Why a more robust force in Darfur needs to be a UN force

Jan Pronk (the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for the Sudan and head of the peace support operation for southern Sudan) in his blog entry 7 April 2006, explains the only way to avoid failure with a new ceasefire agreement is to bring a more robust force to Darfur and why, in his view, it can only be a UN force. Excerpt:

"Before the Security Council can take further decisions concerning the proposed transition towards a UN peace force in Darfur, it expects to receive an assessment of the situation in Darfur and of the possible modalities of a take-over. It is self evident that his should be a joint assessment, carried out by experts from both the AU and the UN. However, the Government has already declared that an assessment mission would not be welcome. After all, so they say, why would an assessment be necessary if there is no transition? Minister of Foreign Affairs Lam Akol has even declared that a transition, if any, would only imply a change of the present AU mandate into a new AU mandate. So far, the African Union has not corrected this surprising interpretation. Neither has the AU approached the Sudanese authorities requesting permission for an assessment. It seems that we are in a deadlock.

In Abuja there is progress, however. Early this month I paid another visit to the negotiations, my fourth time since the beginning of his year. I concluded that as far as the two substantial chapters are concerned - sharing of power and sharing of wealth - further talks will not help. Time is ripe for decisions, to cut the knot and strike a bargain. This could happen soon. We may expect a fresh position of SPLM within the Government of National Union. SPLM so far has supported its coalition partner, the NCP. However, it has come under pressure to take a more independent and forthcoming stance. From his side President Beshir seems to have instructed his negotiating team to define a possible deal.

The talks concerning the third chapter, security and cease fire arrangements, are also showing some progress. The military experts at both sides are talking with each other. A certain mutual understanding seems to emerge. For the first time the SLA has disclosed the positions which it claims to hold. The mediators have become engaged in some mapping of positions. If parties would recognize each others strengths and positions, mediators could try to convince them to freeze the status quo. Thereupon positions could be consolidated in the medium term, creating space for further peace talks - including the start of an all inclusive Darfur-Darfur dialogue - and for disarmament and demobilisation.

The African Union intends to reach an agreement around end April. Calling this a deadline would not be credible. The parties, despite the commitments made by all of them, had so clearly disregarded the previous deadline (31 December 2005) that setting a new one would not make much sense. End April is an objective which could be reached, in particular if the parties and the mediators would not aim at complete, unambiguous texts. The text of the so-called Enhanced Humanitarian Cease Fire Agreement which seems to emerge from the present talks is much better than the D'Jamena cease fire agreement of May 2005. However, it is also more complicated, because of the zoning of positions, which have to be verified, and the introduction of buffer zones and corridors between the zones, which requires checking and monitoring of troop movements. I am afraid that the African Union peace force in Darfur, given its present size, strength and composition, will not be able to carry out that task. Success in the talks may breed failure on the ground. The only way to avoid a new failure is to bring a more robust force to Darfur. In my view that can only be a UN force."

Gulf countries and their charities not publicised enough

Talking to IRIN during his first visit to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Jan Egeland said that too often humanitarian aid was associated with the West, adding that Gulf countries gave 94 per cent of their assistance directly to countries needing it. IRIN quotes Mr Egeland as saying:

"The Gulf region was among the most generous in the world. They are excellent at providing water and sanitation, very effective and quick.

All the important work that the Gulf countries and their various charities are doing is not well enough recognized, in particular in the West."

- - -

SINCE WHEN WAS THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES AT THE CENTRE OF THE RELIEF WORLD?

Dubai, city of gold souks and luxury hotels, gateway to the Gulf, hub of humanitarianism... Er, did someone say "humanitarianism"?

Read more by AlertNet's Tim Large who is blogging the Dubai International Humanitarian Aid and Development (DIHAD) Conference and Exhibition.
- - -

GLOBAL AID CONFERENCE IN DUBAI APRIL 10-12

Keynote address by Jan Egeland at DIHAD 2006. - via ReliefWeb April 10.

Apr 10 2006 UN News Centre UN relief chief calls on Middle East to channel more aid through United Nations

Geldof blames China for problems in Sudan's Darfur

Anti-poverty campaigner and Live 8 organiser Sir Bob Geldof accused China on Monday of being responsible for the continuing civil war in Darfur.

The Irish rock star, nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for organising last year's Live 8 benefit concerts, said China was protecting the Sudanese government because it provides 6% of China's oil.

"I was in Darfur 20 years ago and people were killing each other then. It's an ancient battle between nomadic people and settled people, between Arab Africans and black Africans, between Islam and Christians ... The reason why it has not been resolved is because of China," Geldof said.

"The Chinese protect the Khartoum government, who are killers, and they will not allow a vote in the Security Council ... so 250 000 people die in Darfur," he said.

Today's greatest political problem, Geldof said, was the "continuing economic decline of a continent [Africa] that is 12,8km from Europe".

Full story Mail & Guardian 10 Apr 2006.



Reuters graphic shows a detailed map of Sudan's Darfur region and location of refugee camps well over a year ago. Since the graphic was produced, around the the time when the International Criminal Court was about the announce a formal investigation into suspected crimes against humanity in Darfur, more camps have opened. (Sudan Watch archives)

Mendez: Action is particularly needed in Darfur, where the threat of genocide continues to loom large

Excerpt from article entitled Darfur, much more needs to be done by Juan E Mendez, Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, The Washington Times, 9 April 2006 via Sudan Tribune:



"Part of my job is to provide the Security Council information regarding the worst type of human-rights violations, those warranting a response by the international community.

I have based my work on the existing, universally binding legal obligation expressed in the 1948 Genocide Convention not only to punish genocide, but to prevent it. This legal commitment was reinforced at the September 2005 World Summit with a broader, political and moral commitment by which all member states of the United Nations have now accepted the responsibility to protect civilians from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

That protection may include, in limited cases, nonconsensual means when governments are unwilling or unable to protect their own citizens. As special adviser, I have stressed that international involvement with the consent of the government in question is always preferable.

Yet despite these obligations and commitments, people continue to be targeted for violence and murder solely because of their ethnic origin. This is happening most flagrantly today in the Sudanese region of Darfur.

Action is particularly needed in Darfur, where the threat of genocide continues to loom large."

Further reading

Apr 7 2006 UN's Mendez on Darfur: "Left unattended, the situation may degenerate into genocide"

Apr 8 2006 UN Action Plan to Prevent Genocide - Juan E Mendez of Argentina, Special Adviser on Prevention of Genocide

Apr 8 2006 What is the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing?

Apr 9 2006 Juan Mendez, UN Special Adviser on Prevention of Genocide, tells press "definitely ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur"

Apr 9 2006 The Genocide Convention required States to prevent genocide - Mendez

Jan Pronk's Weblog: Talks deadlocked over transition from AU to UN peace force in Darfur

Excerpt from blog entry April 7, 2006 by Jan Pronk, UN special envoy in Sudan:

Talks about a transition from an African Union peace force in Darfur towards a United Nations force are deadlocked. The final decision is in the hands of the Government of Sudan. The transition is meant to protect unarmed civilians against attacks by militia that still seem to be supported by Government forces. However, the Government rejects such a transition and seems to get away with this. Read more...

African military monitors now on Sudan-Chad-CAR border

On Feb 8, 2006 the leaders of Sudan and Chad signed a peace agreement to end increasing tension over Darfur, pledging to normalize diplomatic relations and deny refuge to each other's rebel groups. The agreement is known as the Tripoli Declaration.

On March 21, 2006 the African Union Peace and Security Council endorsed plans to deploy military observers on the Chad-Sudan border as per the Tripoli Declaration. Next day, the African Union sent observers on the Chad-Sudan border.



Photo: Leaders of Chad and Sudan on the evening of Wednesday 8 Feb 2006 signed a peace agreement in Tripoli, Libya under which they promised to immediately expel armed groups hostile to their respective governments. - PANA

Today, Apr 10, 2006, an unsourced article at Sudan Tribune says the deployment of military monitors through the Sudan Chad border started April 9, 2006 when African observers departed from Tripoli, Libya, to monitor the common border from Chadian, Sudanese and Central African sides. Excerpt:

Chad-Sudan border monitoring team which is made up of members from Libya, Burkina Faso, Congo and Sudan left Tripoli International Airport this morning for the city of Al-Fashir in Sudan's Darfur to carry out its mission of monitoring the Sudanese side of the border with Chad at points set along the Sudanese side of the border.

Another team of observers from the Libya and the CAR left Tripoli International Airport for the city of Birao in CAR to start its mission of monitoring the Sudan-Chad-Central African Republic border.

A third team of observers from the Libya, Burkina Faso, and Congo is also scheduled to leave tomorrow for the city of Abeche in Chad where Chadian monitors will join them. The team of monitors from these four countries will be in charge of monitoring the Chadian side of the border with Sudan along set monitoring points.

Note, the article explains dispatch of these teams comes in implementation of the decision of the ministerial committee set up under the Tripoli Declaration issued by the African mini summit which was held on 8 February 2006 in Libya to contain the tension between Sudan and Chad. The ministerial committee set up teams to monitor the Sudan-Chad border and identified arrangements to implement the mechanism agreed by the directors of external security services of Libya, Congo, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic in their Tripoli meeting held on 28 February 2006. Under the Tripoli agreement signed on 8 February, the leaders of Sudan and Chad agreed to normalize diplomatic relations and to immediately commit themselves to work to prevent the presence of rebel groups on each other territory.



Photo: Click on map image to see Chad-Sudan-CAR border



Photo: Map of Libya

Feb 18 2005 Tony Blair hails Gaddafi's efforts for Darfur

Feb 21 2006 Libya's Gaddhafi and Senegal's Wade discuss African solution to Darfur crisis - United States of Africa?

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

Feb 24 2006 Libya's Gaddhafi and Sudan's al-Bashir discuss Darfur crisis - see list of further reports

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

Feb 28 2006 Libya's Kadhafi urges Africans to fund AU troops in Darfur

Feb 28 2006 Egypt, Libya leaders reject UN Darfur force

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

Mar 8 2006 Libya receives Sudanese Vice-President Ali Taha

Mar 9 2006 US hopes Libya could expand its mediation efforts for peaceful solution to Darfur conflict

Mar 8 2006 Sudan, Egypt, Libya to hold new Darfur talks

Mar 8 2006 Libya, US discuss relations and Darfur problem

Mar 10 2006 AU proposes 9 month Darfur mission - Sudan ready to reinforce it with 10,000 troops - half SPLA - within 3 wks

Mar 15 2006 Libya to host summit on Darfur - Sudan, Egypt leaders to attend

Mar 15 2006 Gaddafi will urge Sudanese President al-Bashir to hold direct talks with Darfur rebel leaders

Mar 24 2006 Sudan will be president of Arab League summit in Khartoum

Mar 24 2006 Gaddafi lashes out at 'backward society' in Middle East

Mar 25 2006 Sudan says UN takeover of AMIS would encourage intransigence from the armed groups - Sudan wants South Sudan CPA as a model for Darfur

Mar 25 2006 Sudan believes Arab summit supports Khartoum stance on Darfur

Mar 26 2006 Gaddafi arrives in Khartoum for Arab summit Mar 28-29

Mar 27 2006 Libya, Sudan leaders meet to discuss Darfur and Chad

Darfur war criminals chat and luxuriate in hotels while millions depend on UN aid

Still no breakthrough in Darfur peace talks today. Deadline is April 30.

Obasanjo and Sassou, the past and current AU chairmen, held all-night talks with the warring parties in a secluded guest house in Nigerian presidential complex and Sassou reconvened with them for a plenary on Sunday afternoon but failed to break the impasse.



Photo: Nigerian President Obasanjo (R) hosted the talks. Current AU chairman, Congolese President Denis Sassou Nguesso (Reuters)



Photo: Mohamed Tugod, JEM chief negotiator

After two years of negotiations between the Sudanese government and two rebel groups (who's paying for the rebels' expenses, fancy suits and hotels?) there is this gem to report:

"I can't say that there are any tangible results," Ahmed Tugod, chief negotiator for the JEM rebel group, said after today's talks.

"We are back to the stage of consultations between the parties and the mediation at the hotel."

Meanwhile, in Darfur, where the uprising over the past three years has killed 400,000 people and forced 2 million to flee their homes, most parts are inaccessible for aid workers due to violence, anarchy and lack of security.

Sudan is the size of Europe or one quarter of the United States. North Darfur is 1,000 miles away from Khartoum. 7,500 African Union peacekeepers monitoring a non-existent peace agreement are hamstrung without a protection force mandate and helicopters. 14,000 aid workers in Darfur, a region the size of France, are hindered from their work by the Sudanese government, and risk their lives to reach the millions of displaced Sudanese people who rely on food aid and emergency relief.

The Genocide Convention required States to prevent genocide - Mendez

Note the following excerpt from Sudan Watch entry today entitled Juan Mendez, UN Special Adviser on Prevention of Genocide, tells press "definitely ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur" - particularly where it says "In legal terms, it was not only genocide that required the international community to act. The International Commission of Inquiry had stated that war crimes and crimes against humanity also required the international community to act. In addition, the Genocide Convention required States to prevent genocide."

Asked if what was happening in Darfur was genocide, Mr Mendez replied that there had been a separate body entrusted with making that decision. His job was not to qualify situations that he paid attention to as whether or not they could be defined as genocide, but rather prevention. The International Commission of Inquiry determined that there was, at the very least, enough evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that the element of intent, of whether it was genocide or not, should be left to a court of law -- the International Criminal Court.

He did not believe that just calling the situation genocide would help, he said, adding that there was definitely ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur. All of that should prompt the international community to act. In legal terms, it was not only genocide that required the international community to act. The International Commission of Inquiry had stated that war crimes and crimes against humanity also required the international community to act. In addition, the Genocide Convention required States to prevent genocide.

Juan Mendez, UN Special Adviser on Prevention of Genocide, tells press "definitely ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur"

The twelfth anniversary of the beginning of the Rwandan genocide should serve as the occasion for the international community to renew its commitment to ensure that it did not let genocide happen ever again, Juan Mendez told correspondents today, April 9, 2006 at a Headquarters press conference.

(PressZoom) - "As we remember the almost 1 million victims, we also have to remember that the international community failed to protect those victims, and that we were unable or unwilling to do what needs to be done to prevent persecution and murder on the basis of ethnicity or race", stated Mr Mendez, who serves as the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide.

For that reason, he continued, it was important to use the date -- 7 April -- to renew the commitment not to let it happen again. In that sense, the creation of his office had to be seen as "an act of self-criticism on the part of the United Nations for having been unable to prevent the genocide in Rwanda". In resolution 1366 (2001), the Security Council had acknowledged that failure and asked the Secretary-General to refer to it situations that risked deteriorating into genocide unless urgent action was taken.

His job, based on the 1948 Genocide Convention, was to follow situations around the world where populations were at risk due to their ethnicity, race, religion or national origin and, if left unattended, might deteriorate into something like genocide. He said he and his staff followed such situations and tried to come up with suggestions for early action that might alter the course of events.

Noting that the obligation to prevent and punish genocide was a fundamental norm in international relations, he said he was pleased that world leaders at last year's World Summit had adopted the norm of the responsibility to protect vulnerable populations, not only from genocide but from ethnic cleansing and massive violations of human rights. "My office was given an important boost with that declaration."

On the other hand, it was important to translate those commitments into action, he said. For that reason, he and his staff had embarked not only on making the new office -- established in July 2004 - work, but also to examine how it worked and what could be done to strengthen it and make it more effective.

As was seen in Darfur, populations continued to suffer attacks due to their ethnic origin, he stated. He had visited Darfur twice since his appointment, and had made a number of recommendations to the Secretary-General, and through him to the Security Council. Those recommendations involved four areas which had to be addressed simultaneously: physical protection of vulnerable populations, if necessary through armed contingents; humanitarian assistance; accountability, since the cycle of impunity must be broken before victims could expect to find conditions of security that would allow them to return home; and support for the peace process.

"In all four of those areas in Darfur, the international community has taken measures. At the same time, in each one of those four, the measures have been insufficient yet to let us have the sense that we are going in the right direction", he said. The matter of protection, in particular, had become a serious matter today because the situation continued to deteriorate. It was much worse now than it was six months ago, when he visited Darfur, and certainly much worse that it was a year ago.

Describing the situation, he cited renewed fighting between the rebel forces, the militias and the Government of Sudan. Also, the fighting was directed at the civilian population, not against armed contingents. Therefore, there had been several new attacks against the civilian population, resulting in new displacements and hundreds of thousands cut off from international assistance.

At the same time, he noted, the latest news about the peace process indicated that there might be a draft agreement on security conditions that might offer a glimmer of hope that a real, verifiable ceasefire could be reached. In the next few months, while considering a transition from the African Union force to a larger and more internationalized force, it was important to bear in mind that the situation would be complicated due to the vacuum that might be created. Whatever decision was adopted, the most important thing was that the international community must fund and equip that presence in troop strengths larger than was the case now, so they could protect everyone everywhere.

It was also vital, he added, to clarify the mandate under which those troops operated. Debates about troop strength on the ground and about mandate were "very eerily reminiscent" of what happened in Rwanda, and the international community was still debating today.

Asked if what was happening in Darfur was genocide, Mr Mendez replied that there had been a separate body entrusted with making that decision. His job was not to qualify situations that he paid attention to as whether or not they could be defined as genocide, but rather prevention. The International Commission of Inquiry determined that there was, at the very least, enough evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that the element of intent, of whether it was genocide or not, should be left to a court of law -- the International Criminal Court.

He did not believe that just calling the situation genocide would help, he said, adding that there was definitely ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur. All of that should prompt the international community to act. In legal terms, it was not only genocide that required the international community to act. The International Commission of Inquiry had stated that war crimes and crimes against humanity also required the international community to act. In addition, the Genocide Convention required States to prevent genocide.

On whether he was disappointed that the Europeans and the North Americans were "nowhere to be seen" when it came to providing troops to prevent possible genocide in Darfur, he replied that he was certainly disappointed since the situation continued to deteriorate. Among other things, he was disappointed that the African Union was left to organize a protective mission with less means than they needed from the start. The Union was short $200 million from the beginning, and trapped in a situation where the consent of the Government of Sudan was an important limitation on what it could do.

In effect, he said, for the last two years, the international community had engaged in half measures, which had not been sufficient to protect and which were showing signs of unravelling. All countries bound by the Genocide Convention were not living up to their obligation to prevent the violations from happening. In response to another question, he replied "I think there's still a reluctance to intervene that comes... that's not all that changed from 1994."

As for whether countries were more determined to prevent such atrocities, he said that he had received numerous expressions of support and commitment to establish a clear procedure for early warning and early action and to prevent genocide from happening. However, expressions of support were one thing and being ready to act on recommendations were another. He added that some of his proposals for Darfur and elsewhere had had some immediate effect, including the presence of an international police presence in Darfur, and the abatement of hate speech in Cote d'Ivoire.

In response to further questions, he said that calling a situation genocide would in effect be a confession of failure on his part, because by definition he had not been able to prevent it. The discussion of whether something constituted genocide or not had been "sterile and paralysing", and operated on the wrong assumption that a situation first needed to be qualified before action was taken. He strongly disagreed with that notion, believing that it was necessary to act before a situation became genocide.

Part of the problem in Sudan, he said, was that the Government was "playing games" with the consent that it originally gave to the African Union Mission by, for example, refusing from time to time to give them jet fuel and in effect grounding their helicopters and planes, as well as refusing for months to let them import the armoured personnel carriers that had been donated to the Mission. "It is high time that the African Union, the Security Council and all of us tell the Government of Sudan that consent is indispensable but that consent has to be given in good faith."

Asked about the situations in Ingushetia and Chechnya, he said that he was trying to get more information on those situations and was keeping an eye on them because of the "undeniable ethnic character of what might happen there". He had not yet made any open call for early action because he was trying to monitor the situation, and did not see a "value added" in doing so at the current stage.

Further reading

Apr 7 2006 UN assembly president calls Darfur violence "ethnic cleansing" - ICC Summary

Apr 7 2006 EU parliament says Darfur is "tantamount to genocide"

Apr 7 2006 UN's Mendez on Darfur: "Left unattended, the situation may degenerate into genocide"

Apr 8 2006 UN Action Plan to Prevent Genocide - Juan E Mendez of Argentina, Special Adviser on Prevention of Genocide

Apr 8 2006 What is the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing?

Apr 9 2006 The Genocide Convention required States to prevent genocide - Mendez

Apr 10 2006 Mendez: Action is particularly needed in Darfur, where the threat of genocide continues to loom large

Chad says Sudan-backed rebels attack southern base

Chad's government said insurgents backed by Sudan had attacked an army base in its southeastern border region on Sunday with the aim of derailing presidential elections.

The Chadian army sent reinforcements to the garrison in the town of Haraze Mangueigne, close to the borders with Sudan and Central African Republic, to try to overcome the attackers, Communication Minister Hourmadji Moussa Doumgor said. Full report Reuters 9 Apr 2006.

No breakthrough in Darfur talks but efforts still on

Reuters says all-night negotiations involving the warring parties from Darfur and two African heads of state failed to produce a breakthrough in deadlocked peace talks but further meetings were planned later on today.

"So far there's nothing new. We heard from the AU chairman the same proposals we'd heard before from the AU mediation team. It was very disappointing," said Ahmed Tugod, chief negotiator of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel movement.

"There's still a big gap. ... We have about nine core issues outstanding and decisions need to be taken on these issues at the political level," said Tugod of the JEM.

Note, the report points out the peace talks between the government and the rebels, in their seventh round, have been going on for almost TWO YEARS on the three key issues of power-sharing, wealth-sharing and security.

Turabi says women's testimony is equal to that of a man

Sandmonkey blog says Dr Hassan Al Turabi, the islamic leader of Sudan, has just issued a Fatwa (arabic link):

He stated that the muslim woman has the right to marry a jewish or christian man if she wants to, and that it's not haram at all, and that the rule that says that muslim women can not marry non-muslim men is a bunch of lies [-] "aimed to keep women behind/down".

Not only that, he stated that a woman's testimony is equal to that of a man (Islam considers women to be lying wicked creatures, and therefore1 man's testimony = 2 women's testimony), and that the Hijab (head cover) is wrongly interperted, and that it's supposed to mean a cover, as in women should cover their breasts and the s*xy parts of their body and not to bind her up completely.

He did this all in an islamic conference nonetheless.

Note, one commentator at the post rightly says "I hope this gets some play in the western media. It is such a good sign that progress IS possible and we should support all those courageous enough to openly call for it."

Sudanese government says Darfur rebels attack school convoy at Donki Shata, nr Wana Mountains, N Darfur

An unsourced article at Sudan Tribune April 9 says Sudanese authorities accused Darfur rebel forces of attacking a convoy of school buses transporting students, who did their exams in Al-Fashir town, the headquarters of Northern Darfur State yesterday. Excerpt:

The students were on their way to Kutum town, and were being escorted by security officers from the armed forces and the police. The rebel movement attacked the administrative convoy using 30 Land Cruiser vehicles and four big vehicles, the state-run SUNA said.

Osman Mohamed Youcif Kibir, the governor of Northern Darfur State, has said that the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) Minawi faction forces attacked the convoy at Donki Shata area, near Wana Mountains, adding that some members of the armed forces and the police were killed and some others were wounded in the attack. However, he said, the government forces have caused heavy human and material losses among the rebel forces during the attack.

On the other side in a press release issued today the SLM accused the government troops of carrying out attacks against its forces in the region. It also said that SLM forces attacked a convoy of the Sudanese army near Kutum on 7 April.

The governor further added that this heinous attack was aimed at derailing the Abuja peace talks which are in progress.

Sudanese FM declines to comment on EU Parliament draft resolution

On April 7, 2006 Associated Press reported EU lawmakers voted unanimously to urge the 25 EU governments, the US and other countries to enforce sanctions against those who obstruct the deployment of a UN force in Darfur.

Today, ANDnetwork cites Sudan Vision as its source for the following report:

The Sudanese Foreign Minister yesterday declined to comment on the European parliament draft resolution calling for imposing sanctions on any party that rejects the deployment of Un forces in Darfur.

The draft resolution has also demanded the Sudanese government to expedite issue of entry visas to Sudan.

When asked about the response of the government to that resolution, Foreign Minister Dr Lam Akol threw the question back to journalists by saying "did they say that?"

Meanwhile, the Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Jamal Mohamed Ibrahim said he was not informed about the said resolution and therefore he was not in a position to comment on it.

UN and Saudis may do more together in Darfur and Sudan

Top UN aid chief Jan Egeland said after talks with Saudi officials in Riyadh that conditions in Darfur were "getting increasingly difficult," with non-governmental organizations "either (being) thrown out or (facing) severe obstacles to their work." AFP report 7 Apr 2006 - excerpt:

Egeland said he had discussed with Saudi officials "the need for more resources" and "the possibility to do more together in Darfur and Sudan at large." Egeland said he had sought a Saudi contribution to a UN Central Emergency Response Fund launched last month, to which 40 nations have already given 260 million dollars for immediate use in cases of disasters.

Egeland met with Riyadh Governor Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, foreign ministry undersecretary for political affairs Prince Turki bin Mohammad bin Saud al-Kabeer, and Saudi Red Crescent officials.

He is due to hold talks with officials in the United Arab Emirates Sunday and to give a keynote speech at a humanitarian conference opening in Dubai Monday.

Photo: UN emergency relief cordinator Jan Egeland makes an appeal in Nairobi on 07 April. Egeland said the Sudanese government had invited him to visit Darfur a few days after barring him from the war-torn region, but he had not yet decided if and when he would go. (AFP/File/Simon Maina/Yahoo)

Sudanese Government hindering care to refugees

On the Sudanese Government, James Lawrence of the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders, is quoted as saying:

"It is hindering the provision of primary health care to refugees."

Riek Rackar of the South Sudan Human Development, a humanitarian group assisting in refugee resettlement, said Khartoum's attempt to bar the UN's aid chief Jan Egeland raised doubts about its commitment to engage the international community in ending the Darfur crisis and taking care of affected civilians.

Full report CNS 7 Apr 2006.
- - -

Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) calls on the Sudanese authorities and the UN to create the necessary humanitarian space for aid organisations to continue life saving operations

NRC report Mar 10, 2006 excerpt:

UNHCR's announced cut in activities in Darfur is another clear testimony that the international community, together with the Sudanese authorities, lack the ability to create the necessary humanitarian space for humanitarian actors to assist the Sudanese civilian population.

According to UNHCR, the security situation is so volatile that aid workers cannot get to those in need. Humanitarian convoys are being targeted, the agency said in its statement released in Geneva, and access to large areas of west Darfur is severely limited.

UNHCR blamed lack of security and confidence in the Sudanese Government as the main obstacles for internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their villages.

UN Action Plan to Prevent Genocide - Juan E Mendez of Argentina, Special Adviser on Prevention of Genocide

"In the 20th century, genocides and state mass murder have killed more people than have all wars" - Institute for the Study of Genocide.

Prevent Genocide International notes that:

On April 7, 2004 in a speech in Geneva commemorating the 10th anniversary of the 1994 Genocide In Rwanda, UN Secretary General Kofi Annn announced his future appointment of a Special Advisor on Genocide Prevention and launched an Action Plan to Prevent Genocide. The Five Point Action Plan includes:

1) preventing armed conflict which usually provides the context for genocide,
2) protection of civilians in armed conflict including a mandate for UN peacekeepers to protect civilians,
3) ending impunity through judicial action in both national and international courts,
4) information gathering and early warning through a UN Special Advisor for Genocide Prevention making recommendations to the UN Security Council on actions to prevent or halt genocide, and
5) swift and decisive action along a continuum of steps, including military action.

Immediately prior to his speech Annan and members of the UN Commission on Human Rights who he addresses observed two minutes of silence to commemorate the lives of the more than 800,000 people killed in Rwanda between April 7 and July 17, 1994.

On July 12, 2004 Mr Annan informed the United Nations Security Council that he had chosen Juan Mendez, a human rights advocate, lawyer and former political prisoner from Argentina, as his first Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide.



Photo: Juan E Mendez, the UN's first Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (Sudan Tribune)
- - -

What is genocide?

PGI provides answers to questions on genocide.

ISG & IAGS Social Scientists' Definitions of Genocide.

What is ethnic cleansing?

See What is the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing?

What is the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing?

Someone has just asked me what is the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. Good question. I found it difficult to articulate a short answer. The following excerpt from Encyclopaedia Britannica says some critics see little difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing:

Ethnic cleansing is the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing sometimes involves the removal of all physical vestiges of the targeted group through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.

The term ethnic cleansing, a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian phrase etnicko ciscenje, was widely employed in the 1990s (though the term first appeared earlier) to describe the brutal treatment of various civilian groups in the conflicts that erupted upon the disintegration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These groups included Bosniacs (Bosnian Muslims) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbs in the Krajina region of Croatia, and ethnic Albanians and later Serbs in the Serbian province of Kosovo. The term also has been attached to the treatment by Indonesian militants of the people of East Timor, many of whom were killed or forced to abandon their homes after citizens there voted in favour of independence in 1999, and to the plight of Chechens who fled Grozny and other areas of Chechnya following Russian military operations against Chechen separatists during the 1990s.

According to a report issued by the United Nations (UN) secretary-general, the frequent occurrence of ethnic cleansing in the 1990s was attributable to the nature of contemporary armed conflicts, in which civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure are not simply by-products of war, but the consequence of the deliberate targeting of non-combatants... [I]n many conflicts, belligerents target civilians in order to expel or eradicate segments of the population, or for the purpose of hastening military surrender.

Ethnic cleansing as a concept has generated considerable controversy. Some critics see little difference between it and genocide. Defenders, however, argue that ethnic cleansing and genocide can be distinguished by the intent of the perpetrator: whereas the primary goal of genocide is the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group, the main purpose of ethnic cleansing is the establishment of ethnically homogeneous lands, which may be achieved by any of a number of methods including genocide.

Another major controversy concerns the question of whether or not ethnic cleansing originated in the 20th century. Some scholars have pointed to the forced resettlement of millions of people by the Assyrians in the 9th and 7th centuries BC as perhaps the first cases of ethnic cleansing. Among other examples cited are the mass execution of Danes by the English in 1002, attempts by the Czechs to rid their territories of Germans in the Middle Ages, the expulsion of Jews from Spain in the 15th century, and the forced displacement of Native Americans by white settlers in North America in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Others argue that ethnic cleansing, unlike earlier acts of forced resettlement, is the result of certain uniquely 20th-century developments, such as the rise of powerful nation-states fueled by nationalist and pseudoscientific racist ideologies in conjunction with the spread of advanced technology and communications. Examples of ethnic cleansing understood in this sense include the Armenian massacres by the Turks in 1915-16, the Nazi Holocaust of European Jews in the 1930s and '40s, the expulsion of Germans from Polish and Czechoslovak territory after World War II, the Soviet Union's deportation of certain ethnic minorities from the Caucasus and Crimea during the 1940s, and the forced migrations and mass killings in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s. In many of these campaigns, women were targeted for particularly brutal treatment - including systematic rape and enslavement - in part because they were viewed by perpetrators as the "carriers," biologically and culturally, of the next generation of their nations. Because many men in victimized populations left their families and communities to join resistance groups once violence began, women and children were often defenseless.

The precise legal definition of ethnic cleansing has been the subject of intense scrutiny within various international bodies, including the UN, the two ad hoc international tribunals created in the 1990s to prosecute violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda (the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [ICTY] and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ICTR], respectively), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), which began sittings in 2002.

In 1992, in reference to the hostilities in Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly declared ethnic cleansing to be "a form of genocide," and in the following year the Security Council, citing widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law within the territory of the former Yugoslavia, established a tribunal to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including ethnic cleansing. In its examination of the capture of the town of Kozarac by Bosnian Serbs, the ICTY described the ethnic cleansing that took place there as the process of rounding up and driving "out of the area on foot the entire non-Serb population." In a subsequent case, the tribunal recognized similarities between acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, noting that both involve the targeting of individuals because of their membership in an ethnic group. The significant difference between the two remains, however: whereas ethnic cleansing aims to force the flight of a particular group, genocide targets the group for physical destruction.

The establishment of the ICC reinforced the links between ethnic cleansing and other offenses such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In its finalized text on the elements of the crimes in the court's jurisdiction, the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court made clear that ethnic cleansing could constitute all three offenses within the ICC's jurisdiction. Genocide, for example, was defined as an act that may include the systematic expulsion of individuals from their homes; the threat of force or coercion to effect the transfer of a targeted group of persons was recognized as an element of crimes against humanity; and the "unlawful deportation and transfer," as well as the displacement, of civilians were recognized as elements of war crimes.

Despite continuing controversies over its definition, the concept of ethnic cleansing has become firmly anchored within international law. It remains to be seen how mechanisms to prevent and deal with ethnic cleansing will develop and be implemented.

UNHCR: Insecurity forces 44% cut in Darfur budget

Citing deteriorating security that has severely limited its operations and access in Darfur, the UN refugee agency 9 Mar 2006 announced a 44% reduction in its 2006 programme budget for the region.



Photo: Displaced women on their way to collect firewood in the Douma area of Darfur. Soldiers from the African Union and the government escort them twice a week to collect wood, guarding against rape by janjaweed attackers. (UNHCR/H.Caux)

Darfur - European Parliament urges UN Security Council to draft clear mandate under Chapter VII of UN Charter, on or before 1 Oct 2006

European Parliament says Darfur is "tantamount to genocide" AP reported earlier today. More on this from Noticias Info 7 Apr 2006 - excerpt:

In a resolution on Darfur, adopted by 76 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions, Parliament deplores the continuation of violence and rape by all sides, and condemns the Government of Sudan's continued support for the Janjaweed militia. It urges the United Nations Security Council to meet to address the violence in Darfur, which is tantamount to genocide, and to act on its responsibility to protect civilians by drafting a clear mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, on or before 1 October 2006 (following the expiry of the mandate of the African Union mission in Darfur on 30 September 2006). It calls on the UN Security Council to extend the arms embargo in Darfur throughout Sudan and support the African Union's efforts in Darfur to reach full operational capacity and to robustly interpret its mandate to protect civilians until the transition to a UN mission.

MEPs underline that the mandate of the AMIS force has primarily been to observe violations of the humanitarian ceasefire agreement. They criticise the international community for not having acted to protect civilians sooner and call upon EU Member States to honour the commitments they have already made to provide military observers, staff officers and civilian police to increase security in Darfur and to ensure that the current AMIS mission is adequately funded and equipped to enable it to interpret its limited mandate as broadly as possible.

Parliament welcomes the decisions taken by the UN Security Council in March on a ban on offensive flights in Darfur. It calls for an effectively enforced no-fly zone across Darfur. It further calls on the EU, the US and other international actors to take all necessary action to help end impunity by enforcing the Security Council sanctions regime and seeking for this regime to include targeted sanctions against individuals who obstruct the deployment of the UN force and otherwise contribute to abuses of civilians.

MEPs call for the international community to support the International Criminal Court's investigation into violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in Darfur. They join the UNHCR in calling for an end to forced conscription of Sudanese refugees in Chad and also call for the implementation of a Chad-Sudan border monitoring force, as foreseen in the accord signed by the Presidents of the two countries on 10 February 2006. They strongly criticise the Government of Sudan for preventing Jan Egeland, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, from visiting Darfur.

Parliament asks the African Union to continue to play a leading role in the Abuja peace talks, and for all those involved in the talks to work to achieve these ends. It calls on the Government of Sudan to work alongside the NGO community for the benefit of its people and urges the Government to revise the Organisation of Voluntary and Humanitarian Work Act 2006 to bring it into line with international human rights standards. MEPs insist that Sudan's Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC) facilitate the issuing of visas and travel permits to humanitarian workers and stop the harassment of international NGOs; they criticise the lack of independence of the HAC from the Government of Sudan;

Parliament calls on the Government of Sudan to release Ms Amouna Mohamed Ahmed, Ms Fayza Ismail Abaker, Ms Houda Ismail Abdel Rahman and Ms Zahra Adam Abdela while their case is investigated and considers that these girls should be given appropriate care as victims of attempted rape.

Finally, MEPs criticise Russian and Chinese efforts to block UN Security Council actions over Darfur. They urge the international community to exert more pressure on these countries in order to prevent their economic interests in oil and arms sales from undermining efforts to bring peace to Darfur.

[Note, Austrian Presidency of the EU 1 January - 30 June 2006. See A Guide to the European Parliament]