Friday, July 14, 2006

The root causes of the Darfur conflict: A struggle over controlling an environment that can no longer support all the people who must live on it

Today, I did a Google Search with the query "what is the root cause of the darfur conflict?" To put it in a nutshell, here's what I believe:
"The root of the Darfur conflict is a struggle over controlling an environment that can no longer support all the people who must live on it" - Environmentalist Wangari Maathai, 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner
Notes to myself for future reference. After more than two years of tracking daily news reports on Darfur, I have reached the conclusion that the following excerpts from a report published at the website of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, DC puts into words (I am no writer) what I believe are the root causes of the Darfur conflict, what can be done and how sensationalist shorthand distorts the reality of Darfur. The following notes, from a pdf report, were difficult to copy here. Please refer to the original source for an exact facsimile:

DARFUR CONFLICT: ITS HISTORY, NATURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Washington, DC June 2005 www.sudanembassy.org -
http://www.sudanembassy.org/sudannewsletter/SudaNews.pdf.

Sensationalist Shorthand Distorts the Reality of Darfur

REALITY OF DARFUR

Casual observers from around the world will be forgiven for having reached a disjointed picture of events, and the root causes of events, in Darfur over the past two years, something which has led to similarly disjointed conclusions and unrealistic solutions.

A combination of lazy and often sensationalist media coverage and the activities of an already active anti- Sudanese campaign have sought to reduce the incredibly complex Darfur issue to one of an attempt by an Arab-dominated government in Khartoum to wipe out its black citizens in Darfur. Some who know a little better accept the fact that the Darfur rebels are the ones who started the conflict by attacking police stations, army garrisons and nomadic leaders and communities - and in so doing murdering hundreds of policemen and precipitating a break-down in law and order.

Apologists for this premeditated violence have nevertheless sought justify that rebel murder and mayhem by echoing rebel claims of the marginalization of Darfur.

In this issue of "Sudan Newsletter", the reader will find how clever manipulators have distorted the realities of Darfur to serve their political agenda, and in so doing deliberately tarnishing the image of Sudan in order to detract from and destabilize the historic peace agreement ending decades of civil war in southern Sudan and to call for a disastrous international military intervention in western Sudan.

The simple facts contradict much of the lacklustre media coverage of events in Darfur and point to the need for an internal solution to the conflict in western Sudan.

As can be ascertained from any reliable source on Darfur, Darfur is a region inhabited by Arabs and non-Arabs alike. They are bound by blood through centuries of intermarriage. The two rebel groups are drawn from three tribes: Zagawa, Fur and Masalit. There are more than eighty different tribes and ethnic communities in Darfur. Any solution that would reward those who carry arms in a deliberate attempt to destabilize Africa's largest country will become a recipe for a full scale war that will spill over the borders of Sudan.

A number of neighboring countries share Sudan's complex ethnic fabric. Countless people identify themselves along tribal lines rather than national affiliation. Ethnically-driven destabilization endangers the entire sub-saharan region and can only but attract extremists and terrorist organizations. Any solution to the Darfur conflict should be preceded by reconciliation between different tribes in the region.

Reconciliation should include compensation, the safe return of villagers to their villages and the prosecution of perpetrators of atrocities and violence. A political solution should be inclusive and broad-based. The designation and location of rebel and government forces and positions, as outlined in signed security agreements, is a prerequisite that would enable the government to engage other armed groups and tribes in simultaneous disarmament.

Ambassador
Khidir Haroun Ahmed
Head of Mission
- - -

The Darfur region of western Sudan occupies one fifth of the area of Sudan comprising approximately 250,000 square kilometers. It is larger than Egypt and equals the area of France. Geographically, it is made up of plateau some 2,000 to 3,000 feet above sea-level. The volcanic Jebel Marra mountain range runs north to south for a distance of some 100 miles, rising to between 5,000 and 6,000 feet. It borders Libya to the north-west, Chad to the west, and the Central African Republic to the south-west.

Darfur was an independent sultanate that emerged in 1650 and was incorporated into Sudan first by the Turco-Egyption rule in the 19th century. Zubair Pasha and Rudolf Sulatin were among those who served as governors during that era. It remained so through the Mahadia era 1885-1898. Sultan Ali Dinar restablished his ancestors Sultanate until 1916 when he was defeated and killed by Anglo- Egyptian forces.

Since 1994 the region has been divided administratively into three states: North Darfur, with its capital Alfasher, South Darfur with its capital Nyala, and West Darfur with its capital al-Genaina. Darfur is inhabited by six million people, drawn from some eighty different tribes and ethnic groups. From a subsistence point of view, they could be divided into livestock herders - who for the most part are Arabic speakers - and farmers - who are bilingual and perceived as Africans. The ethnic groups in Darfur include the Fur, Bani Halba, Tanhor, Borty, Habaniya, Zaghawa, Zayadia, Rizaigat, Masaleet, Taaishya, Maidoub, Bargo, Dajs, Bani Hussain, Tama, Mahria, Mohameed, Salamat, Messairia, Eraighat, Etafab, Fallata, Ghimir, Bani Mansour, Ab-Darag, Selaihab, Mima, Turgom, Marareet and other African and Arabiantribes. Some tribes extend into Chad, Central Africa and Libya.

Inter-ethnic marriages for centuries have blurred the ethnic differences - all are black Darfurians - and all the people of Darfur are Sunni Muslims. Ecological and demographic transformation had a negative impact on inter-tribal relations where drought and desertification led to conflicts and often violence over scarce resources. During the 1970s and 1980s these tribal conflicts became more intense and bloody, especially between the farmers and cattle herders who in search of water and pasture invaded agricultural land.

Adding to the complexity of the situation is the increased migration of nomadic groups from Chad, Libya, and other states. Tougher living conditions coupled with the absence of or diminishing tolerance resulted in more tension between the locals and the newcomers which led to violence with cross-border implications. Increased access to weapons from southern Sudan, Chad, Libya, and Eritrea aggravated the inter-tribal conflict with the emergence of tribal militias.

Some tribes believe that the government was not able to defend them against other tribes and armed criminal gangs who have more sophisticated weapons, which led several nomadic tribes to form their own defence groups. As a result the region became an open arms market attracting arms dealers to smuggle in all kinds of weapons such as small arms, heavy and light artillery, RPG rocker launchers, and including armoured vehicles.

Between 1983-87 fighting broke out between Fur, Zaghawa and Ma'alihyah communities which resulted in 5,000 deaths, tens of thousands of displaced people and the destruction of 40,000 homes. The conflict was mediated and settled by
government and local tribal leaders. In 1990 the southern Sudan People’s Liberation Army inspired an insurgency led by Daud Bolad from the Fur tribe. The insurgency was defeated in few months. In 1996 the Rezeigat and Zagawa tribes came intoarmed conflict. In 1997-99 there was fighting between Massaleit and some Arab tribes. Other tribal conflicts can be summarized as follows:

1- Conflict between Zagawa and Rizigat during 1960s
2- conflict beween Maalya and Rizigat during 1960s
3- Confilct between Taisha and Salmat,

Southern Darfur during 1980s

4- Conflict between Fur and Arabs in Jabal Marra

1978 - 1989

5- Conflict between Zagawa and Rizigat

Northern Darfur 1994

6- Conflict between Arabs and Masaleet,

Western Darfur 1994

7- Conflict between Rizigat and Zagawa,

South Darfur 1997 – 1999

8- Conflict between Maidob and Kababish
9- Conflict between Zagawa and Al-Ghmirr,

West Darfur 1999

10- Conflict between Arabs and Massalit,

Western Darfur 1999

11- Conflict between Fur and Arabs at Jabal Marra 2002
12- Conflict between Mallya and Rizigat, South Darfur 2002
13- Conflict between Arabs and Massalit , West Darfur 2003

The British colonial administration Rudolf Slatin, in his work "Sword and Fire in Sudan", cited similar icidents and tribal conflicts during his tenure as a governor in the 19th century. In most of these conflicts, it was customary for all the tribes to resolve their differences through inter-tribal conferences and reconciliation which they call it "ajaweed and motamarat al sulh" to meet to reach a mutually acceptable solution. The process of modernizing the judicial system from1970 onwards and the increase of college graduates has weakened the native administration and local solutions in the region.

Conflict in Darfur is therefore sadly not unusual. The region have seen it all before, tribal conflicts, insurgency, drought, displacement and death. On this occasion the conflict has spiraled into a humanitarian disaster. Several questions must be asked. What turned this episode into a well-organized, well-armed and well-financed civil war? What led to it being labeled as the world's "worst humanitarian crisis" while the deaths in neighboring Congo reached four million over the last few years?

Similarly, the insurgency in northern Uganda has seen the deaths of tens of thousands of people, the kidnapping of tens of thousands of children and the displacement of more than 1.6 million people in northern Uganda. The focus on Darfur has been sensationalist and disproportionate.

It lies in western sudan, one of the most distinct places in Darfur state.It stretches for several hundred miles from the small town of Kas in the south up to the out- skirts of AlFasher in the North, covereing an area of almost 12800 square kilometers. It is 10.000 ft above sea level, the second highest in the country. It consists of a range of mountains 240 Km long and 80 Km.Wide , with water-falls, volcanic lakes in an outstanding scenic beauty.

[Photo?] Darfur region is the largest producer of livestock in Sudan & it's known for its high quality world wide. A Shepard taking care of his sheep's looking for food & water.

CONFLICT: TIMING AND MOTIVES

Everybody in Sudan and the international community was euphoric when in February 2003 the Sudan government and southern rebels reached the point of no return in their peace negotiations to end the north-south civil war. In that month the government and SPLM/A signed several key peace agreements, including a Memorandum of Cessation of Hostilities.

Technically it stopped the war between the north and the south. Unfortunately, in that same month, February 2003, two rebel groups - one called Justice and Equality Movement, and the other called the Sudan Liberation Army, attacked major towns in northern Darfur, The first one was Gulu, the capital of Jebelmara region. They also attacked Kutum, Tina, Mellit and AlFasher the capital where the rebels destroyed several airplanes on the grounds. They raided the town in hundreds using 40 brand new Land Cruisers, very advanced weapons, rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine-guns, mortars, automatic rifles and modern satellite communications.

It was the start of a spate of attacks that left over 400 policemen killed and 89 police stations destroyed. According to the report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General on January 25, 2005 {"Most reports indicate that the government was taken by surprise by the intensity of the attacks, as it was ill-prepared to confront such a rapid military onslaught. Furthermore, the looting by rebels of Government weaponry strengthen their position. An additional problem was the fact that the Government apparently was not in possession of sufficient military resources, as many of its forces were still located in the South, and those present in Darfur were mainly located in the major urban centers. Following initial attacks by the rebels against rural police posts, the Government decided to withdraw most police forces to urban centers. This means that the Government did not have de facto control over the rural areas, which was where the rebels based."}. The rebels destroyed almost all police stations in the region. They killed most of the police officers, creating a security vacuum which was unfortunately filled by different tribal militias including the notorius Janjaweed. Added to the chaos, is the rebels policy of targeting tribal leaders and theft of thousands of head of livestock from these tribes, which resulted in an explosion of inter-communal violence with revenge attacks and livestock raids by equally well-armed nomadic tribes. That how thousands of people fled their villages and sought refuge around the major urban centers. That mere fact refute allegation of governmental policy of genocide.

MARGINALIZATION: THE MYTH AND THE REALITY

The rebels claim to be acting because of Darfur's marginalisation and underdevelopment. The leader of the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) stated to the French news agency in October 2003 the following: "The government is negotiating with the south because of pressures from the international community and military pressure in the south, in the west, and in the east. A peace accord with the SPLM will be a way for the government to regroup to suppress the other marginalized areas, including the west and our movement in particular. We want a comprehensive peace for all of Sudan. We will represent an obstacle to the achievement of peace." It was a preplanned strategy to attract the international community by creating a humanitarian
tragedy.

Today, Sudan which potentially is very rich, is on the United Nations list of the Least Developed Countries in the world, known as LDC and ranks 139 in the UNDP's Human Development Index. It is an accepted fact that Darfur is underdeveloped, but no more so than much of the rest of Sudan, including Kordofan, the Nuba mountains, the east of Sudan, the South, and even the north of Sudan.

Therefore, justifying insurgency and armed struggle as means to redress marginalization is not a valid justification here. Sympathy by major powers of our time to such insurgencies would be at the expense of the fledgling nation-state in Africa and some other parts of the developing world.

Although the whole country is underdeveloped, considerable progress has taken place in the region in all areas and the following table reflects a part of this development. Politically, Darfurians are well represented: they comprise government ministers, state governors and are members of the supreme and constitutional courts.

The irony is that, while claiming lack of development as the cause of their movement, the rebels are repeatedly attacked key development and infrastructure projects. In March 2003 they attacked the school examination center in Tina and stole the examination papers, which adversely affecting tens of thousands of school students and their families. In June 2004 rebel attacks stopped work on an emergency water supply project in El-fasher.

WHO ARE THE JANJAWEED?
"THE EVERYTHING, AND NOTHING"


The Janjaweed is a term that in short means a "jinn" or devil on horseback. It is not a new term, it has been in use for the last two decades. Originally it was a term to define a high-way robber, riding a horse or camel, carrying a gun or a rifle. Before this tragedy it had no ethnic or racial significance. Anyone, African, Arab, or whatever could be a Janjaweed - if he is on a horseback or camelback carrying a rifle and attacking people on highways.

Part of the recent propaganda campaign has been to give this term a new dimension, confined to Arab nomads in the region who are deliberately provoked by the rebels (by stealing their live stock) to focus their wrath against the tribes the rebels are drawn from. This is how burning, looting and other crimes have been committed.

The "Janjaweed" have no political organization or agenda, and included many who have exploited the conflict for their criminal end. It is very difficult to track them, since they included elements from all cultural groups in the area. Once they concluded their criminal attacks, they disappeared into their respective communities. Complicating this was the fact that decades of inter-marriage had made nonsense of any clear ethnic distinction between the so-called Arab and African in Darfur. It must be noted never the less that many Janjaweed had been caught, convicted and jailed.

Executive Summary of Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Allegations of Human Rights Violations by Armed Groups In Darfur, Western Sudan

1- Background:

H.E. President of the Republic Omar Hassan Ahmed El Bashir has issued Decree 2004/97 establishing this Commission headed by former Chief Justice Dafaa Alla El. Haj Yousef. The Commission's mandate was to find facts and collect information on alleged violations of human rights by armed groups in Darfur sates, determine causes of violations when established and possible resulting damage to lives and property. The Commission of Inquiry of 1954. Final report of the Commissions was submitted to H.E. the president of the Republic with the following findings and recommendations.

2- The Commission held 65 meetings, head 288 testimonies and visited all Darfur states several times where it inspected 30 areas believed to have been crime scenes. It met, inter alia, with local authorities and officials of different relief organizations and NGOs

3- The Commission requested and received all documents concerning its mandate and got acquainted with all relevant reports made by missions that visited Sudan from the UN, the African Union, the Organization of Islamic Conference, the Arab League and other organizations. It carefully considered all reports issued by international Human Rights Organizations, including reports made by he Geneva based Commission on Human Rights.

4- Furthermore, the Commission reviewed the decisions made by U.S. Congress, the European Community and the UN Security Council, in Addition to the minutes of talks between the government and armed opposition groups.

5- The Commission contacted armed groups to arrange a joint meeting whenever and wherever they decide in order to listen to their viewpoints, but they gave no favorable response.

6- Whenever means are available, the Commission made written, audio, video and photographic documentation of its
activities.

7- To fulfill its mandate, the Commission had to consider the geographical and historical background of Darfur. This region which has common borders with three neighboring states and more than 80 tribes witnessed considerable demographic and environmental changes due to disastrous waves of drought and desertification. Current events in Darfur essentially reflect these factors, in addition to the irrational politicization of the problem which gave it such an international dimension.

8- Darfur region which represents one firth of the total area of Sudan has a population of nearly 6 million people. It's the homeland of many tribes of Arab and African origins which inter-married and intermingled, culturally and ethnically, for centuries and formed today's unique society in Darfur.

9- Natural diversity in the region resulted in diverse economic activities and means of living, yet farming and cattle raising are the main activities beside cross-border trade.

10- Well-established customs and traditions, where tribes live in specific tribal lands, govern Land tenure in Darfur. Land tenure is closely related to the concept and exercise of authority under various designations. It's also dependent on the nature of economic activities and pastoral tribes' quest for pasture and water.

11- Tribes in Darfur co-existed in relative peace for centuries with sporadic conflicts over natural resources between nomad and sedentary tribes. These conflicts never degenerated in the past and had always been settled through tribal reconciliation conferences organized by the civil Administration under the auspices of the state. Hence, a set of customs and traditions were established to orchestrate tribal relations and activities, This consisted a unique culture feature of Darfur and tribes, regardless of their background, have realized the need to co-exist as no ethnic group can root out the other. The Commission noted that such conflict occurred even between tribes of common origins.

12- It's noteworthy that the local Administration was an essential stabilization factor in the region, considering the key role it played in settlement of conflicts and its collaboration in this respect with the concerned authorities. Unfortunately the dissolution of this Administration in 1970 created an administrative and security vacuum that aggravated these conflicts and led to acute tribalism. As a result of the consequent political polarization, such conflicts gained national dimensions related to issues of marginalization and sharing of power and wealth.

13- The deterioration of economic development and services in Darfur due to factors mentioned in the Commission's report, the administrative instability, the suspension of major development projects, unemployment and the widespread of weapons and ease to obtain them, in addition to political instability in neighboring Chad, have nourished the "culture of violence" in Darfur. This tendency let outlawed individuals from different tribal backgrounds to form semi-organized armed groups, locally referred to as jangaweed and other similar groups, They were responsible for the widespread of looting and smuggling in the 80s. This climate of insecurity forced many tribes to organized-armed groups and form defensive coalitions. The President of the Republic interfered in several occasions to create mechanisms that are capable of reestablishing law and order and State authority.

14- This fluid situation, the revolt against State's authority, conflicting administrative measures taken to deal with the problem without giving due consideration to immediate and future implications, particularly with respect to land tenure, in addition to the impact of civil war in the South and SPLA's attempts to bring the populations of remote states under the banner of the "New Sudan", have transformed these local conflicts into issues of a national dimension. The conflict between rival groups and the State started on an intellectual basis and ended up in armed confrontations which claimed the lives of nearly 500 policemen. The resulting security vacuum and other factor, including the ambitions of some groups to establish a predominant entity, gave this issue an unprecedented political and international aspect.

15- The offensive launched by armed opposition against major towns in the region, their assaults against Armed Forces which caused considerable loss of lives and property, the destruction of public facilities and prosecutors, in additions to the killing of civilians and relief workers, necessitated the interaction of Armed Forces to reestablish law and order. These actions, which triggered the current ordeal, made some of the tribes fearful of potential aggressions and resulted serious violations of human rights.

16- Wide media coverage of those incidents drew the attention of international human rights organiza- tions, but some of these relied on politically motivated information provided by inaccurate and contradictory sources. Thus, some individual states within the UN took advantage of allegations to accuse Sudan of committing ethnic cleansing genocide and organized acts of rape.

17- Accordingly, the Commission initiated its facts finding efforts and listed alleged violations of human rights and crimes against humanity. Investigation procedures involved extensive hearings, visits to alleged crime scenes, review of relevant documents and testimonies under oath.

18- Upon careful evaluation of the aforementioned elements and discussions in the light of International Human Rights Law, provisions of the international Humanitarian Law, the Statue of the International Criminal Court and relevant historical case laws, the Commission reached the following conclusions:

1- There were indeed serious violations of human rights which involved all belligerent parties.

2- Compared with documented crimes of genocide elsewhere in the world, that happened in Darfur, in spite of its gravi- ty, does not constitute such a crime. It has not been established that any specific group had sustained physical or mental damage or been purposely subjected to living conditions leading to its total or partial annihilation.

3- The Commission has established that the description of events in Darfur as genocide was merely due to the overes timation of the death toll.

4- Furthermore, the Commission has established that some civilians lost their lives in air bombardments when Armed Forces inflicted collateral damage as civilians were used as shields by rebel groups and victims received due compensations.

5- The Commission realized that armed opposition groups were responsible for killing unarmed civilians and wounded soldiers.

6- In this prevailing climate of hostility, the Commission found that various tribes committed acts of killing.

7- Killing of civilians in all the above mentioned cases violated common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

8- Acts of killing and their accompanying circumstances which amounted to violation of the said Article, are not viewed by the Commission as a crime of genocide.

9- There were reports of arbitrary executions and the Commission recommended further investigations into allegations not substantiated beyond doubt (para. 16 of the report).

10- The Commission conducted investigations on crimes of rape and sexual abuse and heard many testimonies, including from alleged victims.

11- The Commission found that crimes of rape and sexual abuse had been committed, but they were not systematic or widespread to be viewed as a crime against humanity. Relevant investigations have led to the accusation of few persons, including 10 of the Regular Forces. Most of these crimes were individually motivated in this climate of lawlessness. The Commission noted that most women in Darfur were unaware of the legal and linguistic significance of the word "rape", as they believed it merely meant the use of violence.

12- Forced displacement, as a component of ethnic cleansing is the removal of an ethnic or linguistic group with predominant culture from a legally owned land. Throughout history, ethnic cleansing was related to the concept of the "Nation State" and constituted a crime against humanity.

13- Accordingly, the commission visited several areas where forced displacement was alleged to have occurred. Investigations have shown that a group of non-Arab tribes was forced to leave two predominantly Arab villages. The Commission recommended further investigation as this incident, if true, constitutes a serious unprecedented act.

14- The Commission visited many villages that were burnt down. Statements by local officials and evidences showed that all belligerent parties are to blame for the burning or villages. The villages were deserted as people fled to seek refuge in camps close to areas with different services. The Commission found that allegations of ethnic cleansing were not substantiated.

15- Incidents in Darfur caused widespread panic, horror and massive movement of people to refugees' camps.

16- The current situation in Darfur, with all its implications in terms of human suffering and international repercussions, was the result of viewing the problem in a wider context that omits its local aspects and origins. Misconceptions adopted by some states to exercise pressure on Sudan are being reviewed as the international community realized the need to tackle the roots of the conflict rather than its aftermath.

17- Based on meticulous investigations, the commission found that death toll form all sides, including the armed Forces, amounted to few thousands, contrary to exaggerated figures circulated by international media and organizations.

18- In efforts to evaluate the deplorable loss of lives and property, the Commissions received relevant reports from national and local authorities. It recommended the establishment of a special judicial committee to further investigate civilian property losses.

[Photo?] Raised in a culture of war - Souk in Alfashier. The children of Darfur are raised within the 'culture of war', sadly enough. A little boy holding up a toy bomb.

19- The Commission's recommendations met international support and recognition, including through statements made by the president of African Union and western media. Recommendations were also supported by clear evidence that a considerable number of the national Armed forces personnel are from the very same tribes alleged to have been victims of genocide in Darfur.

20- It's worth mentioning that the government has exerted strenuous efforts to contain the situation prior to the escalation of events. It organized several tribal conferences, and send high level delegations composed of Fur and Zagawa tribal leaders, in order to negotiate a peaceful settlement with armed groups other senior government officials were also negotiating with armed Opposition groups just few days before rebels attack against the town of Al Fasher in April 2003.

21- The Commission has established the involvement of some members of the Chadian Army in the conflict.

22- The causes of this conflict, as determined by the Commission, require effective administrative and judicial arrangements. The Commission recommended the establishment of judicial investigation Commissions to consider the following:

(a)- Allegations of extra judicial executions.

(b)- Expropriation of two Fur tribe villages by Arab groups. Al though a relevant administrative investigation Commission was set up by South Darfur State Governor.

(c)- Investigation into incidents of killing and burning of the wounded in hospitals. The first Vice President of the Republic H.E. Ali Osman Mohammed Taha was mandated to follow up the execution of these recommendations. The Presidency of the Republic, in consultation with Chief Justice, has formed the following three committees:

(a)- Judicial investigation committee headed by member of the high Court Hon, Mohammed Abd Al Raheem.

(b)- Damage assessment committee headed by the judge of the high court Hon. Hussein Abulgasim.

(c)- Administrative committee headed by the Police Force Gen. Eltayeb Abd Al Raheem.

(d)- Other measures.

DEATH TOLL IN DARFUR: THE POLITICS OF NUMBERS

NEWS STORY / Wednesday, April 27, 2005 (WASHINGTON, D.C., 04:27:2005):

In March, 2004, USAID, in a briefing replete with colorful diagrams, estimated that by the Fall of 2004, between 300,000 and 400,000 people would lose their lives in the conflict in Darfur, regardless of international aid efforts. At that time they cited malnutrition as the likely cause of the majority of the deaths. The AID Agency attributed the numbers to "scientific methodology", without further elaboration. This estimate was clearly a prelude to the characterization of the Darfur tragedy as "genocide", an American claim that would soon follow. By the Fall of 2004, a figure of 50,000 surfaced. It was not well received by the self-styled and professional "Sudan watchers", so a figure of 70,000 was floated and attributed to the World Health Organization.

A delegation of the Arab Doctors Union visited all of the internally displaced peoples' camps in Darfur for a full month in the Fall of 2004. Their conclusions brought into serious question the WHO figures of 70,000 deaths, and as a result of their challenge, WHO representatives in Sudan and the Mediterranean region began to distance themselves from the figure, claiming that they had no knowledge of its source or origins.

In March 2005, the U.N. Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs visited Darfur and remarkably claimed that the casualties of the conflict had reached 180,000. When queried on the source of those numbers, he said "he was told" that was the figure! There was no further elaboration on who might have told him.

The Washington Post, for reasons known only to its editorial staff, has uniformly insisted on advancing the casualty figures in Darfur as being as many as 400,000. In an April 24, 2005 editorial, the paper refuted out of hand the figure of 60-160,000 deaths noted by the Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Zoellick, suggesting instead that the figures cited by the staunchest and most perennial Sudan critics, Dr. Eric Reeves and Mr. John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, were more accurate.

The Post did not provide any background on why their numbers should be taken as more reliable than those of the United States Government. These wildly swinging numbers claimed by the various interests groups united only in their deep animosity toward Sudan can have only one explanation - pure politics. Not only does the truth become yet another casualty in the tragedy of Darfur, but these exaggerations serve no purpose save that of encouraging the rebel groups to keep on fighting and thus preventing a real peace process in Darfur from gaining traction.

The cynicism involved makes it clear that topping the conflict is secondary to the goal of "keeping the pressure on Khartoum." It is high time that the American sense of honest, transparent goals and fair play replace the cynicism of the biased interest groups which have only served to prolong the tragedy.

RAPE CRIMES IN DARFUR FABRICATED REPORTS

Sudanvision May 9, 2005
The Sudanese authorities concerned are poised to file a case against " Medicin Sana Frontier " Holland for publishing reports that mislead the public opinion about rape crimes in Darfur and dodging the Sudanese authorities attempts to reveal those who made the report. That was asserted by one of Sudan Vision source's that stated: the organization published a report about rape crimes in Darfur on Marsh 8, 2005, which include fabricated information. They prepared their report and pub-lished it on a wide scale defaming Sudan and it's people. The source said, "it was a serious report that the United Nations Secretary General used and mentioned with in a whole paragraph in his statement for the United Nations General Assembly last April."Sudan Vision came to Know that Sudanese authorities, after protested by large sectors against defamation, demanded that the organization should reveal names of those who made the report and provided information, "but the started to procrastinate and protested that those who prepared the report were foreigners working in the organization and their names cannot be revealed", the source said.

They went to consult their headquarters in Amsterdam to have their opinion about the information they used in the report, but they continued to shirk accountability. The source continues." We requested that so that the information might be used in following up every one who is proved to be involved in such violations.

The source affirmed that authorities have decided to start filing cases against responsible figures in the organization under the charge of defaming Sudan and of hiding information, which caused serious harm to the country. He asserted the authorities have decided to put an end to fabricated and unfounded reports.

The Director of The World Health Organization (WHO):
Sensational Numbers Do not Help The Darfur Cause


The Financial Times - Letters Published: May 7 2005 03:00 From Prof Debarati Guha-Sapir, Director, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters, University of Louvain School of Public Health, 1200 Brussels, Belgium:

Sir, An unseemly fight has broken out in the US over how many have died in Darfur. The US government and, in particular, Robert Zoellick, assistant secretary of state, have been singled out for criticism for having deliberately played down the serious situation in western Sudan. The opposition struggle, led by the clearly energetic and driven Eric Reeves, a professor of literature from Massachusetts and self-described "non-epidemiologist", and a group called the Coalition for International Justice, claim the number dead in Darfur is more than 400 000 since September 2003.

They came to this number by asking about 1,000 refugees fleeing into Chad following a violent attack if they had seen anybody killed. Applying this proportion to all of Darfur's affected population (about 2.5m) for upwards of 26 months, the conclusion of 400,000 was reached. The State Department, from its own analysts, has put forward an estimate of 60,00 - 160,000 dead - a considerably lower estimate and closer to ones produced by our team in the WHO Collaborating Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). These are based on 30 statistically representative surveys done by professional statisticians and epidemiologists, taking into account how many would have died in Darfur anyway, without the war. The advocacy powers of Prof Reeves and CIJ are clearly stronger than their statistical ones. Deaths of 300,000- 400,000 are now quoted by the UK House of Commons, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and a series of respectable newspapers - including yours - making those who plod systematically through evidence and come up with less sensational figures look like uncharitable scrooges.

We are all convinced of the serious humanitarian need in Darfur and of the importance of pressing ahead with the peace agenda. Using badly constructed numbers for sensational attention does not help the cause. As everybody in the humanitarian game knows, numbers, alas, are rarely a triggering factor in giving humanitarian aid or initiating peace negotiations. But unsubstantiated figures and exaggerations are easily discredited and do the beleaguered Darfur population a great disservice. Europe and the US must continue - and indeed increase humanitarian aid - to Darfur, not because so many have died but because so many still live!

OF GENOCIDE OCCURRED?

In it's report to the Secretary General of the United Nations on January 25 2005, the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur Stated that, "The commission concluded that the gov- ernment of Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide."

The report goes " The crucial element of genocide intent appears to be missing, at least as far as the central Government authorities are con- cerned. Generally speaking the policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not evince a specific intent to annihi- late, in whole or in part , a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds. Rather, it would seem that those who planned and organized attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from their homes, primarily for purposes of counter-insurgency warfare."

DARFUR IN THE EYES OF A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER

Environmentalist Wangari Maathai who won the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize stated to The Washington Post on May 12, 2005 that:

"Darfur is an example of a situation where a dire scarcity of natural resources is manipulated by politicians for their own ambition. To outsiders, the conflict is seen as tribal warfare. At its roots, though, it is a struggle over controlling an environment that can no longer support all the people who must live on it. You must not deal only with the symptoms you have to get to the root causes by promoting environmental rehablitation and empowering people to do things for themselves. What is done for the people without involving them can not be sustained."

Source: www.sudanembassy.org
2210 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20008
Tel: 202.338.8565
Fax: 202.667.2406

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)