U.S. policy on Sudan - Remarks by Clinton, Rice, Gration

Following today's announcement (see TEXT: U.S. Sudan Policy - Obama unveils new Sudan strategy - Clinton: US to engage Sudan, warns on backsliding) here is a copy of an email just in, from U.S. State Department:

Sudan Updates: Remarks on the Sudan Strategy
Mon, 19 Oct 2009
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State
Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, U.S. Mission to the United Nations
Scott Gration, Special Envoy to Sudan
Washington, DC, October 19, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning. Good morning. Well, I’m very pleased to be joined today by our Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and the President’s Special Envoy to Sudan General Scott Gration. And let me begin by saying that the Sudan policy we are outlining today is the result of an intensive review across the United States Government that included the three of us, but many others as well. It reflects the Administration’s seriousness, sense of urgency, and collective agreement about how best to address the complex challenges that have prevented resolution of the crisis in Darfur and full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

President Obama and I have discussed this issue over many months and most recently over this past weekend. The fate of the Sudanese people is profoundly important to him, to me, to Ambassador Rice, to General Gration, and to our nation. Sudan is the largest country in Africa, one that has been torn by myriad religious, tribal, ethnic, racial, and political divisions for most of its half century of independence. During the past decade, genocide in Darfur and protracted violence and conflict between the North and South have claimed more than two million lives, subjected civilians to unspeakable atrocities, and led to mass human suffering.

While the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and South in 2005 was a historic step forward, Sudan today is at a critical juncture – one that can lead to steady improvements in the lives of the Sudanese people or degenerate into more conflict and violence.

An unstable Sudan not only jeopardizes the future of the 40 million people there. It can also be an incubator of violence and instability in an already volatile region, it can provide a safe haven for international terrorists, and trigger another humanitarian catastrophe that Sudan, its neighbors, and the world cannot afford. All too often, efforts to bring peace and stability to Sudan have been undermined by factionalism, broken peace agreements and cease-fires, and the involvement of regional states affected by the crisis.

For these reasons and others, we are realistic about the hurdles to progress. Achieving peace and stability in Sudan will not be easy, nor is success guaranteed. But one thing is certain: The problems in Sudan cannot be ignored or willed away. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option. It is up to us, and our partners in the international community, to make a concerted and sustained effort to help bring lasting peace and stability to Sudan and avoid more of the conflict that has produced a vast sea of human misery and squandered the potential and security of a vital region of the world.

Now, my views on the genocide in Darfur are well known. I have been speaking out and acting on this issue for a number of years. And the President also has spoken out about the genocide that’s taking place in Darfur. But at this point, the focus must be on how we move forward, and on finding solutions. Even while the intensity of the violence has decreased since 2005, the people of Darfur continue to live in unconscionable and unacceptable conditions.

So our focus is on reversing the ongoing, dire human consequences of genocide by addressing the daily suffering in the refugee camps, protecting civilians from continuing violence, helping displaced persons return to their homes, ensuring that the militias are disarmed, and improving conditions on the ground so that the people of Darfur can finally live in peace and security.

Our strategy has three principal objectives: First, an end to conflict, gross human rights abuses, war crimes, and genocide in Darfur; second, implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that results in a united and peaceful Sudan after 2011, or an orderly path toward two separate and viable states at peace with each other; and third, a Sudan that does not provide a safe haven for terrorists.

In the past, the United States’s approach too often has focused narrowly on emerging crises. This is no longer the case. Our effort sets forth a comprehensive U.S. policy toward Sudan.

First, we view the crisis in Sudan as two-fold: The situation in Darfur remains unresolved after six years. And the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between North and South will be a flashpoint for renewed conflict if not fully implemented through viable national elections, a referendum of self-determination for the South, resolution of border disputes, and the willingness of the respective parties to live up to their agreements. So we are approaching two key issues − Darfur and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement – simultaneously and in tandem.

Second, we are looking to achieve results through broad engagement and frank dialogue. But words alone are not enough.

Assessment of progress and decisions regarding incentives and disincentives will be based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground. Backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government and our international partners.

Third, we will use our leadership globally to reconstitute, broaden, and strengthen the multilateral coalition that helped achieve the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and we will work equally hard to translate international concern about Darfur into genuine international commitments.

Let me be clear: It is too late for talk, or idle promises, or delays over misperceptions and misunderstandings.

This crisis is both a responsibility and an opportunity for the international community to help steer Sudan along a path that can lead to stability and security for the people of Sudan, the region, and the world. It is also a responsibility and opportunity for the Sudanese people and their leaders to demonstrate their commitment to taking concrete steps toward durable peace. Anything short of that will destine Sudan to failure.

As I said earlier, this review has involved discussions among many members of the Administration, Congress, and outside experts. Now I’d like to call on Ambassador Rice and General Gration, both of whom have worked so hard on this issue, to offer their comments. Ambassador Rice, let me turn it over to you first.

AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you very much, Madame Secretary. It’s an honor to be with you and with General Gration for this important announcement.

I’d like to begin by expressing our appreciation to Scott for the exceptional commitment, energy, and integrity he’s brought to this critical work as Special Envoy for Sudan. And on a more personal note, though Scott and I have long been friends, I want to thank him especially for being the only man ever to testify before the Senate that he loves me. (Laughter.) He did. (Laughter.)

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: I cleared it with my wife. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Went through the clearance process. (Laughter.)

AMBASSADOR RICE: President Obama has repeatedly made clear that protecting civilians and forging lasting peace in Sudan is a top priority for his Administration. The President, like Secretary Clinton, has for many years been dedicated to ending the suffering and the genocide in Sudan. There was never any question that this deep commitment to improving the lives of the people of Sudan would be backed by a thoughtful and results-oriented strategy. I’m personally proud of the strategy that has emerged. It is the product of extensive deliberation, careful consideration of very complex challenges, and a lot of hard work by all of us on this stage and many others.

Let me underscore two core objectives of U.S. policy. First, as the Secretary said, to end the genocide that’s taking place in Darfur and to forge lasting peace for all Darfuris. And second, to support full and effective implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and the South. To meet these twin goals, the United States is prepared to work with all sides. We will employ calibrated incentives as appropriate and exert real pressure as needed on any party that fails to act to improve the lives of the people of Sudan. There will be no rewards for the status quo, no incentives without concrete and tangible progress. There will be significant consequences for parties that backslide or simply stand still. All parties will be held to account.

President Obama’s Sudan strategy is smart, tough, and balanced. It takes a clear view of history, which reminds us that for years, paths to peace have been littered with broken promises and unfulfilled commitments by the Government of Sudan. With both the lessons of the past and the opportunities of the future in mind, we embark on the challenging road ahead. Bringing about lasting peace and improving the lives of millions of people are daunting tasks. We understand the importance of effective and faithful implementation of our strategy, and we will use all elements of U.S. influence to transform our objectives into reality.

Let me conclude by underscoring this unrelenting truth. Too many lives have already been lost. Too many innocents have suffered immeasurably. Too much human dignity has been denied. Too much hatred has been sown. This painful reality drives the President’s commitment and our shared efforts to work to bring the Sudanese people the peace, security, and freedom they so deserve.

Thank you very much, and now, General Scott Gration.

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, Ambassador Rice, it’s really an honor to be able to share this podium with you this morning. Secretary Clinton’s words are so very true. The challenges in Sudan are complex and serious. Success will require a unified approach, a renewed sense of urgency. The President’s Sudan strategy provides that approach, that resolve.

The strategy is comprehensive and integrated. It’s focused on fully implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on achieving a broad and sustainable peace in Darfur. The strategy uses all elements of our nation’s influence – diplomacy, defense, development – to bring about a stability, a security, human rights, opportunities for a better future in Sudan. Our strategy aims to give the people of Sudan a country that is governed responsibly, justly, and democratically, a country that’s at peace with itself and with its neighbors. The United States Government is committed to creating an environment where the Sudanese people themselves can make positive changes for their future.

We’re acutely aware of the urgency of our task and the shortness of our timeline. We have only six months until Sudan’s national elections take place. The referendum on self-determination is only 15 months away. Success requires frank dialogue with all parties in Sudan, with the regional states and international community. We all must work together to get tangible results on the ground, to achieve a lasting peace, a better life for future generations of Sudanese. And we must not stop until our task is complete. The tragedies of Darfur, past and present, the threat of new violence in the South and North call for immediate action.

The people of Sudan have suffered terribly from the pain and loss that conflict brings, and millions continue to suffer today. It is for these people that we strive to produce verifiable progress on the ground. It’s for them that we’ll endeavor to generate positive change that they can experience. We have no option but to succeed. Working together, I believe we will. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. Thank you, Scott and thank you, Susan, and the three of us would be willing and welcoming of your questions.

MR. CROWLEY: Jill.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, can you tell us, ultimately, what are these calibrated incentives and the real pressure that you can exert? And also could I ask, on Mr. Karzai, the word now is that he is refusing a runoff, there might be a prospect of the coalition government. What is the latest that you are hearing from him? And how is this going to affect this very important timing in moving forward on these election results?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jill, with respect to the second question, I would like to get back to you on that. We really would hope to stay focused on Sudan, because this is such an important issue for so many people, and literally millions of people are kind of waiting to hear what we have to say on it. But I will certainly get back to you. I spent a lot of time over the last several days, as you know, working on this and I’d like to bring you and others up to date on that.

But let me just say with respect to Sudan, we have a very clear measure of whether or not the changes we are pursuing are being implemented, and that is whether conditions on the ground are changing and improving. We have a menu of incentives and disincentives, political and economic, that we will be looking to, to either further progress or to create a clear message that the progress we expect is not occurring. But we want to be somewhat careful in putting those out. They are part, in fact, of a classified annex to our strategy that we’re announcing the outline of today.

But suffice it to say, and let me underscore, that both incentives and disincentives based on changes in conditions are what we intend to employ going forward.

MR. CROWLEY: Mary Beth.

QUESTION: Thank you. Good morning, Secretary Clinton.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning.

QUESTION: When President Obama was a candidate, he talked about imposing additional sanctions on Sudan to try to get them to move forward, and also discussed a no-fly zone. I’m wondering what has happened to those ideas that he put forth very forcefully.

And a second question, if I could, for General Gration. You’ve talked about the genocide as essentially being over. You’ve suggested taking Sudan off the terrorism list. I’m wondering, did you sort of lose out in this debate that’s occurred on Sudan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that we don’t see winners and losers in this debate. We see collective agreement among many people with long and broad experience and concern about Sudan. And I’m very proud to be standing here with two of the principal architects of the strategy that we are rolling out today. So I think that – I know it’s kind of the typical sort of Washington back and forth, but I want to underscore how strongly we adhere to this new strategy. And the President, the principals, the deputies, all of the interagency process that hashed out this approach are fully on board in our going forward to implement it, and fully confident and supportive of Scott Gration’s work.

I think too that the sanctions issue is certainly part of our strategy. And I believe that the President’s commitment to sanctions as one of the tools that we have to employ in dealing with the leadership in Sudan is as important to our overall strategy today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. We want to take a hard look at these sanctions to make sure they are producing the kind of changes in conditions that we’re looking for. But it is a tool, and it’s a tool that we have employed and we will continue to employ.

Scott, do you want to respond?

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: Sure. I just want to make sure everybody knows that I fully support this strategy, the comments that the Secretary and that Ambassador Rice have said. I will work diligently to implement the policies of this strategy. And we really have no option; people in Darfur continue to live in conditions that are dire and unacceptable. We must work every day to change those conditions on the ground. That’s what we’re committed to, that’s what the people deserve, and that’s what I will do.

MR. CROWLEY: Andy.

QUESTION: Yeah. Secretary Clinton, you mentioned that you’re – you will be judging this policy based on your assessment of whether or not things are changing on the ground. I’m wondering if you can give us a sense of how you’re going to make that judgment. On what information are you going to rely? The Ambassador spoke about backsliding and obfuscation on the part of the Khartoum Government in the past. How are we going to feel confident that we’re getting the right information going forward on what actually is happening on the ground?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well – and I’ll let Susan add to this – but that’s why we are focused on outcomes and verifiable changes. There have been, as you rightly point out, lots of promises made, there have been white papers, there have been commissions. There have been all kinds of promises and agreements that have not been fulfilled. We’re looking past that. This is going to be a very results-oriented analysis that we’re engaged in. And there’s a lot of ways of measuring that.

And one of the reasons why Scott is spending so much time both in Sudan and the region is to enlist our international partners in helping us to measure the kind of progress that we all hope to see. The urgency, as he pointed out, is acute. The elections are coming up. The referendum is coming up. And there are many aspects of how we try to secure a credible, legitimate election, how we try to help the Sudanese, both South and North, prepare for the referendum.

In Darfur, we are looking to help unite a lot of the disparate groups so that there can be a stronger voice on the ground about what’s needed. Scott helped to negotiate a return of NGOs to help alleviate the suffering in the camps. I mean, there’s many different factors that have to be taken into account, but we’re way beyond just taking anybody at their word or their stated commitment. We want to see results that we can point to.

Susan, do you want to add?

AMBASSADOR RICE: I would just add that we have many different sources of information, more so than in the past. Obviously, we have a substantial American presence throughout Sudan. Other partners have a presence as well. We now have two substantial United Nations forces on the ground that do a lot of observation and reporting and monitoring on violations, and so we received that information as well through the Security Council and other channels. And the human rights – the High Commissioner for Human Rights also has a person that will remain in the position of reporting on what occurs on the ground.

So we have many sources. We’re in contact with all the parties. And I have every confidence that our challenge will not be lack of information.

QUESTION: Yes. Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Rice, and Envoy Gration, all of you have mentioned that too many people have been suffering. And I think the sentence applied to nearly five million people living in the refugee camps. And I will get you back to a comment Secretary Powell one day said here, that the only thing these people need is to be sent home, and they know how to take care of themself.

It’s been more than five years now. The situation is dire. New kids are born there, no school, no healthcare. They all are divided and it’s very difficult to unite them as we are following your effort, Special Envoy Gration. And also the government in Sudan hasn’t produced any solution to this.

Don’t you think there is a sense of urgency to get these people back and secure their villages, and to get them back to their villages? And then, you wait to see when the political settlement will come to this, as we all – we don’t know when that will happen.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, certainly, we are well aware of the difficulty of our goals here to work on behalf of the people of Sudan for a better future, peace, and stability. And that is one of the reasons why this strategy clearly integrates our approach to Darfur and our approach on the North-South. These are two critically important aspects of the overall challenge that Sudan faces and they can’t be treated separate from one another. They have to be treated in this integrated approach that we are advocating. And we are, of course, doing all we can in our strategic approach to empower the people of Sudan to solve their own problems. That’s what the election is about, that’s what the referendum is about. But we are conscious of how difficult this will be. We don’t expect quick or easy solutions to these quite complex problems. But we are working to try to create the conditions on the ground that will lead to both better lives for individual Sudanese, but also a potential environment in which a political settlement of all of these various problems could be achieved.

Scott, do you want to add to that?

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: Sure. Security is the number one issue that we are facing that’s keeping people from going back. And we support the efforts of the Chad Government and the Sudanese Government to end the tensions on the border and to stop that proxy war. We’re working very closely with UNAMID to ensure that it gets the forces and the capability that it needs, and they can provide some security. We’re also working with local forces to increase local security with the people of the camps themselves to try to improve security.

But we believe that we have to reach a position where the people can voluntarily return with their dignity and human rights, and live in security and stability. And until those conditions are met, we cannot have them go back. And so that’s what we’re trying to achieve. That’s what we’re working for in our efforts.

MR. CROWLEY: We have time for one more question. Charlie.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, can you talk about international contacts that have already been made? And specifically, have you – how much have the Chinese signaled a willingness to help or not? And secondly, can you talk about any new monies that you’re going to commit to this? Are you going to do this with whatever presently is there?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Charlie, I’ll have both Susan and Scott add to this. We have had intensive international outreach, both Susan at the UN, Scott in numerous meetings around the world, including one that he convened here in Washington, bringing together the international partners who have either already been involved or we wish to see more involved. During our meetings with the Chinese back in July, I raised it directly, seeking more support and a partnership that would result in some additional opportunities for us to influence the Sudanese Government.

So I’m going to ask Scott first to talk about what he’s been doing, because it’s extensive, and I’m not sure everybody knows, and then Susan to have the final word on the UN.

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: Thank you. We’ve worked in several venues to get international cooperation. We’ve put together a group, what we call the Envoy 6, and they include the envoys from the P-5 countries, plus the EU, and we meet regularly and exchange emails and VTCs. And that group has been very important. China and Russia, obviously, are part of that. And we continue to reach out to them on a consistent basis.

We also have a group called the contact group. It grew out of the donors. And we continue to meet with them not only to get the donations, but also to help us with policy and implementation issues. As you know, that – during the Nevasha discussions in 2005, the troika made up of the UK and Norway were very helpful. We’ve reconvened that group to help us not only with the implementation of the CPA, but also to help us as we work these negotiations on the sticky points like the census, the elections, and referendum.

So there’s a whole large group that includes EGAD countries, that includes neighbors, and it includes an international community that’s working very well together.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t doubt the willingness in the meetings, but how positive have the Chinese especially been in signaling a willingness to do what you want to do?

SPECIAL ENVOY GRATION: The Chinese have been very helpful. If you look at their objectives in the region, they require stability and security. And so there’s a great overlap. And while we might have differences in some of the tactical issues, certainly strategically, we have the same goals. We’re working very closely together and the Chinese have been very helpful in providing influence and pressures not only to work the Darfur issue with the proxy war, but also working in the South.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Susan? Final word?

AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you. I would just add that at the United Nations, we look at the situation in Darfur. And between the North and South, on a very regular basis, this is an issue that’s constantly almost every month on the Security Council agenda. We are now in a position where there’s a substantial presence on the ground of some close to 10,000 each of Darfur and the South. And that presence is very much engaged in the implementation of the very objectives that support the policy we outlined today.

So while we do differ on occasion with partners in the Security Council about tactics and the relative timing and nature of pressures versus incentives, this is something we will continue to work on with them. And as we pursue implementation of our strategy, obviously, the good work that Scott has done and continues to do to keep our partners with us is very important, and we will see it manifest in the United Nations.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all.

QUESTION: Is this new money, any new money here or --

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know the answer to that, so I – let me get back to you, Charlie. I mean, I want to make sure that we don’t misstate things.

QUESTION: Okay.

AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you all.
# # #
PRN: 2009/1036

- - -

Copy of second email received today from U.S. State Department:
Sudan Updates: Background Briefing on Sudan
Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:51:49 -0500

Senior Administration Officials
Washington, DC
October 19, 2009

MR. CROWLEY: We’re now going to shift from on the record to on background, where we have anywhere from two to four experts who will try to help fill in some of the blanks. [Senior Administration Official], you want to come up, [Senior Administration Official], you want to come up? [Senior Administration Official], you’re going to stay?

Yeah, this is a background briefing attributable to Senior Administration Officials. So you just know who’s in the room, we have [Senior Administration Officials]. So [Senior Administration Officials], you want to come up and get started?

QUESTION: Shouldn’t the experts start by answering the question on money if they know? (Laughter.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. They’re – as you probably are aware, the United States has been one of the largest contributors to the humanitarian effort – relief effort in Darfur and will continue to be a substantial contributor to that program. We are also one of the largest contributors to the UN peacekeeping force.

At this point, there is no additional money allocated for this effort, but we expect that we will continue to be the largest single contributor to the humanitarian peace – the humanitarian effort in Darfur, and also a significant contributor to the peacekeeping efforts.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I would just add that there’s no question that resources will continue to be needed as they have been, and the U.S. spends over $2 billion in FY 2009, all told, for all of the Sudan portion. And there will be some shifting around, particularly when one considers the needs of Southern Sudan. So the only thing I wanted to add is that there are a number of assessments underway right now that can help give us a sense of sort of the universe of what will need to be done in the short and medium term at various aspects of the Sudan problem before us. And so those assessments will certainly help to guide our plans regarding resources.

MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, I would like to understand what kind of relationship there will be in the coming few months with President Bashir, who is already indicted and accused of genocide.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We have no intention of working with – directly with President Bashir. We firmly believe that he should get himself a good lawyer, present himself to the ICC, and face the charges that have been leveled against him. But equally, we think that it is important to engage with interlocutors within the Sudanese Government in order to resolve the issues that continue to exist both in Darfur and in the North – the implementation of the North-South agreement.

QUESTION: Just to get this right, you said you have no intentions of working with General Bashir; is that right? That’s the position of the State Department, then?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I didn’t hear the --

QUESTION: Working directly with General Bashir.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: No intention.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, correct.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton made reference that the incentives and the disincentives are part of a classified annex of this plan. So I guess that means you can’t elaborate on what those incentives and disincentives are. And therefore, I don’t really see anything new here in terms of the policy. What is new? What are you announcing today that is new?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Well, I think there are a number of things that are new. First, the very clear elevation of full implementation of the CPA. So I think that it’s fair to say that for quite some time, policy has been understandably focused on urgent crisis in Darfur, and CPA implementation fell behind, and you can see this in the timelines in the CPA itself that were not met, so fundamentally, this idea that we’re moving forward on these two critical tracks simultaneously.

Another thing that’s new is that we’re dealing with a different timeline in this Administration, right. We’re moving up to 2011 and the referendum in Southern Sudan. So there are a set of fundamentally different dynamics that have to be addressed in a very short period of time. In terms of the U.S. approach that – another element that is new and extremely explicit within the strategy is what the Secretary talked about, which is looking critically at conditions on the ground. And in the annex, there are a number of sort of benchmarks we’re going to be looking at to make our assessments about whether or not we’re achieving progress or seeing backsliding or failure to move toward these different objectives.

So we have a sort of more rigorous way of assessing where we’re going. In part because the timeline is so short and urgency’s so great, we need clear standards to know how to guide our policy. So those are a range of things that are new. Yes, it’s true that the incentives and disincentives are classified in the annex, but the Secretary’s quite right; they encompass a range of diplomatic, economic, and other possibilities, many of which have been discussed through the public sphere before and have – the things that have been discussed, you’re all familiar with.

QUESTION: But can I just follow up? Why was the decision made to keep it classified and presumably just, I guess, convey it to the Sudanese Government privately?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: We don’t think it’s in the interest of the success of the policy to lay it all out at this time. But one of the things that this process was concerned with, and people spent a lot of time on, was ensuring that the leverage that we have, both positive and increased pressure, is real. And so we’re not going to get into the position of issuing threats that aren’t – ultimately aren’t sort of true and viable. So we feel confident that what we have in the classified annex as quite serious; it does involve all elements of national power, and we think that it’s conducive to the success of the strategy for us to keep that in that annex at this time.

QUESTION: Can I ask – and then if we can’t talk about the pressures and incentives specifically, can you talk at least a little bit about what specific results you hope to see within the next six months before the election? I mean, are you looking for more humanitarian groups to be allowed in? Are you looking for a certain number of people to have their lives changed in some way? I mean, can you tell us what measures you’re looking at?

And then second, you said that you won’t be dealing directly with President Bashir, but with other interlocutors. Could you tell us a little bit about what kinds of interlocutors? Who are we talking about?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Maybe just a few points on the – what are we looking for. The kinds of things we’re looking for are reduced tensions between Chad and Sudan, for example, improved security on the ground in Darfur, end of aerial bombardment and security operations. A ceasefire, ultimately, is what we’re looking for in Darfur, and full engagement of the government with the rebels in Doha and a proposal that the rebels can respond to.

For North-South, we’re looking at the referendum law, which we need to see that very soon, very urgently. We’re looking for final preparations for the elections so it can be free, fair, and credible. And we’re looking for other milestones that are critical to full implementation of the CPA, including the boundary – finalizing the boundary area, demarcation and delimitation, so it can be finalized.

And so there’s benchmarks both in Darfur and in the CPA that need to be moved on urgently, as both Secretary Clinton and Special Envoy Gration commented on.

QUESTION: So what about the interlocutors? Who are you going to be dealing with then in Sudan?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, just to make one point. Currently, General Gration’s involved with presidential advisor Dr. Ghazi Salahuddin, and he is the current interlocutor for General Gration. He’s also meeting, however, with Vice President Taha or other members of the NCP administration, as necessary. But similarly, he is working with President Kiir, obviously, in the South and full members of the SPLM administration. We’re trying also to engage the government together within the confines of the government of national unity. And so we’re working with many players in the government and many international players, obviously. There’s chief mediator Jibril Basoli, who is in charge of bringing peace to Darfur, as mandated by the African Union and the United Nations. We’re meeting with, obviously, President Deby, who is very important in the peace process to lower tensions between Chad and Sudan. We’re also meeting with Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia, and other members of IGAD as well. In fact, there’s not many people we’re not meeting with. The special envoy has traveled to China. He’s been to Beijing. He’s been to Moscow recently. Frequent trips to Doha, where the peace process is.

So it’s a very inclusive process. It’s a very intensive process of meeting officials in Sudan, in the region, and internationally.

QUESTION: Can you expand upon Secretary Clinton’s third goal – creating a – that Sudan is less of a terrorism safe haven? And how do you balance that with the first two goals that she outlined, as far as the policy is concerned?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. So the point I would just make on that is I think it’s clear what we mean, the importance of ensuring that Sudan is not a safe haven for terrorists. But it is quite explicit in our policy that no -- none of the objectives will be sacrificed for the other. So just to make quite plain, there’s no possibility that you move forward on goal three and the U.S. delivers a bunch of incentives when there isn’t progress on these other fronts. We don’t see that as achieving our interests at all, and it’s quite explicit in the strategy that that wouldn't happen.

QUESTION: Hi, Kim Ghattas from the BBC. I’m still a little bit puzzled about how this strategy is going to work if the man who’s at the center of everything, Omar Bashir, is not somebody you’re going to engage with. I’m not saying that you should absolve him, but is he really going to cooperate and allow his government to cooperate on these efforts if he’s still facing an indictment in the ICC?

And also, I don’t know if I missed something, but I’m still unclear about what is in the annex. And I understand you don’t want to make it public because it might jeopardize the success of the policy, but does the Government of Sudan know what they might get or what they might not get, if they don’t cooperate with you?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s possible to conduct successful negotiations with the Government of Sudan without, in fact, engaging directly with President Bashir. I think that [Senior Administration Official Three] has outlined clearly a number of people inside the government at high levels with whom we are dealing on a regular and frequent basis. So I think it is possible to move forward with progress and with success without engaging the president of the country.

On your second issue, the Sudanese Government clearly knows what we want. They have a clear idea of our policy and our policy objectives. They know what we want from them, and we have a clear idea of what they want from us. And I think on the basis of that, we can in fact, talk fairly specifically with them about the issues.

MR. CROWLEY: Sir.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. CROWLEY: I’m sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: What do you want from the Sudanese Government to do?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think we just – I think [Senior Administration Official Three] just indicated clearly what we want.

QUESTION: Yeah. Several steps to show cooperation with the United States and with the international community.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think that [Senior Administration Official Three] just clearly stated what those things were. We want to see the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. We want to see the resolution of issues related to the census. We want to see national elections occur. And we want the referenda to move forward in accordance with the CPA, which allows the people of the South to determine whether they want to remain a part of Sudan or whether they want their independence. We want to see the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that was negotiated in January – completed in January of ’05 implemented.

On the – in the case of Darfur, broadly speaking, we want to see an end to the humanitarian suffering, and we want an end to the political crisis there, which has divided the groups inside of Darfur amongst themselves, as well as with the government in Khartoum. But we have been fairly clear in what we are seeking in both resolution of the North-South issue as well as in Darfur.

MR. CROWLEY: Kirit.

QUESTION: Can I just ask about the rhetorical shift? The Secretary referred to this again as ongoing genocide, and there’s been a debate between the Administration about that. How does that square with your efforts now in this new policy to kind of dial back rhetoric to engage the government a little bit more? Can you explain that, please?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think it’s important to – there is no question about the commitment of the Secretary to end the humanitarian crisis that has occurred in Darfur, and to deal with the issues that are on the ground. But we feel that the best way to do this is through active diplomacy. Let us move ahead, deal with the issues of negotiating and end to the humanitarian problems in Darfur, an end to the fighting, to the political conflict, the instability, and the conditions that give rise to the humanitarian suffering that we’ve seen there since 2003. We’re interested in moving ahead in engaging in the diplomacy and the negotiations that are required to ensure that we can bring a total end to the problems that have existed in the region.

QUESTION: Several things. Over the last five, six years, there have been various NGOs such as, say, Darfur Coalition, Africa Action, and numerous people here in Washington as well as, I would assume, in England and elsewhere, that have actually gone to Sudan. One is Jerry Fowler, another has worked both at the White House and I suppose over here, Gayle Smith, John Prendergast and others, such as celebrities as Mia Farrow and, of course, George Clooney. (Laughter.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Is there a question there?

QUESTION: The question is – they’ve highlighted this. It’s been in the news. Now, you mentioned elections in the next six months. Do you want to see the same rubber stamping of elements that the present government brought into a new government? Are there such entities that you wouldn’t want to see? And also, the Russians and Chinese, they’ve been shipping arms. Do you want to see an end to those arms shipments?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It’s up to the people of Sudan to select their leaders, both in the North and the South. What we do want to see is an election process that is open, transparent, free, and fair, in which people have a right to vote and vote for their individual leaders. So we’re not in the business of selecting leaders.

With respect to the arms embargo, there is an arms embargo against the Khartoum government, and we would like to see that arms embargo continued and fully implemented by everyone who signed on to it.

MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: If you don’t mind, just minutes ago, President Obama issued a statement on this. And I’m quoting from the email of the White House saying that if the Government of Sudan acts to improve the situation on the ground and to advance peace, there will be incentives. If it does not, then there will be increased pressure imposed by the United States and the international community. I mean, is this the kind of things that we should be expecting that will be applying on all parties, and can we have more on that?

MR. CROWLEY: We’ve had that question in three different forms already. We’ve gone as far as we can go on that.

QUESTION: Coming back to the question of the interlocutors, and it’s a little bit more complex than just not dealing with an indicted president, for example. And it also raises the issue of keeping balance between the three foci of this policy. I mean, for example, Ghazi Salahuddin has been, and may still be, on the list related to terrorism. There are other people in the Sudan Government that have been named in conjunction with terrorism and other problems. So how do you find this balance, and how do you keep the process going without compromising parts of it?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Well, I would just say that, you know, we can’t have the kind of frank dialogue with the Government of Sudan that we need to have if we were to sort of choose for ourselves only the individuals who we feel best about dealing with. The situation is way too urgent to not proceed with completely frank dialogue about exactly what needs to happen to move forward.

But I would say that we do not lack for information about – as the Secretary said, as Ambassador Rice said, about the status of any of the objectives and where we stand on them. And so I don’t think that we’re going to find ourselves confused about who is standing in the way of achieving these objectives and who is not.

QUESTION: I have one specific question, and I’m sorry if this came up earlier. But you mentioned on terrorism before that you wouldn’t give any incentives if they just move on that and not on other issues. But there’s one big thing is the terrorism list. And General Gration had suggested that that might be something – an area that can change. And I wonder if you – if that depends on Darfur and South Sudan, or is it just a purely – a pure decision based on if they’re cooperating on terrorism.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We have to see significant, tangible, concrete progress across the board. It is not a quid pro quo for completion in one area. We have to see progress in all three areas for that to occur.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you very much.

PRN: 2009/1037

AU calls on UN to sanction Eritrea over support of Somali Islamists - Sudan Air resumes flights to Eritrea after 13 years

The return of Sudan Air to Asmara, Eritrea is the latest step in the process of normalization between the two countries who had tense relations in the past.

In 2002, Eritrea and Sudan withdrew their ambassadors and closed the border, after trading accusations of supporting respective opposition groups.

Source: Sudan Tribune report from Khartoum dated Sunday, 24 May 2009 - Sudan Air resumes flights to Eritrea after 13 years

- - -

African Union calls on UN to sanction Eritrea over support of Somali Islamists
From Sudan Tribune Sunday, 24 May 2009:

May 23, 2009 (ADDIS ABABA) — The Peace and Security Council of the African Union (AUPSC) called on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to sanction Eritrea for supporting Somali Islamist insurgents.

In a statement released after the end of its 190th meeting in the Ethiopian capital on Friday the AUPSC urged the UNSC to impose sanctions on "all those foreign actors, both within and outside the region, especially Eritrea, which are providing support to the armed groups engaged in destabilizing activities in Somalia."

The Council appealed to establish a no fly zone and blockade of sea ports, to prevent the entry of foreign elements into Somalia, as well as weapons and ammunitions to the Islamist insurgency.

The AU peace and security council appeal comes in line with the IGAD request to the UN against Eritrea. In an extraordinary meeting dedicated to the security and political situation in Somalia on Thursday May 20 held in the Ethiopian capital the regional body appealed to impose sanction without delay on Eritrea saying Asmara called for the overthrow of the Somali government and attacks on African peacekeeping mission in Somalia (AMISOM).

Eritrea recalled its ambassador to the African Union following the statement. Asmara however denied reports that it had suspended its membership at the African Union.

Somali government accused Eritrea of supporting Al Shebab insurgents with planeloads of AK-47 assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons.

The Security Council also in a statement on May 15 expressed its concern about reports that Eritrea has supplied arms to those opposing the government of Somalia.

The Eritrean ambassador at the UN rejected these accusations saying his country has been falsely accused of supplying arms to the Somali militants.

"I wish to put on record my government’s strong opposition to, and categorical rejection of, the unsubstantiated accusations leveled against my country," Eritrean Ambassador Araya Desta wrote in a letter to the U.N. Security Council, on Wednesday May 20.

However, an insurgent leader who returned to Mogadishu recently from Asmara where he was established, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, admitted in an interview with Reuters yesterday that Eritrea supported them in their fight to topple the Somali government.

"Eritrea supports us and Ethiopia is our enemy — we once helped both countries but Ethiopia did not reward us," Aweys, said.

Some 45 people were killed in Mogadishu as result of the heavy fighting between the government troops and the insurgents who control important parts of the capital.

Today the Islamists militant also renewed attacks on the position of the African peacekeepers in Mogadishu. There are 4300 peacekeepers from Burundi and Uganda in the capital to protect key government sites.  (ST)

President Obama and Sudan - A Blueprint for Peace (By John Prendergast, Omer Ismail, Jerry Fowler, and Sam Bell)

Friday 01 May 2009 opinion piece (via www.africancrisis.co.za/AllAfrica)
Sudan: President Obama and Sudan - A Blueprint for Peace
By John Prendergast, Omer Ismail, Jerry Fowler, and Sam Bell. Copy in full:

The third in a series of open letters to President Obama spelling out a practical roadmap to end the crisis in Sudan.

On March 30, key activists met with President Obama and his Special Envoy for Sudan, Major General Scott Gration, in the West Wing of the White House. President Obama made it clear that his administration would work vigorously to bring an end to the war in Darfur and help implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the North and South. After extensive consultations with members of President Obama's team, UN officials, diplomats from other key countries, and Sudanese actors, this paper is an attempt to put forward a blueprint to achieve President Obama's objective of a comprehensive peace for all of Sudan. The good news is that this is a goal shared widely throughout the international community. The key missing ingredient for its achievement is strategic leadership from the United States.

In this paper we lay out the structures we think are necessary to achieve peace in Darfur and implement it in the South, East, and transitional zones between the North and South, all areas of active or potential conflict. We also lay out a set of focused and meaningful sticks and carrots necessary to leverage the various parties to find a peaceful solution to the interlocking conflicts within Sudan and regionally.

In Darfur, the expulsion of key humanitarian aid groups and closure of Sudanese aid organizations have created increasingly precarious conditions for the 2.7 million internally displaced camp dwellers, although some arrangement to expedite the resumption of some aid operations appears to be pending. Brutal harassment of Sudanese human rights defenders has silenced internal voices of dissent. President Omar el-Bashir's use of starvation as a weapon of war is an attempt to distract the world from the real issues of accountability in Darfur, the elections in Sudan early next year and the implementation of the CPA. The Government of Sudan should face clear costs from the international community for so blatantly abrogating its responsibility to protect its own population.

In the South, there is a mere one year and nine months left before the scheduled date for an independence referendum, and implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, or CPA, is grinding to a halt on key benchmarks. Meanwhile, localized violence demonstrates both the South's institutional fragility and vulnerability to traditional divide-and-conquer strategies directed from Khartoum. If left unchallenged, Bashir will continue to view efforts to foment violence, instability, and displacement in the South and Darfur as his most effective instruments of control. Bashir's use of proxy militias (the Janjaweed in Darfur, the Murahaliin in North-South border areas, and other militias throughout the South) has served as an effective means for him to maintain power in Khartoum, but it has also unleashed the centrifugal forces that could violently rip Sudan apart.

President Obama must be firm in responding to the impending humanitarian crisis, promoting protection of civilians and accountability, and working toward a viable long-term peace that includes both Darfur and a reinvigorated CPA. If the expulsion of key groups from Darfur and elsewhere was suddenly lifted by Khartoum, the situation on the ground would improve greatly. But the essential dynamics of the situation would remain unacceptable - with no clear peace process for Darfur, the CPA fraying, UNAMID ineffective, civilians desperately vulnerable, and President Bashir still a wanted fugitive from international justice.

Forging A Multilateral Peace Strategy

Here's the opportunity: a global consensus exists for peace in Sudan, even if there is not agreement on the best path to achieve this goal. China, the Arab League, the African Union, the European Union, and the United States all want peace, but little has been done to build the necessary infrastructure to help bring it about. What has long been missing in Sudan is America's strategic leadership. The rebels, the ruling party, Sudan's neighbors, and other key actors have all been waiting for President Obama and his team to engage.

The CPA itself was reached after a sustained investment in diplomacy, led in part by the United States, supported by relevant regional and international powers, and backed by significant incentives and pressures. That hard-won agreement would not now be in jeopardy if the investment in diplomacy had been maintained and the international community had continued its pressure to ensure that the agreement was implemented. It is not too late for the United States to re-invest in ensuring that the outstanding issues preventing full implementation of the CPA are addressed, and the Obama administration must take these steps or watch the possible violent disintegration of Sudan and destabilization of the broader region over the next several years.

The Obama administration must lead in constructing a multilateral strategy for peace by establishing an inclusive peace process for Darfur, re-vitalizing implementation of the CPA and the dangerously neglected Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement, and ending Sudan's proxy war with Chad. Toward that end, General Gration should focus on building a multilateral coalition of countries with significant leverage. At the same time as the processes are being constructed, the United States should work assiduously to create the necessary unilateral and multilateral carrots and sticks to press the parties in the direction of a peaceful and comprehensive settlement of Sudan's multiple, interlocking conflicts. It is vital that the administration work closely with other key governments in dealing with Sudan; a reliance on bilateral diplomacy will provide Khartoum the opportunity to play one party off against the other, as it has historically done with great success.

• Darfur peace process: The structure should be similar to the Naivasha talks that produced the CPA, and some of the ingredients are already in place. As did Kenyan General Lazaro Sumbeiywo with the Naivasha process, AU/UN mediator Djibril Bassolé should lead the Darfur process, which can be based in Doha, Qatar (although Qatar's recent diplomatic support for Bashir in the wake of the ICC indictment has impaired its credibility as a facilitator of negotiations). He must be supported by a strong team of diplomats and regional experts and backed by a small group of countries with leverage, high-level support, and full-time representation at the talks. We believe that this inner circle should consist at a minimum of the US, UK, France, China, and Egypt. An outer circle group of countries and multilateral organizations (UN, AU, Arab League) should also be engaged in a formal manner to discourage spoilers, and other key nations such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa would need to be thoroughly consulted.

• CPA implementation: The Assessment and Evaluation Commission established by the CPA is clearly insufficient to monitor and press the parties to implement the deal (largely because it lacks sufficiently senior representation and clear reporting guidelines). As a matter of international peace and security, CPA implementation should be at the forefront of the U.N. Security Council's agenda and the Council should back a new ad-hoc mechanism to guide implementation. The Obama administration should quickly work with other Security Council members, relevant U.N. agencies, and the regional Intergovernmental Authority on Development, or IGAD, to establish core benchmarks for the parties, a clear timeline, and genuine penalties for failure to meet deadlines. An international meeting on CPA implementation could provide a vehicle for reenergizing efforts around the CPA and provide the launching pad for the creation of the ad-hoc implementation mechanism.

• Chad/Sudan peace process: The Sudanese government continues to seek a military solution for Darfur through regime change in Chad, and Chad continues to back the JEM in response. The Obama administration should work with France and China to support high-level negotiations in Libya aimed at reducing state support for foreign armed groups and eventual normalization of relations.

• Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement monitoring: Eastern Sudan remains volatile. The Obama administration should work with its international partners (particularly the UK and Norway) and with the Eritrean and Saudi governments to establish a monitoring group for the agreement that will report on implementation and make recommendations for improvements.

Building The Necessary Leverage

A serious peace process with credible mediation putting forward fair proposals will secure a deal for Darfur. A competent and higher level oversight mechanism with the involvement of countries with influence will ensure the implementation of the CPA. Having the right balance of meaningful pressures and incentives will ensure that prospects for success are much greater.

In broad strokes, the U.S. should present the Sudanese regime with a choice:

Behind Door One: if the Sudanese government permits unimpeded humanitarian access, removes the indicted president, and secures peace in Darfur and the South, a clear process toward normalization will be mapped out. Almost all of the incentives for Sudan come in the form of more normal relations with much of the world, the lifting of sanctions, a return to more normal patterns of trade and diplomacy, and the other benefits that would naturally flow from Sudan achieving stability as a result of more equitable power and wealth sharing.

Behind Door Two: if President Bashir and his party remain defiant by continuing to undermine efforts at peace for the country, a series of escalating costs will ensue, including diplomatic isolation, targeted economic sanctions, an effective and expanded arms embargo, and, if necessary to stop massive loss of civilian life, eventual targeted military action.

If the benefits of Door One and the consequences of Door Two are meaningful, the chance for peace in Sudan increases dramatically. The missing ingredients in efforts to date for Darfur and CPA implementation have been adequate leverage and lack of strategic vision for resolving comprehensively the country's conflicts. Without real sticks and carrots, the warring parties in Sudan will remain focused on military confrontation. The international community needs to help change the incentive structure in Sudan from war to peace.

On the incentive side, phased cooperation with and-ultimately-normalization with the United States is the largest carrot the Obama administration has to offer. Removal of certain unilateral sanctions and penalties could be undertaken in response to verifiable changes on the ground in Darfur and the South. Full normalization should only occur once the Sudanese government adheres to its obligations under various peace agreements. Any negotiating process must be guided by the reality that Khartoum has a long history of grabbing carrots, then failing to follow through on commitments.

On the pressures side, there seems to be an erroneous belief that there are no meaningful pressures left to use. We have spelled out a number of points of leverage that are available. That reflects our view that the Sudanese government responds much more directly to pressures than they do to incentives. Until now, most sticks have been unilateral and have had limited effect on the regime's calculations. Substantial and focused multilateral pressures have not been tried and should form the basis of the new administration's strategy. Clearly, equally robust pressures and incentives should be developed and applied impartially to the rebel factions and SPLM to the degree to which their actions may warrant these measures.

We believe leverage for peace in Sudan can best come from the following actions. Some of these initiatives should occur immediately to build leverage for negotiations, while others should be utilized only if the situation in Darfur deteriorates as a result of ruling party actions or intransigence.

Immediate Points Of Leverage

• Isolate Bashir: Although Bashir is experiencing a short-term surge in support from Arab and African governments in the aftermath of the arrest warrant, this will erode quickly in the face of longer term trends that include his use of starvation as a weapon, continuing support for Hamas, and Khartoum's warmongering, which puts Chinese and Arab investments at risk. Private diplomacy can explore ending Bashir's tenure and finally addressing the impunity that has reigned throughout his two decades in power. There are already telling signs that support for Bashir in key Arab and African states is more rhetorical than practical, with a number of senior leaders increasingly seeing him as a distinct liability. Bashir's actions are making Sudan's fragmentation more likely, not less, and that is an outcome that key players in the region should hope to avoid. Personal and direct diplomacy by President Obama will be crucial in shaping regional attitudes toward Bashir.

• Reinforce the Government of Southern Sudan: The main deterrent to the resumption of war between the ruling party and the South is a strong GOSS. That requires investing in good governance, anti-corruption measures, agricultural production, and the modernization of the South's army (the SPLA). This includes providing the air defense system that President Bush promised to the GOSS well over a year ago in order to neutralize the ruling party's one military advantage: air superiority.

• Support the elections and referendum: The national elections recently re-scheduled for 2010 and the 2011 referendum could trigger a return to war in the South if they are unilaterally undermined by the ruling National Congress Party. International support should be directed to holding fair and transparent processes that allow the Sudanese people to choose their leaders and decide their fate. Sudan's multiple crises all stem from a failure to establish reasonable power-sharing mechanisms in this large and incredibly diverse country, and a great deal of attention needs to be put into ensuring that elections can be conducted in an environment of safety and security.

• End simmering regional conflicts: Conflicts and rivalries throughout the broader region of East and Central Africa make it much harder to resolve Sudan's internal wars. Multilateral efforts should focus chiefly on the simmering conflicts between Ethiopia and Eritrea, on ending the threat posed by the Lord's Resistance Army, and on ending Chad's destabilizing civil war.

• Re-contextualize counter-terrorism cooperation: Khartoum has for years used its cooperation with the United States on counter-terrorism to deflect serious pressure over human rights and implementation of the CPA. Consistent with its stated policy, the Obama administration must make clear to the Sudanese government that cooperation on counter-terrorism is not a chit it can trade for U.S. compromises on human rights and peace efforts.

• Secure the support of key diplomatic players: As stated above, some of Bashir's staunchest supporters have new reasons to back away slowly from their despotic ally. If the CPA collapses and the North-South war resumes, China and Egypt would be among the biggest losers. Former southern rebel commanders indicate that if they are forced to go back to war, the first targets they will hit will be Chinese oil installations. And if they go back to war, some of the southerners will fight for independence this time, rather than their previous vision of unity, and previous divisions within southern communities would likely be stoked in a violent fashion by Khartoum. Egypt's worst fears of a potentially hostile new state in the Nile Basin could be realized. These two countries, along with key African countries, Saudi Arabia and other Arab League states, should be engaged to become part of the solution in Darfur and the South. President Obama should also make clear to relevant nations that ending blind support for Bashir to the detriment of the peace process is a priority for his Administration and has the potential to affect bilateral relations with the U.S. if not addressed.

• Military planning: Military planning should begin to develop ways to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid if the regime continues to deny aid as a weapon of war. It would be irresponsible not to prepare for worst case scenarios.

Future Sticks If The Situation Deteriorates

• Strengthen multilateral, targeted economic pressures: President Obama should work through the U.N. Security Council to bring on board a larger collection of nations with targeted sanctions against those individuals and parties most responsible for violence in Sudan, whether they are government or rebel actors. If the Security Council fails to pass these broader sanctions, then the U.S. should build an international coalition to bring this pressure, working particularly with the European Union, individual European countries and Japan. Along with the ICC, these instruments can create much higher legal, financial, and political costs to those who are responsible for violence against civilians and preventing progress toward peace.

• Expand the arms embargo: Given the Sudanese government's continued attacks against civilians in Darfur and compelling evidence that weapons from other nations, including China, are finding their way to the frontlines, a comprehensive arms embargo on offensive weapons against the Bashir regime should be imposed by the U.N. Security Council. The embargo should include a robust international monitoring mechanism to ensure its effectiveness.

• Protect civilians: UNAMID is failing to achieve its central goal of protecting the civilian population in the region, but the question of how to bolster UNAMID's ability to protect civilians seems to have fallen off the international community's radar screen in recent months. Much of this failure can be traced directly to the practice of giving the Sudanese government-the prime perpetrator of the genocide-a de facto veto over the mission's composition and operations. This has to change. A robust force on the ground in Darfur with a competent lead nation, an experienced division-level headquarters staff, and a clear command-and-control structure is essential for saving lives, creating an environment amenable to the peace surge, and establishing the international credibility required to ensure that a broader peace strategy succeeds. Galvanizing the political will necessary to build this capacity could finally give UNAMID a chance to succeed in protecting civilians. The effort to fully staff the U.N. force in Darfur at 26,000 should be accompanied by a shift in the U.N. force's mandate that would allow it to protect civilians who want to go home to their villages of origin, which should be the ultimate goal of our Darfur policy.

• Effectively end offensive military flights: President Obama and other key members of the administration have taken a robust position in the past regarding the need to counter Sudan's aerial attacks on civilians in Darfur, and have voiced support for enforcing a no-fly zone. Continued Sudanese aerial attacks in Darfur-there were over 40 last year-have rightly generated considerable attention, as has the expulsion of key relief agencies. The U.N. Security Council has demanded an end to offensive military flights several times, most recently in Resolution 1769, which authorized UNAMID. UNAMID has not enforced that demand. It is clear that the administration and the U.N. Security Council need to consider how best to counter these continuing aerial attacks.

Putting It All Together: Building The Coalition For Peace

President Obama and members of his administration have spoken passionately about their intention to act boldly to end the crisis in Darfur and promote international efforts toward a peaceful future in Sudan. Now they have the chance to do so at a crucial juncture in Sudan's history.

But the United States can't do it alone, and the Obama administration's engagement and close coordination with other key governments is essential. Special Envoy Gration can lead U.S. efforts toward peace in Sudan, but he must recognize the need to work closely both with U.S. allies and with those leaders who continue to back Bashir following the ICC arrest warrant issuance.

President Obama should now begin stronger and more sustained efforts to build a coalition for peace. But this effort will only be successful if the President himself treats the situation in Sudan as a strategic priority, sets objectives for U.S. policy, builds the necessary leverage, and invests in the diplomacy necessary to achieve an equitable and lasting solution.

Original date published: 1 May 2009

Source Url: http://allafrica.com/stories/200905010193.html?viewall=1

Posted By: Jan
AfricanCrisis Webmaster
Author of: Government by Deception

US Senator John Kerry to visit Darfur and Khartoum, Sudan

Senator to make rare Darfur visit
April 06, 2009 Reuters report by Andrew Heavens - excerpt:

Khartoum - The chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, will lead a delegation to Sudan's Darfur region, U.S. officials said on Monday, in a possible sign of a growing willingness to engage with Khartoum.

"This is significant," a U.S. diplomatic source told Reuters. "It is the first Congressional delegation to Sudan we have had since 2007. Like the U.S. envoy's current visit, it is a new tack."

The U.S. diplomatic source said Kerry, a Democrat, would lead a Congressional delegation to Darfur, and would meet senior Sudanese officials in Khartoum in the middle of next week.

The state-run Sudanese Media Center said the U.S. Congressional delegation would visit Sudan for three days next week. (Editing by Giles Elgood)

- - -



Photo: US Democratic Senator John Kerry, seen here in March 2009, participates in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will visit Darfur next week, a US official said on Monday, amid signs of thawing US-Sudan relations. (AFP/Getty Images/File/Mark Wilson)

Kerry to highlight peace deal
April 06, 2009 AFP (SA) report - excerpt:

Washington - Democratic US Senator John Kerry will discuss US-Sudan relations and snarled efforts to implement a 2005 north-south peace deal when he visits the country next week, an aide said on Monday.

But the top lawmaker will not meet with President Omar al-Bashir, who is under an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the six-year conflict in Darfur, the aide told AFP.

Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "will discuss US-Sudan relations and the implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement" reached in 2005, the aide said.

"John Kerry will arrive in the middle of next week, he will visit Darfur and meet with officials in the country. His visit will last a few days," said that official, who asked not to be named.

Implementation of the 2005 agreement, which ended Sudan's two-decade north-south civil conflict, has hit many snags, but some leaders in the region have suggested that the ICC warrant should be deferred if Bashir implements existing peace accords. [...]

- - -



Photo: Flowers in El-Fashir, northern Darfur, Sudan (Andrew Heavens)

Note to self for future reference.

PoliticsOnline: The Second Superpower campaigns for Kerry
For the first time in history, the rise of global citizen activism through the Internet is impacting the U.S. presidential elections.
- Jim Moore - October 16, 2004.

Prendergast's Enough Project discussing U.S. relations with Sudan: Kerry himself mentioned previous American leadership failures in relation to Sudan policy as well as his and Secretary Clinton’s interests in the no-fly zone and American engagement with Africa generally. He told the assembled group that this is, “a moment for serious people to buckle down and find serious responses,” to Sudan’s crises. Senator Kerry ended the hearing by asking each expert to pull together a summary of what they think the key U.S. policy priorities should be for Sudan.
- Sudan Watch - February 14, 2009.



Cartoon by Mike Luckovich circa Apr 2006

Expulsion of major NGOs and Darfur rebel leaders' call to refuse Sudan gov't aid prompt food and health fears

Expulsion of major aid agencies and rebel leaders' call to refuse Sudan government aid prompt food and health fears.

Britain and Ireland slam Sudan's "retaliation" aid ban.   Oxfam and Save the Children said they would appeal against the decision to withdraw their licences for operations in Sudan.

The World Food Programme is distributing a two-month ration to 1.1 million displaced people who were served by Care, Solidarites, Action Against Hunger and Save the Children, which have all been expelled.

In Kalma camp in south Darfur, home to 90,000 people, camp leaders have refused to accept government fuel to run the borehole generators, and are trying to raise money to buy their own diesel.

Sources: the following three reports from Guardian, M&C, Sudan Tribune.

Report from Guardian.co.uk by Xan Rice in Nairobi, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 -
Warning as humanitarian crisis deepens in Darfur:

The humanitarian situation in Darfur is growing more precarious by the day following the expulsion of major aid agencies and a call from the main rebel group for displaced people to refuse any government assistance, NGO officials warned today.

The results of the joint UN-government mission to assess the gap in aid provision has not yet been published, but humanitarian workers say the supply of medicine, clean water and food has already been significantly affected, and could worsen in coming weeks.

Some 13 foreign agencies and six local organisations were kicked out of Darfur three weeks ago when the international criminal court issued an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir.

Numerous hospitals and clinics remain closed, while others are being run by local staff at a basic level. One agency today expressed concern at reports that "non-health professionals" in displaced persons' camps were using the medical equipment it was forced to leave behind.

The World Food Programme is distributing a two-month ration to 1.1 million displaced people who were served by Care, Solidarites, Action Against Hunger and Save the Children, which have all been expelled. But Rachid Jafaar, a WFP official, said this was "unsustainable" and that it could not guarantee all the affected people, at 140 different sites, would receive food.

The situation has been exacerbated by a surge in attacks on aid workers, which have severely restricted the activities of some of the agencies left on the ground. Three foreign Médecins Sans Frontières workers were kidnapped for several days by a militia supportive of Bashir two week ago, causing the agency to temporarily withdraw all its international staff from Darfur. A local employee of a Canadian aid agency was shot dead on Monday night.

Despite pleas from the international community, Sudan's government has refused to reconsider the decision to expel the aid groups, which it accuses of collaborating with the ICC. It insists that local relief agencies, assisted by Khartoum, can fill the gap.

Even if this were possible, the mistrust in Darfur means that much of the government aid will not reach the intended recipients. In Kalma camp in south Darfur, home to 90,000 people, camp leaders have refused to accept government fuel to run the borehole generators, and are trying to raise money to buy their own diesel.

"More people are now relying on hand pumps, but the water is not enough," said Alun McDonald, a spokesman for Oxfam, which helped manage the water supply in Kalma before it was expelled. "Things are getting very tense."

The refusal to allow the government to work in Kalma is based on a widespread suspicion within the camp that the government wants to shut it down. Other camps are also refusing government aid, a move backed by the Justice and Equality Movement, the most effective of Darfur's rebel groups, which said it was taking a "political stance" against the expulsion of the aid agencies.

"Our position is that our people should not accept any food, medicine or other assistance from government agencies," said Ahmed Hussein Adam, a JEM spokesman, speaking by telephone from Darfur.

"How do we know what they will put inside the food or drugs? Bashir cannot be both the oppresser and the helper."

The expelled agencies, which were responsible for more than half the total humanitarian effort in Darfur, where 4.7 million people receive aid, say fear among the remaining groups of being expelled has made gathering information extremely difficult. There are reports that the Sudanese health ministry has deployed in some locations where clinics have been closed, though the extent of the work remains unclear. An emergency meningitis vaccination campaign in Kalma, where several people have died of the disease, has yet to begin.

The International Rescue Committee said that some of its clinics have reopened, although at "drastically reduced hours", while water supply had nearly halved in one camp where it used to operate. Kurt Tjossem, the IRC's regional director, said the sanitation work it carried out had stopped altogether, heightening the risk of disease.

"If such services aren't replaced, this is going to create a huge health hazard, fast. The scale of the humanitarian need in Darfur is simply immense and this has to be recognised."

Photo: Sudanese refugees pass by the site of the looted compound of the expelled British aid group, Oxfam at Al Salam refugee camp, outside the Darfur town of al-Fasher, Sudan Saturday, March 21, 2009. Al Salam refugee camp leaders in Darfur say a dozen men broke into the warehouse of an expelled British aid group, Oxfam, stealing all its contents. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)

Report from M&C, March 05, 2009 London -
Britain, Ireland slam Sudan's "retaliation" aid ban

The British government Thursday criticised Sudan for retaliating against international aid workers following the arrest warrant issued against President Omar al-Bashir.

Aid organizations have warned that millions of lives would be put at risk by al-Bashir's decision to expel 10 humanitarian groups from the Darfur region, including Oxfam, Save the Children, Care International and Doctors Without Frontiers.

Deputy Labour Party leader Harriet Harman, standing in for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, told parliament that it was important that Sudan should not 'retaliate' against the agencies and refrain from 'escalating' the situation.

In Ireland, Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Martin urged the Sudanese government to reverse its decision which amounted to using 'extremely vulnerable people as pawns.'

Al-Bashir Wednesday became the first sitting head of state to be served with an arrest warrant for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, a move that has sparked anger, protests, and rallies of suppport in Sudan.

Oxfam and Save the Children said they would appeal against the decision to withdraw their licences for operations in Sudan.

Penny Lawrence, Oxfam's International Director, said the withdrawal of its registration would affect more than 600,000 people who were being given 'vital humanitarian and development aid, including clean water and sanitation on a daily basis.'

Of those, 400,000 were affected by the ongoing conflict in Darfur where people continued to flee from violence and the humanitarian needs remained 'enormous.'

Oxfam GB has operated in northern Sudan since 1983 and currently has 450 staff there, 90 per cent of whom are Sudanese.

Photo: A Sudanese refugee carrying a child walks over strewn documents at the site of the looted compound of the expelled British aid group, Oxfam at Al Salam refugee camp, Saturday, March 21, 2009. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)



Photo: Sudanese refugee children play with strewn documents at the site of the looted compound of the expelled British aid group, Oxfam at Al Salam refugee camp, Saturday, March 21, 2009. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)



Photo: Sudanese workers are seen at a feeding center of the expelled aid group, Action Contre La Faim, at Al Salam refugee camp, Saturday, March 21, 2009. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)

Article from Sudan Tribune Tuesday, 24 March 2009 by Wasil Ali - Darfur JEM say 4 IDP children die from malnutrition, criticize Qatar - excerpt:

March 23, 2009 (WASHINGTON) — The Darfur Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), warned today that Khartoum’s expulsion of humanitarian groups is taking a toll on the vulnerable population within the IDP camps in the war ravaged region. [...]

Aid groups say that it will be nearly impossible for the United Nations and the remaining aid groups to fill the void left by the evacuating workers.

JEM spokesperson Ahmed Hussein told Sudan Tribune that four children have died at the Shangil Tobaya camp in North Darfur over the last couple of days He disclosed their names as Esam Babiker Yacoub (3 years); Munir Mohamed Ibrahim (9 months); Maitha” Ahmed Musa (7 months); Abdel-Latif Hassan Gar El-Nabi (7 months).

“They died because of the severe shortage in food levels caused by departure of aid groups. There is also an alarming drop in water supplies which will increase the likelihood of mass disease outbreaks” Hussein said via satellite phone from an undisclosed location in Darfur.

The JEM official said that the foreign aid organizations that covered the camp were all evicted per Khartoum’s orders. He accused the government security agents of standing behind last week’s looting of a warehouse in Al-Salam camp owned by the expelled British Oxfam group in North Darfur.

Hussein said that the warehouse guard and another woman were killed during the armed attack.

“The government detained four camp leaders who notified UNAMID of the incident. All of them need to be released immediately and unconditionally” he said.

The JEM spokesperson warned that residents of IDP camps around EL-Geneina in South Darfur may soon be forced to cross borders into Chad in search for food.

“We will hold president Bashir personally responsible for the current situation and any deaths among our people that result from his decision” Hussein said angrily.

Asked about Darfur camp rejecting Sudanese aid groups from offering help, Hussein said that the IDP’s “made the right choice” saying that these are “undercover security agents

“A couple of those organizations are owned or administered by Bashir’s wives and relatives. The head of the Commission for Humanitarian Affairs Hasabu Abdel-Rahman is a security officer working on dismantling those IDP camps” Hussein claimed.

He also criticized the “complicity” of the UN Security Council (UNSC) in its response to expulsion of aid groups.

“The UNSC must intervene under a Chapter VII resolution to avert the imminent humanitarian disaster. Even if China and Russia block it the US and European Union (EU) must act unilaterally” the JEM official said.

“A No-Fly zone must be established over Darfur and we are prepared to secure the ground and provide safe corridors for humanitarian groups through which they can enter” he said.

But a US state department official told Sudan Tribune last week that there is nothing in the works with regard to a No-Fly Zone.

Hussein blasted the Arab League and African Union (AU) saying their positions on the aid group expulsion is “shameful”.

“They would not even utter a single word to condemn the decision by Sudan. How can they remain silent before an intentional campaign to starve the people of Darfur?” he questioned.

He reiterated JEM’s position on suspension of the Qatar hosted peace talks until Sudan rescinds its expulsion order.

“Make no mistake about it. There will be no return to the negotiating table until aid groups are allowed back. The expulsion decision in itself constitutes a violation of the agreement Khartoum signed with us in Doha which provides for facilitation of humanitarian flow” Hussein said.

“If Qatar wants to assert itself as an impartial peace broker they must publicly demand that Khartoum revokes their decision” he added.

Yesterday Qatar urged JEM to continue the peace talks it started last month with Khartoum despite the move against relief groups.

“They [Qataris] asked us to convey a message to the movement saying that we can protest the decision without halting the entire peace process” the head of JEM’s general congress Abu-Bakr Al-Gadi told Agence France press (AFP) yesterday.

Last month JEM and Khartoum signed a goodwill agreement in the Qatari capital, pledging to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the six-year conflict in the western Sudan region of Darfur but a date for the full blown talks has not been fixed yet.

Copy of Comment on this article...
7 Comments

by Namaa
The death of Sudanese children is a grave and disturbing matter, and the issue needs to be addressed before more Sudanese children are lost to malnutrition, which is so easily cureable, specially when the Government of Khartoum’s food banks are full of grains and bursting with several seasons worth of harvest.

What is even more disturbing, is when JEM use this grave matter as a weapon of war, 4 children have died from lack of food, but how many have you killed by your guns...who launched the offensive onslaught in Darfur, who chose to take up weapons to ask for basic services, when you could have taken on the government through peacful channels, JEM did, JEM started the fire on the people of Darfur, JEM used propoganada war tacticts, JEM is refusing to sign any peace agreement and JEM is responsible for escalating the crisis in Darfur.....
- - -

by Saif El Hag
Namaa,You are looking at the elephan but keep spearing its shedow. JEM and the rest of arm struggle groups in Darfour are fighting for their rightful cause, which Khartoum has been denying them ever since.

What JEM and the rest armed groups are doing is a honourable stand against a tyranny of NCP. People like you have no sympathy for who are starving and will starve to death by the Khartoum action. If you are really a person who has a heart and concious you will be siding with the people of Darfour and you will shout down El Bahire and his regime as you did to Israel when the bombed Gaza.

But I think you belong to those groups in Sudan who call themselves ARABS, so let me tell you all loud and clear.. Arabs are the Worst and the most RACIST human species in the face of the world, this is a clear cristal fact,and all their stands and countinous support to their Arab cousins in Sudan.  

Saif El Hag

- - -

by Samani
!!! 4 IDP children died !!
Can JEM get any lower than this ?? Now the repeat like stupid parrots what the british an americans say ’al bashir will be responsible for every death in darfur’ !! Do they wait for these people to tell them what to say.

Ocampo keeps blabbering on about 5000 people death every month in darfur now. So now its 5004?? Oh what a crisis !! quick get the UN and US and ICC involved !! Its all lies lies lies .. those who believe this bull are either ignorant or have a clear agenda against sudan and its people.

Its becoming clear to everyone that JEM have no real agenda or intention of peace. They are working for the french, british and americans trying to make as much trouble in darfur until all of sudan collapses or the government is toppled. Traitors !! Who only want power for themselves.

Al Nur sits in his hotel room in france getting fat and telling everyone when i am president i will do this and that. The JEM look for any excuse to get out of signing a peace treaty. The other sad groups in darfur are headed by greedy people that want power and to be recognized ! I feel sorry for the people of darfur if they expect these people to give them security, peace and prosperity.
- - -

by Logic
Sammani, I think you’re being extremly unfair here! the rebel groups might be taken advatage of by the West but that is no reason to deny the marginlization of the Darfur people by Khartoum elitists.

The Darfuris have a just cause, for too long the Khartoum government has denied many of its sons and daughters their due recognition in society especially after they fought along side their muslim brothers against the South for the sake of religion but now they relize they were simply tools being used by the khartoum elites.

I am not a fan of Khalil Ibrahim or Abdel Wahid but their people deserve better than what they have received.
- - -

by tayeb M. Alhassan
Namaa, We have talked too much about Darfur crises suggesting solutions but these people either never read or never understand. Time is running taking more lives of innocent people in the refugee camps but they don’t care or rather they exploit the disaster to market for their own objectives servicing further agenda imposed on them.

Request for No-Fly-Zone, Petrol for food and other disgusting Iraqi war terms already expired and unusable in Sudan for the administration inverted those terms already gone and the new administration in the White House not interested and much wiser to turn history on reverse mode.

If they really don’t act as ((puppets)) to prolong Darforeans suffering in service of others they have to opt for negotiations whether in Qatar or any place they suggest however they have to put behind any personal interests and act with self-denial, goodwill and determination to reach crises solutions for the wefare of the real agonized people in Darfur.
- - -

by Logic
Tayeb!  You make it sound like it is only the responsibility of JEM and SLM to prevent further deaths in Darfur but in fact the bigger responsibility falls on the government.

There is so much more they could do as well, if they always had the capabilities to feed the hungry, why in God’s name have they not helped the situation before? and why are they not speeding up the repatriation of IDPs to their homelands? etc etc etc....
- - -

by Logic
I don’t have any sympathy for the rebel leaders nor the NCP because they are all equally responsible for the deaths in Darfur but for JEM to encourage the IDPs to refuse food from Khartoum aid agncies because they’re spies sounds to me like irony.

As the main reason cited for the expulsion of the aid agncies was because the NCP accusses them of being western spies. However, if you’re hungry? does it really matter who feeds you or would you be more concerned with being fed!! I would’ve thought...

So JEM is guilty of starving IDPs as much as the NCP is guilty of playig the power game.

If you want peace, you negotiate not attach conditions before you negotiate. You can attach your conditions to a final settlement not for having a conversation about how to stop the deaths.

SLM's Nur calls for revision of CPA - JEM calls for UNSC to control Sudan's oil revenues, impose no-fly zone in Darfur, give UNAMID Chapter 7 mandate

Reading the past few months of news reports on Sudan feels worse than watching a car crash in slow motion. From my vantage point, it looks like the West is getting sucked into a war engineered by extremist elements whose sole aim is to topple the Sudanese government and seize control of Sudan's oil. Not content with getting the UN, instead of the AU, fighting on the ground in Darfur, the terrorists (and let's face it, that's what they are, holding their country to ransom) now want the UN Security Council fighting on their side. If I were on the council, I'd call for the terrorist group leaders to be detained in The Hague for trial and call for the ICC to suspend its proceedings against Sudan's president until the terrorists are brought to trial.

Here are the news reports on SLM's Nur call for a transitional government in Sudan and a revision of south Sudan's Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and JEM's Ibrahim call for the UN Security Council to control Sudan's oil revenues (Sudan is up to its ears in debt) and impose a no-fly zone in Darfur (impossible) and give UNAMID Chapter 7 mandate (a license to kill). Note that neither of these Sudanese criminals reside in Sudan. Cowards. It makes my blood boil to think that France permits Nur to freely come and go as he pleases whilst directing the Darfur war by satellite phone from Paris - and that mainstream media reveals so little about the secret world of Nur and Ibrahim.

From London, Asharq Al-Awsat by Mustapha Sirri, 9 March 2009:
Darfur Rebels Call for Seizing Oil Revenues

The Sudanese Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) called on the UN Security Council to introduce an "oil-for-food" program similar to the one that was used in Iraq under former President Saddam Hussein. The movement said the aim behind this program is to save the displaced people and refugees who have been affected by the war in the Darfur Region, by seizing the oil revenues that Khartoum shares with the southerners and distributing them to the displaced people in Darfur.

The movement said that the National Congress Party, led by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, controls the oil revenues. The movement also called for the imposition of an air exclusion zone in the Darfur Region and for the delivery of relief aid from the states of Central Africa and Chad across the borders with Darfur.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat from Darfur by telephone, Official Spokesman for the Justice and Equality Movement Ahmad Hussein Adam said that his movement presented to the international community a proposal to work out an "oil-for-food" program to provide aid for the displaced people and refugees who have been affected by the war in Darfur.

He added: "The UN Security Council must pass resolutions to control the oil revenues in Sudan. The National Congress Party benefits from these revenues in buying weapons from China and Russia and in building villas in numerous places."

He continued: "We do not need statements of denunciation and condemnation from the UN Security Council. The council members must take action and pass powerful resolutions."

He called on the UN Security Council to make an urgent humanitarian intervention under Chapter seven of the UN Charter and said that the Khartoum government needs effective pressure.

Adam said the south will benefit from the United Nations' control of the oil revenues, all of which will reach the south directly from a special account, because Khartoum does not deal with this issue transparently.

He accused Beijing and Moscow of taking part in what he termed war crimes in Darfur. He said his movement denounces the stands taken by China and Russia on the deprivation of the displaced people and refugees of the relief aid after Khartoum expelled the humanitarian relief organizations.

Adam said: "Both China and Russia participate in the genocide war in Darfur, because Beijing sells arms and military vehicles to Khartoum and Russian pilots take part in the aerial bombardment and in starving the civilian population. The UN Security Council must take a stand on this issue."

He added that the regime uses food as a weapon to defend itself and noted that depriving citizens of the necessary food to survive is regarded as genocide.

For its part, the government of the South, led by Sudanese First Vice-President Salva Kir, criticized its partner in the government in Khartoum for taking unilateral decisions on the crisis that resulted from the International Criminal Court's move. It was referring to the fact that it was not consulted on the expulsion of the international organizations.

The Sudan People's Liberation Movement [SPLM] called on the National Congress Party to revoke the decision to expel 16 international NGOs from Sudan. It asked whether the foreign and humanitarian affairs ministers who belong to the SPLM have knowledge of that decision.

The SPLM warned that such major decisions that are taken without the movement's participation will affect the partnership with the National Congress Party, led by Al-Bashir.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat from Juba by telephone, Dr Luka Biong, minister of presidential affairs in the Government of South Sudan, said the information available to his government indicates that 16 organizations were expelled from Sudan and that these organizations employ 6,500 workers who represent 40 per cent of the foreign and Sudanese workers in the relief aid organizations. He added that they provide 60 per cent of the humanitarian relief aid in Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, the Blue Nile and Abyei.

Dr Luka Biong noted that a large vacuum will be created in these areas, particularly with regard to development issues with which these organizations deal and from which the citizens directly benefit.

He asked: "Is it reasonable that these organizations made all these violations in the same day and hour to be expelled?"

Dr. Biong noted that the expulsion decision came as Khartoum's reaction to the International Criminal Court's move to arrest Al-Bashir. He said these organizations operate in Sudan under laws, the violators of which are brought to account.

He asked: "But do the higher authorities in the national unity government know about the decision to expel the organizations? Do the foreign and humanitarian affairs ministers who represent the SPLM have knowledge of this serious decision?"

He said the government in Khartoum must reconsider this decision in order to ensure that the areas of Darfur, Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile and Abyei will not be affected.

In a nutshell, JEM's demands are a nonsense. Getting a handle on their blackmail and extortion is like trying to nail mercury. Freedom fighters my foot. But I've yet to see anybody complaining about how much these lowlifes are costing. Some commentators at Sudan Tribune are very informative and amusing, here are some examples.

From Sudan Tribune, 7 March 2009 -

JEM leader calls for oil-for-food programme in Darfur

7 March 2009 comment by Wiyual:

Wake up Mr. Khalil!

You have to note that the country’s oil is located in the Southern part of country where you used to terrorize during SPLM/SPLA 22 years war with NIF regime. During the South Sudanese struggle for their right, you supported your Muslim master from the North Sudan that used you as shield to fight your blood-relative brother from the South.  No, no, and no!  I’m against your grievances because you had put Islam first and forget family relationship during South Sudanese struggle. If Muslim from Nuba Mountains are the ones who claiming their shares, I must be 100% to support them because they were part of Sudan patriots.

No Thank to Oil for Food to feed your people whom you caused their trouble.

From Sudan Tribune, 7 March 2009 - 

JEM warns Qatar against hosting Sudanese president for Arab summit

8 March 2009 comment by Sihs:

This Ameer of Mujahedeen Khalel Ibrahim is a true idiot, what does he want?? he never dreamed of sitting close to Quatar Ameer, yet he states his stupid egos and conditions, go to hell mr Khaleel, you should also wait for your turn as far as your war crimes and forced recruitment of children as well as your past atrocities in the south. you a true idiot non-realistic folk



Photo: Qatar Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabir al-Thani and JEM Leader following his arrival in Qatar Wednesday February 11, 2009 (QNA/ST)

- - -

Article from Sudan Tribune Wednesday 4 March 2009 -
Darfur rebel leader calls for transitional government in Sudan

March 4, 2009 (PARIS) — The leader of the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) has called for the formation of a national coalition government to lead the country out of the current political situation and settle the Darfur crisis.



Photo: Abdel-Wahid Al-Nur

On the eve of the ICC decision over an arrest warrant request for the Sudanese president, the political situation is seen as very unstable despite the huge efforts done by Khartoum to rally the political forces and the civil society behind its president.

Government officials have also warned they would not tolerate any support to the world tribunal on the cases of Darfur crimes. They publicly said they would hit any

Abdel Wahid Al-Nur, the rebel chief, called today for a large coalition government for the Sudanese democratic forces to end the six year conflict in Darfur and organize general elections in the country.

"We in the SLM believe that Sudanese democratic forces which adhere to the respect of human rights and state of law and citizenship" Al-Nur said.

The rebel leader further said that the agenda of this transitional government is to provide security and to end the six-year violence practiced by the government of the National Congress Party against the defenseless civilians in Darfur.

On the national level, he said the main task of this government is to maintain public order in the country and prevent any chaos as well as the management of the daily affairs of the state. This proposed government, according to Al-Nur, should organize a constitutional roundtable to discuss ways to ensure and implement civil liberties and human rights in the country.

He pointed out that the purpose of such a conference would be to determine "once and for all" the endless debates in the country about the place of religion in the state by adopting the principle of the secular state as one of the pillars that can guarantee the equal citizenship rights in a country characterized by its cultural and ethnic diversity.

"Of course a bill of rights also should be adopted to guarantee the supremacy of civil liberties, like the freedom of expression, freedom of thinking, freedom of religion and freedom of speech, in order protect the individual from oppressive governments," he further added.

Since more than six months the two partners of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) have discussed the security and press bills and didn’t yet reached a definitive ground on two issues crucial for the holding of a free election in the country.

With regard to the CPA, the rebel leader stressed the importance of the 2005 agreement and considered it as an historical achievement. However he pointed out the need to review some aspects in the peace deal after four years of ill implementation.

"We need to consolidate the national values and to provide more powers to the regions in the country" he added, "all these steps aim to preserve the national unity of the Sudan"

Al-Nur, who said that this transitional government should be led by his movement, proposed that it must have a clear mission and fixed time to achieve its goals before the run-off free and fair general elections monitored by the international community.

Al-Nur, in making his statement said he is aware that such proposal represents a new approach to settle Darfur crisis. He added that this would allow to address at the same time. "our two major concern is the future of the Sudan and the rights of Darfur people."

The SLM founder refused last month to take part in a peace process mediated by the Qatari government and the joint envoy. He asks first to provide security to the IDPs who should regain their homes and villages after the disarmament of the Janjaweed militias and expulsion of government supported newcomers from their lands.

In a roadmap released in September 2007, the SLM says that peace talks should be dedicated to discuss "the root causes of the problem."

A holder of law degree from Khartoum University, Al Nur worked as lawyer before to hold arms and fight against government policy in Darfur. He created the SLM ten years before to start the insurgency.

1 Comment 
4 March 2009 by Jesus Christ

Where are the SPLM supporters who have been calling for the indictment. This was all conspiracy against CPA by the same Darfur people you thought you were sympathizing. Look at this fool calling for reviewing the CPA. You brought the fire to your back yard. This the end of the CPA.

1955: War broke out between southern Separatists against the minority government Khartoum

1972: Dumb stupid Dinka Abel Aliar betrayed southern Sudan

2009: Dumb SPLM/A mislead southern Sudanese and betrayed the South again

Dinkas will be hold accountable for their misjudgment in the history of southern Sudan.

- - -

Article from Sudan Tribune March 7, 2009 (PARIS) - excerpt:
SLM leader to mobilize African and Arab support to ICC arrest warrant

In a press conference held in Paris Friday, Al-Nur said his contacts with African and Arab countries aims to dissuade them from supporting the Sudanese President Omer Al-Bashir and halt any attempt to invoke article 16 of Rome Statute to suspend the ICC jurisdiction on Darfur.

Under Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the UN Security Council may resolve to defer a prosecution for a period of 12 months, which is what the AU and the AL request.

Last July two weeks after Bashir’s indictment by the ICC chief prosecutor, African Union and the Arab League failed to convince three permanent states at the Security Council – Britain France and USA —to suspend the ICC jurisdiction on Darfur crimes.

Al-Nur told the reporters that regional organization should not transform its self to clubs for the defense of head of states. "They should also think also about the fate of millions of Darfuri affected by the conflict."

The rebel leader further urged tough action against the expulsion of aid groups from Darfur. He added that departure of the aid groups was a disaster for the people of Darfur.

The UN chief who called on Khartoum to reverse its decision is currently contacting the leaders of the African Union (AU) and the Arab League, along with others in the region to follow up on his appeal to the Sudanese government to reconsider its decision.

Nur said that under the current political jointure the formation of large democratic government could be a valid solution to end the Darfur conflict. The transitional government would administrate the country for a short period and organize general elections in the country.

He also urged to preserve the CPA and develop it by correcting the false Islamist definition of northern Sudan.

"The CPA should be revised and upgraded to include all of northern Sudan’s diversity, he argued. He said that this North-South division does not reflect the geographical and political reality of this part of the Sudan." He told Sudan Tribune two days ago.

These two comments made me laugh:

7 March 2009 07:32, by Samani

Mobilize who ?? This fat fool cant mobilize his own so called group. People in darfur, africa & the arab countries hate him. He went to israel first !! No ones going to listen to this hotel sleeping holiday rebel.

- - -

March 2009 20:28, by mr watchabble

what u need to do you need to come to darfur, not just stayed in paris and getting fat like you going to explode look at your face we cant even see your eye's, they feeding you to death watch out they to trying kill you buddy.

Photo: SLM chairman, Abdel-Wahid Al-Nur during a press conference in Paris on March 6, 2009 (ST)