China's move to strengthen workers' rights is undermined by U.S. corporations

From A human rights weblog 20 Oct 2006:

Last week, the New York Times reported that U.S.-based corporations are trying to stop a proposed law that would protect Chinese workers.

China's new draft labor policy would crack down on sweatshop abuse and strengthen important human and labor rights by improving pay, treatment, health and safety, and other standards for Chinese workers.

However, U.S. corporations such as Wal-Mart, Google, UPS, Microsoft, Nike, AT&T, and Intel, acting through U.S. business organizations like the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and the U.S.-China Business Council are actively lobbying against the new labor legislation. And they're threatening to take their factories elsewhere.

Charming.

UN's Egeland to step down to spend more time with family

UN's Jan Egeland has announced his intention to step down this year, reports said Friday. "My contract lasts until March next year, but I have notified the UN Secretary General that I will leave my present position before the end of the year," Egeland told Oslo daily Aftenposten. - CFD

Arab League might be willing to dispatch troops to Darfur in lieu of UN force?

Jerry Fowler, in his blog entry Grasping at the Last Straw?, notes the Washington Post acknowledged that in the face of continuing Sudanese opposition, "the fact is that the United Nations is not going to fight its way into Darfur."

Since the Arab League might be willing to dispatch troops to Darfur in lieu of a UN force, Jerry wonders if the Arabs are in fact serious. Me too.

David Blair visits Djibouti: Foreign troops guard oil gateway

How many Western soldiers can you fit inside a tiny African country? This question ran through my mind as I had breakfast in Djibouti this morning...

There are Western troops all over the place.

Read more by David Blair at Telegraph Blogs 20 Oct 2006.

US's Rice affirms US commitment to ensuring Sudan's unity

AP report via International Herald Tribune - excerpt:

US special envoy Andrew Natsios finished a week-long visit to Sudan on Friday by saying he had pressed the government for an effective peacekeeping force and a political settlement in Darfur, as well as the "protection of non-combatants from further atrocities."

Oct 20 2006 KUNA:

US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice said on Friday that her country was committed to working with Sudan's government to ensure its unity, peace and stability.

In a letter to her Sudanese counterpart Lam Akol, Rice stressed that Washington would continue its efforts to ensure implementing the two accords relevant to implementing peace in Darfur and the southern region.

In a press statement, spokesman for Sudan's Foreign Ministry Ali Al-Sadeq quoted Rice's hope that US-Sudanese efforts would ensure peace in Darfur and support Sudan's unity.

Rice's letter came after a one-week visit to Sudan by US special envoy to Sudan Andrew Natsios who met with a number of officials, civic leaders and local societies.

Speaking to the press, Natsios said as this was his first visit to Sudan, he wanted to understand the situation by observing it, noting that he conveyed the US Administration's view that called for deploying UN forces in Darfur.

Natsios departed to Egypt to meet local officials and the Arab League's executives. Upon returning to the US, he would inform President George W. Bush and Rice about the visit's outcome.

Sudanese officials who met Natsios affirmed their cabinet's stance that rejected the notion of sending any international troops to Sudan, but they expressed the government's desire to continue talks with the US and international society.

Natsios was appointed by US President George W. Bush as Coordinator for International Disaster Assistance and Special Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan. He formerly headed the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

On August 31, the UN Security-Council (UNSC) issued resolution 1706 stipulating the deployment of international forces in Darfur to replace the African Union's troops whose mandate would expire at the end of 2006. Sudan's government rejected the resolution by saying the existence of such forces would threaten the nation's sovereignty.

Noble Prize Winning economist Muhammad Yunus lifts millions of people from poverty

Good news via Miss Mabrouk of Egypt:

The inspirational economist Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today for helping lift millions of his fellow Bangladeshis from poverty through a pioneering scheme that lends tiny amounts of money to the very poorest of borrowers.

Musa the Shoeshine Boy hasn't enough money to go to school in Juba, S Sudan

See Musa the Shoeshine Boy at Sudan Man blog.

New UN chief elected

Congratulations to the new UN Secretary General, the South Korean Ban Ki-moon, 62. [via Black Kush]

Sudan denies directing Janjaweed

Oct 18 2006 BBC report says a Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesman told the BBC his government was instead working hard to try to disarm the Janjaweed militia in Darfur.

The problem with Sudan. Part 1: the system - Decentralization is the answer?

How do you run a country of 2.5 million square km, 33.3 million people, 7 times the size of Germany, with more than 400 spoken languages and dialects, multiracial, and with lots of resources?

Managing the huge country from the center had been one gigantic failure. What the country had never tried is federation. Give the different regions the right to govern themselves in partial autonomy, but retain important ministries. I believe it is the best solution to a recurring phenomenon. Decentralization is the answer.

When each region runs its own affairs, none will think of breaking away as an independent state, hopefully.

Read more at Black Kush blog - The problem with Sudan. Part 1: the system.

EU leaders call on Sudan to accept UN force in Darfur

European Union leaders today called on Sudan to accept a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur.

"The UN operation is the only viable and realistic option for peacekeeping in Darfur," Finnish prime minister Matti Vanhanen said at a news conference during a one-day summit of European leaders. "We are all very deeply concerned about the situation."

Full story Evening Echo (Ireland) 20 Oct 2006.

UK's Blair urges push for Darfur ceasefire

UK International Development Secretary Hilary Benn has suggested that the Janjaweed might be getting help from the Sudanese government.

Full story PA via Guardian 20 Oct 2006.

Sudanese sovereignty integrity must be observed - Russia

See Free Republic's reprint of Sudan Tribune report 20 Oct 2006 - and comments.

Sudan asks Russia $1 billion military equipment loan

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held talks with Sudanese Defense Minister Abdelrahim Hussein on Thursday 19 October. The Sudanese official asked Russia to sell military jets and helicopters to his county.

Moscow has not given any reply yet.

Full story Sudan Tribune 20 Oct 2006.

Sudanese army declares UN's Pronk persona non grata

How ridiculous. Biting the hand that feeds you. Oct 20 2006 AFP report via Sudan Tribune - excerpt:

The Sudanese military declared UN special envoy Jan Pronk persona non grata, accusing him of "waging war against the armed forces," in the latest escalation in a war of words between Khartoum and the international community.

The general command accused Pronk, UN secretary general Kofi Annan's special representative (SRSG) in Sudan, of "openly intruding in the armed forces' affair".

It considers the envoy's presence and movements in Sudan "a military threat that adversely affects the performance of the armed forces and (he) has therefore become a persona non grata," a statement said.

It complained that the envoy had travelled around Sudan without government permission and dealt with rebel groups fighting the military in the western region of Darfur.

It also accused Pronk of "waging psychological warfare on the armed forces by propagating erroneous information that casts doubts about the capability of the armed forces in maintaining security and defending the country."

On Wednesday, the United Nations's daily Sudan internet bulletin spoke of mounting tensions between Pronk and the military over his reporting of setbacks for the army in Darfur.

"On October 17, the Sudan armed forces (SAF) spokesman strongly criticized SRSG Pronk describing him as "aggressive and lacking credibility," the bulletin said.

"This came about following the SRSG's recent statements on SAF suffering heavy losses in Darfur," it added.

"The spokesperson commented that the SAF are currently fighting Chadian troops who use helicopters to support the rebels with munitions. Further he denied the occurrence of mutiny among SAF troops."

Pronk was reported to have said that the army had suffered two defeats and lost hundreds of troops in fighting with rebels in North Darfur, that several generals had been sacked and that the army was being forced to turn to its feared Janjaweed militia allies as troops were refusing to go to the front.

A senior general called for Pronk's swift deportation.

"The presence of Jan Pronk in the Sudan constitutes a threat to the Sudan's national security and an immediate decision for his deportation from the Sudan should therefore be taken," former armed forces spokesman General Mohammed Beshir Suleiman told the official SUNA news agency.

The envoy "has gone beyond the boundaries of his responsiblilities and duties," said Suleiman, charging that Pronk was abusing his position to attempt to force Sudan to accept a UN Security Council resolution authorising the despatch of 20,000 UN peacekeepers to Darfur to replace an African Union force.

"The envoy, with this statement, intended to prove that the armed forces and the African Union forces have failed in keeping peace and that the national army is incapable of protecting the civilians against rebel attacks, and thus to pave the way for implementation of Resolution 1706," he said.

The United Nations comprises 191 countries. Anyone working for the UN at Jan Pronk's level is bound to be a decent hardworking person, trying their best to help broker peace. Sudan ought to be grateful to Jan Pronk and the UN. Overall, it seems to me, the Sudanese aren't doing themselves any favours in the world's media spotlight, making themselves appear stupid and unappreciative, lacking in empathy. Morons and barbarians, still living in the Dark Ages.

UN's Pronk is a danger for Sudan's national security - army

Sudan Tribune attributes the following report to Xinhua.

UN's Pronk is a danger for Sudan's national security - army - Oct 19, 2006 (KHARTOUM) - The Sudanese army said that Jan Pronk, the pecial representative of the UN Secretary General Koffi Annan in Sudan, was not welcomed, indicating that he constitute a danger of the national security.

In a statement on Thursday, the High Command of the Sudanese Armed Forces condemned that "the flagrant interference of Pronk in the Sudanese army's affairs which is equivalent to a war against the army".

It stressed that "Pronk's existence and his movements, including his contacts with the rebels and his visits without the Sudanese government's approval, constitute a military danger which has negatively affected the army's work."

The statement also accused the UN top envoy in Sudan of launching a psychological war on the Sudanese army by spreading fabricated false information doubting the army's capability to maintain the security and stability of the country.

Meanwhile, a retired army officer Lieutenant General Mohammed al-Bashir Suleiman told the official SUNA news agency that Pronk's recent remarks on the Sudanese army had "obviously over passed its authority and responsibility", calling on the government to take firm steps to expel Pronk from Sudan.

He stressed that Pronk statement comes as part of general plan aiming to serve the objectives of international powers that pushed for the adoption of UN resolution 1706 and insist on its implementation in Darfur.

The mains purpose of Pronk's speech is to lay the road of the implementation of UN resolution 1706 by insisting on the incapacity of the Sudanese state to protect its population from the attacks of the armed rebel groups, the Sudanese army spokesperson explained.

Pronk wrote in his personal weblog on Saturday that the Sudanese army had lost two major battles in Darfur, one in Umm Sidir last month and the other in Karakaya last week, and suffered heavy casualties.

The Sudanese army was probably receiving support from Chadian rebels on Sudanese soil, while the Darfurian rebel groups were supported by the Chadian authorities, he added.

To read Pronk's comment please go at : http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article18192

(ST/Xinhua)

Note the report quotes a Sudanese army spokesperson as saying: "The Sudanese army was probably receiving support from Chadian rebels on Sudanese soil, while the Darfurian rebel groups were supported by the Chadian authorities." Right now, maybe it is too late at night and I need to sleep, I can't get my head around that statement.

BBC's repentant Janjaweed is a fraud - Sudan

Sapa-AFP report via IOL 19 Oct 2006 - excerpt:

Khartoum - Khartoum denied ever supporting Darfur's feared Janjaweed militia on Thursday and charged that a repentant militiaman who described the regime's atrocities to British media was not credible.

"This individual has made declarations in the hope of being granted political asylum in Britain and I believe this weakens his credibility," foreign ministry spokesman Ali al-Saddek told reporters.

The BBC detailed Sudanese government support for the Janjaweed Wednesday, citing an interview with a former militiaman now living in London who admitted killing innocent civilians in Darfur.

"The government supports no armed militia in Darfur and is cooperating with the United Nations and other organisations to restore peace and security," Saddek said, reiterating the regime's longstanding denials that it sponsored the Janjaweed.

"On the contrary, the government is bent on disarming them,"

For his part, State Minister for Humanitarian Affairs Ahmed Mohammed Haroun charged that the report "was part of a campaign aimed at deploying international forces in Darfur".

Excerpts: Ex-Janjaweed fighter story (BBC)

A former member of Sudan's pro-government militias, the Janjaweed, has told the BBC's Newsnight programme that ministers in Khartoum gave orders for the activities of his unit in the Darfur region, which included killings and rape. Click here for excerpts of the interview with ex-fighter "Ali", who is now living in London.

Read more via Eric Reeves' commentary at Guardian's Comment is Free, entitled Death in Darfur. [via CFD with thanks]

Salva Kiir and al-Mirghani to mediate with Darfur rebels

Big news. The first Vice President Salva Kiir Mayadrit and the Chairperson of the National Democratic Alliance Mohamed Osman al-Mirghani will lead a Sudanese initiative hold a new round of talks with Darfur hold rebels in Asmara.

Full story ST 17 Oct 2006.

UN's Pronk outlines Darfur rebel groups

Jan Pronk - Weblog 14 Oct 2006:

The rebel movements in Darfur are utterly divided amongst themselves. A month or two ago (weblog nr 32) I described how a number of rebel movements had emerged as splinter factions of those who started the war in 2003. The Abuja talks began with two movements: the Sudanese Liberation Front (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). At the end of the talks there were three, because the SLM had split into two factions, one of them led by Minnie Minawi, who had signed the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) and the other by Abdul Wahid, who had refused to do so. Five months after the signing of the DPA we can count at least eight movements. Abdul Wahids faction split further into four: the SLM Free Will, which associated itself with the DPA; the SLM Classic, led by Abdul Shafei, who rejects the agreement, but seems to be more pragmatic; the G19 who revolted against Abdul Wahid in Abuja, and the remainder of the original SLM, still led by Abdul Wahid.

The JEM split into two. One of them, the JEM Peace Wing, together with the SLM Free Will, has associated itself with the DPA. The other one, still led by Khabril, remains the hard-core ideological opponent, co-financing the armed struggle by those movements which did not only refuse to sign, but are also willing to fight, despite the fact that their mother movements had signed more than one cease fire agreement.

Finally there is the New Redemption Front (NRF), a cluster of groups with quite some armed strength on the ground. They were the first to start a new battle against the Government, initially in West Kordofan, but since end July also continuously in North Darfur. The front was originated by the JEM, with armed support from the G19. In particular since the emergence of the NRF we have seen various Renversements des Alliances. Some of these were proclaimed by rebel leaders in the diaspora, including Khalil in Paris and Abdul Wahid in Asmara. Others are based on rumors. Both proclamations and rumors are frequently denounced. But there is also pragmatic cooperation between rebel groups in case of attacks by militia or by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). Commanders of the SLA/Abdul Shafei told me, during my visit to the Jebel Mara last week, that they had been able to withstand an offensive by the SAF with the help of the NRF, which had directly responded to their request for assistance. Presently in the western part of North Darfur, close to the Chadian border, there is much fighting between the SAF and a combination of the G19, the JEM and the NRF. But it seems to be a rather loose coalition, because not all three components participate in all fights.

The pattern is not clear. However, some trends emerge.

First, the SAF has lost two major battles, last month in Umm Sidir and this week in Karakaya. The losses seem to have been very high. Reports speak about hundreds of casualties in each of the two battles, many wounded soldiers and many taken as prisoner. The morale in the Government army in North Darfur has gone down. Some generals have been sacked; soldiers have refused fighting. The Government has responded by directing more troops and equipment from elsewhere to the region and by mobilizing Arab militia. This is a dangerous development. Security Council Resolutions which forbid armed mobilization are violated. The use of militia with ties with the Janjaweed recalls the events in 2003 and 2004. During that period of the conflict systematic militia attacks, supported or at least allowed by the SAF, led to atrocious crimes. Moreover, a confrontation with Chad is not impossible. It seems that SAF is receiving support from Chadian rebels on Sudanese soil, while the NRF/JEM/G19 coalition is supported by Chadian authorities.

Second, the fighting amongst rebel groups has decreased. It started soon after the signing of the DPA, in particular between SLA/Minnie Minnawi and SLA/Abdul Wahid, and also with the G19. Presently the SLA/Minnie Minnawi seems to restrict itself to a defensive posture. His forces even withdraw if there is a risk of being attacked. However, this may be only a temporary phenomenon. Further splits within the movements are bound to result in internal fights. Commanders on the ground get disconnected from each other and from the leadership of their movement. During my recent visit to the Jebel Mara I was struck by the total distrust between commanders of SLA/Abdul Wahid and SLA/Minnie Minnawi, accusing each other to take sides with ‘enemies’, including even the Government. To us, having regular and intensive contacts with all of them, this seems preposterous, but rumors are easily believed in Darfur.

Third, the Government has benefited from this rather chaotic pattern in various ways. It has been able to bar rebel groups that did not sign the DPA, including those who had given up fighting, from participating in the DPA institutions, in particular the Cease Fire Commission (CFC). In this way the Sudanese Armed Forces, together with Arab militia, can continue to attack non-signatory parties, without risking that such a violation of the DPA will be raised in the CFC, let alone condemned and sanctioned. The Government has also made use of the general confusion by making secret overtures to some of these groups, irrespective of their stance. It is also trying to persuade prominent individual members of these groups, is it intellectuals or commanders, to associate themselves with the DPA through the Government. This provides these individuals with some status – and promises. However, the result is that these people get marginalized and are regarded as enemies by the movements to which they used to belong. All this adds to the chaotic pattern at the political front.

A series of initiatives to organize a conference in order to bring the various rebel movements together is the fourth phenomenon. The SLM/Abdul Shafei wing intends to organize such a conference in the Jebel Mara, in order to re-unite the SLM and to elect a new leadership. However, Abdul Wahid refuses to participate and Minnie Minnawi will not be invited. Some Western countries try to organize a similar conference, but only for non-signatories who have not taken up arms. Western countries were the first to label non-signatories as ‘outlaws’ that should be punished for their refusal to sign. They also insisted on the exclusion of these movements from the Cease Fire Commission. This attitude may turn out to be a handicap, but this can be overcome by diplomacy and guarantees. A greater handicap, however, will be an exclusion of the still fighting parties. These parties are the core of a third effort, this time made by the Government of Eritrea. Eritrea is trying to unite all movements behind the NRF. It aims at a central role in the next stage of the peace process, like it presently is playing in the negotiations, in Asmara, about East Sudan. To many parties as well as to the Government, this initiative lacks credibility.

These are the main initiatives. As said above, the Government is taking some initiatives itself. But these seem more oriented at a strengthening of its own position by means of a divide and rule policy than by the wish to have a strong and fully representative partner in negotiations that should lead to a sustainable solution, undisputed by a third party.

In my talks in with rebel leaders and with commanders in Darfur I have stressed that the UN can only associate itself with an initiative that is fully inclusive and wholly oriented towards peace. One might aim at talks and conferences in stages, but any deal from which parties are excluded would be flawed. Any exclusion of a movement is sowing the seeds for a renewed outbreak of violence. Any conference that has as its main objective to build a stronger warring coalition, in order to expand zones under control of the movements, will only result in wrecking the DPA. It may be necessary to make a new beginning with the peace talks, in order to renovate the peace agreement and instill confidence amongst the people of Darfur, but that cannot be done starting from a wreck.

It is important to keep what has been achieved, rather than throw away the child with the bathwater. The rebel movements seem to underestimate how far the DPA, if implemented, would restrict the Government of Sudan in a possible further abuse of its power. The agreed principles and institutions of the peace agreement would also provide a credible basis for a sustainable solution of the tribal conflicts in Darfur. These are still rampant. As a matter of fact they became more violent when the tribes discovered that DPA institutions like the Cease Fire Commission, the Darfur Darfur Dialogue and the reconstruction program were lame bodies. Since June this year most of the fighting in North Darfur and the Jebel Mara took place between the movements, the SAF and militia. In South Darfur, however, the fights were mainly of a tribal character. These too led to hundreds of people killed. Many serious efforts to reconcile the tribes with the help of traditional justice systems have been initiated by the Government of South Darfur. However, as long as there is not a sustainable peace at the political front, these reconciliations are not effective. The tribal conflicts are politically motivated and the political conflict has acquired tribal dimensions, in particular since the fragmentation of the rebel movements. Tribes try to settle their accounts or to finish a job, by putting to flight the last people of other tribes who are living in an area which they claim as their homeland. Rebel factions try to strengthen their weakened position on the ground by suppressing the population. The result is new tribal conflict, because the rebels and large parts of the population do belong to different tribes. All this has led to new tragedies in Gereida (where the mainly Zaghawa oriented SLM/Minnawi forces have clashed with parts of the Massaliet), in Buram.(where the Habanya, supported by the Falata, cleansed their homeland from the Zaghawa, which had come to this region in the 1970s, after the drought in North Darfur), in Sheria (where the Zaghawa had been driven out of the town and are still denied access, despite the peace between the Government and the Zaghawa based SLA/Minnie Minawi) and in Muhajeria, where the fighting continues and nobody knows who is fighting whom and for what reason.

During my last visit to South Darfur I saw some consequences: new displacements of people, desperate, because they did not know where their future lies; growing mistrust amongst the population in authorities, in rebel commanders as well as in the African Union. They feel totally unprotected. The Government in Khartoum seems to be blind for these developments. The standard reflex in Khartoum is to deny that a battle took place, to dismiss news about tribal clashes, to discredit the messenger, to belittle the number of casualties, to sketch a rosy picture of the implementation of the peace agreement, and to blame the international community for everything that goes wrong.