Friday, July 14, 2006

What are the root causes of the Darfur conflict? Transcript: US President Bush and German Chancellor Merkel press conference

US President GW Bush is in Germany. Here below is a copy of a transcript of a press Q&A session with President Bush and German Chancellor Merkel July 13, 2006. Darfur is mentioned. Note, the following excerpt from a statement by Chancellor Merkel, in relation to the very disturbing situation in the Middle East, took my interest:
"We would like to appeal to the powers in the region to see to it that further escalation is warded off, and that, first and foremost, the root causes of this conflict are removed. And only in this way will a negotiating process become possible again."
This line made me think: "First and foremost, the root causes of this conflict are removed". Can the same be said of Darfur? Can the root causes of the Darfur conflict be removed? What are the root causes of the Darfur conflict?

President Bush and German Chancellor Merkel Participate in press conference transcript published at noticias.info/ July 14, 2006:

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: (As translated.) - Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be able to welcome the President of the United States here to Stralsund yet again. We had a lengthy conversation right now in the Office of the Mayor. We felt very much at home here in this beautiful city. We talked about all of the different issues on the global agenda.

We shall, later on, see a little bit more of the countryside here, of the city itself. I am really pleased to be able to show to the President of the United States how matters have developed here, with some problems still existing, but also with problems we've coped with quite successfully. And it's such a great thing to have this lovely weather for our visits.

Just now, in our talks, we talked at great length about international issues. Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of problems that we need to deal with and for whose solution we feel responsible. The first and foremost, on top of the agenda is certainly Iran. The international community actually submitted a very substantial, very fundamental offer to Iran, starting from the firm view that Iran should not be in possession of a nuclear weapon, but that, on the other hand, Iran should have -- should know good development. So far we have not received any sort of reaction from the Iranian leadership as to how their position is on this offer.

And this is why it was only consistent that yesterday the foreign ministers decided yet again to show clearly, also through a resolution in the U.N. Security Council, that should Iran not in any way reply to this offer and accept this offer, we, unfortunately have to embark on a new course. The door has not been closed, but Iran must know that those who have submitted this offer are willing -- and this is the success of yesterday's meeting -- Russia, China, the E3, and the United States of America -- all of them together are willing to act in concert and to show this clearly through their action in the Security Council.

We also addressed the very disturbing situation in the Middle East, and it fills us with concern and we have also stated clearly that everything needs to be done in order to come back to a peaceful resolution. We need to remind all of us again how this escalation started, with the kidnaping of a soldier, through rockets -- for the firing of missiles against Israeli territory. And we can only urge all parties, appeal to all parties to stop, to cease violence and to also release the kidnaped soldier, and to stop this firing of missiles at Israeli territory.

We would like to appeal to the powers in the region to see to it that further escalation is warded off, and that, first and foremost, the root causes of this conflict are removed. And only in this way will a negotiating process become possible again. We have every interest in seeing the Lebanese government be strengthened and this government being able to pursue its policies in a sensible and secure environment.

We also addressed matters of trade, global trade. Here we -- and I'm saying this from a German perspective -- have a common interest in seeing this world round be a successful one, this world trade round. But that means there has to be movement on all sides. And we're expecting a reasonable, sensible offer by the G20, because this is where movement is necessary. Europe and others have submitted far-reaching proposals, and we would like to explore every possibility of these negotiations, but that means, as I said, movement on all sides. And here I see that the G20 has to deliver.

We also addressed those issues that will be on the agenda at the G8 in St. Petersburg. Here, first and foremost, energy policy, secure energy supply, was at the top of the agenda. We addressed African issues, Darfur and the Congo mission. We, as Germans, as you know, have taken out a commitment as regards Congo. We also, however, see the situation in Darfur as a threatening one.

We found that there is a lot that we agree on, as regards our common responsibilities, responsibilities that we see for the two of us the world over. And I, for one, think that as regards, for example, Iran, this responsibility ought to be shouldered by more and more countries -- that goes for Russia, that goes for China. It will only be if we act in concert that we will be able to vanquish the tyrants, remove dictatorships and contain those who sponsor terrorism. And Germany would like to give its contribution to that.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Chancellor, thank you very much. Thanks for the invitation. This is a beautiful part of the world, and Laura and I are so honored to come to your constituency and meet some of the friendly people who live here. I remember you coming to the Oval Office, and you said, if you are coming to Germany, this is the part of Germany I want you to see. And now I can see why you suggested it. I'm looking forward to the feast you're going to have tonight. I understand I may have the honor of slicing the pig.

We had a good discussion -- it's more than a discussion, it's really a strategy session, is the way I'd like to describe it. We talked about a lot of subjects. We talked about the Middle East and Iran, and I briefed the Chancellor on North Korea. We talked about Iraq and Afghanistan, as well.

But when we talked about the issues, it's important for you to understand we're really trying to figure out how to work together to solve problems. And I appreciate -- appreciate the Chancellor's judgment a lot. It's an interesting conversation, you know, when you toss out what may seem to be a problem that's insoluble, and all of a sudden, two people start thinking about how to solve it, solve the problem. And that's what we're doing.

You know, on the Iranian issue, for example, the last time that we were together we talked -- spent a lot of time on Iran, and the Chancellor was wondering whether or not the United States would ever come to the table to negotiate with the Iranians. You made that pretty clear to me that you thought it was something -- an option we ought to consider, which I did. And I made it clear to the Iranians that if they were to do what they said they would do, which is to stop enrichment in a verifiable fashion, we're more than pleased to come back to the table.

There's no question that this issue can be solved diplomatically, and there's no question that it can be solved diplomatically with Germany and the United States strategizing as how to solve it. And I want to thank the Chancellor's leadership on this issue. It's really important for Europe to speak with one common voice. And it's important for Angela and myself to work with Vladimir Putin, which we will do at the G8, to continue to encourage him to join us in saying to the Iranians loud and clear, we're not kidding, it's a serious issue, the world is united in insisting that you not have a nuclear weapons program.

We talked about the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli issues with Hezbollah, and our common desire to work together to help bring peace to that troubled region.

My attitude is this: There are a group of terrorists who want to stop the advance of peace. And those of -- who are peace-loving must work together to help the agents of peace -- Israel, President Abbas, and others -- to achieve their objective. You got to understand when peace advances, it's in the terrorists' interests in some cases to stop it. And that's what's happening.

We were headed toward the road map, things looked positive, and terrorists stepped up and kidnaped a soldier, fired rockets into Israel. Now we've got two more kidnapings up north. Hezbollah doesn't want there to be peace. The militant arm of Hamas doesn't want there to be peace. And those of us who do want peace will continue to work together to encourage peace.

We talked about North Korea. I assured the Chancellor that I'm committed to the six-party talks and that the five of us in the six-party talks will work to convince North Korea to come back to the table. I'm hopeful that we can get some U.N. action on North Korea.

We did talk about Doha, the trade round, and it's -- look, these trade rounds are difficult to negotiate with; we've all got our own interests. But the good news is we do share a common desire to open up markets. Germany is a great exporter. It's in Germany's interest that tariffs be reduced around the world. It's in our interests that tariffs be reduced around the world. And I committed to what I told the world back last September, we will reduce agricultural subsidies. But all we want is fair treatment when it comes to market access.

I'm optimistic we can still get something done on the Doha Round. It's going to take work, but G8 is a good place for us to continue the dialogue, and we will.

And I guess that's about all -- we discussed a lot of things, in other words. And thank you for having me. I'm looking forward to that pig tonight. (Laughter.)

I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Do you want to start her off?

Q Chancellor, you spoke about charting a new course as regards a response to the Iranian conflict. What new course will that be? You talked about the results of the foreign ministers' meeting where they will appeal to the Security Council. What sort of action will there be? Again, just a resolution that only demands certain things, or is the objective a resolution that will then actually threaten sanctions of a specific nature? This question is also addressed to the President.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Well, essentially what we're talking about here is not a totally new process, it's just another phase. We have waited patiently whether Iran will examine this offer and in which way it will react. So far we have not had any sort of reliable reaction. And for us, the precondition for talks has always been suspension of the enrichment activities, and a precondition for talks has always been, well, we will then, under the circumstances, not react with sanctions. But through this common action, we are now making clear, because we are not receiving a reply, that there will be a concerted action and that there will be specific steps. And we're defining what steps these will be if Iran continues to let us wait with its response.

So we wanted to demonstrate yet again that the international community is willing to show resolve to pursue this strategy further in every direction. Iran has received a proposal that I think is a very substantive one, a very good one, one that is good for the development of its own country, of its own interests -- is in its own interests. But if Iran should not reply, if they think they can prevaricate in the hope of the international community being split, then this proves them wrong. And this is why I am so happy about the conclusion of that meeting of the foreign ministers.

PRESIDENT BUSH: This notion that the Iranians must understand that they can't wait us out and can't hope to split a coalition -- and so the first step is to go to the United Nations and speak with as common a voice as possible.

Your question really is, how fast should the process move along? And my attitude is, the answer to that is, it should move as fast as necessary to make it effective, which is a non-answer, admittedly. But the truth of the matter is, diplomacy takes a lot of work, and there are different interests involved here. We do share a common goal of no nuclear weapon and no program. And, by the way, we've already sanctioned Iran, so we've got a different position than others. It's easy for me to espouse sanctions, since it's already a fait accompli. But we understand other nations have got -- there's a pace to this diplomacy. And I assured the Chancellor that the United States will continue to work to make sure the process is steady as it moves forward.

The key first step is, common goal, which is no nuclear weapon or program, and united message to the Iranians. I truly think they're trying to wait us out. They think it's a matter of time before people lose their nerve, or a matter of time before different interests are able to influence the process. And I think they're going to be sorely mistaken. I think they're going to be disappointed that this coalition is a lot firmer than they think.

It is in our interests to make sure they don't have a weapon. It would be dangerous if the Iranians had a nuclear weapon. And that's a recognizable fact now. So I appreciate the Chancellor's position on this.

Yes, Terry.

Q Madam Chancellor, Mr. President. Terry Hunt with the AP. Looking ahead to St. Petersburg, I'd like to ask you, do you think that Russia is honoring human rights and democratic freedoms and has a responsible approach to energy security?

And, Mr. President, were you surprised by President Putin replying to Vice President Cheney's criticism, saying that it was an "unsuccessful hunting shot?"

PRESIDENT BUSH: Did I think it was a clever response? It was pretty clever. Actually, quite humorous -- not to dis my friend, the Vice President. I don't know, do you want to start with this? I'd be glad to -- (laughter.) No, I think our job is to continually remind Russia that if he wants to do -- have good relations, that she ought to share common values with us. We share common values -- free press is a common value we share. And I've expressed my opinion to President Putin. You might remember my visit with him in Slovakia where I was quite pointed in my concerns about whether or not there is a free and vibrant press in Russia. We share concerns about the ability for people to go to the town square and express their opinions, and whether or not dissent is tolerated, whether or not there's active political opposition.

And so I will continue to carry that message. My own view of dealing with President Putin, though, is that nobody really likes to be lectured a lot, and if you want to be an effective person, what you don't go is scold the person publicly all the time; that you remind him where we may have a difference of opinion, but you do so in a respectful way, so you can then sit down and have a constructive dialogue.

And that's exactly how I'm going to continue my relations with President Putin. I'll be firm about my belief in certain democratic institutions; I'll be firm in my belief about the need for there to be an active civil society and NGOs should be allowed to function in Russia without intimidation. But I'm also going to be respectful of the leader of an important country. And I may not tell you exactly what I talked to him about in private. And I would hope that he wouldn't tell you what he talks to me about in private.

But, yes, we've got issues. Listen, we've got common problems that we need to work together to solve -- North Korea and Iran are two. And we've also got -- I hope he continues to understand that it's in his country's interest to implement the values that Germany and Russia -- Germany and the United States share.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Well, first as to the issue of energy security, I can safely say that, looking at Germany over the past few decades, Russia has always proved to be a reliable supplier of energy. They have always abided by the treaties that we signed. But we would wish -- and I've addressed this with the Russian President -- that they actually bring the energy charter to its completion, that is to say, commit themselves to it, because then we would have a greater degree of certainty and security that we understand our common commitments on this.

As regards -- a strategic link between Russia and Europe, obviously, is of tremendous importance. It's important because we need energy supplies from Russia. And this is why we shall work towards Russia accepting that charter, that energy charter, so that we get a legitimate charter that is also based on contracts. But again, it has to be said that Russia has always been a reliable supplier.

As to democracy and human rights, during my visit to Russia I met with a number of representatives of non-governmental organizations. We discussed what is desirable, what ought to be there as regards Russia's further development, and what needs to be addressed, time and again, and let me tell you that I talked to the President about these issues.

I think also we ought to have an open, confidential dialogue. We should not sort of speak loudly and in public about certain issues; that we have different ideas about how a pluralist society, a democratic society ought to work; that there ought to be a strong opposition is certainly one of the realities of life. There are differences of opinion between Russia and the European Union. We would wish for Russia to embark on a path that leads to a lively and very pluralistic political landscape, that they enter into a dialogue with their civil society, which is at yet not there, for many reasons.

But we would like to share with them also the experience that we've made with democracy, that pluralism in a democracy, last but not least, actually enhances stability in a country. And that is an experience that we have made, and that is a very strong force which drives reform processes forward. For example, we've seen that in German unity. It's sometimes complicated to bring those decision-making processes forward in a democracy, but then you receive the necessary legitimacy. And that is the experience that informs us in our talks.

Q A question addressed to you both. You talked about the Middle East, and what is your assessment of the military action of Israel in Lebanon? The French Foreign Minister already said it is disproportionate. Does that give you cause for Europe or the United States to intervene?

And apart from the pig, Mr. President, what sort of insights have you been able to gain as regards East Germany? -- (inaudible) --

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Neither have I, but apparently a camera team was there when it was shot. So apparently it is already there, physically. (Laughter.) I hope it's actually roasting; otherwise we won't be able to eat it tonight.

Well, as to the violence in the Middle East, particularly as regards Lebanon, I think that one needs to be very careful to make a clear distinction between the root causes and the consequences of something. So we started here from a case of kidnaping of a soldier, and one of the other root causes also is the activity of Hezbollah. And it's most important for the Israeli government to be strengthened, but it is also clearly shown that these incursions, such as the kidnaping of soldiers, is not acceptable.

And the parties to that conflict obviously have to use proportionate means, but I am not at all for sort of blurring the lines between the root causes and the consequences of an action. There has to be a good reaction now, not from the Israeli government, but from those who started these attacks in the first place.

PRESIDENT BUSH: -- to help calm the situation, we've got diplomats in the region. Secretary of State Rice, who is here, is on the phone talking to herf counterparts. I'll be making calls.

I gave you my initial impression earlier, and that is that it's a sad situation where -- when there is a very good chance for there to be a two-state solution enacted -- that is two states living side-by-side in peace -- it's really sad where people are willing to take innocent life in order to stop that progress. As a matter of fact, it's pathetic.

And having said that, Israel has a right to defend herself. Every nation must defend herself against terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent life. It's a necessary part of the 21st century.

Secondly, we -- whatever Israel does, though, should not weaken the Siniora government in Lebanon. We're concerned about the fragile democracy in Lebanon. We've been working very hard through the United Nations and with partners to strengthen the democracy in Lebanon. The Lebanese people have democratic aspirations, which is being undermined by the actions and activities of Hezbollah.

Thirdly, Syria needs to be held to account. Syria is housing the militant wing of Hamas. Hezbollah has got an active presence in Syria. The truth of the matter is, if we really want there to be -- the situation to settle down, the soldiers need to be returned, and President Assad needs to show some leadership toward peace.

To answer your question about the involvement, we will be involved diplomatically, and are involved diplomatically.

Steve.

Q Thank you, sir. Just to follow up --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Follow up on?

Q On both of these. Does it concern you that the Beirut airport has been bombed? And do you see a risk of triggering a wider war?

And on Iran, they've, so far, refused to respond. Is it now past the deadline, or do they still have more time to respond?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I thought you were going to ask me about the pig.

Q I'm curious about that, too. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: The pig? I'll tell you tomorrow after I eat it.

The Iranian issue is -- will be taken to the U.N. Security Council. We said that we have -- to the Iranians, we said, here's your chance to move forward, and we'd like a response in a reasonable period of time. And we meant what we said. One of the important things about moving toward the Security Council, it shows that when we say something, we mean it. In order for -- to help solve these problems, you just can't say things and not mean it. And so when we spoke, we said, reasonable period of time; weeks not months -- that's what we explained to the Iranians. They evidently didn't believe us. And so now we're going to go to the Security Council, and we're united in doing that.

Q Their deadline has passed --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Their deadline passed, right. That's why we're going to the U.N. Security Council.

Q -- have time?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Oh, they've got plenty of time. I mean, the U.N. Security Council, they've got time to react. They've got time to make a decision. By the way, it's their choice. We've made our choice. It's the Iranian choice. And as Angela mentioned, there was an offer put on the table, a reasonable offer for them to make the choice as to the way forward.

And our choice is, look, we want to have relations with you, but you're not going to have a weapon or the capacity to make a weapon. It would be incredibly dangerous if we -- five years from now, Iran shows up with a nuclear weapon and threatens people in the neighborhood, and they're going to say, where were you? What were you doing during that period of time? And that's what we're working on.

And so time -- that's -- when we said, weeks not months, we meant it. And now we're heading to the U.N. Security Council. They can show up any time and say, wait a minute, now we'd like to go back and negotiate, now -- take a look at the interests. We're not precluding any further negotiations with the Iranians.

In order for us to come to the table, however, what they must do is verifiably show that they're not enriching, like they said they would do earlier. This is not a -- this is not a new statement by them. They agreed to this in Paris. All we're asking them to do is to honor what they said they would do in the past in a verifiable fashion.

The rest of your four-part question?

Q Sorry about that, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's okay, it just -- it's a bad habit.

Q Does the Beirut -- the attack on the Beirut airport, does that concern you, and are you concerned about triggering a wider Middle East war?

PRESIDENT BUSH: As I mentioned, my biggest concern is whether or not actions taken will weaken the Siniora government. Democracy in Lebanon is an important part of laying a foundation for peace in that region. We have worked really hard to get Syria out of Lebanon -- U.N. Resolution 1559, and it's follow-up Resolution 1680 were manifestations of the work of the international community to get Syria out of Lebanon. We've always felt that a democracy in Lebanon is important for the Lebanese people, and it's important for the region.

So the concern is that any activities by Israel to protect herself will weaken that government. And we have made that -- or topple that government -- and we've made it clear in our discussions.

Having said all that, people need to protect themselves. There are terrorists who will blow up innocent people in order to achieve tactical objectives. In this case, the objective is to stop the advance of peace -- which is a remarkable statement, isn't it? Willing to kill to stop peace.

We have a good chance to get a two-state solution, two democracies living side-by-side in peace. It is a clear and achievable vision. There is a way forward called the road map to achieve that vision. What will prevent that vision from being achieved is -- are terrorist activities, and that's what you're seeing taking place.

Thank you all.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Thank you.

Pax melior est quam justissimum bellum (peace is better than the most just war)

Here is a copy of a blog entry by Chirol - The Unready Hand with an Unbridled Tongue - posted at ComingAnarchy.com July 9, 2006:

Recently, a European friend and I discussed the difference between the Europeans and Americans which could be summed up in the follow two phrases. For the U.S. Peior est bello timor ipse belli. or the fear of war is worse than war. For Europe, Pax melior est quam justissimum bellum. or peace is better than the most just war. With that in mind, I present Sunday's wisdom courtesy of Max Boot. The following is taken from page 149 of The Savage Wars of Peace:
The difference between Roosevelt and Wilson was not primarily over ends but means. Wilson believed in the efficacy of international law and moral force. Roosevelt believed that American honor could be protected, and its ideals exported, only by military force. His famous slogan was "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Wilson almost inverted this aphorism.

The irony is that Wilson would wind up resorting to force more often than his famously bellicose predecessor had. This may not have been entirely accidental, for Roosevelt believed that his buildup of the military and his well-advertised willingness to use it, deterred potential adversaries from challenging U.S. power. Wilson, by contrast, he condemed as one of those "prize jackasses" who combined "the unready hand with the unbridled tongue," and hence made war more likely. This may be an overly harsh judgement - there was abundant personal animus between Roosevelt and his successor - but there is little doubt that Woodrow Wilson came into office little realizing how often and how much military force would be required to implement his ideals.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Sudanese President considers the war in Palestine, South Lebanon and Darfur as one war

July 13, 2006 SANA Syria report Sudanese President Criticizes International Silence over Israeli Offensive - copy in full:
President Omar Hasan al-Basher of Sudan criticized Thursday the international community silence over Israeli violations in Palestine and Lebanon.

Al-Basher, speaking at an assembly of more than 10 thousand youths from National Conference in Khartoum, considered "the war in Palestine, South Lebanon and Darfur as one war", renewing rejection of any foreign interference in the Sudanese province of Darfur.   

Meanwhile, Russian former Premier Yevgeny Primakov announced that the Israeli attack in Lebanon is an uncovered aggression and a real war.

Primakov, speaking to the Russian NTV Channel, warned against escalation of Israeli offensive, saying that there is no way out of this situation except by negotiations and "if Israel rejects negotiations, it will hold responsibility for that."
July 13 2006 UN News Centre report - Secretary-General sends top advisers to Middle East to defuse crisis; calls key leaders

SOCIAL BACKWARDNESS

Note, Gaddafi lashes out at 'backward society' in Middle East.

Aid worker shot dead in N Darfur - Children are our future, they will build Darfur and to do that they must learn things

Forever

Some camp residents are pessimistic about the future. "Maybe I will have to stay here in this camp forever," says Khadmalla Hassan, "Only Allah knows." But others like Elzina Adam Ismae, who now teaches children to read in a camp in South Darfur, are more positive. "The children are our future, they will build Darfur and to do that they must learn things." (BBC/Peter Biro IRC)

Aid worker shot dead in North Darfur

Hassan Ahmad Idris, 23, an agricultural officer, was travelling in North Darfur with two local members of staff and a driver when their vehicle was stopped by armed robbers, who shot him dead, humanitarian agency Relief International said in a statement. One of the assailants had been arrested, it added - IRIN report July 13, 2006 - excerpt:
The UN envoy for Sudan, Jan Pronk, has expressed concern over the increasing violence in Darfur, saying the clashes between rival groups continued to displace civilians. "I am very concerned about the increase in violence in some specific areas of Darfur," Pronk told a news conference in Khartoum on Wednesday.

He named the most volatile areas as the northern part of North Darfur and eastern section of Jebel Marra, between Kutum and El Fasher, the state capital.
Pattern of violence

Thousands of Sudanese continue to pour into camps in Darfur despite the peace deal agreed between the Khartoum government and one rebel faction two months ago. This woman arrived in Abu Shouk camp in the north last month after her village grew increasingly insecure. It is the pattern across Darfur, in the south one field worker estimates 15,000 people have arrived in Nyala in the past few months. (BBC/Peter Biro IRC)

Blazing sun

Pro-government Arab Janjaweed militia have driven over 2m from their homes in the last three years. In southern Otash camp, women and children collect water early to avoid the blazing rays of the midday sun. One of the group, Khadmalla Hassan, recalls her recent escape. "It was midday. The Janjaweed killed seven people. They burnt our houses and we were hiding in the desert for a week. We were very hungry and thirsty. Eventually we saw a truck drive by, which brought us here."

BBC NEWS In pictures - Darfur's camp life. Text and photos by Peter Biro of the International Rescue Committee.

Darfur: What Should the U.S. Do? (Bill Fletcher Jr)

Here is one of the few opinion pieces to come out of Washingon, D.C., that I agree with. Let's hear more voices like it please!

Excerpt from Chicago Defender Commentary Darfur: What Should the U.S. Do? by Bill Fletcher, Jr [via Hell on Earth]
There are some things that the Bush administration can do; the only question is whether they are prepared to actually do them. The Darfur crisis must be resolved by Africans. Any suggestion of NATO troops or U.S. troops entering in and forcing a solution will simply not work. Leadership for the resolution of the crisis must come from the African Union. Admittedly, the African Union is weak, indeed, in many respects it is just getting off the ground. Precisely for that reason, its on-going efforts need to be supported. If the Bush administration wishes to help, then let them support the African Union financially and diplomatically. Provide the AU with sufficient logistical support to deploy more peacekeepers. Provide assistance for the refugees currently living in neighboring Chad, and those internally displaced within the Sudan.

I wish that I had confidence that the Bush administration could play a positive role in international affairs. All evidence points to the contrary. Thus, my conclusion tends to be that which is the first instruction to physicians: do no harm!
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Washington, DC-based writer and activist involved with labor and international issues. A former president of TransAfrica Forum, he is now a Visiting Professor in Political Science at Brooklyn College-CUNY. He can be reached at papaq54@hotmail.com.

A dying peace deal in Darfur - The Boston Globe (John Prendergast)

So called "Sudan experts" seem to feed off each other and hearsay, regurgitating it into mainstream media to further their own cause and bamboozle readers in the process. They sound like clones on a game of some kind to get attention. Are they all Blair/Bush haters or what? Bad mood. Trying to track news, see hundreds of reports but only a scrap of it is hard news. It's hard work and time consuming trawling through so much rubbish. Mainstream media are letting us down. Lazy bums. Don't believe much of what I hear or read in the news.

Excerpt from an opinion piece (A dying peace deal in Darfur - The Boston Globe July 13, 2006) by doom merchant John Prendergast, senior advisor at the International Crisis Group (who pays for the food on his table?):
The specific security guarantee every Darfurian talks about is a United Nations force that will ensure the Janjaweed disarm, and that will protect refugees and help them return home.

[...]

It is time for serious pressure. The United States should tell regime officials it will work multilaterally to impose targeted sanctions, help the war crimes investigations of the International Criminal Court, and support the divestment movement that seeks to have companies stop doing business with Sudan.
Eh what? Every Darfurian? How would he know? After reading that line and his calls for sanctions, prosecutions and divestment, I couldn't take a word of the piece seriously. Most of the displaced Darfurians can't even read or write, what would they know when it comes to political issues beyond what power crazed rebel leaders are feeding them? And, while I am at it, there is no such thing as the so called janjaweed. Calling for "janjaweed" to be disarmed is like calling for "insurgents" in Iraq to be disarmed in one fell swoop. It's much more complicated, involving different tribes, tribal leaders and a culture going back to the year dot. They live on a different planet. Only they can sort it out. Get it? [Afterthought: shame them into sorting it out] See July 13 2006 Darfur: What Should the U.S. Do? (Bill Fletcher Jr).

UN's Egeland claims "We need a UN force on the ground"

Fundraising time. Donors conference takes place in Brussels July 18. You can set your clock for the time when UN aid chief Jan Egeland pops up in the media with horror stories from war-torn Sudan, a country the size of Europe (with just as many different tribes) that's never been at peace with itself.

Man is a predator. Many parts of Africa are still wild. Fighting and killing is a way of life there. Thugs get away with murder. Opportunists with guns are rife. Millions of Sudanese people can't even read or write. See Gaddafi lashes out at 'backward society' in Middle East. It'll take hundreds of years before they're anywhere close to catching up with today's world. Meanwhile, like wild animals, they are tamed and ruled with a stick.

Mr Egeland cries "We need a UN force on the ground" but doesn't explain how UN peacekeepers will fare better than AU peacekeepers. See IRIN report Factional fighting displaces thousands more in Darfur July 13, 2006 - excerpt:
"It is heartbreaking to see that what the SLA groups had rightfully accused the Janjawid [government-backed militia] of doing, they are now doing themselves to the civilian population caught in the crossfire," Egeland told a news conference in New York.

"In Darfur, security is non-existent for the civilian population and non-existent for humanitarian workers," said Egeland. "I have also received reports that the government is using white helicopters, the same colour that AMIS [the African Union Mission in Sudan] and the United Nations is using. This is a violation of international principles and poses a direct threat to UN and non-governmental organisation staff who normally [use] white helicopters and are neutral and impartial and should not be attacked," he added.

A member of CARE staff had been killed in the massive Kalma refugee camp, a UN World Food Programme convoy ambushed and looted a few days ago in South Darfur, while the abduction of a national staff member and mounting security concerns had forced Oxfam to suspend operations in two of its six offices in North Darfur earlier this week, Egeland said.

He said AMIS lacked the capacity to effectively protect civilians or provide adequate security for humanitarian operations. "We need a UN force on the ground (...) It is completely unsustainable the way it is now," he added.

The African Union has extended the mandate of its peacekeeping mission in Sudan until the end of 2006, and Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has agreed to the reinforcement of the AU presence, but has fallen short of agreeing to the eventual deployment of a full UN force for the region.

Egeland stressed that nations that had thus far pledged to support a UN force for Darfur were the organisation's traditional troop contributors, mostly developing countries, and not western states. It was therefore incorrect to state that the UN peacekeeping mission in Sudan would be a "western force and, therefore, should be resisted", he said.
- - -

Reminder: March 12 2006 Sudan's Salah Gosh met UK and US officials last week in London for talks on al-Qaeda and Darfur peace process

SLA's Minnawi nominated as head of Darfur Authority

Going by their recent commentary, some pundits like Flint (July 12, 2006 Where is the African Union in Darfur?) and Reeves (July 11, 2006 Darfur Security in Freefall: Humanitarian Collapse May Occur Any Moment) - who make themselves patently clear they are onside with SLM-Nur and against SLA-Minnawi - seem to see it as wrong that the two main signatories to the Darfur Peace Agreement, namely SLA's Minnawi and the Government of Sudan, are working together to implement the peace deal.

So what? Dissident rebels brainwashing their followers into dismissing ceasefires and peace deals have been given every opportunity to join the peace movement. When and where do you draw the line? Why shouldn't insurgents be treated as outlaws? From what I can gather, outlaws and their supporters (pundits included) have their caps set on pulling down the Darfur Peace Agreement and the fledgling African Union and its mission in Darfur. It seems obvious they and their followers are the ones who want to see the peace deal in tatters and a UN operation in Darfur. I wonder why.

Here is news of Minnawi's nomination as head of Darfur Authority. The pundits don't say where it leaves SLM's Nur. Note also how they don't address such issues (or when it comes to their calls for military intervention, that of the ICC and list of 51 names). Maybe the secret communications rumoured to be taking place between Nur and GoS will result in a position being created for Nur? Clearly it pays to be a rebel. Crime pays. They get away with murder and entry visas into Europe and the USA.

SLM's Minawi nominated for Senior Assistant to the President post AP reported 13 July 2006 (via Sudan Tribune). Excerpt:
Sudan has taken the first toward appointing a Darfur rebel leader as head of the administration that will run the western region once peace has been restored. The Sudan Liberation Army, the only rebel group that signed the Darfur Peace Agreement on May 5, nominated its leader, Minni Minnawi, to the post of senior assistant to Sudan’s president in meeting with a presidential adviser on Tuesday night, state media reported.

Once endorsed by President Omar al-Bashir - considered a formality - the position will make Minnawi the head of what will be the Darfur Authority, the administration that will run Darfur as an autonomous part of Sudan once the terms of the peace accord have been implemented.

"This is a historic day for our country," Samani al-Wasilah, the state minister for foreign affairs, told the official Sudan Media Center after the SLA delegation handed the nomination to presidential adviser Majzoub Khalifa. "Sons of the homeland have come together to cement the pillars of peace and work together to implement the Darfur Peace Accord."

The UN chief envoy to Sudan, Jan Pronk, expressed "concern" Wednesday about the ongoing harassment of civilians and attacks, but he did not blame any specific group.

Pronk told reporters in Khartoum that even the rebels who do not support the May 5 accord - such as a breakaway faction of the SLA and the Justice and Equality Movement - were obliged to observe the cease-fire signed in 2004.

Minnawi himself told reporters in Cairo on Tuesday that the only achievement of the DPA was that the cease-fire was holding in some places.

"(In) some of the area now, there is a cease-fire 100 percent. The government respected the cease-fire and also our troops are respecting the cease-fire," he said.

Speaking before the Tuesday night meeting, Minnawi said he would accept the nomination if it were made, and that he would soon return to Sudan. He did not give a date.

After the president has endorsed Minnawi’s appointment, it will have to be ratified by Sudan’s parliament, but this is considered a mere procedure.

The DPA sought to put a stop to three years of fighting between several rebel groups and pro-government forces that have killed 200,000 people and displaced another 2 million. The agreement is not popular in the refugee camps, where many people have tribal links to the leader of the breakaway SLA faction and argue that the peace terms are inadequate.

Sudanese government and SLM's Nur hold secret contacts

Regardless of what the pundits say and make up as they go along, sitting in their armchairs thousands of miles away from Africa, we know only a tiny fraction of what goes on in Sudan, a country the size of Europe.

Since none of us during wartime knows what goes on politically behind the scenes and in secrecy, one wonders how Darfurians in refugee camps can have an informed opinion on whether a peace deal is good for them or not.

According to the Sudan Tribune, Sudan's plan to disarm the Janjaweed was given to the African Union on July 8, 2006. Perhaps this accounts for the lull in media reports. A donors conference is due to take place in Brussels July 18 to raise funds for the AU Mission in Darfur/reconstruction of Darfur. Surely the donors will want to know how much money is needed and why. Will the funding required support the AU troops in Darfur from Sept 30 thru to the year's end, or longer?

Here's another thing that could account for the lull in news reports re the AU. According to a report by the Sudan Tribune 11 July 2006, its sources say the Sudanese government seeks to convince holdout rebel group SLM-Nur to join the Darfur peace agreement and that contacts are going on between the two parties. Excerpt from the report:
Sudanese government launched secret contacts with the Sudan Liberation Movement led by Abdelwahid al-Nur in a move to convince him to join DPA. According to ST sources, Khartoum made several concessions in term of compensations and political representation but al-Nur insists on the International guaranties particularly in the disarmament of the Janjaweed militia, and the UN role in the peacekeeping mission.

The expected visit of the Sudanese First Vice President to Asmara should pushes in this direction to persuade Nur to join the peace deal with the signing of complement document.

The Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi is also involved in these contacts with al-Nur; a delegation of his movement was in Tripoli to present their point of view to the Libyan official last June.

A dissident group from al-Nur SLM provoked a surprise in Khartoum by declaring their nomination of Abdelwahid al-Nur for the position for the position of the Assistant of the President of the Republic.

Ibrahim Abdeldayem al-Sideiq, the spokesperson of the SLM (Free Will), a faction from al-Nur group which joined the DPA in June, said they hope that al-Nur would join peace agreement soon.

Nur says he will sign the peace deal, but only if first the government accepts some of his key demands in an annex accord.

The demands include greater compensation from Khartoum for Darfur war victims and greater SLA involvement in monitoring the disarmament of the Janjaweed and the return home of refugees.

Further engagement with Sudan needed on UN Darfur force, peacekeeping chief says

Misunderstandings between the Government of Sudan and the international community concerning a proposed UN mission in Darfur must be cleared up if the peace agreement it is meant to support is to be successful, the UN's top peacekeeping official said July 12, 2006. UN News Centre report July 12, 2006 - excerpt:
"There was not enough engagement," Jean-Marie Guehenno, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, told the press after briefing the Security Council on his discussions with Sudanese President Omar al Bashir and other African leaders on the margins of the African Union (AU) Summit meeting held in Banjul earlier this month.

In his talks with President al Bashir in Banjul, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that there was agreement on the need to immediately strengthen the AU mission in Darfur (AMIS) and to consolidate the peace accord in that region, which has seen scores of thousands of people killed and over 2 million displaced.

However, the Sudanese President's agreement on the deployment of a UN force, which peacekeeping officials have said was needed by January 2007 to fully implement the peace accord, was not secured in the talks, Mr. Guehenno said, although progress had been made in dispelling any notion that such a force would have any "colonial" or other hidden objectives.

"The international community is interested in Darfur because it is interested in helping the people of Sudan and the Government of Sudan in establishing the authority of the State and peace and security throughout the territory," the peacekeeping chief said he stressed.

Mr. Guehenno also emphasized that further engagement with the Government was needed. "I think we need to continue that discussion, because clearly the Government of Sudan has to be a part of the solution."

In any case, he said it was important to strengthen AMIS and make sure that the situation in Darfur does not deteriorate in the next six months, and for that reason he said he had highlighted to the Council the importance of a conference aimed at supporting the AU mission, to be held on 18 July in Brussels.

Absence of constitution in Nuba mountains affects affairs of the state

According to the Sudan Tribune today, a senior member of the Nuba community has blamed the lack of services in southern Kordofan State on the absence of a state constitution. Report excerpt:
Speaking at a meeting of Nuba traditional leaders in Kadugli last week, Nuba Relief Rehabilitation Development Organization Executive Director Lazim Suleiman said the delay in passing the Southern Kordofan's state constitution will affect the affairs of the state.

He told Sudan Radio Service that the state's constitution will provide the basis for the state government to provide services to its people.

"In this partnership we want the people to have a clear basis to provide services to the people who lived the war for not less than 21 years. So any negative impact will appear on the traditional leaders because they are basic of any development and peace. Therefore if the peace, a real peace could be created it will be by the traditional leaders", Lazim Suleiman.

Suleiman also urged traditional leaders to know their role in bringing lasting peace to Sudan, saying it would be traditional leaders who could make the greatest impact.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Southern Sudan's ex rebel group SPLM needs representatives with in-depth oil industry knowledge

An agreement to end more than 20 years of civil war in south Sudan has been violated and its implementation especially in the oil-rich Abyei region is behind schedule, a commission monitoring the deal said on Wednesday, Reuters reported 12 July 2006 (via Sudan Tribune). Excerpt:
"There is a growing sense of frustration and disappointment among the people about what they perceive as a lack of progress in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)," Assessment and Evaluation Commission Chairman Tom Vraalsen told reporters in Khartoum.

"I don't think any of the two parties when they signed the CPA ... (in) January last year, fully recognised the challenges ahead of them," said Vraalsen, who refused to appoint blame for the CPA's slow implementation and violation.

He highlighted the deadlock over the status of the Abyei region, which contains one of Sudan's two largest oil fields. Sudan pumps around 500,000 barrels per day of crude.

The region has a special autonomous status with the right to vote in a referendum on joining the north or a possible separate south in 2011.

The dispute over whether it will go to the north or the south has created instability in the area and hampered aid efforts.
Note, the report points out that analysts have said another obstacle to the petroleum commission's work is the lack of SPLM representatives with in-depth oil industry knowledge. The commission's mandate includes examining oil output and oil contracts.

A Sudanese man

Photo: A Sudanese man cries as he holds a SPLM flag, Wednesday, May 26, 2004 as he waits for the signing of the last three protocols between the Sudan govt and SPLM in Naivasha, Kenya (AP).

After peace, wild life returns to South Sudan

The stamp of approval on the prevailing peace and tranquility and the success of the CPA have been given by the wild animals who are returning to the jungles of South Sudan. Yes, herds of wild elephants and other animals have been spotted throughout the forests of South Sudan. Why these wild animals have fled these forests earlier and why are they coming back now?

Read more by Luc Kodah, an Indian chap in Sudan who blogs under the name of Parakkodan at Sudan - A Personal Experience.

Elephants at Nimule

Photo: Elephants at Nimule (Luc Kodah) via Sudan Tribune 12 July 2006.

What makes the UN believe its peacekeepers would be able to protect civilians better than AU peacekeepers?

It would seem from the following report that UN aid chief Jan Egeland thinks UN peacekeepers would be able to protect civilians better than the current AU force. I wonder what makes him think so. The UN Mission in Southern Sudan is, as far as I can tell, under Chapter 6 mandate. A UN force in Darfur without Chapter 7 mandate would meet far more resistance than the existing AU Mission in Darfur.

I cannot understand why AMIS is allowed to be under resourced, demoralised and hamstrung. Its mandate in Darfur is to monitor a ceasefire agreement, not as a Chapter 7 protection force. Critics ought to give the AU troops the credit they deserve. Overall, they've carried out their duties professionally, proving themselves to be patient, disciplined, diplomatic and great ambassadors of their home countries. So what if rebel supporters prefer UN (read money) to AU - they should be thankful for the help they are getting against all odds, it's a lot more than what civilians are getting in northern Uganda where far worse things are going on. I've read that doubling of peacekeepers in Darfur - or even increasing the numbers by tens of thousands - would not make much difference unless the warring parties are serious about wanting peace. Greedy ruthless power hungry leaders of rebel groups SLM-Nur and JEM/NFR-Ibrahim aren't going to play second fiddle to SLA's Minnawi, are they? They're all wannabe John Garang's. None show great leadership skills or qualities making them fit to govern. Using a gun to fight for what you want is one thing, holding a position in government is very different.

Mr Egeland told a news conference on Tuesday that the mainstream rebel faction, led by Minni Arcua Minnawi, was in conflict with splinter factions of the SLA, Reuters' Evelyn Leopold reported July 12, 2006. Excerpt: SLA infighting had resulted in indiscriminate killings, rape, looting and the displacement of some 8,000 civilians over the past 10 days alone, Egeland said.

"It is heartbreaking to see that what the SLA groups had rightfully accused the Janjaweed of doing they are now doing themselves to the civilian population caught in the crossfire," he said.

Egeland said there were reports that government security forces were supporting attacks against splinter groups of the SLA. They were using white helicopters, the same color that the African Union, the United Nations and relief groups fly.

"This is again a violation of international principles and a dire threat to U.N. staff who go on the white helicopters that are neutral and impartial and should not be attacked," Egeland said.

He also said that humanitarian workers throughout Darfur were being attacked "on an almost daily basis."

Egeland said United Nations peacekeepers, which the Khartoum government opposes, were sorely needed because the 7,000-strong African Union monitoring force, the only bulwark against atrocities, was "not able to protect effectively the civilian population" nor humanitarian staff.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

New York Times' reporting on Darfur worsens

Note how Nicholas Kristof, an American columnist for the New York Times, informs his readers of the complex situation in Sudan. In his latest commentary entitled Darfur: When Genocide Worsens he concludes by saying:
So here's a suggestion: Let's charter a few cargo planes to carry the corpses of hundreds of new victims from Darfur and Chad to the U.N. The butchered victims of Darfur could lie in state as a memorial to global indifference - and as a spur to become serious about the first genocide of the 21st century.
Also, among other pieces of his advice, he tells his readers:
"we need to press Europeans to become more involved."
What a cheek. Which Europeans does he speak of? Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany , Greece, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, Sweden, Netherlands, United Kingdom and all the other members of the European Union? Not to mention other European countries like Norway, Switzerland, Monaco, Russia? As if they've not been heavily involved all along. If it weren't for the European Union, the African Union and its peacekeepers would not even exist!

Kristof makes my blood boil. He fails to properly inform his readers. Perhaps he thinks they are more stupid than himself.

Julie Flint: Planning for the all-Darfur conference now

Commentary in The Daily Star Where is the African Union in Darfur? by Julie Flint July 12, 2006. Excerpt:
More force - whether in the shape of a NATO force or another foreign army - will only add fuel to the fire in Darfur. A UN force to replace the present AU mission is rejected, with increasing conviction, by the Sudanese government. Without a change of heart in Khartoum, UN peacekeepers would have to fight their way into Darfur. The lesson of Abuja is inescapable now: There is no quick fix, and no lasting peace that is not both consensual and comprehensive.

With the conclusion of the Abuja talks, there is no political process, no table around which Darfurians can sit to thrash out their outstanding differences and seek to resolve them. Priority must be given to creating a new forum - perhaps through the Darfur Joint Commission, in which all parties to the conflict, including the dissident rebel factions, are represented. The UN and the AU's Abuja partners - the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, France, Italy and the Netherlands - must take the lead in planning for the all-Darfur conference now.
Related reports

Mar 30 2006 Darfur-Darfur dialogue (DDDC) to be organised after signing of Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA)

SLA rebel Minnawi invited to Washington later this month

The U.S. has invited the Darfur rebel leader who agreed to peace with Sudan to visit Washington amid signs the American-brokered accord is in danger of unraveling because of infighting and violence against civilians, Bloomberg's Janine Zacharia in Washington reported July 11, 2006. Excerpt:
Minni Arkou Minnawi, leader of one of two feuding factions within the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army that has warred with the central government in Khartoum, will visit later this month for about a week, a State Department official who asked not to be identified said. The discussions with U.S. officials will explore how to get other rebels to sign the accord.

Among rebel leaders in Darfur, only Minnawi was persuaded by U.S. negotiator Robert Zoellick to support the power-sharing agreement in May. Now Minnawi is facing rising opposition to his leadership among commanders in northern Darfur, including those from his Zaghawa ethnic group, according to the United Nations.

The State Department official said Minnawi's itinerary was still being determined, including whether he would confer with Bush at the White House. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said late yesterday he had nothing to announce about the president's schedule.

To entice Minnawi to sign the Darfur agreement, Bush promised the rebel chief in a personal letter that the U.S. "will strongly support implementation of the peace accord" and will insist that any party not cooperating "be held accountable by the UN Security Council.''

The State Department official described reports about new violence by Minnawi's faction as part of a pattern though not on the scale seen earlier in the conflict.
Straight out of the African bush into a five star Washington lifestyle rubbing shoulders with GW Bush eh? It pays to be a rebel. I've not yet seen any reports that explain how SLA's Minnawi, SLM's Nur and JEM/NFR's Ibrahim fit into the one position of power they all covet, ie Vice Presidency of Darfur.

Peace loving American activist Jay McGinley calls for 20,000-30,000 peacekeepers in Darfur

American activist Jay McGinley has published a blog entry calling for 20,000 - 30,000 peacekeepers (preferably African Union and non-Western UN) to be on the ground in Darfur, beginning October 1. Jay concludes by saying:
"I am open to any appropriate way to go to nonviolent war as long as it equates to fighting to win and doing the very best that we can do."
Note, in the blog entry, Jay quotes the late great Mahatma Gandhi. Wish I could find a piece I'd read about Gandhi's thoughts on Africa: he'd said something like "there can only be African solutions to African problems".

The current AU Mission in Darfur costs $1 billion per year. A donors conference is due to take place soon in Belgium to raise more funds for AU peacekeeepers in Darfur.

Surely peace is in the hands of the Sudanese people and rebels. I'd like to see the Sudanese people who left their country to receive an education in the West, return home to share knowledge, skills and expertise and pull together to get drinking water flowing across the Sudan. Water is key to Sudan's future and survival.

Gandhi

"My life is my message" - M.K.Gandhi

Sep 30 2004 M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence - First Annual Gandhian Nonviolence Conference October 8-9, 2004

"Open Letters to the President of Sudan"

Here's an excerpt from a blog entry I wrote here at Sudan Watch 22 April 2005:

... A few days ago, I was on the verge of giving up blogging about Darfur. Posting nearly every day for one year seemed pointless and too disheartening. So many rubbish news reports and propaganda around. Politicians and bloggers don't have much to say. It was sickening seeing Darfur news reports churned out again like a repeat from last year ... shortage of food ... short of funds ... rainy season coming ... janjaweed still attacking. Out of frustration, I experimented with starting up a blog to post "Open Letters to the President of Sudan" in a lateral thinking effort to gain some understanding of what is really going on and why peace is taking so long. I even toyed with the idea of sending President Bashir a copy of Mahatma Gandhi's Autobiography "The Story of My Experiments With Truth" via Amazon.com. But within 24 hours, I deleted the whole thing after realising what a complete waste of time and energy it would be trying to make contact with someone who doesn't even care to understand his own people, nevermind us. ...

Mahatma Gandhi Autobiography - The Story of My Experiments With Truth

Found on the Internet - source unknown

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "While abhorring segregation, we shall love the segregationist. This is the only way to create the beloved community."

Over and over, he stressed separating the doer from the deed. He believed this was a crucial element to nonviolent struggle not only because of the moral obligation to love our enemies, but because he knew that part of the "truth-force" that Gandhi taught was to understand that men are neither gods nor devils to be falsely exalted by either praise or scorn. A beloved community relies upon honesty and equality, which are both endangered when anyone is given the powerful and illusive label of "bad guy."

Plagiarism at Sudan Tribune - Darfur Minawi group denies UN "accusations" of rape and killing

Once again, the Sudan Tribune has published an article without referencing source and/or author. Stealing the work of news reporters and passing it off as their own is blatant plagiarism. It's hard work trying to figure out the source of their reprints. They've allowed themselves to get away with it for too long.

Yesterday, here at Sudan Watch, I noted a UN Sudan Situation Report containing news from AMIS about an SLM-Nur informant alleging rape and murder by SLA-Minnawi faction. The Sudan Tribune headlined the story as "UN accuses Darfur SLM-Minawi of rape, murder" - they'd copied a report by Sapa/AFP, inserted a few extra words, created a title and passed it off as their own work.

Today, the Sudan Tribune published another unsourced article entitled Darfur Minawi group denies UN accusations of rape and killing. Excerpt:
A Darfur rebel faction, which signed a May peace deal for the western Sudanese region, denied accusation published in a UN report s of raping and murdering civilians in an offensive against rebel holdouts.

A spokesman for the Minnawi faction, Mahjoub Hussein, denied these charges Monday in an interview with the pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera.

We officially reject this statement made by the UN, and we demand an immediate international investigation," said Hussein, wearing a camouflage shirt. "These allegations are an attempt to tarnish the image of the movement."

The UN mission issued "situation reports" for Sunday and Monday that reported numerous attacks in North Darfur, particularly around Um Sidir, Tawilla and northwest of El Fasher. Most of the incidents were reportedly cases of the Minawi faction of the Sudan Liberation Army attacking the Abdelwahid faction of the same rebel group.

Minni Minawi, the overall leader of the SLA, signed the May 5 accord, but Abdelwahid Elnur, the leader of a breakaway faction, rejected it.

"Intra SLA fighting in and around Tawilla has forced the displacement of about 4,000 Internally Displaced Persons," the UN reported.

The report quoted the refugees as accusing the Minnawi faction of raping, kidnapping and killing people indiscriminately in the Tawilla district.

"One Internally Displaced Person alleged he witnessed 15 young women being raped and then killed," said the UN situation report for Sunday.

Decades of low-level clashes in Darfur over land and water erupted in early 2003 when ethnic Africans took up arms against the Arab-led government in Khartoum, which responded with a counter-insurgency campaign that is accused of widespread atrocities.

The conflict has killed 300,000 people and displaced another 2 million. Some 235,000 refugees from Darfur fled across the border into Chad. And an estimated 50,000 Chadians have fled their homes near the border in recent months.
As noted here previously, the UN merely reported an allegation made to AMIS by an SLM-Nur informant.

I'm tired of propaganda and self serving warmongers. James Smith of Aegis Trust managed to get his opinion piece in The Times (see here below). From what I can gather, no other news reports have emerged counteracting claims by the head of AMIS that - contrary to what the AU president announced at the AU summit - the AU is pulling out of Darfur on September 30. Note September 30 is the date when Save Darfur organisation in Washington DC has another rally planned.

July 7 2006 Bad reporting has made Darfur's conflict worse, and might even lead to an unnecessary international war (Reuters)

July 10 2006 Self-Service & Kiosk Association - Kiosks add impact to Clooney genocide exhibit: Nick [Clooney] collaborated with Cincinnati’s National Underground Railroad Freedom Center to exhibit the work. The museum staff opted to use kiosks with the exhibit, to offer immediacy and interactivity. They draw foot traffic to the exhibit with a looping five minute video, narrated by Nick. The exhibit runs June 14 through July 15.

July 11 2006 James Smith, Aegis Trust - The clock ticks. Sudan heads for disaster: The world seems to be turning away from the refugees of Darfur - but the United Nations has a duty to act. A COUNTDOWN of less than 90 days has begun until the vulnerable people of Darfur are abandoned by world leaders who cannot make a decision - whether to protect them or leave them at the mercy of a Government that has killed at least a quarter of a million and driven millions more from their land. The scene is set for the world's worst humanitarian crisis to tip from bad to worse.