Save Darfur Coalition - Does "Free Darfur" harbor genocide supporters? (Anne Morse, Wilberforce Forum)

Since I rarely follow news of the Save Darfur Coalition I am not sure what the following opinion piece is all about but I am logging it here for future reference:

Does "Free Darfur" harbor genocide supporters?
May 15, 2006
By Anne Morse, senior writer at The Wilberforce Forum

Should human rights activists fighting genocide in Darfur join forces with groups with ties to terrorists--fanatics whose dearest wish is to commit genocide?

Save Darfur has done tremendous work promoting the cause of Darfur's persecuted people to Americans. My 17-year-old son and I were among the 10,000 people who attended the rally in Washington, bought t-shirts, and applauded the celebrity speakers. Clearly, Save Darfur, which includes as members Holocaust survivors, has its heart in the right place.

But its leadership has some explaining to do - specifically, why they invited supporters of genocide to help them prevent it.

See full article at Townhall.com.

Irrepressible.info: an Amnesty International campaign

From Amnesty International's campaign irrepressible.info:

The web is a great tool for sharing ideas and freedom of expression. However, efforts to try and control the Internet are growing. Internet repression is reported in countries like China, Vietnam, Tunisia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. People are persecuted and imprisoned simply for criticising their government, calling for democracy and greater press freedom or exposing human rights abuses, online.

But Internet repression is not just about governments. IT companies have helped build the systems that enable surveillance and censorship to take place. Yahoo! have supplied email users' private data to the Chinese authorities, helping to facilitate cases of wrongful imprisonment. Microsoft and Google have both complied with government demands to actively censor Chinese users of their services.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is one of the most precious of all rights. We should fight to protect it.

[via Ethan's link to Amnesty's efforts on blog censorship]

Sudan proposes Libyan role in Darfur peace implementation

The Sudan Tribune is one of the few news sites to pick up on the story that Sudan proposes Libyan role in Darfur peace implementation.

The article claims press reports in Khartoum say al-Khalifa also asked Gaddafi to persuade the dissident rebels groups, particularly SLM/A's al-Nur faction, to join the peace deal.

My heart lifts whenever I read such news. I've followed almost every news report on Col Gaddafi's efforts to broker peace for Darfur and logged most of it here at Sudan Watch.



Gaddafi seems to mean what he says because throughout the past two years, he's followed through on everything, from opening up routes to get emergency food into Darfur to bringing together warring parties and tribes under one roof.



Photo: Sudanese president al-Bashir welcomes Libyan leader Col Gaddfi to Khartoum March 23, 2006 for Arab summit held in the capital.

Col Gaddafi appears to be a great joiner of people. He speaks different languages, in more ways than one. I believe he continues to be instrumental in building bridges of trust between the warring parties and tribal leaders in the Sudan.

I've found it difficult to believe the regime in Khartoum have control over the so-called Janjaweed. Sudan is a country the size of Europe. Tribal leaders lord it over huge swathes of the Sudan, ruling through benevolence and fear. Searing heat, harsh flat terrain, sand storms, rainy seasons, mud, floods, nomads, livestock, watering holes, camels, tribal customs and traditions all part of a way of life that has not changed since the year dot.

A few years ago, one of the Janjaweed leaders, Musa Hilal, explained to the press that he and the other tribal leaders have no need to take orders from Khartoum. It seems they rule in a way they feel works best. How else does one contain anarchy and retain sovereignty in such a huge poverty stricken country where there is little or no infrastructure?

I imagine all the different Sudanese tribes, dialects, customs, traditions and culture to be as diverse as those in all the different countries of Europe. Some African leaders talk of their vision for a "United States of Africa". Sudan is one quarter the size of the US. My wish for the Sudan is that it separates religion from government. One cannot serve God and mammon alike. There are thousands of different religions. People ought to be free to choose their own faith. Religion and government should be separate. I'd like to see the Sudanese president opening up to the world's media and start a real good blog aimed at fostering real understanding, not propaganda. From what I have seen online, Sudan has a lot to offer. It is a beautiful country with a fascinating history and culture, friendly people and interesting art.

Millions of people in the Sudan have never received an education and do not know how to read or write. Many of them believe if they wear a written message in a pouch around their body it will provide protection from harm and ward off evil spirits.



Photo: Man from a Falata tribe selling "Hidjab" which are pages from Quran inside of amulet made of leather. (Vit Hassan, Khartoum)



Photo: Man from a Funj tribe selling voodoo (Vit Hassan, Khartoum)



Photo: Voodoo from skin of a monkey (Vit Hassan, Khartoum)

Note UN SGSR Jan Pronk, in his blog entry 28 April 2006 explains the following about Darfur:

Quite a few tribes are engaged in violent conflict with each other. As a matter of fact, many Sudanese believe that the Darfur conflict is not political, but tribal. In my view it is both. The demands of the rebel movements concerning sharing of power and wealth are of a political nature. A high government official in Darfur, a Darfurian himself, appointed by the Khartoum government and member of the ruling National Congress Party, once told me that there are Darfurians who fight the government and other Darfurians, who do not fight, but the latter share with the rebels a grudge against the government. Darfur against Khartoum; it is a political conflict.

But the conflict is also tribal. The tribal dimension is often underestimated by people outside Sudan. However, tribal conflicts are age-old and deeply rooted. There is an ethnic dimension to the tribal conflicts, to the extent that some tribes are considered to be African, others Arab. There is also an economic dimension: the struggle for land and water, the looting of cattle, the most important resource of many tribes. Tribal conflicts are often related to land claims, with a long history. Some tribes consider themselves as more Darfurian than others, because they settled in Darfur much earlier. Some tribes, though living in Darfur since many generations, are still considered to be Chadian, or West African. Some tribes were favored by the British colonial regime. Others were accustomed to keep slaves. Some tribes are more closely affiliated with the rebels (the Fur, the Zaghawa and the Massaliet). Other tribes are more inclined to support notions of pan-Arabism.

Many tribes have militia, in order to defend their interests. They fight ruthlessly, retaliate out of proportion and often use pre-emptive strikes. Killing of women and children is seen as an acceptable form of revenge for the looting of cattle. Militia do not respect human rights or international law. No wonder that notions of genocide and ethnic cleansing have been used in order to describe the ordeals of the victims of the militia.

The Sudanese government and the authorities in Darfur have taken many initiatives to organize tribal reconciliation conferences. There are old traditions underlying such reconciliations. Respecting them would guarantee that the tribal leaders representing their tribes in the reconciliations have been chosen by the tribes themselves, instead of being appointed by the authorities. The tradition also guarantees that there is mediation by respected facilitators, independent of the government. An essential element of reconciliation is the payment of blood money as a form of compensation of the victims. However, though some efforts were successful, most reconciliations did not last long. The modernization of the governance system in Darfur during the last twenty years has undermined the position of traditional leaders. The war did the same. A new generation with easy access to weapons has lost respect for traditional leaders. Moreover, the government, eager to stay in power, has not been able to withstand temptations to manipulate traditional leaders. The outcome of quite a few of these reconciliations could not be sustained. Some were more or less imposed on weaker tribes, who were threatened that they would be attacked if they would not sign. In other reconciliation conferences appointed leaders dominated the deliberations. Often not all damage that had been done in the past was considered due for compensation. Perpetrators of the crimes often were not indicted, but only had to pay blood money. This practice did not help to bring an end to the impunity prevailing throughout Darfur. Moreover, the agreed sums of blood money often were not paid. So, often new attacks took place, again resulting in revenge and retaliation.

To a certain extent this was due to the fact that the authorities had an understandable interest in reconciliation amongst tribes fighting each other. Too soon success was claimed. The government was even more enticed to do so, when tribal reconciliations were considered an alternative to the political negotiations with the rebel movements.

For these reasons the UN has been reluctant to associate itself with the reconciliation efforts. However, they are necessary, not as a substitute for political talks, but as an essential complement. We have participated as observer in some sessions and promised that, if the conditions of fairness would be met, we could help in the follow up of the reconciliation with reconstruction and development programs to the benefit of the tribes concerned.

Photo: Musa Hilal, an Arab tribal chief accused by the United States of leading a dreaded militia in Darfur, rides his horse in Misitiriyha in north Darfur, Sudan, May 10, 2005. (Reuters/Beatrice Mategwa/Sudan Watch archive)



Photo Musa Hilal, chief of Arab Rizeigat tribe in Mistiriyha, North Darfur, Sudan May 10, 2005 (Reuters/Taipei Times)
- - -

Photos about various tribes, folklore and traditions in Sudan

See "Sudan through my eyes" - a photoset on Flickr created by 27-year-old Vit Hassan in Khartoum, Sudan. [see top right hand corner and click on words "View as slideshow" - wait for a few seconds for slideshow to begin, click on any photo to pause and read captions]
- - -

Sudan Facts and Figures

Sudan is almost the same size as the following 15 countries put together: UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, Slovenia and Greece.

At 212,000 square miles, the whole of Darfur is as big as France and North Darfur is 100,000 square miles 3 times larger than the UK.

North Darfur is more than 1,000 miles from Khartoum, the capital of Sudan - about the same distance as from London to Rome. [Source: http://www.kidsforkids.org.uk/pdfs/SudanFacts2005.pdf]

UN WFP increasing rations to Darfur

World Food Programme says it is increasing its rations to those displaced by the Darfur conflict, after receiving additional contributions from donors. Rations were cut in half in May but from June, they will 84% of the recommended minimum energy content, the WFP said. - BBC May 29, 2006.

Bloomberg report May 29, 2006 says recent donations from the United States, the European Union, Denmark, Canada, Australia and the Sudanese government allowed the WFP to increase the rations that were cut by 50 percent for the entire country at the beginning of May, the Rome-based agency said today in an e-mailed statement. For parts of eastern Sudan, the ration was increased to 64 percent of the daily requirement.

JEM's Ibrahim and SLM/A faction travel to Slovenia in an attempt to get their demands met

Reuters report May 29, 2006 says Darfur rebel group rejects deal as deadline nears - excerpt:

JEM President Khalil Ibrahim said he would travel for talks on Tuesday to Slovenia, which he said was trying to find common ground between the AU and the rebel groups refusing to sign the AU-sponsored deal.

"We are going to meet tomorrow on the 30th in Ljubljana, this is to find a way. Slovenia is trying to find a solution," Ibrahim told Reuters in Cairo by telephone.

"We are going to present our position. If they can make amendments in this agreement. If not I don't think there is a solution," he said.

Ibrahim said the SLA faction which had rejected the May 5 agreement would also attend the Ljubljana meeting.

"We are not going to sign this agreement unless there is a radical change including real regional government for Darfur, and reconstruction of Darfur, compensation for our people and a fair share of power," he said.

There was no immediate word from Slovenia on their role in Sudan's peace process.

These guys make me sick. I'd like to know how they make a living and who funds their hotel and travel expenses. It seems to me they're refusing to join the Darfur peace deal because they want to take over Darfur for themselves and are too greedy and incompetent to work and fight for it using non violent means. They're using millions of uneducated women and children as pawns in their power game and gamble for wealth, oil. They expect a region the size of France to be handed to them on a platter, all at once, no matter what the cost. What makes them think they are fit to govern or are any better than the regime the aim to replace? If they don't sign the Darfur Peace Agreement on Wednesday, lay down their arms and go through the political process like other law abiding citizens around the world, I think they should be treated as criminals and put on trial for crimes against humanity.

Jan 10 2006 Slovene president urges UN to warn world about catastrophe in Darfur

Feb 9 2006 Sudan shows appreciation to Slovene initiative on Darfur

Feb 13 2006 Darfur peace talks in Slovenia postponed indefinitely

Feb 28 2006 AU Mediation regrets Slovenian initiative on Darfur

UN says 2 attacks on AU peacekeepers in Masteri, SW Darfur - several injured - 1 critical - 1 killed

Reuters report Opheera McDoom May 29, 2006 - excerpts:

One African Union soldier was killed and another critically wounded when heavily armed men ambushed a patrol not far from their base in West Darfur, the United Nations said.

"The number of attackers is unconfirmed between six to 12 and they were reportedly armed with RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and AK-47 rifles," the U.N. statement sent late on Sunday said.

The AU on Monday confirmed the ambush but could not give details. The identity of the men behind the attack was unknown.

The attack occurred on Friday about 2 km (1.5 miles) from the AU base in Masteri near the border with Chad in south-west Darfur.

A U.N. source said on Monday the AU base in Masteri itself was attacked during the night on Friday and several soldiers injured, one critically. He was not expected to survive.

The area has come under attack many times by armed Arab militia, known locally as Janjaweed. They have been amassing since the peace deal and become bolder in engaging AU troops.

The AU has also come under attack in West Darfur in the past by a third rebel group demanding a seat at the Darfur talks.

Libyan leader Gaddafi to supervise Darfur Peace Agreement

Today, Libyan leader Col Gaddafi received the Sudanese President's Advisor, Majzoub al-Khalifa, who handed him a message from President Omar Al Beshir, Ljbc reported May 28, 2006:

President Al Beshir thanked Col Gaddafi for his role in the Darfur peace agreement, briefing him on the latest preparations to execute Abuja agreement. He also proposed to set up a committee from Libya, Sudan and the Liberation Movement to supervise this agreement.

The meeting was joined by the leader of the SLM/A, Minni Minnawi, who promised to execute the agreement signed in Abuja. He also called on Col Gaddafi to supervise the peace agreement in Darfur.

May 27 2006 Libyan leader receives AU Commission Chairman Konare

May 28 2006 Sudanese envoy al-Khalifa to meet in Libya with Col Gaddafi and SLM/A's Minnawi re Darfur peace process

Turabi cancels London visit after entry visa delay

According to an unsourced article at the Sudan Tribune May 28, 2006 Hassan al-Turabi, leader of the Sudanese oppostion party PNC, had to cancel his visit to London after a delay in issuing an entry visa. Heh.



Photo: Sheikh Hassan Al-Turabi, in a recent interview said, "I was imprisoned because I spoke with the southerners -- the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) -- I spent 30 months in jail for doing so -- and I was also imprisoned, 15 months, for speaking with Darfur's armed opposition groups. Now, I have entered into discussions with the Easterners," he says nonchalantly.

Jan 1 2006 Sudanese Islamist leader Turabi attacks foreign presence

Jan 31 2006 Sudan's Hassan al-Turabi harboured bin Laden

Feb 24 2006 Portrait of Sudan's Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi

Mar 14 2006 Sudan court frees 8 Turabi party members

Mar 25 2006 Sudan's ruling elite and "security cabal" the National Islamic Front: the men who control Africa's largest country

Apr 9 2006 Turabi says women's testimony is equal to that of a man

Apr 24 2006 Turabi branded apostate for pro-women comments

May 14 2006 Sudan's Turabi condemns Darfur Peace Agreement - Al Turabi Is a Chameleon

May 19 2006 Sudan's Turabi calls for overthrow of Khartoum regime

Moral Blindness: The Case Against Troops for Darfur (by David Rieff)

David Rieff in Boston is a contributing editor at The New Republic. Here are some excerpts from his excellent opinion piece (TNR, 25 May 2006) Moral Blindness: The Case Against Troops for Darfur:

Except for those who frankly favor the anti-government insurgents in Darfur--and they are more to be found on the Christian right, which has supported Minni Minnawi's Sudan Liberation Movement as it once supported John Garang's insurgency in Southern Sudan--advocates of a U.S. deployment have been maddeningly vague about what will transpire in Darfur after foreign forces halt the killing. [-edit-]

To his credit, [Eric] Reeves has written that any outside military force would have to ensure that the rebel guerrillas do not take advantage of the foreign presence to improve their position on the ground. But that is what an international deployment will almost inevitably do, which is why Minnawi and others have been campaigning so hard for one. The deployment of foreign troops, whose mission will be to protect Darfuri civilians, will allow the guerrillas to establish "facts on the ground" that will strengthen their claims for secession. That is what makes the interventionists' claim that the intervention will be purely "humanitarian"--that it will protect civilians being murdered, raped, and displaced by the Janjaweed but do little or nothing else--so disingenuous. For it is virtually certain that this is not the way events will play out if U.S. or [NATO] forces deploy. To the contrary, such a deployment can have only one of two outcomes. The first will be the severing of Darfur from the rest of Sudan and its transformation into some kind of international protectorate, a la Kosovo. But, at least in Kosovo, the protectorate was run by Europeans--by neighbors. In Darfur, by contrast, it will be governed by Americans (who are already at war across the Islamic world) and possibly by [NATO] (i.e., Africa's former colonial masters). Now there's a recipe for stability.

If anything, the second possibility is even worse. Assuming the intervention encounters resistance from the Janjaweed and the government of Sudan (and perhaps Al Qaeda), the foreign intervenors will arrive at the conclusion that the only way to bring stability to Darfur is, well, regime change in Khartoum: In other words, the problems of Darfur are, in fact, the product of Al Bashir's dictatorship, and these problems can be meaningfully addressed only by substituting a more democratic government. Such an intervention may well end up being Iraq redux, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. [-edit-]

The idea that, after Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Iraq, intelligent activists can still speak of humanitarian intervention as if it were an uncomplicated act of rescue without grave implications is a testimony to the refusal of the best and brightest among us to think seriously about politics. Is this what the marriage of human rights and American exceptionalism has led us to? If so, God help us. [-edit-]

Reeves may sneer at the idea of national sovereignty and bemoan the African Union's insufficiently aggressive line toward the government of Sudan. The fact remains that the consensus in postcolonial Africa has been to maintain the national borders that existed at the time of independence, despite their obvious artificiality, because, in redrawing them, Africa might reap the whirlwind. But that is why there was so little sympathy in Africa for Katangese or Biafra secession; it is why most African leaders insist that the Eritrean secession remain an exception for the sake of continental stability. There is nothing stupid, venal, or contemptible about this. And, whatever Reeves may imagine, there are many thoughtful African leaders whose reluctance to confront Khartoum is based in large part on these considerations. [-edit-]

If, on reflection, Reeves and those who think like him believe that it [military intervention in Darfur] is worth doing anyway, that is a perfectly defensible position. What is indefensible is not seeing--or pretending not to see--the problem.
- - -

How to avoid another Iraqi quagmire in Sudan

Excerpt from Sudan Watch entry entry Mar 23 2006:

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.

Dr Moorcraft's op-ed provides an excellent easy to read summary of Sudan's complex situation. It tells us 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."

Jan Pronk blogs the big question: Will the UN decide to send a peace keeping force?

The big question since the signing of the Abuja Peace Agreement is: will the UN send a peace keeping force to Darfur? Initially the Government said that this would no longer be necessary. However, there is not yet peace. Despite its misgivings concerning a recent resolution of the UN Security Council the Government now seems to be willing to accede. Read more by UN SGSR Jan Pronk in his blog entry May 27, 2006. Two excerpts:

I have never understood why the international observers present in Abuja refused to put up a reference to a UN force in the agreement, while at the same time in New York and Washington were pressing the UN to prepare itself for the transition. However, by signing the agreement parties are bound to abide all Security Council resolutions concerning Darfur. The preamble of the agreement explicitly says so. That will imply also possible future resolutions concerning a transition. [- edit -]

President Beshir has agreed to the proposal to send an assessment mission to Darfur. That is the result of Brahimi's visit. So, we are one step further. The next steps will have to be taken later on. Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Mustapha has stated that the phase of confrontation between Sudan and the United nations is over. "We are now entering the phase of negotiations". Those negotiations will be difficult. Sudan is clearly of the opinion that the UN can only come under Chapter 6 of the Charter, that means: upon the invitation of the sovereign state Sudan. That would be an operation similar to the one in Southern Sudan. However, the Arab militia, the Janjaweed, the rogue commanders and the rebel movements that have not agreed to peace will require a much more robust mandate. The fact that since the peace agreement has been signed, four weeks ago, militia are still attacking villages and rebel positions, makes this all the more necessary.

Click on the images at Jan Pronk's blog to see amazing close ups of a haboob (sand storm) over Khartoum.
- - -

Notable quote from Jan Pronk's blog entry May 27, 2006:

Brahimi, a former minister of Foreign Affairs of Algiers, and since many years one of the most experienced diplomatic advisors of Kofi Annan, was able to dispel the Sudanese apprehensions. "Do you really believe that I, having fought colonialism in my country and later on elsewhere in Africa, at the end of my career would lend myself to support re-colonisation?"
- - -



UN Secretary-General's Special Representative in the Sudan, Jan Pronk, reading a book 'The New Rulers of the World' by John Pilger.

'Als ik vlieg heb ik tijd om boeken te lezen. Ik lees ook NRC Handelsblad, met een vertraging van een maand. Vind ik niet erg.' Naast Pronk een Roemeense bodyguard. [In English, I guess, it says: next to Pronk is his/an Italian bodyguard] (Source: Jan Pronk Weblog)

Sudanese envoy al-Khalifa to meet in Libya with Col Gaddafi and SLM/A's Minnawi re Darfur peace process

Sudanese Presidential Advisor, Majzoub al-Khalifa, headed for Tripoli today to inform Libya's leader on the steps adopted since the signing of the Darfur Peace agreement, Sudan Tribune reported May 27, 2006:

Al-Khalifa announced that he will meet in Libya with the SLM leader Minawi, and other signatories of DPA to discuss the ongoing arrangements for their return to play their role in implementation of the peace agreement.

He further said that an African Union's delegation, headed by Ambassador Sam Ebok, would remain in Khartoum to discuss the formation of joint committees to implement Darfur peace agreement on the ground.

A joint delegation of the African Union and the government visited Al-Fasher, Genaina and Nyala and other areas in Darfur to meet with signatories of the peace agreement and to discuss implementation of the peace agreement on the ground.

Libyan leader receives AU Commission Chairman Konare

Libyan leader Col Gaddafi received on Saturday the AU commission chair Alpha Omar Konare, who presented to him the implemented procedures to execute the peace agreement in Darfur, Ljbc reported May 27, 2006.

Dutch minister in Sudan for talks on Darfur reconstruction conference

Dutch Development Cooperation Minister, Agnes van Ardenne arrived in Khartoum Friday evening in a visit to Sudan to review donor conference preparations for the reconstruction of Darfur with Sudanese officials, SudanTribune reported May 26, 2006.

Agnes is due to hold talks with the Foreign Minister Lam Akol Friday evening and will be received by the Sudanese President and the two Vice Presidents Saturday.

Aid flows back to Darfur - 20 WFP trucks bringing food to North and South Darfur - Jim Lobe in Washington says "Sudan: Grim And Getting Grimmer"

Sapa-AFP report by Joelle Bassoul, Kuma, May 26, 2006:

Darfur's fledgling peace deal is fragile but it is already saving lives, say residents threatened by starvation who welcome the halt in Sudanese rebel attacks on food aid convoys.

"Thank God, it is quiet now." These same words of relief come out of the parched mouths of nearly all the famished villagers around El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur.

Delivering rations to the population had become a perilous task for aid agencies on desert tracks infested with marauding gunmen, who frequently hijacked food convoys and nearly obliged the United Nations (UN) to stop its relief operation.

Khartoum and the largest rebel faction from the Sudan Liberation Movement signed a peace agreement on May 5, raising hopes of an end to the more than three years of conflict that turned Darfur into one of the world's worst unfolding humanitarian tragedies.

Aid trucks crawling on the bumpy roads meandering through the dry hills from El Fasher to Kuma, 80 kilometres to the northeast, were easy targets for armed rebels, who would attack convoys, steal the vital food aid and disappear.

In March, around 20 armed men on camels tried to stop an aid truck, but the driver escaped and went to police in El Fasher.

When they went after the men, clashes ensued around Kerkera, halfway between El Fasher and Kuma, leaving 14 rebels and three police dead, according to the African Union Mission in Sudan (Amis).

Some convoys had started travelling with armed escorts, which would only have led to further bloody clashes.

But calm has returned to the area since the peace deal was signed, despite one SLM faction and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) so far refusing to sign up.

"The situation is calm and no notable incident has happened," since the signing, said Kerkera inhabitant Ishak Yaacub.

People from villages around Kerkera, population 3,000, come to the market to sell their meagre products, mainly dried tomatoes and onions. Others trade in food aid handed out by the World Food Programme (WFP).

African Union soldiers are pleased to see the market functioning normally.

"The attacks against convoys were a big problem," said a Kenyan officer who requested anonymity.

Because of the attacks, the UN threatened to end relief efforts late last month.

"Unless these attacks and harassment stop immediately, the UN and its partners will be obliged to suspend all relief assistance to this particular area," the world body said in a statement.

It said it would hold armed groups and their leaders responsible "for the failure to assist the extremely vulnerable populations under their control."

The UN also said that some aid agencies' vehicles had been stolen "for military purposes". Outside Kerkera, the Kenyan officer points to a four-wheel drive parked in front of a police post.

"It was requisitioned by the rebels and then recovered by government forces," he said.

The SLM however rejected the UN's accusations, blaming the attacks on government forces and their proxy militias.

"Since the signing of the peace deal, the road has become usable without problem once again," said Kuma's mayor, Abdullah Juzu.

On the road outside Kuma, some 20 tarpaulined trucks with the WFP logo emblazoned on their sides are bringing vital food supplies to El Fasher and Nyala, South Darfur's capital.

"The drivers bravely drive hundreds of kilometres, sometimes even coming from Port Sudan, in the far northeast, and they must have security," said the Kenyan officer.

As the latest convoy heads off, the drivers are pleased to see no cloud of dust on the horizon, usually the first warning of an imminent rebel attack.

- - -

Jim Lobe says "Sudan: Grim And Getting Grimmer"

In contrast to the above report, an opinion piece by Jim Lobe in Washington - entitled Darfur, security situation still volatile despite peace accord (Inter Press Service/Sudan Tribune, May 26, 2006) - opens by saying:

"Despite a recent peace accord, a new UN Security Council resolution, and agreement by Sudan to permit a UN assessment team to travel to Darfur to determine how to strengthen peacekeeping forces there, the situation in the region, as well as in eastern Chad, has continued to deteriorate, according to sources here."

Ahem. Mr Lobe: What sources? Why are they not revealed? Are the rebels the sources? Where is "here"?

Note, the first report above, by sapa-AFP is from Darfur, Sudan and the second gives the impression to readers it is a news report when in fact it is an opinion piece by Jim Lobe, an American.

The same piece by Mr Lobe, reprinted at AllAfrica May 27. 2006, via Inter Press Service Johannesburg (of which he is the Washington Bureau Chief) is featured as an 'analysis' and the title has changed to Sudan: Grim And Getting Grimmer.

Any article that quotes the International Crisis Group and/or it's Sudan expert John Prendergast, I've learned to ignore. They make it their job to get attention, whip up storms and spin the media to get attention. I see it as propaganda. See July 9, 2004 Echo Chamber Project Interview with Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, Washington Bureau Chief - excerpt:

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So, when you're covering it you're working outside of those blinders in a way. Do you try to challenge the viewpoints of a lot of the cultural biases?

LOBE: Well, I mean, I'm a product of the culture too, and to that extent my coverage is going to be affected by what my -- you know, what my cultural upbringing says is possible or impossible.

Rebel troops to sign Sudan peace deal by Wednesday

Compared to American news reports on Darfur in papers such as the Washington Post and New York Times, notice the difference in tone and content of the following report from SABC News in South Africa May 27, 2006 entitled Rebel troops to sign Sudan peace deal by Wednesday. It seems much less aggressive and combatative and actually manages to impart some positive constructive news without politicising the story or putting an emotive, activist type spin on the facts:

Two rebel groups have till Wednesday to sign the Abuja peace agreement for Darfur. After more than three years of civil war in Western Sudan, this could bring lasting peace to this war torn region. While there's pressure on the Sudanese government to allow the UN to monitor compliance with the agreement, South Africans in the African Union's mission are quietly - but proudly - contributing to stability.

Returning to the Fata Burno refugee camp with food bought in Kutum is hazardous as many women have fallen prey to the Arab militia along the route. Few are willing to talk about the assaults and rapes that have taken place. Since the African Union has started regular escorts, incidents have decreased in Sector 6 - the sector dominated by South African forces.

Richard Lourens, a colonel and South African sector commander in Kutum, says: "We have pre-deployment training and we have mission-ready training - gives us an edge to come here and make a difference with regards to peace keeping."

South Africans the most self sufficient troops

More than 440 South African soldiers and police members have been deployed in Darfur - most serve as protection forces and military observers. Others teach about the dangers of the harsh local environment and expert shooting. Baba Kingibe, an AU special representative to Sudan, says: "The South African contingent who are based in sector 6 in Kutum, are the most self-sufficient unit we have."

These skills are sure to impress the UN once it requests countries to contribute forces to its mission. Yesterday Sudan has agreed to allow an African Union-UN assessment mission into the country ahead of a possible deployment of UN troops to war-torn Darfur. Speaking after a meeting with Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN troubleshooter, said the mission would start work in Khartoum and then go to Darfur. The Sudanese government and the main Darfur rebel faction signed a peace agreement on the fifth of this month.

Blowing up handpumps is not a good idea - Darfur delegates protect civilians

In Darfur, two British Red Cross women have been working in the field helping to ensure respect for civilians by all those fighting in the conflict - Reuters reported April 13, 2006:

Caroline Birch and Kirsty MacDonald have just returned from south and west Darfur respectively, on separate assignments with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

As protection delegates Caroline and Kirsty were carrying out a vital role of the ICRC in conflict zones - to promote adherence to international humanitarian law by all parties involved.

"I was extremely well-received," Caroline said. "The ICRC is seen in a very positive light because it is impartial and neutral.

"I would speak to survivors, often people who had run to a neighbouring village, to find out exactly what had happened. Then I would meet with the leader of those accused of the attack and, by talking to them, try to prevent it happening again," she said.

Caroline also explained to those fighting that international humanitarian law prohibits attacks against infrastructures necessary for civilians' survival, such as hand water pumps.

"In Darfur, those involved in the conflict want to fight by the rules, they responded well when we pointed out that blowing up hand pumps was not a good idea," she said.

Caroline also visited detainees to ensure their conditions are humane.

Photo: Water points, installed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), can be seen here at the Kassab camp for displaced people. In 2004, the Red Cross repaired and installed safe water supplies that provided 200,000 people with two million litres of water a day. (British Red Cross)



Photo: An International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) food aid convoy can be seen here, returning from a distribution in the southeastern part of Northern Darfur. In just ten days, the Red Cross can distribute 600 tonnes of food aid to 20,000 people. (British Red Cross)

UNICEF's Clean-water project in Sudan keeps children healthy and in school

Since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan in 2005, UNICEF, the European Community's Humanitarian Aid Department and the state water project in South Kordofan have been working together to turn the situation around by building and rehabilitating the region's water system.

In 2005, the project increased access to safe drinking water for 166,000 children and women. Some 10,000 schoolchildren are benefiting from newly installed sanitation systems. And more than 20 school hygiene clubs have been formed, empowering hundreds of children with skills and knowledge about good hygiene and sanitation practices. Full report by UNICEF 25 May 2006.



Photo: Selma (centre) and her friends chatting around one of the hand pumps installed in their village in Sudan's South Kordofan State. The pumps were installed with support from UNICEF and the European Community's Humanitarian Aid Department. (UNICEF) via POTP with thanks.

Jan 26 2006 In Darfur, handpumps are on the frontline of peacebuilding

Jan 30 2006 The war on terrorism that most Americans don't know about

Feb 5 2006 Peacekeeping waterpumps - East Africa a front in war on terrorism

Feb 23 2006 Drilling for Sudan's drinking water is more important than drilling for oil

Feb 28 2006 Water to spark future wars: UK

Mar 5 2006 The 21st century's most explosive commodity will be . . . WATER

Eric Reeves says only NATO military action can save Darfur

Further to an earlier entry here at Sudan Watch, note the following excerpt from concluding paragraph of Eric Reeves' latest opinion piece at The New Republic May 27, 2006:

"Never has it been more obvious that only NATO military action can save Darfur. The people of Darfur have been waiting for help for three years. If working through the United Nations is the best the international community has to offer, they will be waiting for a long time to come."

Now it is clear (to me anyway) that Eric Reeves - a penpusher sitting behind a desk in the leafy suburbs of cosy Boston - who has never done a days work in the real world (or would ever be willing to send his children or any other Bostonian to invade the Sudan) is onside with the Sudanese rebels.

This latest piece of his tells me what I have suspected and said here several times before: he wants the West to wage war on the Sudan - a country the size of Europe - for Western forces to invade it militarily in order to overthrow the current regime in Khartoum, giving the Sudanese rebels what they have wanted all along (including those in South Sudan).

The Sudan is really none of Eric Reeves business. He is not an elected member of the US government. I wish a professional writer would publish rebuttals to educate readers as to the dangers of Reeves' rants. He is giving the rebels confidence and feeding them with what they want to hear. He adored John Garang and was awestruck and puffed up to receive a phone call of appreciation from Garang around the time of the CPA signing (there is a blog entry here in the Sudan Watch archives noting Reeves. account of the story).

One can only conclude that Eric Reeves, like all the others who are making a living off the backs of starving Africans, is out to make a name for himself and is probably just another one looking to go down in history with a book to sell. If he does not provide more balanced analysis I shall start getting on his case. The man is a menace, misguided, naive and dangerous. Who am I to say such things? A nobody. But this is my blog, I can say whatever I want, I have nothing better else to do all day and have nothing to sell, no ads or political party to promote, no donations to attract. I take no sides except for that of the millions of defenceless women and children in the Sudan, Chad, northern Uganda, Ethiopia and DR Congo.

Note how Eric Reeves demonises the so-called Janjaweed (and everyone else it seems, except the rebels) by taking a look at the following excerpt from his latest piece and compare it with that of the news reports on North Darfur, listed here below.

Eric Reeves:

"This past week there have been widespread Janjaweed attacks on villages near the town of Kutum in North Darfur, where the Janjaweed are reported to be continuing a massive mobilization. The Gereida area in South Darfur continues to be threatened by the Janjaweed, and late last month Khartoum launched a large military offensive in the area. In West Darfur, international aid workers were attacked by "unidentified men in uniform," likely Janjaweed or Khartoum-allied paramilitary forces. Doctors Without Borders reports large numbers of civilians injured in recent military clashes between rebels and Khartoum's forces near Labado, also in South Darfur.

The rebel groups are far from innocent in all this: In North Darfur, the two main factions of the Sudan Liberation Army--only one of which has signed the peace agreement--are locked in extremely fierce fighting."

'Extremely fierce fighting' eh? If you want to know what he means by that, read the following list of reports on what the rebels were up to in North Darfur. Unfortunately, I am unable to spend time right now on searching out a slew of news reports here in Sudan Watch archives that point out how the rebels taunt and provoke the so-called Janjaweeed into attacking so they can make a meal of it in the press and get people like Eric Reeves spreading the word to US politicians and his chums at USAID and all the others he fancies rubbing shoulders with. Eric Reeves, despite his claims of being independent comes across as heavily political with aims to influence US foreign policy. Most undemocratic. He's more dangerous than George Galloway. Nobody elected Eric Reeves - he's unaccountable.

Apr 28 2006 UN threatens to suspend aid in Darfur blaming rebels and SLA attacks in North Darfur

May 3 2006 Sudan's SLA rebel attacks on aid workers in North Darfur breaks international humanitarian law

May 18 2006 After peace, Darfur's rebel forces turn on each other and fight for Tawilla, North Darfur making it one of the most insecure regions of Darfur

May 22 2006 AU concerned about janjaweed "massing" near Kutum, North Darfur

May 22 2006 Fears Janjaweed will turn on Sudanese government if they try to take their arms by force

May 23 2006 Rebels' rivalry subverts hope for Darfur peace

What does warmongering 'humanitarian' Eric 'disingenuous' Reeves want for Darfur and Sudan, does he (or anybody else) know?

Eric Reeves certainly has a way with words (its how he makes his living, he's a professor of English) but his arguments and rationale sound cracked - and dangerous. Unless I've missed something, it seems to me the Darfur Peace Agreement is the only way to get adequately equipped peacekeepers in Darfur with a mandate to protect - and get warring parties to discuss and agree a ceasefire and disarmament, not to mention the start of building bridges of trust. So why does Eric Reeves denigrate and undermine such a historic step, and go out of his way to foment distrust?

Note this excerpt from Global Voices Online May 10, 2006:

"SudanReeves writes a critical assessment of the recent Darfur agreement (Abuja Peace Agreement)

... The Abuja agreement is little more than another request to trust a regime that has never abided by any agreement with any Sudanese party-not one, not ever. And it asks the survivors of genocide to accept the promises of genocidaires rather than providing the meaningful security they so desperately need."

I say, he sounds as uncompromising as the two rebel factions that are refusing to join the peace deal - which makes me wonder about his motives [click here to read what supporters of the dissident rebel faction SLM/A are demanding - they don't want much overnight eh? crazy!]

What does warmongering "humanitarian" Eric disingenuous Reeves want, does he (or anybody else) know? To overthrow the regime in Khartoum? To split up the Sudan? Why doesn't he say? What is the aim of his propaganda? Military intervention in the Sudan would result in all aid workers being immediately dismissed from the country. How will aid be delivered and reach those most in need? Who will invade, how much will it cost, who will pay for it, how many years of occupation? He doesn't say.

What comes out of Khartoum these days seems less disingenuous than much of what comes from Eric Reeves' naive perspective. It seems to me, people outside of Darfur (including the rebel leaders with bases in Europe) who have jumped on the Darfur bandwagon all appear wanting to make a name for themselves - whether it's words to sell, careers to further, positions and power to gain or books, articles, speeches to write and photo opportunities.

If they are such "concerned peace loving humanitarians", why not focus on DR Congo and northern Uganda where far worse things are happening than in Darfur right now - instead of pushing to make war on the Sudan with the aim of overthrowing the current regime in Khartoum, and risking setting the tinder box of Africa alight. It's about time journalists started getting to grips with Eric Reeves and printing rebuttals to his rants. He's a one man propaganda machine that makes Americans appear naive and puts them (and their Government) unfairly in a bad, warmongering light.

UPDATE: May 27, 2006 - Eric Reeves now makes clear what he wants: Eric Reeves says only NATO military action can save Darfur

British PM Blair calls for major reforms to modernise UN

May 27, 2006 Ottawa Citizen report - UN 'not legitimate' now, Blair says - excerpt:

"A Security Council which has France as a permanent member, but not Germany; Britain, but not Japan; China, but not India, to say nothing of the absence of proper representation from Latin America or Africa, cannot be legitimate in the modern world," Mr Blair said.

While differences over Iraq split the Security Council, Mr Blair argued the UN needs the "capacity to intervene militarily," citing the need to stop the killing in Sudan's Darfur region as an example.

Mr Blair said the secretary general should also be given increased powers over management and spending, many of which reside with the General Assembly, where developing countries hold a majority. Mr Blair called the General Assembly's control over hiring and firing the UN's top names "absurd," and many observers say it has led to political cronyism at the world body.