouble for their own reasons," he said.

The lessons of the resettlement of Sudanese Nubians from the Wadi Halfa area on the border with Egypt in the 1960s had been learned, said Muawla Mohamad Salih Elbager, environmental affairs director of the Merowe Dam Administration.

The resettlement areas are closer to the original homeland than in the 1960s, and each family would be given a farm of six feddan (a feddan is roughly 200sq m or 656sq ft).

But land on the banks of the Nile is much better than irrigated land in the desert, said Ali Yousif, who farms a plot of two feddan under a grove of date palms in changing rotation between summer and winter. Especially good date palms - his main cash crop - are slow to mature.

At the moment, ed Doma was the home also of the archaeological mission of the British-Museum-based Sudan Archaeological Research Society.

One advantage of the building of the dam is that he was beginning to learn more about his own history, said Ali Yousif, who described his wife Melka ("queen" in Arabic) and their nine children as "pure Manasir", a local Arabised Nubian tribe. "I did not know our forefathers had been Christians," he said.

Dr Derek Welsby of the archaeological research society explained that the Fourth Cataract was far from a backwater as had been long assumed - it had been outside the major old caravan routes. Instead, it had seen continuous human habitation since Mesolithic times and covered all major northern Sudanese civilisations from the first kingdom of Kush (the so-called Kerma culture, between 2500 and 1500 BC) to the Christian Nubian kingdom of Makuria in the Middle Ages.

In the desolate but strangely beautiful landscape of the Fourth Cataract, it is not unusual to come across large burial sites from the Kerma period, those from the transition period between pagan antiquity and the Middle Ages, and Christian cemeteries, all close to each other, while the nearby rocks are covered by drawings from all periods.

It was a hard life to farm in the Fourth Cataract and probably there were better opportunities in the new villages for his children. But Ali Yousif will miss feeling the breeze from the Nile in the shade of the date groves that he, his father and his grandfather had tended and planted.

(Irish Times)

Germany approves peacekeeping troops to Sudan

AP report confirms today the German government on Wednesday approved the extension of the involvement of German troops in the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Sudan. Excerpt:

Chancellor Angela Merkel's Cabinet approved the extension of the German involvement for six months, spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm said. Parliament must also approve the step. Germany has 28 soldiers supporting the mission, whose UN mandate runs out March 24. The UN Security Council is working on a resolution to extend it, Wilhelm said.

The mission to help enforce a peace deal between the government and rebels in southern Sudan. It is separate from the African Union mission to restore peace in a separate conflict in Sudan's western Darfur province.

Photo and caption Dec 18 2004: A Transall C-160 cargo plane is loaded at the military airbase Penzing, 50 kilometers (28 miles) west of Munich, southern Germany, on Saturday, Dec. 18, 2004. The German Bundeswehr is supporting the Mission 'African Union Mission in Sudan' with one Airbus A310 passenger plane, five Transall C-160 cargo planes and 70 soldiers, who will transport Gambian soldiers and equipment from Banjul in Gambia to El Fashir in the Darfur region in Sudan. (AP Photo/Jan Pitman)



Photo: German soldiers enter a Transall C-160 cargo plane at a military airbase in Penzing, Germany. In December 2004 German troops airlifted AU soldiers and equipment from Gambia to Darfur, Sudan. (AP Photo/Jan Pitman Dec 2004)

Sudan: Medecins du Monde opens new mobile clinics in the Thur region, South Darfur

Bravo to Medecins du Monde for rolling out mobile clinics offering access to healthcare for those living in remote areas in North Nyala, reaching the forgotten populations of Thur, Nyama and Tarontawara in the Jebel Mara region of South Darfur.

The work will serve around 40,000 people, both residents and displaced people from varied ethnic backgrounds, nomadic and settled. Impartial access to healthcare will be offered to those groups who are unable to travel for fear of attack, or even death.

Since July 2004, Medecins du Monde has provided a primary medical care centre in the Kalma refugee camp, South Darfur. Full story (Reuters) 22 March 2006.

AU sends observers on Chad-Sudan border - Chadian troops clash with rebels near Adre, East Chad

On Monday, Chadian military attacked rebels near Adre, a city on the Chad-Sudan border, a government official told IRIN, declining to be named or to give more details. Excerpt from IRIN report 21 Mar 2006 explains:

Yaya Dillo Djerou, self-proclaimed leader of the rebel group Platform for Change, National Unity and Democracy (SCUD), confirmed the attacks. Djerou told IRIN by phone that what he called SCUD's base in eastern Chad had been attacked in two separate offensives - one from the west Monday morning and another from the east a few hours later.

The rebels drove off the government forces, Djerou said, claiming that SCUD had killed 187 government soldiers and wounded several more, with 10 rebels dead and some 28 wounded. The figures could not be confirmed and government sources would not comment on casualties.

Note, Tuesday marked the opening of the four-day period during which would-be contenders in Chad's presidential election, set for 3 May, are to submit their candidatures.



Photo: Chadian soldiers patrol dirt roads near the Sudan border (IRIN/ST)

Reuters report Mar 21, 2006 explains SCUD is a rebel group largely made up of deserters from Deby's own army - and:

Rebel sources said government forces were using armoured vehicles and artillery and the four-wheel-drive jeeps mounted with cannon which are often used for desert warfare in Chad.

Chadian President Deby was directing the army offensive.

Denouncing a spillover into his own country of the rebellion in Darfur, he has accused the Sudanese government of backing efforts to topple him, a charge denied by Khartoum.

- - -

AU sends observers on Chad-Sudan border

On Tuesday, the African Union Peace and Security Council endorsed plans to deploy military observers on the Chad-Sudan border as per peace agreement signed by leaders of the two countries in Tripoli, Libya last month, reported Sudan Tribune Mar 21, 2006.



Photo: Chad's camel guards patrol on the Sudan-Chad border in Abulu Kore (Darfur), Eastern Chad in 2004. (ST)

Since October, scores of defectors from the Chadian army have joined a number of Chadian rebel groups based in the area bordering Darfur, the site of an uprising by Sudanese groups, some with tribal ties to many Chadians.

Sudan has accused Chad of harbouring Darfur rebels, while Chad has said Sudan backs Chadian insurgents.

Under the Tripoli agreement, the leaders of Sudan and Chad agreed to deny refuge to each other's rebel groups. The deal, however, has yet to resolve the chaos on the ground.



Photo: The leaders of Sudan and Chad sign the 'Tripoli peace agreement' at a meeting in Tripoli, Libya on 10 Feb 2006 to end increasing tension over Darfur, pledging to normalise diplomatic relations and deny refuge to each other's rebel groups. (AP/Khaled El-Deeb Tripoli, Libya)

Update Mar 22 2006 (Reuters/Scotsman)
Chad says army destroyed rebel base, rebels deny it.

Update Mar 22 2006 (IRIN/ST)
Chadian capital deserted after shooting near presidential palace - Deby is set to run in presidential elections scheduled for 3 May, but a swelling rebel movement has vowed to put him down by means other than the ballot box. The N'djamena resident said tensions are mounting ahead of the crunch poll, "The closer we come to the date, the higher the tension."

Further reading

Mar 15 2006 Chad's President Deby was sponsored by Khartoum and helped into power by the French secret services

Mar 6 2006 Libya sets up surveillance groups on Chad-Sudan borders

Mar 5 2006 Chad - The danger of war spilling over by The Economist

Mar 3 2006 UNHCR - Chad/Sudan: Flight both ways: Central Africans moved away from border

Feb 28 2006 Refugees flee from Chad into Sudan's Darfur - Chad hosts about 300,000 refugees

Feb 27 2006 Food aid to Am Nabak camp in Chad suspended due to security concerns

Feb 26 2006 Chad-Sudan border peacekeeping force - AU chair and Libyan leader Col Gaddafi follow up on Tripoli mini-summit

Feb 24 2006 Libya's Gaddhafi and Sudan's al-Bashir discuss Darfur crisis

Feb 23 2006 UN envoy Jan Pronk admits peace strategy to halt "cleansing in Darfur" had failed - Let's hope Libyan leader Col Gaddafi succeeds in brokering peace

Feb 23 2006 Libya offers African Union 100,000 troops, 1,000 tanks, 100 aircraft to close Chad-Sudan border

New York Times supplement on Sudan - U.S. military base in South Sudan is beneficial?

Today, a Sudan Watch reader emailed me a link to comments at a blog entry expressing outrage over a special advertising supplement published by the New York Times on March 20, 2006. The supplement featured Sudan and was paid for by the Sudanese government.

When I'd first read about the supplement a few days ago, my reaction was: how enterprising, international donors have pledged 4.5 billion US dollars to help develop South Sudan where peace has been achieved after more than 22 years of civil war costing two million lives. Sudan is up to its eyeballs in debt, its people need all the help and business they can get.

Sudan is the size of Europe. In many parts of war-torn southern Sudan there is nothing. Infrastructure needs to be built from scratch to provide millions of people with drinking water, schools, hospitals, roads, telecoms, education, training, skills and many other things we in the West take for granted.



Photo: NYT supplement courtesy Blogs of Zion

Sudan is a beautiful country, full of warm, friendly, hospitable people. It has a lot going for it. Westerners can provide some of the best help, enterprise, investment and expertise available anywhere in the world. International visitors and investors accustomed to Western standards will also need to be catered to and accommodated.

If you were responsible for a country the size of Europe and were about to receive 4.5 billion US dollars in development funding, wouldn't you engage PR agents and advertise in a leading international newspaper to attract business, investors, enterprise and expertise? I know I would. You'd be daft not to.

Don't you think Western companies should be encouraged to do business in the Sudan? I do. If British Petroleum had been in the Sudan in a big way over the past two years, they would have been in a position to be cajoled into helping the locals in Darfur and might have had leverage with the UN Security Council when it came to requesting well trained police forces to protect the defenceless women and children of Darfur.

Summit Communication's 8-page ad in NYT

Summit Communications has posted the 8 page advertisement it placed in the New York Times last week on its website - click into Coalition for Darfur for the PDF version and three other links leading to more information on the advert.
- - -

U.S. base in south Sudan is beneficial - A comment

Further to Sudan Watch entry 1 Mar 2006 entitled New website Sudan Vision says "US military base in south Sudan, how pitiable, here is a copy of a comment by E. Agustino, a south Sudanese living in London, England, published at Sudan Vision sometime during the past month:

First of all, we southerners have suffered a lot under colonial imperialism then followed by Arab imperialism over us which is not much different from the colonial one. The reason for this being that we black Sudanese have always been perceived as inferior and lacking a viable thinking capacity and self confidence to achieve or challenge any other human being. So, Arabs have always looked down on southern Sudanese and other blacks. Whites also have the same or had the same view of us the original Sudanese or Africans in general as less capable human and unable to think on our own or achieve on our own, and we blacks always miss to think carefully about our future and putting in respect our interest for the present and future.

I want to say that we south Sudanese have been disadvantaged by history in a way that gave Arabs who invaded our land an upper hand in our own country and also an upper hand in the say of what our future should look like for us. When south Sudan first united with north Sudan, we southerners where clever and intelligent people but we never had the advance skills and requirements to understand the modern day political organization and how the world was changing into a place where only the strongest survives. When British left there were more educated northerners than southerners so this gave them advantage over us and Arabs took advantage of our politeness to take control over us.

We southerners wanted to have a peaceful, just and equal nation in which both the Arabs and the Africans can live and be happy with one another. We looked at the interest of Sudan government composed of two different races and religion but we forgot to look first at ourselves who are we, what are we looking for, and what we want in life for us and our people, our family, our village, our nation and our continent us blacks or African. We forgot our interests. Arab on the other hand was thinking the other way around. They wanted to control blacks and be the leaders and superiors. They wanted to promote and serve the interest of their race and their religion first and above all. The Arabs never even cared about south Sudanese or Africans. So to make a long story short we African Sudanese have always ignored our interest and failed to think about things from our own point of view. We always do or did things to please Arabs and that is how Arabs took advantage over us. They studied us southerners and know our weakness. That is, trusting and being polite to others and never put our interest first above all.

Now, going back to the American willingness to open military bases in south Sudan, I would like to say from our history and what we have been through it would be a big advantage for us southerners to have an American base on our land. It would help to inspire us and help us to accrue a lot from their ways and by that I mean the military tradition and the will to be on top of the world and not always at the bottom.

American base would shield us south Sudanese from our enemies, since all our enemies are strong and well established and would not hesitate to force their will on us. American would help to train our military and give us the confidence that we need to build our own nation to be like any other top nation in this world. American military base would be like a guide for us as we grow and build our capacity to government ourselves and develop our nation in the face of our enemies. I am not saying south Sudan should trust Americans 100% and give them access to everything in south Sudan, but I am mentioning the fact that we as a young growing nation would need a strong and powerful nation to be on our side. Otherwise, the road for us will not be easy, so back to my first paragraph, we south Sudanese needs to start thinking about our interests, what will serve us and be of advantage to us and not what will help Sudan unity, because millions of southerners perished under the name of united Sudan and the Arabs would not hesitate to oppress us again to control us if we make another foolish move to trust them again.

Now about the interest of the United States in south Sudan, of course, US will have interests as well. They want to secure their interest in the world and so we southerners want to secure our interests as well. We can have an equal deal since Americans are not going to take south Sudan's oil by force or without paying money. Therefore, Americans wants to secure south Sudan's oil for themselves. They don't want China or India or Arabia to take the oil from them. As south Sudanese, we want money to rebuild our country and develop our people, protect our interest both present and for the future, so we can let America have the oil and give us the money. We might also request to supply our army with technology since America is a leading nation in the world. It would be no difference if America entered south Sudan to protect the oil fields and to take the oil, as long as they pay for it and help south Sudan develops. We can have a fair deal with them.

At the moment, China is taking our oil and Chinese are reported to have military advisers and security advisors working with Arabs in Sudan to take our oil. They have been reported to be selling secret weapons to Khartoum government and backing the Arab government in the UN Security Council. Hence, if Arabs can make deals with China and India and others to serve their interest, why can't we south Sudanese make our own deal with other countries like America?

Are we southerners lacking self-confidence and feels inferior or are we less ambitious than other people? You have to think about these questions. South Sudanese have to start having self confidence and start thinking like any other advanced country and be ambitious and strong. America has military bases in German, Japan, South Korea and Italy. If you look and study these countries carefully, you will realize they are US allies and are at the same time the world's most advanced countries and well secured and stable. If American bases were a curst to these countries, they wouldn't have been what they are today. Don't forget America even though we will say is a white man's country, its one of the few countries in reality that stood with south Sudan in the struggle. They might have their interests but they helped us to reach our goals and are still standing with us, so give credit where it's worth. Americans are our Allies, not enemies.

Let us support American military bases in south Sudan to serve the interests of both nations and people to promote freedom and democracy in the world.

Other Comments

American base in south Sudan brings stability - by Okelo Okembia

US base guards southerners from the beast - Arab North - by Isaac

UN Security Council Report on Darfur: Power, Wealth Sharing Agreement; All-Inclusive Dialogue; New Ceasefire; Robust peace force with broad mandate

UN Security Council's report on its meeting 21 March 2006 records a call for a power and wealth sharing agreement and an all-inclusive dialogue [hopefully, it includes tribal leaders] on Darfur plus a new ceasefire agreement and a robust peace force with broad mandate.

Also, the report notes the Darfur ceasefire agreement was violated day after day and continuing killings, rapes, human rights abuse in Darfur threaten peace in whole of Sudan, the Secretary-General's Special Representative, Jan Pronk, told the Council.

Top UN envoy calls for urgent action to counter brutality in Darfur

In a UN News Service report at ReliefWeb March 21, 2006 Jan Pronk is quoted as saying:

"My warning to the Security Council was, 'Please do not cannibalize our existing force in the South, 10,000, by taking away troops on the basis of your perception that everything is okay,' because that is not the case".

Perhaps Mr Pronk is saying some of the 10,000 UN peacekeepers agreed for South Sudan are being considered for Darfur?

Blogging Sudan Watch: a plug for Darfur at the new Guardian "Comment is Free" (Daniel Davies)

The Guardian's new blog "Comment is Free" has published several pieces by Daniel Davies, one of which features this blog Sudan Watch, saying it ought to be compulsory reading for anyone planning to comment on the unfolding tragedy in Darfur. Here below is the March 21, 2006 piece entitled Sudan Watch: a plug - copied in full for posterity, incase the link to the Guardian's new site becomes broken:

"The website Sudan Watch really ought to be compulsory reading for anyone planning on using the unfolding tragedy in Darfur as scenery for their latest attack on their domestic political enemies (as a distressing number of people are doing these days). It is maintained by Ingrid Jones, about whom I know basically nothing except that she has an absolutely tireless energy for the distressing task of compiling news stories about Africa (Sudan Watch has sister sites dealing with Uganda, Congo, Niger, Ethiopia, Tibet, Iran and Syria). The site is compendious in its information and largely spin-free in its analysis. And it contains a number of pieces of information that one won't find anywhere else.

For example, it has been something of a trope of a certain element of the blogosphere to bash the UN for not sending a multilateral force into Sudan with NATO support. On the other hand, did you know that the African Union has been crying out for NATO to provide troops and material assistance for its own multilateral peacekeeping force in Darfur for the last year? Or that NATO has been refusing to do this, claiming that the presence of foreign troops would be "disastrous" for a similar period of time, until this week, when it volunteered to support a UN force (although not an AU one), the minute it became clear that no UN force would be sent? I am reluctant to draw conclusions from this, not least because I don't want to start using the Darfurians as scenery for my own domestic political battles. But it seems like the sort of thing that would be worth knowing.

I don't think it's exaggerating to say that if there had been a website as good as Sudan Watch in the runup to the Iraq War, a lot of things might have become common knowledge a lot earlier which have in fact only really come out since the war. It's an excellent website and deserves a lot more publicity."

[Note, Daniel Davies is an analyst and stockbroker working in London. He is a graduate of Oxford and the London Business School and started his career working in the Bank of England. He is a member of the Crooked Timber group blog (a wide-ranging philosophy blog) and maintains D-squared Digest plus a small number of other projects]

Two UN peacekeepers injured in South Sudan - UNMIS has 6,300 troops in S Sudan

In the second attack on a UN post in southern Sudan in less than a week, two UN peacekeepers from Bangladesh were wounded Mar 19 when 100 armed men tried to confine the blue helmets to their base in order to loot other compounds in Yambio near the border with the DR Congo, reported UN News/ST March 20, 2006.

The two wounded men were hit by ricocheting bullets rather than any fired at them. Initial indications are that the attackers were seeking communications equipment, the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) reported. Three of the gunmen were killed in the attack, which occurred just past midnight on Saturday and ended soon after local Sudanese troops reached the scene. UNMIS said security will be upgraded at the base.

Note, UNMIS, which is authorised to field up to 10,000 military personnel to support implementation of the January 9, 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CAP) between the Sudanese government and southern rebels SPLM/A, currently has 6,300 uniformed personnel on the ground. The separate uprising in Darfur is not covered by the CAP.

NATO ready to help UN in Darfur - What happened to NATO supporting African Union Mission in Darfur?

Last May, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer flew to an international conference in Ethiopia with an offer of logistical support for the African Union's bid to widen its peacekeeping mission in Darfur and urged Sudan not to hinder AU mission - see Sudan Watch entry 25 May 2005 - excerpt:

"On Tuesday, the NATO allies said they stood ready to provide non-combat aid for the AU's beleaguered peacekeeping force in Darfur, approving "initial military options" for logistical NATO support. The EU has similarly agreed to offer assistance in the form of military transport, training and planning.

Last week, AU Commission President Alpha Oumar Konare asked both the EU and NATO for help.

De Hoop Scheffer stressed the AU -- not NATO -- would be running the Darfur operation.

The EU has already sent military advisers to help the AU mission and is spending US $116 million to cover almost half the costs of the operation."

Photo: NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

Not sure what happened to above offer but today Associated Press reported NATO is ready to help UN in Darfur NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told President Bush in a White House visit Monday, 20 March 2006.

So what happened to NATO supporting the AU mission in Darfur, after the AU asked both the EU and NATO for help last year?

Mar 7 2006 NATO rules out troop presence in Darfur

Mar 1 2006 UN says NATO-led force in Darfur would be 'recipe for disaster'

Feb 17 2006 US President, NATO Secretary General discuss Darfur

Feb 14 2006 NATO ready to help in Darfur, but not with troops

Feb 6 2006 US urges NATO to help in Darfur - Russia offers 200 peacekeepers and helicopter strike force as part of UN's Darfur mission

Update: (Bloomberg) Mar 20 2006 article excerpt: NATO can take a role once the AU requests its security force be converted to a UN mission, Bush said at the White House after meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. Once that's done, he said, "NATO can move in with US help within -- inside of NATO -- to make it clear to the Sudanese government that we're intent upon providing security for the people there, and intent upon helping work toward a lasting peace agreement." [hat tip CfD]
- - -

UN Security Council Meeting 21 March 2006

Note this excerpt from a report by the UN Security Council on its meeting held 21 March 2006 - published at ReliefWeb on the same date:

In his monthly report on Darfur, the Secretary-General observes that it would be erroneous to characterize any transition to the United Nations as a substitution of an "African" force by an "international" force, pointing out that the current AMIS is already an international force, operating under an African Union mandate, with the endorsement of the Security Council, and the participation of troops and personnel from more than 29 countries. Similarly, a United Nations-led operation would depend greatly on African contributions and support, as well as those of other contributors. In any event, United Nations efforts are, and would remain, part of a cooperative international approach. At the same time, a possible successor operation would have to be qualitatively different from the current African Union operation, particularly with regard to force mobility.

South Darfur's Kalma and Seraif Camp - Rape; Attempted Rape; Risk of Death Penalty

Human Rights Alert from SOAT 20 March 2006 - excerpt:

On 7 March 2005, two armed militias in military uniform attacked four girls from Seraif IDP camp, Hay AlGeer, West Nyala, Southern Darfur. The girls were attacked whilst collecting firewood outside the camp at 11:30. During the attack, one of the men assaulted one of the girls and attempted to rape her. In defence she grabbed a knife that she had been using to cut the firewood and stabbed the attacker in the stomach.

Following the stabbing, the girls managed to escape and returned to Seraif camp where they reported the incident to police officers inside the camp. The police refused to file the case. On the same day, 07 March 2005, in the afternoon, police officers inside the camp were told of the death of a stabbing victim. Following the news of the death, the officers immediately arrested the four girls inside the camp on suspicion of murder.

The girls were initially taken to Nyala Shamal police station where they were detained for five days and charged with murder under Article 130 of the 1991 Penal Code. If convicted, the girls face death by hanging.

In a separate incident, on 15 March 2006, fifteen armed militia men attacked and raped five women (details withheld) from Kalma IDP camp. The women (aged between 18 and 27) were attacked whilst collecting firewood outside the camp, approximately 3 Km North East of the camp. During the attack, the women were raped and flogged. Full story.

Meningitis outbreak in Sudan incl Hamadyia IDP camp, Zalinger, West Darfur

A vaccination campaign against meningitis will start this week in western Sudan following the confirmation of an outbreak in Hamadyia camp for internally displaced persons in Zalinger, West Darfur, said the UN World Health Organization (WHO) on Sunday.

A national task force under the chairmanship of the Federal Ministry of Health together with WHO, UNICEF and NGOs has been established after reports of outbreaks of meningococcal meningitis in the country. As of 16 March, 526 cases with 23 deaths have been reported across the country. The epidemic thresholds in four States (Blue Nile, Gedaref, Kassala and South Kordofan) have, so far, been crossed. Full story by WHO at ReliefWeb 19 March 2006.

South African police on their way to El Fasher, Darfur

Forty-two South African Police Service members were due to arrive in El Fasher, Darfur for peacekeeping operations on Monday, reported Sapa March 20, 2006:

The group consisting of 33 men and nine women left for Darfur on Sunday night. Police spokesperson Peter Mbelengwa said they would be deployed in the region for six months as part of the African Union peacekeeping mission.

"They will monitor the service of the police of the Government of Sudan to the community, facilitate the building of good relations between the police and the community, give technical advice and share their experience on the successful adoption and implementation of community policing," said Mbelengwa.

They are the sixth group of police officials to be deployed in Sudan and would relieve members who have served their six months in the country. The SAPS have 125 members deployed in Sudan as part of the AU mission. - Sapa

Note they are replacing police officials on duty in Darfur, they are not in addition to AU forces already serving in Darfur. Why can't they all stay?

Eric Reeves: An Apologist for Murder (by David Hoile)

Sorry to say, I agree with most of what David Hoile writes in an opinion piece at Media Monitors Network (MMN) March 20, 2006 and am glad someone has spoken up against Eric Reeves' dangerously naive warmongering rants. It seems clear (to me anyway) Eric Reeves is biased and on the side of the Sudanese rebels. His relentless pushing for military intervention (an act of war) in Darfur can only be because it furthers the rebels cause and gives them what they want. Invading Sudan would cause aid workers to be dismissed from the country and disasterously affect the lives of millions of defenceless women and children dependent on aid. The rebels have been against Africa Union troops from the start and have used Western media at every opportunity to denigrate the efforts and capability of AU troops. Khartoum might be against international troops in Darfur because it would give the rebels what they've been pushing for all along. It makes one wonder who is funding the rebels and why. Surely if they were interested in peace, and really cared about the women and children of Sudan, an agreement would have been reached by now. Excerpt:

"Reeves' white middle-class naivety about Africa would be fairly amusing in its gaucheness in any other context. Eric Reeves, in his crass selectivity and grotesque distortion of events in Darfur, however, is clearly intent on attempting to get the United States militarily involved in western Sudan on as questionable a series of pretexts as those used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Any such intervention will resulted in another Iraq-type quagmire in another strategic part of the world, and the loss of thousands more American lives together with the lives of the very Africans he claims to care so much about".

Well said Mr Hoile.

Further reading

Mar 16, 2006 Oxfam - AU should call for AMIS mandate that prioritises civilian protection.

Mar 7, 2006 Eric Reeves As Rainy Season Nears, Darfur Faces "Perfect Storm" of Human Destruction.
- - -

What Does Eric Reeves Mean by Calling Top UK Minister Hilary Benn "Unspeakably Cruel and Fatuous" over Darfur Crisis?

The following is a copy of a Sudan Watch entry I drafted last month, I am filing it in this slot today for future reference:

Beware this is a vent. Sokari Ekine at Global Voices says American academic Eric Reeves in cosy Boston believes the presence of a NATO force in Darfur alongside the AU forces would immediately challenge the genocidal actions of the Janjaweed militia and bring security to the region.

I say, Eric Reeves lives in cloud cuckoo land. He is off his rocker if he thinks it is just a matter of NATO finding the will and seeking the authority to magically secure the whole of Sudan. Sudan is the size of Europe! Darfur is the size of France or Texas! Not only that, he now thinks NATO can also magically bring security to another huge African country, Chad but doesn't say how many troops: 80,000, 100,000 or what? And from where?

In his latest rant, What Does President Bush Mean by "NATO stewardship" of Darfur Crisis? Reeves writes:

"US intelligence has already identified the sites at which Khartoum's regular military most frequently and substantially supplies the Janjaweed with weaponry, ammunition, vehicles, and other military gear. These sites could be rapidly destroyed or neutralized."

Oh yeah, sure. And start World War III? When would walk away time be? Who would pay for the billions of dollars it would cost?

Intervention is an act of war. What would be the military objective, to overthrow the regime in Khartoum? And replace it with what? How many years would NATO occupy the Sudan? Would this include Chad? What about Eritrea, Egypt, Ethiopia and Uganda? Who would transport supplies and how? How much would it all cost year on year? If the Americans are not willing to finance it who else should be? And while I'm at it Mr Prof-Know-It-All-Reeves: who is the "world community" you speak of?

Considering American troops will never be deployed to intervene in the Sudan it is hard to know what Reeves keeps banging on about, why and to whom. For someone who has never worked in the real world, he has a lot to say. He learns everything in theory through books and USAID. Put him in charge of a government or army for five minutes and he wouldn't last two minutes.

Eric Reeves ought to be ashamed of his unspeakably cruel and fatuous description of UK Minister Hilary Benn. The UK was the first to donate to Darfur and is one of the top cash donors. The British government, media, charities, churches, military, celebrities, concert fundraisers, Bono and Geldof et al, and Brits in general, have done a huge amount to help Sudanese people in need, more so than most other countries. We want peace for Sudan and, unlike Eric Reeves, are not aiming to start a war.