Reports out yesterday confirm the British government said yesterday it was airlifting 143 vehicles to Darfur, to help African Union troops monitor a cease-fire in the remote western region of Sudan.
British International Development Secretary Hilary Benn said he expected the vehicles - 131 four-wheel drive sports utility vehicles and 12 three-ton trucks - to arrive by mid-December.
"These vehicles will make the AU mission more effective, enabling the observers and troops to carry out more proactive monitoring, and to respond to specific incidents more quickly," he said.
There are currently 833 AU soldiers in Darfur, a region the size of France, monitoring a cease-fire between government troops and two rebel groups which took up arms in February 2003.
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Friday, December 10, 2004
Britain may deploy troops to quell fighting in Darfur Sudan
According to a November 10 report in the Guardian Britain could be asked to contribute troops to a 10,000-strong UN peacekeeping force for Sudan under a draft resolution discussed in the security council, government officials in London indicated November 9, 2004.
The proposal for a UN force is part of a British package of incentives designed to gain Sudan's agreement to a comprehensive settlement of the conflict in Darfur. Asked whether Britain would send troops to Sudan as part of the proposed UN force, as Tony Blair appeared to suggest earlier this year, Chris Mullin, the Foreign Office Minister for Africa, declined to rule it out saying it was "premature" to comment.
The UN resolution, drafted by Britain, was presented to an extraordinary security council meeting held in Nairobi on November 18-19, 2004.
Further reading:
Nov 15: UK Wants 10,000 Troops for Darfur. Note the report says UN troops will not, however, be sent if there is no peace agreement and sanctions are still on the agenda.
July 22: Guardian UK report "Blair draws up plans to send troops to Sudan."
- - -
Malawi sends 30 peacekeepers to Darfur
The proposal for a UN force is part of a British package of incentives designed to gain Sudan's agreement to a comprehensive settlement of the conflict in Darfur. Asked whether Britain would send troops to Sudan as part of the proposed UN force, as Tony Blair appeared to suggest earlier this year, Chris Mullin, the Foreign Office Minister for Africa, declined to rule it out saying it was "premature" to comment.
The UN resolution, drafted by Britain, was presented to an extraordinary security council meeting held in Nairobi on November 18-19, 2004.
Further reading:
Nov 15: UK Wants 10,000 Troops for Darfur. Note the report says UN troops will not, however, be sent if there is no peace agreement and sanctions are still on the agenda.
July 22: Guardian UK report "Blair draws up plans to send troops to Sudan."
- - -
Malawi sends 30 peacekeepers to Darfur
Malawi is sending 30 peacekeepers to Darfur. The 30-man team of soldiers are part of the AU peacekeeping force and would leave in about five days when logistics were finalised, the Malawi Defence Force Public Information Officer, Colonel Clement Namangale, told Reuters.
He said the team had undergone 13-days of special training.
Further reading:
Nov 15: UK Wants 10,000 Troops for Darfur. July 22: Guardian UK report Blair draws up plans to send troops to Sudan.
- - -
THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH ARMY
Egypt and the Sudan
British intervention in Egypt
Britain’s interest in Egypt was increased by the construction of the Suez Canal, which was opened in 1869. The Canal considerably shortened the sea route to India, and in 1875 the British Government had bought shares in the Suez Canal Company. However, Egypt had become virtually bankrupt by 1878 and this led Britain and France to take control of Egyptian finances and, in effect, run the country. This caused considerable discontent amongst many Egyptians and the situation was exacerbated by the decision of the Khedive (Viceroy) to dismiss many Egyptian Army officers as an economic measure.
In May 1882, one officer, Colonel Ahmed Arabi, overthrew the Khedive and led a revolt against what he saw as unwarranted foreign interference in Egypt’s affairs. Gladstone’s government concluded that in order to protect Britain’s strategic and financial interests in the region, military intervention was unavoidable. In August 1882, a British and Indian force of 35,000 men under Lieutenant-General Sir Garnet Wolseley sailed into the Canal and landed at Ismailia. On 13 September, after a daring night march, Wolseley’s troops surprised the Egyptians at Tel-el-Kebir and drove them from their trenches.
Picture: Battle of Tel-el-Kebir
Wolseley entered Cairo the following day and Arabi and his army surrendered. Although the authority of the Khedive was restored, the British remained in Egypt in order to ensure stable government.
The Mahdist Rising
In occupying Egypt, Britain had also assumed responsibility for the Egyptian Sudan where an Islamic revolt had begun in 1881, led by Mohammed Ahmed, who styled himself the ‘Mahdi’ or ‘guide’. By the end of 1882, the Mahdists controlled much of the Sudan, and on 5 November 1883, at El Obeid, they annihilated an Egyptian force that had been sent to restore order. The Mahdi was supported by Osman Digna, leader of the Beja tribesmen of the Red Sea area. In January 1884, the Beja, whose extravagant hairstyles earned them the nickname of ‘Fuzzy-wuzzies’ from the British, wiped out an Egyptian force under Colonel Valentine Baker outside the Red Sea port of Suakim. To rectify the situation, a 4,000 strong British force under Major-General Gerald Graham was sent to Suakim. On 29 February, they defeated Osman Digna at El Teb, but two weeks later were almost defeated themselves at Tamai. The British fought in two brigade squares, one of which was temporarily broken by the Mahdist forces. The situation was only retrieved when the second square moved up in support. Whilst these two victories were a boost to public morale, they had little long-term effect. Osman Digna was able to recover from his losses and Graham’s force was withdrawn. Meanwhile, Major-General Charles Gordon had been sent to Khartoum. His orders were to oversee the evacuation of the Sudan, but instead he elected to stay and defend the Sudanese capital. Khartoum was invested by the Mahdi in May 1884 and Britain was forced to organise a relief expedition to rescue Gordon.
The fall of Khartoum
Wolseley’s relief column set off from Cairo in October 1884. Realising that his infantry, travelling in boats up the Nile, might not reach Khartoum in time to save Gordon, he detached a desert column under to travel overland by a faster, but more dangerous route. On 17 Jan 1885, this column, commanded by Brigadier-General Sir Herbert Stuart, was attacked by the Mahdists at Abu Klea. Winston Churchill later described the resulting battle as, ‘the most savage and bloody action ever fought in the Sudan by British troops’. Despite suffering heavy losses to British rifle fire, the Mahdists succeeded in penetrating the British square, which was closed only after desperate hand to hand fighting. The British suffered 168 casualties, the Mahdists about 1100. The column finally reached Khartoum on 28 January, 2 days after Gordon had been killed and the town had fallen.
The reconquest of the Sudan
Britain saw the death of Gordon at Khartoum as a national humiliation, and there was strong pressure on the Government for an expedition to be sent to avenge him and restore Egyptian rule. A Mahdist invasion of Egypt was defeated in 1888, but it was not until 1896 that the Government, possibly concerned that if Britain did not conquer the Sudan, then the Italians and French would, authorised military action. In that year, an Anglo-Egyptian army, led by Major-General Herbert Kitchener, entered the country. Kitchener understood the importance of keeping his force supplied, and he built a railway as he advanced. Moving forward slowly but surely, he inflicted a number of defeats on the Mahdists. On 8 April 1898, at Atbara, on the Nile, Kitchener’s force of about 12,000 attacked the fortified camp of a Mahdist army under the Emir Mahmood. After a fierce struggle, the Dervishes were completely routed and their commander and 4000 of his men were captured.
Picture: Charge of the 21st Lancers, Omdurman
Finally, at Omdurman on 2 September 1898, Kitchener inflicted a crushing defeat on the forces of the Khalifa, the Mahdi’s successor. Though they attacked with fanatical bravery, the Mahdists were no match for the rifles and Maxim machine guns of Kitchener’s army. By the end of the day, they had suffered approximately 27,000 casualties. The Anglo-Egyptians lost 43 dead. Omdurman broke the power of the Mahdists and although the Khalifa remained at large until the following November, the Sudan was quickly pacified.
© Copyright: National Army Museum 2000
- - -
Lord Kitchener of Khartoum (1850 - 1916)
Best known for his famous recruitment posters bearing his heavily moustachioed face and pointing hand over the legend, 'Your country needs you', as secretary of state for war at the beginning of World War I Kitchener organized armies on an unprecedented scale and became a symbol of the national will to win.
Commissioned in the Royal Engineers, in 1886 Kitchener was appointed governor of the British Red Sea territories and subsequently became commander in chief of the Egyptian army in 1892. In 1898 he crushed the separatist Sudanese forces of al-Mahdi in the Battle of Omdurman and then occupied the nearby city of Khartoum, where his success saw him ennobled in 1898.
In 1900 he became commander in chief of the Boer War, where he fought the guerrillas by burning farms and herding women and children into disease-ridden concentration camps. These ruthless measures helped weaken resistance and bring British victory.
On returning to England in 1902 he was created Viscount Kitchener and was appointed commander in chief in India. In September 1911 he became the proconsul of Egypt, ruling there and in the Sudan until August 1914. When war broke out, Kitchener was on leave in England and reluctantly accepted an appointment to the cabinet as secretary of state for war. Flying in the face of popular opinion, he warned that the conflict would be decided by Britain's last 1,000,000 men. He rapidly enlisted and trained vast numbers of volunteers for a succession of entirely new 'Kitchener armies'. By the end of 1915 he was convinced of the need for military conscription, but never publicly advocated it, deferring to Prime Minister Asquith's belief that it was not yet politically practicable.
In his recruitment of soldiers, planning of strategy and mobilisation of industry, Kitchener was handicapped by bureaucracy and his own dislike for teamwork and delegation. His cabinet associates did not share the public's worship of Kitchener and gradually relieved him of his responsibilities for industrial mobilisation and then strategy. He was killed in 1916 when HMS Hampshire was sunk by a German mine while taking him to Russia.
© Copyright: BBC History
- - -
General Charles Gordon (1833 - 1885)
British general Charles Gordon became a national hero for his exploits in China and his ill-fated defence of Khartoum against Sudanese rebels.
The son of an artillery officer, Gordon was commissioned in the Royal Engineers in 1852. He distinguished himself in the Crimean War (1853-56) and in 1860 volunteered for the 'Arrow' war against the Chinese. In May 1862 Gordon's corps of engineers was assigned to strengthen the European trading centre of Shanghai, which was threatened by the insurgents of the Taiping Rebellion. A year later he became commander of the 3,500-man peasant force raised to defend the city. During the next 18 months Gordon's troops played an important role in suppressing the Taiping uprising.
He returned to England in January 1865, where an enthusiastic public had already dubbed him 'Chinese Gordon'. In 1873 he was appointed governor of the province of Equatoria in the Sudan. Between April 1874 and December 1876 he mapped the upper Nile and established a line of stations along the river as far south as present Uganda. He was then promoted to governor-general, where he asserted his authority, crushing rebellions and suppressing the slave trade. However, ill health forced him to resign and return to England in 1880 before travelling once more to places including India, China and South Africa.
In February 1884 Gordon returned to the Sudan to evacuate Egyptian forces from Khartoum, threatened by Sudanese rebels led by Muhammad Ahmad al-Mahdi. Khartoum came under siege the next month and on 26th January 1885 the rebels broke into the city, killing Gordon (against al-Mahdi's instructions) and the other defenders. The British relief force arrived two days later.
The British public reacted to his death by acclaiming 'Gordon of Khartoum' a martyred warrior-saint and by blaming the government, particularly Gladstone, for failing to relieve the siege. However, historians have since suggested that Gordon defied orders and refused to evacuate Khartoum even though that remained possible until late in the siege.
© Copyright: BBC History
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Escalate level of activism about Darfur, Sudan around the New York area
A candlelight vigil to protest the ongoing genocide in Darfur, Sudan will take place at the Fountain Plaza, Washington Square Park, NYC on Monday Dec. 13 at 6:30 p.m.
This multi-denominational event is co-sponsored by the students of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Judson Memorial Church, the Massaleit Community in Exile, the Columbia Coalition for Sudan, the Church of St. Francis Xavier, Brooklyn Parents for Peace, NYU Law Students for Human Rights, the United Methodist Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, the Darfur Rehabilitation Project and the American Anti-Slavery Group's New York Chapter.
A large push needs to come from civil action
Washington Square News, the student newspaper of New York University, reports on a meeting held yesterday to educate students about the Sudan Crisis.
Speakers offered outlets to students interested in getting involved in the activism for Sudan.
"We want to escalate the level of activism about Sudan around the New York area," said speaker Williams.
Another speaker, John Prendergast, director for African affairs for the National Security Council under the Clinton administration, said:
"Five million people have died in genocidal conflicts in the Congo and Sudan. Besides physically killing Sudanese civilians, the government virtually starved its people, preventing humanitarian groups from reaching villages in need. "[The government] used food as a weapon of war. U.S. citizens essentially have control over what the higher powers in government do. [Congress] will only take on the president if there's a large push which comes from civil action."
- - -
Please help spread the word
Although I am writing this from England, UK, there is still something even I can do to contribute to the vigil. I know of some bloggers in the New York area and John Fitzgerald at Secession asked me to keep him informed of any events in New York on Sudan so he can attend. I shall email John, Nick and Pauly in hope they may be free to attend and take some photos and write-up some feedback for sharing here.
It's a pity there are no candlelight vigils set to take place simultaneously in central London and around Europe. Here's pinging NYC Indy Media and London too, plus Indy Media for UK, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Paris (sorry cannot list complete European network here).
Please spread the word on the vigil for Monday evening. From little acorns grow trees. Thank you.
Notes for visitors to New York - the United Nations, 1st Ave. & 46th St. Officially an "international zone," the U.N. Headquarters is a symbol of global cooperation. Guided tours daily ($8.50 adults)
Washington Square Park: 5th Ave. and 7th St. Villages' main park shared by NYU students, street musicians, skateboarders, jugglers, stand-up comics, joggers, chess players, and bench warmers, watching the grand opera of it all. At the square's north end, stands the triumphal Washington Memorial Arch.
P.S. Please do not miss Jim's important posts on Human Rights and the blogging community: A Digital Green Ribbon Campaign for Darfur, Sudan, Africa! - and More on the Digital Green Ribbon Campaign for Darfur, Sudan. Feedback by email is invited and comments are open at both posts.
This multi-denominational event is co-sponsored by the students of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Judson Memorial Church, the Massaleit Community in Exile, the Columbia Coalition for Sudan, the Church of St. Francis Xavier, Brooklyn Parents for Peace, NYU Law Students for Human Rights, the United Methodist Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, the Darfur Rehabilitation Project and the American Anti-Slavery Group's New York Chapter.
A large push needs to come from civil action
Washington Square News, the student newspaper of New York University, reports on a meeting held yesterday to educate students about the Sudan Crisis.
Speakers offered outlets to students interested in getting involved in the activism for Sudan.
"We want to escalate the level of activism about Sudan around the New York area," said speaker Williams.
Another speaker, John Prendergast, director for African affairs for the National Security Council under the Clinton administration, said:
"Five million people have died in genocidal conflicts in the Congo and Sudan. Besides physically killing Sudanese civilians, the government virtually starved its people, preventing humanitarian groups from reaching villages in need. "[The government] used food as a weapon of war. U.S. citizens essentially have control over what the higher powers in government do. [Congress] will only take on the president if there's a large push which comes from civil action."
- - -
Please help spread the word
Although I am writing this from England, UK, there is still something even I can do to contribute to the vigil. I know of some bloggers in the New York area and John Fitzgerald at Secession asked me to keep him informed of any events in New York on Sudan so he can attend. I shall email John, Nick and Pauly in hope they may be free to attend and take some photos and write-up some feedback for sharing here.
It's a pity there are no candlelight vigils set to take place simultaneously in central London and around Europe. Here's pinging NYC Indy Media and London too, plus Indy Media for UK, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Paris (sorry cannot list complete European network here).
Please spread the word on the vigil for Monday evening. From little acorns grow trees. Thank you.
Notes for visitors to New York - the United Nations, 1st Ave. & 46th St. Officially an "international zone," the U.N. Headquarters is a symbol of global cooperation. Guided tours daily ($8.50 adults)
Washington Square Park: 5th Ave. and 7th St. Villages' main park shared by NYU students, street musicians, skateboarders, jugglers, stand-up comics, joggers, chess players, and bench warmers, watching the grand opera of it all. At the square's north end, stands the triumphal Washington Memorial Arch.
P.S. Please do not miss Jim's important posts on Human Rights and the blogging community: A Digital Green Ribbon Campaign for Darfur, Sudan, Africa! - and More on the Digital Green Ribbon Campaign for Darfur, Sudan. Feedback by email is invited and comments are open at both posts.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Launch at Harvard Conference of Digital Green Ribbon Campaign for Darfur, Sudan
Jim says "it looks like we may be able to launch the Digital Green Ribbon Campaign for Darfur, Sudan this week at the Harvard Internet and Society Conference."
Also he explains "... the Digital Green Ribbon Campaign is about learning to project the power of witness and the power of communications-enabled social organization into situations of conflict and repression - it's an opportunity for civil society to learn to use the techniques of modern communications to develop rapid response communications systems that can penetrate national borders, can evade censors, and that can help people connect with each other to liberate themselves. ..."
Great stuff. More later. Please note, Jim is asking if anyone out there knows folks in the ham radio scene the might have relationships in Sudan, or could work with us to develop them? He says: " ... the content of ham radio communications could be immediately blogged, and might develop into "ham moblogging" and "ham podcasting." By the way, for the middle east and Africa we might want to rename 'ham' to 'lamb'. ..."
(Heh). If anyone can help with lamblogging please email Jim Moore at the Passion or Jim Moore's Journal. Thanks.
Wear the green ribbon of the Save Darfur Coalition of over 100 faith-based and humanitarian groups:
"It’s easy to make green ribbons. Simply cut 3.5 inch strips (with diagonal ends) of 3/8 forest green ribbon and fasten with a pin. Wear your ribbon everywhere and distribute them to your friends, family, and neighbors."
- - -
ARE "WIRED" CITIZENS CHANGING POLITICS?
December 9-11, 2004, Harvard University
Note details on Harvard Internet Society 2004 conference:
How are technologies changing politics, both in the U.S. and abroad? The purpose of this conference is to take a skeptical, results-oriented look at the current state of politics after the 2004 election and from an international perspective in terms of issue-based campaigns, emerging business models, and new tools that affect politics both online and off. The conference will focus on the following questions:
- Has "citizenship" changed in the online era?
- Are online business models helpful guides for politics and political organizing?
- What international examples are promising?
- Did the web affect the 2004 election?
Also he explains "... the Digital Green Ribbon Campaign is about learning to project the power of witness and the power of communications-enabled social organization into situations of conflict and repression - it's an opportunity for civil society to learn to use the techniques of modern communications to develop rapid response communications systems that can penetrate national borders, can evade censors, and that can help people connect with each other to liberate themselves. ..."
Great stuff. More later. Please note, Jim is asking if anyone out there knows folks in the ham radio scene the might have relationships in Sudan, or could work with us to develop them? He says: " ... the content of ham radio communications could be immediately blogged, and might develop into "ham moblogging" and "ham podcasting." By the way, for the middle east and Africa we might want to rename 'ham' to 'lamb'. ..."
(Heh). If anyone can help with lamblogging please email Jim Moore at the Passion or Jim Moore's Journal. Thanks.
Wear the green ribbon of the Save Darfur Coalition of over 100 faith-based and humanitarian groups:
"It’s easy to make green ribbons. Simply cut 3.5 inch strips (with diagonal ends) of 3/8 forest green ribbon and fasten with a pin. Wear your ribbon everywhere and distribute them to your friends, family, and neighbors."
- - -
ARE "WIRED" CITIZENS CHANGING POLITICS?
December 9-11, 2004, Harvard University
Note details on Harvard Internet Society 2004 conference:
How are technologies changing politics, both in the U.S. and abroad? The purpose of this conference is to take a skeptical, results-oriented look at the current state of politics after the 2004 election and from an international perspective in terms of issue-based campaigns, emerging business models, and new tools that affect politics both online and off. The conference will focus on the following questions:
- Has "citizenship" changed in the online era?
- Are online business models helpful guides for politics and political organizing?
- What international examples are promising?
- Did the web affect the 2004 election?
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Geek Corps for Sudan?
Jim Moore writes a great post titled "A call to digital action for Darfur and Sudan! Creatively applying the lessons of bridging the digital divide in Ghana and other nations, and thus inceasing global citizen witness and local communication and coordination in Sudan and Darfur."
Here's hoping Ethan can to something about Jim's great idea that we have a communications-oriented Geek Corps for Sudan.
Sorry, I'm unable to write any more here right now - except to say I was thrilled to receive my first email from Khartoum yesterday, a great email it was too. More later.
Here's hoping Ethan can to something about Jim's great idea that we have a communications-oriented Geek Corps for Sudan.
Sorry, I'm unable to write any more here right now - except to say I was thrilled to receive my first email from Khartoum yesterday, a great email it was too. More later.
AU explains slow progress in deploying full Darfur Sudan mission by year-end
A December 5 report via Jordan Times says African forces should be fully deployed to Darfur by the end of the year despite some delays in building the infrastructure to house them, the new head of the African Union (AU) mission said.
Jonah Fisher of BBC News Khartoum explains the year-end target for Darfur troops.
- - -
Note, according to the above, the new head of the African Union observer mission to Sudan said he is hopeful that they will have completed deployment by the end of the year. Baba Gana Kingibe, a former Nigerian foreign minister, arrived in Khartoum on Saturday to take over control of the observer mission in Darfur.
It seems much longer ago than six weeks since the African Union voted to increase its mission to Darfur. Deployment has been slow. Less than one third of its planned mission of 3,300 troops are in place. Mainly Rwandan and Nigerian observers have arrived.
Speaking in Khartoum, Mr Kingibe said more troops would reach the area soon. "We have taken measures three days ago to speed up this and we have established certain timelines," he said. "By the end of December we should have all the complements of the troops on the ground."
According to Mr Kingibe, both the funding and the troops for the mission are now ready - it is just a question of the American contractors building enough camps to house them.
- - -
VIEWS OF NEW AU MISSION CHIEF FOR DARFUR
On his arrival in Sudan, AU mission chief Baba Gana Kingibe said that a joint declaration of principles should be signed within the first two weeks of Darfur peace talks, due to reconvene in the Nigerian capital Abuja around December 10.
"We expect that before long within a week or two the declaration of principles which was negotiated and largely agreed upon will be finalised and signed," Kingibe, a former Nigerian foreign minister, told reporters in Khartoum.
"We believe that early in the new year we will be making a robust approach towards inching to a final peace deal."
Kingibe, who was the AU's special envoy to south Sudan, where a separate war has raged for more than two decades, said a peace deal for the south would help solve the Darfur conflict when the southern rebel group, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), joins the post-peace central government in Khartoum.
"A deal in the south will also involve the participation of the SPLM in the government of national unity in Khartoum and I am sure that they will make their contributions to perhaps approaching more creatively the solutions to the other problems facing the country," he said.
- - -
GERMANY APPROVES DARFUR MISSION
At long last, the German parliament unanimously agreed Friday to provide up to 200 troops to help transport AU soldiers into Darfur. December 5 report by Deutsche Welle says German soldiers will not be based in Darfur and that Germany will use two of its military transport planes to fly Tanzanian African Union troops into Darfur from Tanzania and a third plane will be put on standby. Around 760 troops from Rwanda and Nigeria are already in Darfur having been transported by France and the United States.
The international community must not allow "a genocide in slow motion" to take place in Darfur, Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul told the German parliament.
Germany has set aside €2.25 million ($2.9 million) for aid for Darfur out of the European Union total of €92 million.
AU EXPLAINS SLOW PROGRESS
A report by Reuters yesterday says the African Union has been slowly increasing its force in Darfur toward a 3,300-strong contingent with a stronger mandate which includes monitoring a shaky April cease-fire, monitoring Sudanese police and limited powers to protect civilians:
"AU mission chief Baba Gana Kingibe said the slow progress was not because of lack of funding or difficulties in finding suitable troops.
"It is better that we synchronize the deployment of the troops to the availability of facilities on the ground. We are working on how we can speed up the provision of infrastructure on the ground to the deployment of the troops," he said.
"I think that by December 15 we should have quite a number of troops in. By the end of December we should have all the complements of the troops on the ground," he said." [Full Story]
Jonah Fisher of BBC News Khartoum explains the year-end target for Darfur troops.
- - -
Note, according to the above, the new head of the African Union observer mission to Sudan said he is hopeful that they will have completed deployment by the end of the year. Baba Gana Kingibe, a former Nigerian foreign minister, arrived in Khartoum on Saturday to take over control of the observer mission in Darfur.
It seems much longer ago than six weeks since the African Union voted to increase its mission to Darfur. Deployment has been slow. Less than one third of its planned mission of 3,300 troops are in place. Mainly Rwandan and Nigerian observers have arrived.
Speaking in Khartoum, Mr Kingibe said more troops would reach the area soon. "We have taken measures three days ago to speed up this and we have established certain timelines," he said. "By the end of December we should have all the complements of the troops on the ground."
According to Mr Kingibe, both the funding and the troops for the mission are now ready - it is just a question of the American contractors building enough camps to house them.
- - -
VIEWS OF NEW AU MISSION CHIEF FOR DARFUR
On his arrival in Sudan, AU mission chief Baba Gana Kingibe said that a joint declaration of principles should be signed within the first two weeks of Darfur peace talks, due to reconvene in the Nigerian capital Abuja around December 10.
"We expect that before long within a week or two the declaration of principles which was negotiated and largely agreed upon will be finalised and signed," Kingibe, a former Nigerian foreign minister, told reporters in Khartoum.
"We believe that early in the new year we will be making a robust approach towards inching to a final peace deal."
Kingibe, who was the AU's special envoy to south Sudan, where a separate war has raged for more than two decades, said a peace deal for the south would help solve the Darfur conflict when the southern rebel group, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), joins the post-peace central government in Khartoum.
"A deal in the south will also involve the participation of the SPLM in the government of national unity in Khartoum and I am sure that they will make their contributions to perhaps approaching more creatively the solutions to the other problems facing the country," he said.
- - -
GERMANY APPROVES DARFUR MISSION
At long last, the German parliament unanimously agreed Friday to provide up to 200 troops to help transport AU soldiers into Darfur. December 5 report by Deutsche Welle says German soldiers will not be based in Darfur and that Germany will use two of its military transport planes to fly Tanzanian African Union troops into Darfur from Tanzania and a third plane will be put on standby. Around 760 troops from Rwanda and Nigeria are already in Darfur having been transported by France and the United States.
The international community must not allow "a genocide in slow motion" to take place in Darfur, Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul told the German parliament.
Germany has set aside €2.25 million ($2.9 million) for aid for Darfur out of the European Union total of €92 million.
AU EXPLAINS SLOW PROGRESS
A report by Reuters yesterday says the African Union has been slowly increasing its force in Darfur toward a 3,300-strong contingent with a stronger mandate which includes monitoring a shaky April cease-fire, monitoring Sudanese police and limited powers to protect civilians:
"AU mission chief Baba Gana Kingibe said the slow progress was not because of lack of funding or difficulties in finding suitable troops.
"It is better that we synchronize the deployment of the troops to the availability of facilities on the ground. We are working on how we can speed up the provision of infrastructure on the ground to the deployment of the troops," he said.
"I think that by December 15 we should have quite a number of troops in. By the end of December we should have all the complements of the troops on the ground," he said." [Full Story]
UN Security Council discuss Annan report today warning chaos looms in violent Darfur
A report in today's UK Guardian re UN report released yesterday says the number of desperate people in need of humanitarian aid in Darfur reaches nearly 2.3 million.
The 15-page report details daily attacks, village burnings, rapes, hijackings of relief goods, theft of livestock, the forced movement of thousands of displaced people, and numerous deaths.
It says the Sudanese government has denied any air attacks and the SLA denied attacking Tawila, which Annan speculated could mean that both sides were not in control of their field commanders on the ground.
'There has been a continued breakdown in law and order as banditry, looting of livestock and abductions continued. In Darfur, chaos is looming as order is collapsing,' Annan said in the report which the Security Council is discussing today.
- - -
UPDATE: Dec. 7 United Nations (AFP) - The international community is "getting nowhere" with the crisis in Sudan's troubled Darfur region, the US ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, said. [Full Story]
The 15-page report details daily attacks, village burnings, rapes, hijackings of relief goods, theft of livestock, the forced movement of thousands of displaced people, and numerous deaths.
It says the Sudanese government has denied any air attacks and the SLA denied attacking Tawila, which Annan speculated could mean that both sides were not in control of their field commanders on the ground.
'There has been a continued breakdown in law and order as banditry, looting of livestock and abductions continued. In Darfur, chaos is looming as order is collapsing,' Annan said in the report which the Security Council is discussing today.
- - -
UPDATE: Dec. 7 United Nations (AFP) - The international community is "getting nowhere" with the crisis in Sudan's troubled Darfur region, the US ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, said. [Full Story]
African mothers gather to fundraise for Darfur - Save Darfur green wristbands
A meeting on Friday in New York organised by United Nations African Mothers Association (UNAMA) and chaired by Angola, gathered various African Mothers from around the world, in its annual activity (the Buffet), with the objective of collecting funds for the relief programme in benefit of women, children and refugees from Darfur, (Sudan).
Nane Annan, wife of Kofi Annan described the meeting and African mothers gathering and fundraising for Darfur as "a true act of solidarity".
- - -
Save Darfur green wristbands
Pictured below are the "Not On My Watch" green wristbands now available from Save Darfur.org
Nane Annan, wife of Kofi Annan described the meeting and African mothers gathering and fundraising for Darfur as "a true act of solidarity".
- - -
Save Darfur green wristbands
Pictured below are the "Not On My Watch" green wristbands now available from Save Darfur.org
U.N. Ambassador John Danforth calls for European security for Darfur Sudan IDP camps
Georgetown University reports today on a speech by Ambassador John Danforth in which he urges European countries to provide soldiers or police officers to provide security at the camps.
John C. Danforth
Calling Sudan “one of the great tragedies of the world today and a very long-standing tragedy,” Danforth emphasized the importance of educating Americans about the current conflict in Darfur.
Speaking specifically about Darfur, Danforth emphasized that the international community’s best course of action is to “increase the outside presence [in the region] particularly of the African Union.”
“There’s no chance the Security Council would agree to military action. As a practical matter, it’s not going to happen,” he said. “People say what about sanctions? We passed two resolutions in the Security Council that hinted at the possibility of sanctions. But to show the resistance to sanctions, we couldn’t even use that word in resolutions.”
Danforth said that “international observers would have a chilling effect on the worst incidences of abuse,” and urged European countries to provide soldiers or police officers to provide security at displaced persons camps. “Sudan is never going to be a place where we can cross it off the international to-do list,” he said. “I don’t think there’s ever a point that a country can stop the ongoing work of gluing itself together.”
- - -
CAN THE U.N. ACHIEVE PEACE IN SUDAN?
Readers have their say - via BBC News Online
The United Nations will provide aid to Sudan's government and southern rebels if they fulfil their promise to finalise a peace deal by the end of the year. The Sudanese parties signed the pledge at a special UN Security Council meeting in Kenya.
The council adopted a resolution backing the commitment. It also called for an immediate end to violence in Darfur but aid agencies said the resolution was weak and urged further action.
Will the meeting of diplomats really change anything? Is it an important step on the road to reconciliation - or just a token gesture? Click here to read the comments BBC News Online have received so far.
John C. Danforth
Calling Sudan “one of the great tragedies of the world today and a very long-standing tragedy,” Danforth emphasized the importance of educating Americans about the current conflict in Darfur.
Speaking specifically about Darfur, Danforth emphasized that the international community’s best course of action is to “increase the outside presence [in the region] particularly of the African Union.”
“There’s no chance the Security Council would agree to military action. As a practical matter, it’s not going to happen,” he said. “People say what about sanctions? We passed two resolutions in the Security Council that hinted at the possibility of sanctions. But to show the resistance to sanctions, we couldn’t even use that word in resolutions.”
Danforth said that “international observers would have a chilling effect on the worst incidences of abuse,” and urged European countries to provide soldiers or police officers to provide security at displaced persons camps. “Sudan is never going to be a place where we can cross it off the international to-do list,” he said. “I don’t think there’s ever a point that a country can stop the ongoing work of gluing itself together.”
- - -
CAN THE U.N. ACHIEVE PEACE IN SUDAN?
Readers have their say - via BBC News Online
The United Nations will provide aid to Sudan's government and southern rebels if they fulfil their promise to finalise a peace deal by the end of the year. The Sudanese parties signed the pledge at a special UN Security Council meeting in Kenya.
The council adopted a resolution backing the commitment. It also called for an immediate end to violence in Darfur but aid agencies said the resolution was weak and urged further action.
Will the meeting of diplomats really change anything? Is it an important step on the road to reconciliation - or just a token gesture? Click here to read the comments BBC News Online have received so far.
Monday, December 06, 2004
U.N. peacekeeper Birnback calls upon students to pressure politicians - John Danforth asks questions
Tufts alum Nick Birnback, pictured below, is currently a political officer with United Nations peacekeeping operations and has participated in missions in far-flung locations including East Timor, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ethiopia and Liberia.
On Friday night Birnback received the Light on the Hill award and offered anecdotes and pointed commentary to an intimate group of students and faculty in Cabot Auditorium: he was introduced by Tufts Community Union (TCU) President Dave Baumwoll and Director of the Institute for Global Leadership Sherman Teichman, who was Birnback's teacher and mentor at Tufts through the Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC) program.
Here is an excerpt from The Tufts Daily report on the talk:
Birnback said peacekeeping missions require realistic goals. "Don't try to keep the peace where there is no peace to keep," he said.
"If two groups decide that if it is in their best interests to resort to violence, it is difficult to stop them physically given the resources at our disposal."
Birnback said he first learned this principle while bartending. "If two guys at the bar have already started to fight, don't jump in front, or you'll get hit," he said.
Thirdly, Birnback said peacekeeping "has to be part of a whole set of activities, probably by the entire international community," he said, stressing the importance of long-term investments in health care and education. "If you don't stay long enough, you end up back there."
Finally, he spoke about the international community's resistance to taking action even when the situation clearly requires it. Sometimes, "it's impossible to do certain things in the international system that you feel deeply you should be doing," he said.
Birnback said the current humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan is an example of U.N. member nations' lack of initiative. "It's a massive crisis and people are dying every day," he said. "You don't read about it most of time because there is no political will to address the issue in a serious matter."
What then, he asked, can one do? "You take a page out of the book of Teichman and ring a bell," Birnback said, calling upon students to pressure politicians to take action in matters of international concern.
- - -
WOULD STUDENT UNIONS AND MEMBERS
Pressure politicians to take action in Darfur?
In Nick Birnback's talk (see above) he called upon students to pressure politicians to take action in matters of international concern.
Could we reach out to student unions around the world and ask their members to put pressure on politicians and the UN Security Council? If anybody has an insight into how best to do this, or knows somebody who does, please email here or the Passion with ideas, suggestions, tips (and what action you would like politicians to take) asap. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you.
- - -
WHAT ACTION COULD WE PUSH FOR?
Armed intervention ... and for how long ... a regime change ...no fly zone ...sanctions ...or what?
Note the following excerpt from a December 4 report by Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau Chief, Jon Sawyer, and the questions asked of human rights groups and media by John Danforth, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations:
" ... Danforth railed at the human-rights groups and media, especially The Washington Post, that have faulted the administration for not pressing hard enough on Darfur, where an estimated 70,000 individuals have died and 1.6 million have been driven from their homes.
"The Washington Post said Darfur was another Rwanda, that the U.S. government and Bush don't care and that if they cared they could stop this," Danforth said. "But they didn't have the gut to say how they would do it. Did they propose armed intervention? An attack on Khartoum [the Sudan capital]? They wouldn't say. Did they propose occupying an area the size of France in perpetuity? They didn't say. They pulled their punch. "What's the chance of the Security Council authorizing a military response if we can't even use the word 'sanctions'?" ..."
Photo: John C. Danforth, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
If we are to push politicians to take action, we need to be clear what it is we are asking them to do. It'd be interesting to know what readers think - and what Mr Danforth would advise students to push for as he's most likely to know what would work. The peace agreement Mr Danforth worked so hard for over the last three years is the only hope for Sudan. If there are not tens of thousands of protection troops in Darfur, the situation could get worse especially if new rebel groups spring up.
On Friday night Birnback received the Light on the Hill award and offered anecdotes and pointed commentary to an intimate group of students and faculty in Cabot Auditorium: he was introduced by Tufts Community Union (TCU) President Dave Baumwoll and Director of the Institute for Global Leadership Sherman Teichman, who was Birnback's teacher and mentor at Tufts through the Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC) program.
Here is an excerpt from The Tufts Daily report on the talk:
Birnback said peacekeeping missions require realistic goals. "Don't try to keep the peace where there is no peace to keep," he said.
"If two groups decide that if it is in their best interests to resort to violence, it is difficult to stop them physically given the resources at our disposal."
Birnback said he first learned this principle while bartending. "If two guys at the bar have already started to fight, don't jump in front, or you'll get hit," he said.
Thirdly, Birnback said peacekeeping "has to be part of a whole set of activities, probably by the entire international community," he said, stressing the importance of long-term investments in health care and education. "If you don't stay long enough, you end up back there."
Finally, he spoke about the international community's resistance to taking action even when the situation clearly requires it. Sometimes, "it's impossible to do certain things in the international system that you feel deeply you should be doing," he said.
Birnback said the current humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan is an example of U.N. member nations' lack of initiative. "It's a massive crisis and people are dying every day," he said. "You don't read about it most of time because there is no political will to address the issue in a serious matter."
What then, he asked, can one do? "You take a page out of the book of Teichman and ring a bell," Birnback said, calling upon students to pressure politicians to take action in matters of international concern.
- - -
WOULD STUDENT UNIONS AND MEMBERS
Pressure politicians to take action in Darfur?
In Nick Birnback's talk (see above) he called upon students to pressure politicians to take action in matters of international concern.
Could we reach out to student unions around the world and ask their members to put pressure on politicians and the UN Security Council? If anybody has an insight into how best to do this, or knows somebody who does, please email here or the Passion with ideas, suggestions, tips (and what action you would like politicians to take) asap. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you.
- - -
WHAT ACTION COULD WE PUSH FOR?
Armed intervention ... and for how long ... a regime change ...no fly zone ...sanctions ...or what?
Note the following excerpt from a December 4 report by Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau Chief, Jon Sawyer, and the questions asked of human rights groups and media by John Danforth, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations:
" ... Danforth railed at the human-rights groups and media, especially The Washington Post, that have faulted the administration for not pressing hard enough on Darfur, where an estimated 70,000 individuals have died and 1.6 million have been driven from their homes.
"The Washington Post said Darfur was another Rwanda, that the U.S. government and Bush don't care and that if they cared they could stop this," Danforth said. "But they didn't have the gut to say how they would do it. Did they propose armed intervention? An attack on Khartoum [the Sudan capital]? They wouldn't say. Did they propose occupying an area the size of France in perpetuity? They didn't say. They pulled their punch. "What's the chance of the Security Council authorizing a military response if we can't even use the word 'sanctions'?" ..."
Photo: John C. Danforth, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
If we are to push politicians to take action, we need to be clear what it is we are asking them to do. It'd be interesting to know what readers think - and what Mr Danforth would advise students to push for as he's most likely to know what would work. The peace agreement Mr Danforth worked so hard for over the last three years is the only hope for Sudan. If there are not tens of thousands of protection troops in Darfur, the situation could get worse especially if new rebel groups spring up.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
John Danforth: Hope to bring peace in Darfur. Danforth's tenure was marked by frustration with U.N. weaknesses
After reading the below copied report, it seems we are clutching at straws hoping for the UN Security Council to take action against Sudan when they won't even mention the word sanctions.
Considering what the African Union President said yesterday, just a few hours after meeting with President Bush at the White House- that he did not believe Darfur was genocide - one has to start coming to terms with the probability that the UN Commission investigating genocide in Darfur, may declare Darfur as ethnic cleansing and maybe crimes against humanity, but not genocide.
After seven months of blogging almost daily about Darfur, the whole horrific mind blowing story and ways of the world get more sickening as each day passes. Maybe it's too late at night right now to feel any glimmer of hope for Darfur. Perhaps things will look more hopeful in the morning. Doubt it though - unless something drastic happens, like Khartoum falling to the rebels or Kofi Annan stepping down. What else is there? There's no way a state of emergency will be declared and Darfur turned into a UN Protectorate. Who else can do anything except a new Secretary-General during a honeymoon period? Any of those options are not an overnight deal. My hopes are that the international community are working behind the scenes to support the rebels (which is what I believe they have been doing all along) and the regime in Khartoum will soon be overthrown.
Whatever, nothing much will happen until January. Back in May, it was agreed by Sudan that thousands of peacekeepers would enter the country to monitor the newly signed peace deals and ceasefire agreements. Final peace agreements are scheduled to be signed December 31. Right now, blogging about Darfur feels so pointless. Some days it's soul destroying. Imagine what John Danforth must have been thinking in the still of the night after meetings with the UN Security Council and Khartoum. Like I said, it's late at night and I am going to sleep now. God bless everyone on the ground in Sudan - and God help them, they sure need a miracle to happen. I'll pray for them.
The following editorial by reporter Jon Sawyer appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch New York Daily News today. It gives a good insight into the frustrating time Ambassdor Danforth had in his post and, reading between the lines, the no-hope situation for millions of Sudanese if the peace deals and ceasefire agreements fall apart.
John C. Danforth
( Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON - He was seen as a moderating influence within a conservative administration, a conciliatory figure with the potential to soothe tensions on a U.N. Security Council where anti-U.S. hostilities still ran strong.
As U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John C. Danforth met those expectations, to an extent, by embracing compromise proposals to nudge Sudan toward peace while forging unusually warm relations with other U.N. ambassadors. Yet as he leaves the post, announcing Thursday that he wants to return home to St. Louis to spend more time with his wife and family, the irony is that Danforth is more skeptical himself of the United Nations, and certainly more frustrated, than when he took the job in July.
The frustrations spilled out during a long conversation with the Post-Dispatch Nov. 20, two days before Danforth formally submitted his resignation to President George W. Bush. The interview took place aboard Air Force Two, en route home from what was arguably Danforth's greatest triumph, taking the entire Security Council membership to Nairobi, Kenya, to press for an end to Sudan's 21-year civil war.
It was the first time in 14 years that the council had met outside New York, only the fourth in half a century, and the gamble appeared to have paid off. The two-day meeting ended with all 15 council members united, standing behind representatives of Sudan's government and the main Southern rebel group as they signed a memorandum pledging to conclude final peace talks by Dec. 31.
U.N. weaknesses
Yet as Danforth reviewed the trip, and his overall tenure, he appeared more conscious of what hadn't been done, of what - given the current U.N. environment - couldn't be done.
"What's the Security Council?" he mused. "It is the only real power within the United Nations, and it's a very weak power."
Danforth said that in his view the Nairobi trip had demonstrated the council's main strength - "the ability to put serious problems front and center" - but also its weakness, the system of vetoes and super majorities that prevented it from exercising "its power to do more than that, to actually act."
He was even more dismissive of the General Assembly ("basically just a debating society") and of a secretariat that has become bogged down in the Iraq oil-for-food inquiry and other scandals.
The five months since Danforth was sworn in by his old friend, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, have seen a litany of setbacks:
No progress on what had been billed as a major goal: Getting the United Nations to take on a larger role in planning and oversight of the Iraq elections now set for Jan. 30.
A quick shootdown of the suggestion he floated in September: That the United Nations create a group of leaders from different religious faiths to address the religious component in so much current violence. It set off nearly as many alarms within the State Department as among countries like China and Russia.
On Israel and the Palestinians, more of the same. Danforth had no more success than previous U.S. ambassadors at getting the world body past the posturing that has been reflexively anti-Israel. The one Security Council veto he cast was to block a resolution condemning Israel.
"It was unbelievable when Yasser Arafat died," Danforth said, recalling the speeches by council members following the death of the Palestinian leader last month that portrayed him "in the most heroic terms."
Petty bureaucratic rules, from having to vet what he said with the State Department to ethics rules that said his wife couldn't ride alone in his official limousine even if it was only to pick him up en route to an official engagement.
The council's trip to Nairobi was itself the product of frustration, Danforth's inability over the preceding three months to get the council even to threaten sanctions against Sudan for its alleged human-rights violations in the western region of Darfur.
Danforth railed at the human-rights groups and media, especially The Washington Post, that have faulted the administration for not pressing hard enough on Darfur, where an estimated 70,000 individuals have died and 1.6 million have been driven from their homes.
"The Washington Post said Darfur was another Rwanda, that the U.S. government and Bush don't care and that if they cared they could stop this," Danforth said. "But they didn't have the gut to say how they would do it. Did they propose armed intervention? An attack on Khartoum [the Sudan capital]? They wouldn't say. Did they propose occupying an area the size of France in perpetuity? They didn't say. They pulled their punch.
"What's the chance of the Security Council authorizing a military response if we can't even use the word 'sanctions'?"
Whether the government of Sudan and the leading rebel group in southern Sudan follow through on a promised peace deal by Dec. 31 remains to be seen, as does the council's premise that resolution of the north-south civil war will make possible an end to violence in Darfur.
Danforth said he alone had decided to take the council to Nairobi - "I woke up one morning and thought we should go," he recalled. Darfur had been on center stage since before he took up the U.N. post. But in the face of strong opposition from China, Russia and pro-Sudan Muslim members of the council, the resolutions he got through the council skirted even the mention of sanctions.
So Danforth took a risk, persuading the council to make the unusual trip to Africa and then persuading the Pentagon to supply the U.S. jet that ferried them there. What he especially liked, he said, was the opportunity for the 15 Security Council ambassadors to spend time together and to work toward a common goal.
"I think this has been a great thing for the council," he said. "Little stuff, like having this plane - it created a camaraderie that's very helpful. The council really felt good" when the peace memorandum was signed, he added. "They felt they were acting together, doing something important, that they had accomplished something."
Danforth insisted that in orchestrating a potentially risky trip he was simply carrying out Bush administration policy.
"The president has an interest in Sudan, in fixing Sudan. That was the impetus of my being asked to do this job.
"So the question was: What do we do about it? I've not viewed myself as having a policy role. I don't know where policy stops and where going out and making it work begins."
That Sudan preoccupied Danforth during most of his U.N. tenure made sense, given his role as Bush's envoy for that country's peace process since 2001 and the prominence of Darfur now. In his resignation letter to the president Danforth said he was open to taking on such specific tasks again, so long as he could do them from a St. Louis base.
Even as he vented on the parts of the job he disliked, Danforth made it clear that home and family, especially his wife, Sally, were the overwhelming factors that had led him to cut short his diplomatic career.
"Projects are one thing," he said. "A full-time job outside of St. Louis is another. Basically what I am is a St. Louis guy married to a St. Louis girl for 47 years. I would like to spend more time with both of them."
- - -
John Danforth: Hope to bring peace in Darfur
The following editorial appeared online at NewsFromRussia.Com December 4, 2004.
The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, says the recently signed peace memorandum between the government of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement offers the best hope to end the humanitarian crisis and bring peace in Darfur, in the western part of country.
The 15-member UN Security Council traveled to Nairobi, Kenya last month to oversee the signing of the memorandum, which calls for a signed peace agreement between the two sides to end civil war that has ravaged Sudan for 21 years. It was only the fourth time in its history that the Security Council has met outside of the United Nations' New York headquarters, says Voice of America.
According to Reuters, Danforth, 68, wrote his resignation letter on Nov. 22 but it was not released by the White House until Thursday. He told reporters he did not want "to sign on for a four-year stint at this point in my life."
"What I really want to do is go home. I mean it's really just as simple as that," he said. "What's most important to me is my wife and my home and having more time with both. I'm a St. Louis guy."
In a speech in St. Louis last month, Danforth said that as a former senator, he was not accustomed to having a policy statement vetted by Washington bureaucrats and transformed into "mush" before he could issue it.
But he said this was not the reason for his resignation because he knew the job entailed representing the view of the U.S. government and not an individual.
UN diplomats said Danforth's tenure at the UN would be remembered for his efforts to press the Sudanese government to end the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, including the Nov. 18-19 Security Council meetings in Kenya that produced a commitment by government and rebel forces to end a 20-year civil war in Sudan.
Danforth "was seen as someone passionate about this issue but, unfortunately, for reasons beyond his control, the Security Council wasn't willing to act on Darfur, which is another stain on the institution," Feinstein said.
The former senator "was frustrated because we have to do all this work to get language that everyone can support, so at the end we do not get anything bold and clear," said Ambassador Abdallah Baali of Algeria, president of the Security Council this month. "I will miss him because he brought a new spirit to the council and I really bonded with him", reports Bloomberg.
Considering what the African Union President said yesterday, just a few hours after meeting with President Bush at the White House- that he did not believe Darfur was genocide - one has to start coming to terms with the probability that the UN Commission investigating genocide in Darfur, may declare Darfur as ethnic cleansing and maybe crimes against humanity, but not genocide.
After seven months of blogging almost daily about Darfur, the whole horrific mind blowing story and ways of the world get more sickening as each day passes. Maybe it's too late at night right now to feel any glimmer of hope for Darfur. Perhaps things will look more hopeful in the morning. Doubt it though - unless something drastic happens, like Khartoum falling to the rebels or Kofi Annan stepping down. What else is there? There's no way a state of emergency will be declared and Darfur turned into a UN Protectorate. Who else can do anything except a new Secretary-General during a honeymoon period? Any of those options are not an overnight deal. My hopes are that the international community are working behind the scenes to support the rebels (which is what I believe they have been doing all along) and the regime in Khartoum will soon be overthrown.
Whatever, nothing much will happen until January. Back in May, it was agreed by Sudan that thousands of peacekeepers would enter the country to monitor the newly signed peace deals and ceasefire agreements. Final peace agreements are scheduled to be signed December 31. Right now, blogging about Darfur feels so pointless. Some days it's soul destroying. Imagine what John Danforth must have been thinking in the still of the night after meetings with the UN Security Council and Khartoum. Like I said, it's late at night and I am going to sleep now. God bless everyone on the ground in Sudan - and God help them, they sure need a miracle to happen. I'll pray for them.
The following editorial by reporter Jon Sawyer appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch New York Daily News today. It gives a good insight into the frustrating time Ambassdor Danforth had in his post and, reading between the lines, the no-hope situation for millions of Sudanese if the peace deals and ceasefire agreements fall apart.
John C. Danforth
( Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON - He was seen as a moderating influence within a conservative administration, a conciliatory figure with the potential to soothe tensions on a U.N. Security Council where anti-U.S. hostilities still ran strong.
As U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John C. Danforth met those expectations, to an extent, by embracing compromise proposals to nudge Sudan toward peace while forging unusually warm relations with other U.N. ambassadors. Yet as he leaves the post, announcing Thursday that he wants to return home to St. Louis to spend more time with his wife and family, the irony is that Danforth is more skeptical himself of the United Nations, and certainly more frustrated, than when he took the job in July.
The frustrations spilled out during a long conversation with the Post-Dispatch Nov. 20, two days before Danforth formally submitted his resignation to President George W. Bush. The interview took place aboard Air Force Two, en route home from what was arguably Danforth's greatest triumph, taking the entire Security Council membership to Nairobi, Kenya, to press for an end to Sudan's 21-year civil war.
It was the first time in 14 years that the council had met outside New York, only the fourth in half a century, and the gamble appeared to have paid off. The two-day meeting ended with all 15 council members united, standing behind representatives of Sudan's government and the main Southern rebel group as they signed a memorandum pledging to conclude final peace talks by Dec. 31.
U.N. weaknesses
Yet as Danforth reviewed the trip, and his overall tenure, he appeared more conscious of what hadn't been done, of what - given the current U.N. environment - couldn't be done.
"What's the Security Council?" he mused. "It is the only real power within the United Nations, and it's a very weak power."
Danforth said that in his view the Nairobi trip had demonstrated the council's main strength - "the ability to put serious problems front and center" - but also its weakness, the system of vetoes and super majorities that prevented it from exercising "its power to do more than that, to actually act."
He was even more dismissive of the General Assembly ("basically just a debating society") and of a secretariat that has become bogged down in the Iraq oil-for-food inquiry and other scandals.
The five months since Danforth was sworn in by his old friend, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, have seen a litany of setbacks:
No progress on what had been billed as a major goal: Getting the United Nations to take on a larger role in planning and oversight of the Iraq elections now set for Jan. 30.
A quick shootdown of the suggestion he floated in September: That the United Nations create a group of leaders from different religious faiths to address the religious component in so much current violence. It set off nearly as many alarms within the State Department as among countries like China and Russia.
On Israel and the Palestinians, more of the same. Danforth had no more success than previous U.S. ambassadors at getting the world body past the posturing that has been reflexively anti-Israel. The one Security Council veto he cast was to block a resolution condemning Israel.
"It was unbelievable when Yasser Arafat died," Danforth said, recalling the speeches by council members following the death of the Palestinian leader last month that portrayed him "in the most heroic terms."
Petty bureaucratic rules, from having to vet what he said with the State Department to ethics rules that said his wife couldn't ride alone in his official limousine even if it was only to pick him up en route to an official engagement.
The council's trip to Nairobi was itself the product of frustration, Danforth's inability over the preceding three months to get the council even to threaten sanctions against Sudan for its alleged human-rights violations in the western region of Darfur.
Danforth railed at the human-rights groups and media, especially The Washington Post, that have faulted the administration for not pressing hard enough on Darfur, where an estimated 70,000 individuals have died and 1.6 million have been driven from their homes.
"The Washington Post said Darfur was another Rwanda, that the U.S. government and Bush don't care and that if they cared they could stop this," Danforth said. "But they didn't have the gut to say how they would do it. Did they propose armed intervention? An attack on Khartoum [the Sudan capital]? They wouldn't say. Did they propose occupying an area the size of France in perpetuity? They didn't say. They pulled their punch.
"What's the chance of the Security Council authorizing a military response if we can't even use the word 'sanctions'?"
Whether the government of Sudan and the leading rebel group in southern Sudan follow through on a promised peace deal by Dec. 31 remains to be seen, as does the council's premise that resolution of the north-south civil war will make possible an end to violence in Darfur.
Danforth said he alone had decided to take the council to Nairobi - "I woke up one morning and thought we should go," he recalled. Darfur had been on center stage since before he took up the U.N. post. But in the face of strong opposition from China, Russia and pro-Sudan Muslim members of the council, the resolutions he got through the council skirted even the mention of sanctions.
So Danforth took a risk, persuading the council to make the unusual trip to Africa and then persuading the Pentagon to supply the U.S. jet that ferried them there. What he especially liked, he said, was the opportunity for the 15 Security Council ambassadors to spend time together and to work toward a common goal.
"I think this has been a great thing for the council," he said. "Little stuff, like having this plane - it created a camaraderie that's very helpful. The council really felt good" when the peace memorandum was signed, he added. "They felt they were acting together, doing something important, that they had accomplished something."
Danforth insisted that in orchestrating a potentially risky trip he was simply carrying out Bush administration policy.
"The president has an interest in Sudan, in fixing Sudan. That was the impetus of my being asked to do this job.
"So the question was: What do we do about it? I've not viewed myself as having a policy role. I don't know where policy stops and where going out and making it work begins."
That Sudan preoccupied Danforth during most of his U.N. tenure made sense, given his role as Bush's envoy for that country's peace process since 2001 and the prominence of Darfur now. In his resignation letter to the president Danforth said he was open to taking on such specific tasks again, so long as he could do them from a St. Louis base.
Even as he vented on the parts of the job he disliked, Danforth made it clear that home and family, especially his wife, Sally, were the overwhelming factors that had led him to cut short his diplomatic career.
"Projects are one thing," he said. "A full-time job outside of St. Louis is another. Basically what I am is a St. Louis guy married to a St. Louis girl for 47 years. I would like to spend more time with both of them."
- - -
John Danforth: Hope to bring peace in Darfur
The following editorial appeared online at NewsFromRussia.Com December 4, 2004.
The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, says the recently signed peace memorandum between the government of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement offers the best hope to end the humanitarian crisis and bring peace in Darfur, in the western part of country.
The 15-member UN Security Council traveled to Nairobi, Kenya last month to oversee the signing of the memorandum, which calls for a signed peace agreement between the two sides to end civil war that has ravaged Sudan for 21 years. It was only the fourth time in its history that the Security Council has met outside of the United Nations' New York headquarters, says Voice of America.
According to Reuters, Danforth, 68, wrote his resignation letter on Nov. 22 but it was not released by the White House until Thursday. He told reporters he did not want "to sign on for a four-year stint at this point in my life."
"What I really want to do is go home. I mean it's really just as simple as that," he said. "What's most important to me is my wife and my home and having more time with both. I'm a St. Louis guy."
In a speech in St. Louis last month, Danforth said that as a former senator, he was not accustomed to having a policy statement vetted by Washington bureaucrats and transformed into "mush" before he could issue it.
But he said this was not the reason for his resignation because he knew the job entailed representing the view of the U.S. government and not an individual.
UN diplomats said Danforth's tenure at the UN would be remembered for his efforts to press the Sudanese government to end the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, including the Nov. 18-19 Security Council meetings in Kenya that produced a commitment by government and rebel forces to end a 20-year civil war in Sudan.
Danforth "was seen as someone passionate about this issue but, unfortunately, for reasons beyond his control, the Security Council wasn't willing to act on Darfur, which is another stain on the institution," Feinstein said.
The former senator "was frustrated because we have to do all this work to get language that everyone can support, so at the end we do not get anything bold and clear," said Ambassador Abdallah Baali of Algeria, president of the Security Council this month. "I will miss him because he brought a new spirit to the council and I really bonded with him", reports Bloomberg.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
No U.S. release for Band Aid 20 - Fran Healy called criticism of the single for Darfur "disgraceful"
Band Aid 20's version of the 1984 charity hit "Do They Know it's Christmas" for Darfur is a smash hit in its opening days on the British charts. The updated tune sold nearly 100,000 copies on Monday, its first day in stores, and was moving 2,500 copies an hour at Woolworth stores, according to Britain's Sun newspaper. UK music magazine NME predicted that first-week sales of the single will hover near 500,000--which would make it the year's second fastest-selling single.
In the UK, the song is expected to be at number one and stay at the top of the Brit pops until Christmas. But it has been dealt a massive blow in its bid to raise awareness and funds for Darfur - the track might not make it to US record shops before Christmas, if at all, according to industry sources - it's not going to be released in America.
Record company Universal is responsible for the global distribution of the single, which will be available across Europe, Asia, South America and Canada. Although US record stores are selling imports of the tune - which is proving popular in Los Angeles and New York - a rep for Universal in New York says there are no immediate plans to release the single in America.
One report says, "The last we heard it is not coming out in the U.S.," says Jerry Suarez, Virgin Megastore's senior music product manager for North America. The chain is selling an import version of the CD single.
"Historically, the American marketplace has proven averse to much of what has been incredibly successful in England," says HITS magazine editor and E! News Live correspondent David Adelson. "Despite the success of the first Band Aid, as well as the noble cause behind this latest one, the chance of replicating the song's U.K. success Stateside is slim at best," he said.
Another report suggests Universal's apparent ambivalence at releasing the tune has something to do with the lukewarm critical reaction. British critics harshed on it ("Nobody's idea of a great record," opined the Guardian), and in New Zealand, one radio station has even banned the tune--calling it "rubbish."
Travis frontman Fran Healy called criticism of the single for Darfur "disgraceful."
The song is available on Apple's iTunes music download service, but only on UK and European versions of the online store.
US fans wanting to hear the new version can go to the official Website, BandAid20.com - and may have to keep trying. I tried to access it a few minutes ago but it wouldn't open on screen. Perhaps it's swamped with other visitors.
Proceeds from the sales are going towards relief for Darfur and to combat HIV and Aids across Africa.
Going by the above news, it would appear that criticism of the single, and doubts that Americans would buy it, have deterred Universal from releasing it in the US. Hey come on USA, please prove the naysayers wrong and help raise awareness by spreading the word.
Public demand could result in the single being released in the USA and millions of copies sold before Christmas. Who knows, it may even reach the ears of the members of the UN Security Council (and their famillies and friends) and shame them into action.
Also, please do not miss Jim's latest post at the Passion: "You can help: Remove Kofi Annan from the United Nations."
INDEPENDENCE OF REBEL COMMANDERS IN DARFUR THREATENS EFFORTS TO BRING PEACE
The latest news from the UN is that raping and fighting are continuing in Darfur despite the peace accords
UN officials say they're noticing splits within the rebel movement. There appears to be little coordination between the military forces in Darfur and the rebel political wing that's negotiating peace. Dozens of local commanders now control their own territories. "The world might soon find Darfur ruled by warlords," warned Jan Pronk, the top UN envoy in Sudan.
RAPES, FORCED MOVES CONTINUE IN DARFUR
Arab Janjaweed militia continued to rape women and girls in Darfur last month while authorities forcibly moved refugees, says the UN. There is very little the UN monitors can do to prevent it while it is happening. Forced relocations are usually undertaken by police and law enforcement officials.
The number of UN human rights monitors is set to double shortly to 32, but they remain basically helpless to halt violations in Darfur, where about 1,000 African Union ceasefire monitors are also deployed.
AFRICAN UNION SOLDIERS ATTACKED AND SHOT
The mandate of the 1,000 AU soldiers currently in Sudan is to observe and protect the UN monitors who are there to observe ceasefire agreements. Fighting between warring parties has escalated. AU troops have come under fire and one has been shot.
The shooting of the AU peacekeeper occurred as a team of ceasefire monitors were travelling to the village of Adwah in north Nyala, to investigate an alleged bombing by the government in breach of a ceasefire agreement with rebels.
On Thursday, an AU spokesman told IRIN: If they come under fire, then they will shoot back. "They have to protect their lives - and they will." The current 830-strong peacekeeping force in Darfur would "not give in to intimidation" he said.
The monitors find their task daunting. AU troops can intervene militarily only if the civilians and aid workers they encounter are "under imminent threat and in immediate vicinity" of attacks. AU monitors frequently witness human rights abuses they are powerless to stop.
"It's not an easy job," an AU spokesman says. "This is not a peacekeeping mission where you can exert some kind of force. Nobody ever agreed to that."
ANARCHY AND LANDMINES
With anarchy breaking out in Darfur, there is no ceasefire to observe. After decades of war in Sudan, landmines are all over the country. A freshly laid mine recently killed two British aid workers. A no-fly zone has not been imposed. Government of Sudan forces still continue to bomb.
Sudan has called for international help to eliminate landmines. "We appeal to the international community to assist Sudan to remove this terrible threat to the lives of peoples and much needed recovery and development in this country," an official said.
A report out today "UN Agency appeals for funds to de-mine Sudan roads" states that a six-year mine action strategy sealed in Nairobi in August between Khartoum and southern rebels has now allowed the UN to begin work in southern Sudan, clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance. Perhaps this is the work that is planned for UN peacekeepers when they enter Sudan to monitor peace agreements, after they're signed December 31, 2004.
KHARTOUM'S CLAMPDOWN
Several days ago, Sudan's government tried to expel two British aid workers for speaking to the press and mentioning recent bombings by Sudan's government forces, without clearing it through Khartoum first. Hard news from the field is not easy to come by. Whatever news comes out of Sudan, the regime in power are such masters at spinning propaganda you can't trust a word they say.
Patrick Hall points out that in June 2004 there was an urgency to speak to foreigners about the massive abuses committed in Darfur among the displaced community. But since September the displaced have become afraid of talking. They are being watched by the security forces and the police within the camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and fear being arrested after being seen speaking to foreigners.
Patrick says Amnesty International's latest report on Sudan, titled "No one to complain to - no respite for the victims, impunity for perpetrators" describes in detail exactly what the refugees are now afraid to report to the outside world.
UN troops are often criticised for not being allowed to intervene
U.N. PROTECTION TROOPS
More UN monitors and AU observers without a mandate to protect and defend? There is no ceasefire to observe and no peace to keep. Tens of thousands of protection troops from the UN are urgently needed in Darfur to back up the AU troops. Everyone on the ground in Sudan - and the people of Darfur - need all the help and publicity they can get. Please spread the word. Thank you.
Please do not miss Jim's post at the Passion "You can help: Remove Kofi Annan from the United Nations." A new broom at the UN could do wonders for Sudan and Africa as a whole.
BLAIR BUYS COPIES OF BAND AID 20 SINGLE
Prime Minister Tony Blair purchased two copies of Band Aid 20 yesterday.
Staff were surprised when the Prime Minister walked into HMV at 0900 GMT, accompanied by aides and local police.
"When Mr Blair came in unannounced, we were all pretty gobsmacked," said HMV manager Clive Smith.
"Our customer helper approached him... it was only then we realised he wanted to buy copies of the Band Aid single, rather than the latest Eminem album."
In the UK, the song is expected to be at number one and stay at the top of the Brit pops until Christmas. But it has been dealt a massive blow in its bid to raise awareness and funds for Darfur - the track might not make it to US record shops before Christmas, if at all, according to industry sources - it's not going to be released in America.
Record company Universal is responsible for the global distribution of the single, which will be available across Europe, Asia, South America and Canada. Although US record stores are selling imports of the tune - which is proving popular in Los Angeles and New York - a rep for Universal in New York says there are no immediate plans to release the single in America.
One report says, "The last we heard it is not coming out in the U.S.," says Jerry Suarez, Virgin Megastore's senior music product manager for North America. The chain is selling an import version of the CD single.
"Historically, the American marketplace has proven averse to much of what has been incredibly successful in England," says HITS magazine editor and E! News Live correspondent David Adelson. "Despite the success of the first Band Aid, as well as the noble cause behind this latest one, the chance of replicating the song's U.K. success Stateside is slim at best," he said.
Another report suggests Universal's apparent ambivalence at releasing the tune has something to do with the lukewarm critical reaction. British critics harshed on it ("Nobody's idea of a great record," opined the Guardian), and in New Zealand, one radio station has even banned the tune--calling it "rubbish."
Travis frontman Fran Healy called criticism of the single for Darfur "disgraceful."
The song is available on Apple's iTunes music download service, but only on UK and European versions of the online store.
US fans wanting to hear the new version can go to the official Website, BandAid20.com - and may have to keep trying. I tried to access it a few minutes ago but it wouldn't open on screen. Perhaps it's swamped with other visitors.
Proceeds from the sales are going towards relief for Darfur and to combat HIV and Aids across Africa.
Going by the above news, it would appear that criticism of the single, and doubts that Americans would buy it, have deterred Universal from releasing it in the US. Hey come on USA, please prove the naysayers wrong and help raise awareness by spreading the word.
Public demand could result in the single being released in the USA and millions of copies sold before Christmas. Who knows, it may even reach the ears of the members of the UN Security Council (and their famillies and friends) and shame them into action.
Also, please do not miss Jim's latest post at the Passion: "You can help: Remove Kofi Annan from the United Nations."
INDEPENDENCE OF REBEL COMMANDERS IN DARFUR THREATENS EFFORTS TO BRING PEACE
The latest news from the UN is that raping and fighting are continuing in Darfur despite the peace accords
UN officials say they're noticing splits within the rebel movement. There appears to be little coordination between the military forces in Darfur and the rebel political wing that's negotiating peace. Dozens of local commanders now control their own territories. "The world might soon find Darfur ruled by warlords," warned Jan Pronk, the top UN envoy in Sudan.
RAPES, FORCED MOVES CONTINUE IN DARFUR
Arab Janjaweed militia continued to rape women and girls in Darfur last month while authorities forcibly moved refugees, says the UN. There is very little the UN monitors can do to prevent it while it is happening. Forced relocations are usually undertaken by police and law enforcement officials.
The number of UN human rights monitors is set to double shortly to 32, but they remain basically helpless to halt violations in Darfur, where about 1,000 African Union ceasefire monitors are also deployed.
AFRICAN UNION SOLDIERS ATTACKED AND SHOT
The mandate of the 1,000 AU soldiers currently in Sudan is to observe and protect the UN monitors who are there to observe ceasefire agreements. Fighting between warring parties has escalated. AU troops have come under fire and one has been shot.
The shooting of the AU peacekeeper occurred as a team of ceasefire monitors were travelling to the village of Adwah in north Nyala, to investigate an alleged bombing by the government in breach of a ceasefire agreement with rebels.
On Thursday, an AU spokesman told IRIN: If they come under fire, then they will shoot back. "They have to protect their lives - and they will." The current 830-strong peacekeeping force in Darfur would "not give in to intimidation" he said.
The monitors find their task daunting. AU troops can intervene militarily only if the civilians and aid workers they encounter are "under imminent threat and in immediate vicinity" of attacks. AU monitors frequently witness human rights abuses they are powerless to stop.
"It's not an easy job," an AU spokesman says. "This is not a peacekeeping mission where you can exert some kind of force. Nobody ever agreed to that."
ANARCHY AND LANDMINES
With anarchy breaking out in Darfur, there is no ceasefire to observe. After decades of war in Sudan, landmines are all over the country. A freshly laid mine recently killed two British aid workers. A no-fly zone has not been imposed. Government of Sudan forces still continue to bomb.
Sudan has called for international help to eliminate landmines. "We appeal to the international community to assist Sudan to remove this terrible threat to the lives of peoples and much needed recovery and development in this country," an official said.
A report out today "UN Agency appeals for funds to de-mine Sudan roads" states that a six-year mine action strategy sealed in Nairobi in August between Khartoum and southern rebels has now allowed the UN to begin work in southern Sudan, clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance. Perhaps this is the work that is planned for UN peacekeepers when they enter Sudan to monitor peace agreements, after they're signed December 31, 2004.
KHARTOUM'S CLAMPDOWN
Several days ago, Sudan's government tried to expel two British aid workers for speaking to the press and mentioning recent bombings by Sudan's government forces, without clearing it through Khartoum first. Hard news from the field is not easy to come by. Whatever news comes out of Sudan, the regime in power are such masters at spinning propaganda you can't trust a word they say.
Patrick Hall points out that in June 2004 there was an urgency to speak to foreigners about the massive abuses committed in Darfur among the displaced community. But since September the displaced have become afraid of talking. They are being watched by the security forces and the police within the camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and fear being arrested after being seen speaking to foreigners.
Patrick says Amnesty International's latest report on Sudan, titled "No one to complain to - no respite for the victims, impunity for perpetrators" describes in detail exactly what the refugees are now afraid to report to the outside world.
UN troops are often criticised for not being allowed to intervene
U.N. PROTECTION TROOPS
More UN monitors and AU observers without a mandate to protect and defend? There is no ceasefire to observe and no peace to keep. Tens of thousands of protection troops from the UN are urgently needed in Darfur to back up the AU troops. Everyone on the ground in Sudan - and the people of Darfur - need all the help and publicity they can get. Please spread the word. Thank you.
Please do not miss Jim's post at the Passion "You can help: Remove Kofi Annan from the United Nations." A new broom at the UN could do wonders for Sudan and Africa as a whole.
BLAIR BUYS COPIES OF BAND AID 20 SINGLE
Prime Minister Tony Blair purchased two copies of Band Aid 20 yesterday.
Staff were surprised when the Prime Minister walked into HMV at 0900 GMT, accompanied by aides and local police.
"When Mr Blair came in unannounced, we were all pretty gobsmacked," said HMV manager Clive Smith.
"Our customer helper approached him... it was only then we realised he wanted to buy copies of the Band Aid single, rather than the latest Eminem album."
Sudan: Oil and Darfur - India signed new pipeline deal - France interested in Uranium and has drilling rights
The following is a copy of Jim Moore's post dated July 12, 2004, at the Passion. As I have needed to refer to the links and map quite often, I am posting them here for ease of reference.
Oil and Darfur, from Ingrid Jones
Ingrid Jones has done a fascinating and important piece of investigative reporting on the role of oil in the Darfur genocide. The struggle over resources is not about cattle and water, farmer and herder--but about who will control the next big reserve of oil. An excerpt:
"Perhaps the GoS knew all along that there was oil in Darfur. And they presumed (wrongly) we in the Western world wouldn't notice that black Africans were being eliminated to make way for the Arabisation of Sudan. The GoS are keen on getting the Peace Accord signed and sealed because it will legitimise their standing (they're an unelected dictatorship that stole power through a coup) and it will help pave the way for doing deals with Asian oil companies, which may in turn help attract back the big players (ie British Petroleum) that pulled out of Sudan because of human rights issues."
A must read! The graphic alone is worth the whole price of a click. Thanks Ingrid. BTW, read Ingrid every day for in-depth analysis of various aspects of the Sudan genocide, from oil economics to why weren't the aid agencies prepared (something Eric Reeves raised at the Harvard discussion, as well)?
- - -
Further reading:
ME AND OPHELIA ARAB SOURCES SAY OIL DISCOVERED IN DARFUR - Sudan and India sign new pipeline deal
Sudan: OIL AND MINERAL RICHES IN DARFUR Uranium discovered in Hofrat Al Nihas: France is interested in Uranium and has drilling rights in Sudan
Sudan: "OIL, CHINA AND GENOCIDE IN SUDAN AND SOUTH DARFUR: USA and Sudan Peace Act -- And where are 4 million Darfuris?"
Oil and Darfur, from Ingrid Jones
Ingrid Jones has done a fascinating and important piece of investigative reporting on the role of oil in the Darfur genocide. The struggle over resources is not about cattle and water, farmer and herder--but about who will control the next big reserve of oil. An excerpt:
"Perhaps the GoS knew all along that there was oil in Darfur. And they presumed (wrongly) we in the Western world wouldn't notice that black Africans were being eliminated to make way for the Arabisation of Sudan. The GoS are keen on getting the Peace Accord signed and sealed because it will legitimise their standing (they're an unelected dictatorship that stole power through a coup) and it will help pave the way for doing deals with Asian oil companies, which may in turn help attract back the big players (ie British Petroleum) that pulled out of Sudan because of human rights issues."
A must read! The graphic alone is worth the whole price of a click. Thanks Ingrid. BTW, read Ingrid every day for in-depth analysis of various aspects of the Sudan genocide, from oil economics to why weren't the aid agencies prepared (something Eric Reeves raised at the Harvard discussion, as well)?
- - -
Further reading:
ME AND OPHELIA ARAB SOURCES SAY OIL DISCOVERED IN DARFUR - Sudan and India sign new pipeline deal
Sudan: OIL AND MINERAL RICHES IN DARFUR Uranium discovered in Hofrat Al Nihas: France is interested in Uranium and has drilling rights in Sudan
Sudan: "OIL, CHINA AND GENOCIDE IN SUDAN AND SOUTH DARFUR: USA and Sudan Peace Act -- And where are 4 million Darfuris?"
Friday, December 03, 2004
Sudan calls for international help to eliminate landmines - Sudan's Land Act could Thwart Darfurians' return
Here below is a copy of a report by China news highlighting an interesting plea by the Sudanese government on Thursday.
What's unusual too is that it's the longest report I've seen at China News online. I am copying it here in full. It is dated December 2, 2004 and contains a variety of useful snippets and information.
Also, note to self: it's the second time this week I've seen mention of new reasons that could delay the return of the IDPs to their homes. A few days ago, Voice of America published a piece titled "Sudan's Land Act could Thwart Darfurians' return" - see copy of report here below.
Here's the report by China News titled "Sudan calls for international help to eliminate landmines." [Update: German news agency covered the story UN Agency appeals for funds to de-mine Sudan roads on Dec 4, 2004]
Khartoum appealed to the international community to provide the mine-affected country with financial assistance to eradicate landmines and help the victims.
Addressing the ongoing international meeting on landmines in the Kenyan capital Nairobi, Sudan's Minister for Humanitarian Affairs Ibrahim Mahmoud Hamid described landmines as "our greatest problem."
"We appeal to the international community to assist Sudan to remove this terrible threat to the lives of peoples and much needed recovery and development in this country," Hamid said.
"We think landmines will be the biggest challenge facing us after the signing of the peace protocol. The continued support of the UN and the international community to mine action in Sudan is sincerely appreciated," he added.
The minister told delegates attending the Nairobi Summit on Mine-Free World clearing landmines in the Africa's largest countrywould sharply cut the cost of humanitarian aid by making road transport possible and allowing the return of refugees.
He said with anticipated peace, the return of more than 500,000 refugees will be impossible until mines are cleared, noting efforts aimed at eradicating the deadly weapons need to be strengthened.
"With imminent comprehensive peace agreement and a large numbers of refugees and IDPs (internally displaced persons) expected to return to their communities of origin and the influx has already started by nearly 500,000 returnees, therefore the momentum of the mine action program needs to increase significantly," Hamid told the delegates.
He said a six-year mine action strategy sealed in Nairobi in August between Khartoum and southern rebels has now allowed the United Nations to begin work in southern Sudan, clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance.
"This will allow displaced people to return home, open up routes for business and aid deliveries, and allow the expansion of farm land," he said.
He said there are around 10,000 landmine victims in Sudan at present, many with missing limbs. "Help for these people is very important to us,'' said the minister.
Sudan ratified the Mine Ban Treaty last year and the main southern rebel group, Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) has signed a deed of commitment, which essentially make it a non-state actor.
The Khartoum government and the SPLM/A have fought for the past 21 years, littering the massive region with mines and unexploded weapons. Overall, the United Nations Mine Action Service believes 800,000 sq. km in 21 of Sudan's 26 states are affected.
The SPLM/A and the Sudanese government two weeks ago pledged to finalize a peace accord that has dragged for several years by the end of this year, after pressure from an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council in Nairobi.
"We are expecting peace before the end of this year and this will strengthen efforts towards eliminating landmines," he noted.
The UN World Food Program (WFP) also appealed for urgent funding for de-mining of key transport routes in southern Sudan to help people return after decades of war, and connect the region to northern Sudan and neighboring countries.
In a news release issued Thursday, WFP said it faced an immediate shortfall of 4.8 million US dollars for the first phase and would need 64 million for a special operation in 2005.
The Nairobi Summit is reviewing progress made toward a mine-free world over the past five years and preparing an action plan for the future.
The Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty, also known as the Ottawa Convention, entered into force in March 1999 and prohibits the manufacture, trade and use of antipersonnel landmines. It also obliges countries to destroy stockpiles and clear their own mined territory.
The summit is expected to come up with two documents. One of them will be a program of action on how the goals of the convention are to be achieved, while the second one will be a political declaration by parties reaffirming their commitment to the convention.
- - -
Sudan's Land Act could Thwart Darfurians' return
Months ago, I wrote a post for my main blog about Oil in Darfur. I still can't shake the feeling that land in Sudan is being cleared by the government to make way for oil exploration, drilling and the laying of an oil pipeline through Darfur. There have been rumours of an oil pipeline being planned for Darfur.
This could be one of the many reasons why the black Africans in Darfur are being decimated: to crush the rebellion and not lose power. Here's an interesting twist reported yesterday by Raymond Thibodeaux in VOA news:
Unlike in much of Sudan, people in the western Darfur region have for centuries owned and distributed land according to their own tribal customs. But a little-known land act, if imposed on Darfur, could have serious consequences for Darfurians displaced by the fighting in western Sudan.
Sudan's 1984 Civil Transaction land act could keep nearly two million people who fled their villages and farms in the wake of atrocities in western Sudan from reclaiming their ancestral homelands. Under the Sudanese law, people who abandon their property for one year forfeit their right to own it. The land can then be occupied by tenants who could claim ownership after living on it for 10 consecutive years.
As hundreds of thousands of Darfurians near their first year away from their villages, United Nations observers and human rights groups are pressuring Sudan's government to suspend the law. Land expropriation, they say, could become one of the most explosive issues in Darfur's 22-month conflict.
Daniel Lewis is head of the post-conflict section for the U.N.'s human settlement program. He has been researching Sudan's land tenure laws, and speaks by telephone from the U.N. regional headquarters in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi.
"Anytime there is displacement, whether it's Darfur or anywhere else, there is rarely a vacuum," said Mr. Lewis. "In other words, when they are displaced, someone else moves in and asserts a certain amount of control over the property that's been, in their minds, abandoned. The more prolonged the displacement, the deeper entrenched are the new occupants. Therefore, the more difficult and potentially volatile the process of reacquisition or reoccupation of land and property."
In Darfur's case, it is mainly Arab herders who are poised to take over land traditionally owned by black African tribes, including that of the Fur, the region's largest tribe and the tribe for which this dar, or homeland, is named. Some analysts say Arab tribes, driven southward in recent decades by the creep of the Saharan Desert and increasingly prolonged droughts, have the backing of Sudan's government and its allied Arab militias who, to help put down a rebel uprising, have carried out a campaign of violence that has claimed the lives of up to 70,000 people.
So far, Sudan's top officials differ on whether to implement the controversial land law in Darfur or temporarily suspend it so people displaced by the conflict can return home, especially now with the prospect of a peace deal in coming weeks between the Khartoum government and Darfur's two rebel groups.
Hussain Ibrahim Karshoum, a lawyer who heads the government's Humanitarian Affairs Commission in Nyala, where he oversees some of the region's largest refugee camps, says the longer families from Darfur stay in the camps, the more difficult it will be for them to return to their homelands.
"It's true. But the Sudanese laws are very flexible, they adopt the customs and traditions of the people," he said. "I just suggest that they have to make a very special enactment for the region - concerning the land. They need it so."
Several U.N. agencies and aid groups have called for a meeting on this issue later this month, partly to discuss ways to educate Darfurians in the refugee camps on this land act, which most of them have never heard of.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-12-01-voa63.cfm
What's unusual too is that it's the longest report I've seen at China News online. I am copying it here in full. It is dated December 2, 2004 and contains a variety of useful snippets and information.
Also, note to self: it's the second time this week I've seen mention of new reasons that could delay the return of the IDPs to their homes. A few days ago, Voice of America published a piece titled "Sudan's Land Act could Thwart Darfurians' return" - see copy of report here below.
Here's the report by China News titled "Sudan calls for international help to eliminate landmines." [Update: German news agency covered the story UN Agency appeals for funds to de-mine Sudan roads on Dec 4, 2004]
Khartoum appealed to the international community to provide the mine-affected country with financial assistance to eradicate landmines and help the victims.
Addressing the ongoing international meeting on landmines in the Kenyan capital Nairobi, Sudan's Minister for Humanitarian Affairs Ibrahim Mahmoud Hamid described landmines as "our greatest problem."
"We appeal to the international community to assist Sudan to remove this terrible threat to the lives of peoples and much needed recovery and development in this country," Hamid said.
"We think landmines will be the biggest challenge facing us after the signing of the peace protocol. The continued support of the UN and the international community to mine action in Sudan is sincerely appreciated," he added.
The minister told delegates attending the Nairobi Summit on Mine-Free World clearing landmines in the Africa's largest countrywould sharply cut the cost of humanitarian aid by making road transport possible and allowing the return of refugees.
He said with anticipated peace, the return of more than 500,000 refugees will be impossible until mines are cleared, noting efforts aimed at eradicating the deadly weapons need to be strengthened.
"With imminent comprehensive peace agreement and a large numbers of refugees and IDPs (internally displaced persons) expected to return to their communities of origin and the influx has already started by nearly 500,000 returnees, therefore the momentum of the mine action program needs to increase significantly," Hamid told the delegates.
He said a six-year mine action strategy sealed in Nairobi in August between Khartoum and southern rebels has now allowed the United Nations to begin work in southern Sudan, clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance.
"This will allow displaced people to return home, open up routes for business and aid deliveries, and allow the expansion of farm land," he said.
He said there are around 10,000 landmine victims in Sudan at present, many with missing limbs. "Help for these people is very important to us,'' said the minister.
Sudan ratified the Mine Ban Treaty last year and the main southern rebel group, Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) has signed a deed of commitment, which essentially make it a non-state actor.
The Khartoum government and the SPLM/A have fought for the past 21 years, littering the massive region with mines and unexploded weapons. Overall, the United Nations Mine Action Service believes 800,000 sq. km in 21 of Sudan's 26 states are affected.
The SPLM/A and the Sudanese government two weeks ago pledged to finalize a peace accord that has dragged for several years by the end of this year, after pressure from an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council in Nairobi.
"We are expecting peace before the end of this year and this will strengthen efforts towards eliminating landmines," he noted.
The UN World Food Program (WFP) also appealed for urgent funding for de-mining of key transport routes in southern Sudan to help people return after decades of war, and connect the region to northern Sudan and neighboring countries.
In a news release issued Thursday, WFP said it faced an immediate shortfall of 4.8 million US dollars for the first phase and would need 64 million for a special operation in 2005.
The Nairobi Summit is reviewing progress made toward a mine-free world over the past five years and preparing an action plan for the future.
The Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty, also known as the Ottawa Convention, entered into force in March 1999 and prohibits the manufacture, trade and use of antipersonnel landmines. It also obliges countries to destroy stockpiles and clear their own mined territory.
The summit is expected to come up with two documents. One of them will be a program of action on how the goals of the convention are to be achieved, while the second one will be a political declaration by parties reaffirming their commitment to the convention.
- - -
Sudan's Land Act could Thwart Darfurians' return
Months ago, I wrote a post for my main blog about Oil in Darfur. I still can't shake the feeling that land in Sudan is being cleared by the government to make way for oil exploration, drilling and the laying of an oil pipeline through Darfur. There have been rumours of an oil pipeline being planned for Darfur.
This could be one of the many reasons why the black Africans in Darfur are being decimated: to crush the rebellion and not lose power. Here's an interesting twist reported yesterday by Raymond Thibodeaux in VOA news:
Unlike in much of Sudan, people in the western Darfur region have for centuries owned and distributed land according to their own tribal customs. But a little-known land act, if imposed on Darfur, could have serious consequences for Darfurians displaced by the fighting in western Sudan.
Sudan's 1984 Civil Transaction land act could keep nearly two million people who fled their villages and farms in the wake of atrocities in western Sudan from reclaiming their ancestral homelands. Under the Sudanese law, people who abandon their property for one year forfeit their right to own it. The land can then be occupied by tenants who could claim ownership after living on it for 10 consecutive years.
As hundreds of thousands of Darfurians near their first year away from their villages, United Nations observers and human rights groups are pressuring Sudan's government to suspend the law. Land expropriation, they say, could become one of the most explosive issues in Darfur's 22-month conflict.
Daniel Lewis is head of the post-conflict section for the U.N.'s human settlement program. He has been researching Sudan's land tenure laws, and speaks by telephone from the U.N. regional headquarters in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi.
"Anytime there is displacement, whether it's Darfur or anywhere else, there is rarely a vacuum," said Mr. Lewis. "In other words, when they are displaced, someone else moves in and asserts a certain amount of control over the property that's been, in their minds, abandoned. The more prolonged the displacement, the deeper entrenched are the new occupants. Therefore, the more difficult and potentially volatile the process of reacquisition or reoccupation of land and property."
In Darfur's case, it is mainly Arab herders who are poised to take over land traditionally owned by black African tribes, including that of the Fur, the region's largest tribe and the tribe for which this dar, or homeland, is named. Some analysts say Arab tribes, driven southward in recent decades by the creep of the Saharan Desert and increasingly prolonged droughts, have the backing of Sudan's government and its allied Arab militias who, to help put down a rebel uprising, have carried out a campaign of violence that has claimed the lives of up to 70,000 people.
So far, Sudan's top officials differ on whether to implement the controversial land law in Darfur or temporarily suspend it so people displaced by the conflict can return home, especially now with the prospect of a peace deal in coming weeks between the Khartoum government and Darfur's two rebel groups.
Hussain Ibrahim Karshoum, a lawyer who heads the government's Humanitarian Affairs Commission in Nyala, where he oversees some of the region's largest refugee camps, says the longer families from Darfur stay in the camps, the more difficult it will be for them to return to their homelands.
"It's true. But the Sudanese laws are very flexible, they adopt the customs and traditions of the people," he said. "I just suggest that they have to make a very special enactment for the region - concerning the land. They need it so."
Several U.N. agencies and aid groups have called for a meeting on this issue later this month, partly to discuss ways to educate Darfurians in the refugee camps on this land act, which most of them have never heard of.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-12-01-voa63.cfm
African Union President believes the real issue of Darfur is governance
Indian blogger Jitendra is a software engineer who works in Lagos, Nigeria and writes about local issues. Some of his recent posts feature the President of Nigeria who presides over the African Union and owns a private farm that earns him 250,000 USD every month.
Yesterday, hours after a meeting with President Bush at the White House, Mr Obasanjo said, "the government of Sudan can be condemned, but it's not as ... genocide."
When asked in an interview with CNN if he agreed with the call by the administration of US President George W Bush, Obasanjo replied: "Now, what I know of Sudan it does not fit in all respects to that definition."
Mr Obasanjo said he agreed with President Bush there is an acute problem in the region that needs to be addressed, but added "the real issue of Darfur is governance." "It is a political problem which has mushroomed into a military (one) when the rebels took up arms," the Nigerian leader said.
- - -
Note: One would hope Mr Obasanjo could speak out and condemn the government of Sudan for poor governance and speed things along to help the people of Sudan. It is not easy to understand the reasons behind the lack of urgency or why African countries refuse to condemn the government of Sudan. Last week they voted against a UN General Assembly resolution that would have condemned Sudan for human rights violations. The vote must have been music to Khartoum's ears and encouraged them to think they were off the hook.
It's no wonder the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Danforth resigned yesterday. He must be so disillusioned after working hard to help Sudan over the past three years. He's had to handle what's going on in Iraq and Sudan while dealing with a rift between the UN and the US. Some news reports say he was hoping to replace Colin Powell.
An API news report out today explains that in recent months, Ambassador Danforth had been pressing Kofi Annan to send more election staffers to help with the January 30 vote in Iraq. According to the report, "Annan recently raised the ceiling on UN international staff allowed in the country from 35 to 59, but won’t go higher because of escalating violence — to the annoyance of US officials."
Seems Mr Annan can wield power when he wants. Here's hoping he will step down to make way for UN reform. Perhaps the findings of the current investigation into the U.N.'s Oil for Food program will be the catalyst.
No doubt Mr Annan has tried his best and the UN has had some successes. But the UN, even as it stands today, is better than nothing at all. It is all we have and the world is changing fast. The US refuses to pay its subs to the UN on time and channels aid through its USAID organisation rather the UN. It would be good to see a Nobel Prize winning woman in as Secretary-General of the UN and President Bush bringing the US back into the fold while the UN is reformed.
Yesterday, hours after a meeting with President Bush at the White House, Mr Obasanjo said, "the government of Sudan can be condemned, but it's not as ... genocide."
When asked in an interview with CNN if he agreed with the call by the administration of US President George W Bush, Obasanjo replied: "Now, what I know of Sudan it does not fit in all respects to that definition."
Mr Obasanjo said he agreed with President Bush there is an acute problem in the region that needs to be addressed, but added "the real issue of Darfur is governance." "It is a political problem which has mushroomed into a military (one) when the rebels took up arms," the Nigerian leader said.
- - -
Note: One would hope Mr Obasanjo could speak out and condemn the government of Sudan for poor governance and speed things along to help the people of Sudan. It is not easy to understand the reasons behind the lack of urgency or why African countries refuse to condemn the government of Sudan. Last week they voted against a UN General Assembly resolution that would have condemned Sudan for human rights violations. The vote must have been music to Khartoum's ears and encouraged them to think they were off the hook.
It's no wonder the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Danforth resigned yesterday. He must be so disillusioned after working hard to help Sudan over the past three years. He's had to handle what's going on in Iraq and Sudan while dealing with a rift between the UN and the US. Some news reports say he was hoping to replace Colin Powell.
An API news report out today explains that in recent months, Ambassador Danforth had been pressing Kofi Annan to send more election staffers to help with the January 30 vote in Iraq. According to the report, "Annan recently raised the ceiling on UN international staff allowed in the country from 35 to 59, but won’t go higher because of escalating violence — to the annoyance of US officials."
Seems Mr Annan can wield power when he wants. Here's hoping he will step down to make way for UN reform. Perhaps the findings of the current investigation into the U.N.'s Oil for Food program will be the catalyst.
No doubt Mr Annan has tried his best and the UN has had some successes. But the UN, even as it stands today, is better than nothing at all. It is all we have and the world is changing fast. The US refuses to pay its subs to the UN on time and channels aid through its USAID organisation rather the UN. It would be good to see a Nobel Prize winning woman in as Secretary-General of the UN and President Bush bringing the US back into the fold while the UN is reformed.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
What price the life of an African?
Today, the International Development Select Committee sits in Westminster to consider the UK’s handling of the Darfur crisis. I have left a comment at the blog Clive Soley MP asking for any news of the meeting, and pointed out the following:
The co-founder of the Aegis Trust (which works towards the prevention of genocide) has an article in today's Times saying the committee should ask itself if our response is determined by a view that the lives of black Africans in Sudan merit food but not protection. Here are a few excerpts from the piece, "What price the life of an African?" written by James Smith:
“The Sudanese Government knows it’s off the hook,” a representative of the rebels informs me. “Their officials told me ‘the international community is just not interested in Darfur any more’.”
Blaming the rebels for starting the crisis, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is now doing, is like holding the Jews of Warsaw, who rose up against the Nazis, responsible for the Holocaust.
It takes the death of 3,000 Americans to start a war on terrorism. It takes the killing of nine French peacekeepers to destroy an air force. It is time we knew: how many black Africans must be killed before the UN will even enforce a no-fly zone or arms embargo? A hundred thousand, it seems, is not enough.
Why does the international community drag its feet so slowly and reluctantly over Darfur?
- - -
Further reading:
Nov 30, 2004: Aegis published a new report on the situation in Darfur, titled ‘Blueprint for Genocide’. A summary of this report, ‘Darfur: management of a genocidal crisis’, can be read by clicking here.
Nov 29, 2004: An edited version of the article "What price the life of an African?" was published in The Times, Nov 29. Here is the full story.
Nov 19, 2004: The UN's incremental actions in Western Sudan amount to fiddling while the region burns. Something more radical must be done, but this will require a massive shift in political will. What is to be done? Find out in UN fiddles while Darfur burns.
The co-founder of the Aegis Trust (which works towards the prevention of genocide) has an article in today's Times saying the committee should ask itself if our response is determined by a view that the lives of black Africans in Sudan merit food but not protection. Here are a few excerpts from the piece, "What price the life of an African?" written by James Smith:
“The Sudanese Government knows it’s off the hook,” a representative of the rebels informs me. “Their officials told me ‘the international community is just not interested in Darfur any more’.”
Blaming the rebels for starting the crisis, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is now doing, is like holding the Jews of Warsaw, who rose up against the Nazis, responsible for the Holocaust.
It takes the death of 3,000 Americans to start a war on terrorism. It takes the killing of nine French peacekeepers to destroy an air force. It is time we knew: how many black Africans must be killed before the UN will even enforce a no-fly zone or arms embargo? A hundred thousand, it seems, is not enough.
Why does the international community drag its feet so slowly and reluctantly over Darfur?
- - -
Further reading:
Nov 30, 2004: Aegis published a new report on the situation in Darfur, titled ‘Blueprint for Genocide’. A summary of this report, ‘Darfur: management of a genocidal crisis’, can be read by clicking here.
Nov 29, 2004: An edited version of the article "What price the life of an African?" was published in The Times, Nov 29. Here is the full story.
Nov 19, 2004: The UN's incremental actions in Western Sudan amount to fiddling while the region burns. Something more radical must be done, but this will require a massive shift in political will. What is to be done? Find out in UN fiddles while Darfur burns.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Long awaited UN plan demands more intervention
Clive Soley MP mentioned in his blog that Kofi Annan's high level panel reports this week on intervention and failed states.
Today, Gavin writes the Iraq war wounded the UN, but it won’t be fatal and points to the BBC's UN plan demands more intervention which gives a run down on the report.
Seems the route the panel is set to advocate is much more interventionist, moving away from the UN's traditional emphasis that it cannot meddle in the internal affairs of a member state.
It says the UN should be reformed to make intervention in failing states easier. The panel, which examined how the UN could respond better to global threats, also calls for the Security Council to be enlarged. It is thought that if the UN shows greater readiness to act, unilateralism by member states would be less likely.
The report will now be considered by the Secretary General and then by the member states. Any institutional changes are likely to come only slowly but the thrust is clear - the UN must reform or lose its role.
Should the United Nations be reformed to make intervention in failing states easier? Of course it should. Reform or be scrapped is my view. The report raises some great points but it's difficult to imagine how the Security Council can be sorted. Why should any country be willing to give up power for the "greater good"?
Note, the panel wants member states to accept a new obligation - a "responsibility to protect" their own citizens. This is interesting, as it would have applied to the dictators in Khartoum over the past 15 years. But, given Khartoum's genocidal policies and total disregard for human rights, so what if there is a new obligation - what are the UN going to do about it? Nothing, if the set up on the security council does not change.
Today, Gavin writes the Iraq war wounded the UN, but it won’t be fatal and points to the BBC's UN plan demands more intervention which gives a run down on the report.
Seems the route the panel is set to advocate is much more interventionist, moving away from the UN's traditional emphasis that it cannot meddle in the internal affairs of a member state.
It says the UN should be reformed to make intervention in failing states easier. The panel, which examined how the UN could respond better to global threats, also calls for the Security Council to be enlarged. It is thought that if the UN shows greater readiness to act, unilateralism by member states would be less likely.
The report will now be considered by the Secretary General and then by the member states. Any institutional changes are likely to come only slowly but the thrust is clear - the UN must reform or lose its role.
Should the United Nations be reformed to make intervention in failing states easier? Of course it should. Reform or be scrapped is my view. The report raises some great points but it's difficult to imagine how the Security Council can be sorted. Why should any country be willing to give up power for the "greater good"?
Note, the panel wants member states to accept a new obligation - a "responsibility to protect" their own citizens. This is interesting, as it would have applied to the dictators in Khartoum over the past 15 years. But, given Khartoum's genocidal policies and total disregard for human rights, so what if there is a new obligation - what are the UN going to do about it? Nothing, if the set up on the security council does not change.
U.N. General Assembly refuse to denounce human rights violations in Sudan
John Fitzgerald writes about the U.N. General Assembly's recent refusal to hold a vote on a resolution denouncing human rights violations in Sudan - and describes the reaction of John Danforth, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. (the “motion to take no action” on the proposed resolution was put forth by South Africa):
“One wonders about the utility of the General Assembly,” Danforth said, “on days like this. One wonders if there can’t be a clear and direct statement on matters of basic principle. Why have this building? What is it all about?” Danforth summed up the Assembly’s attitude to Sudanese refugees as “‘You may be suffering, but we can’t be bothered.’”
- - -
Note, After three years of dealing with Khartoum, Ambassador Danforth must be feeling disillusioned. He was the person who suggested holding the recent UN Security Council meeting in Nairobi in order to demonstrate the importance the Council places on finalising a peace agreement for Sudan. After the meeting, all they came away with was a promise from the warring parties to sign a peace agreement on December 31, 2004 - six weeks away. There was little reference to Darfur. The warring parties started fighting 48 hours later.
I've seen a photo of the meeting. It was a large gathering, like a mini UN General Assembly. Imagine the expense in terms of security, flights, hotels, etc. Everyone attended. And that same week they went on to hold Council meetings in other African countries. Like a Grand Tour. No objections from China or Russia. Must have cost millions. I wonder how many bags of flour could have been bought instead.
Meanwhile, for security reasons, the U.N. World Food Program pulled back from most of Darfur, leaving 300.000 Darfurians cut off from aid.
- - -
Update: A friend has just visited me. We talked about Darfur. The friend (the second one to tell me the same thing) told me I am completely wasting my time and energy blogging about it. And asked me why I was not more concerned for the poor people in this country; why did I need to concern myself over people on the other side of the world; the whole world's problems can't be attended to all at once; and the only people that can help are the people on the ground; apart from going out there myself, there is nothing I can do except make myself feel better that I think I am doing something to help.
I explained as best as I could that we in the blogosphere were trying to raise awareness and put pressure on politicians to act to provide security for the aid effort, provide a safe route for the aid and protect the civilians. The friend said some things cannot be helped straight away, that thousands of people were helping and things were happening politically behind the scenes.
My argument was simply "it is not good enough" - and I asked, if 300,000 people had been killed in the State of Texas or in France - and 10,000 each month continued to die - would more help have been provided? My friend answered yes, because it was closer to home and there would be the political will.
My answer to that was, it doesn't matter whether someone is near or far - if they are suffering the most dismal life on this planet and being killed off by their own government who at the same time refuses all offers of outside help, we must do everything we can to help them, whether they are living next door or in Africa - it doesn't matter - we are all human beings. I pointed out the atrocities in Sudan have happened over the last 20 years. Two million Sudanese have been slaughtered. Genocide in Darfur has been happening for well over 1.5 years. The U.N. has had enough advance warning.
I brought up the subject of the Holocaust and how millions of people, who knew what was happening, turned the other cheek. After everything that's been said about genocide in Germany, Bosnia and Rwanda - and "never again" - with today's technology, we watch genocide unfolding in slow motion - and find there is still nothing we can do to stop it. Who is listening? Do our voices don't count? So yes, my friend may be right.
What is the point of being aware of what is going on and not being able to do anything about it? What has changed since WWII? If the political will is not there, and we can't push the politicians to take action, what are we to do - what can be done?
Sorry for this depressing post. The first one of its kind I believe. My friend made me feel stupid, like I was being silly and naive. I know I am probably all of those things. But over the past seven months, an inner voice tells me differently.
“One wonders about the utility of the General Assembly,” Danforth said, “on days like this. One wonders if there can’t be a clear and direct statement on matters of basic principle. Why have this building? What is it all about?” Danforth summed up the Assembly’s attitude to Sudanese refugees as “‘You may be suffering, but we can’t be bothered.’”
- - -
Note, After three years of dealing with Khartoum, Ambassador Danforth must be feeling disillusioned. He was the person who suggested holding the recent UN Security Council meeting in Nairobi in order to demonstrate the importance the Council places on finalising a peace agreement for Sudan. After the meeting, all they came away with was a promise from the warring parties to sign a peace agreement on December 31, 2004 - six weeks away. There was little reference to Darfur. The warring parties started fighting 48 hours later.
I've seen a photo of the meeting. It was a large gathering, like a mini UN General Assembly. Imagine the expense in terms of security, flights, hotels, etc. Everyone attended. And that same week they went on to hold Council meetings in other African countries. Like a Grand Tour. No objections from China or Russia. Must have cost millions. I wonder how many bags of flour could have been bought instead.
Meanwhile, for security reasons, the U.N. World Food Program pulled back from most of Darfur, leaving 300.000 Darfurians cut off from aid.
- - -
Update: A friend has just visited me. We talked about Darfur. The friend (the second one to tell me the same thing) told me I am completely wasting my time and energy blogging about it. And asked me why I was not more concerned for the poor people in this country; why did I need to concern myself over people on the other side of the world; the whole world's problems can't be attended to all at once; and the only people that can help are the people on the ground; apart from going out there myself, there is nothing I can do except make myself feel better that I think I am doing something to help.
I explained as best as I could that we in the blogosphere were trying to raise awareness and put pressure on politicians to act to provide security for the aid effort, provide a safe route for the aid and protect the civilians. The friend said some things cannot be helped straight away, that thousands of people were helping and things were happening politically behind the scenes.
My argument was simply "it is not good enough" - and I asked, if 300,000 people had been killed in the State of Texas or in France - and 10,000 each month continued to die - would more help have been provided? My friend answered yes, because it was closer to home and there would be the political will.
My answer to that was, it doesn't matter whether someone is near or far - if they are suffering the most dismal life on this planet and being killed off by their own government who at the same time refuses all offers of outside help, we must do everything we can to help them, whether they are living next door or in Africa - it doesn't matter - we are all human beings. I pointed out the atrocities in Sudan have happened over the last 20 years. Two million Sudanese have been slaughtered. Genocide in Darfur has been happening for well over 1.5 years. The U.N. has had enough advance warning.
I brought up the subject of the Holocaust and how millions of people, who knew what was happening, turned the other cheek. After everything that's been said about genocide in Germany, Bosnia and Rwanda - and "never again" - with today's technology, we watch genocide unfolding in slow motion - and find there is still nothing we can do to stop it. Who is listening? Do our voices don't count? So yes, my friend may be right.
What is the point of being aware of what is going on and not being able to do anything about it? What has changed since WWII? If the political will is not there, and we can't push the politicians to take action, what are we to do - what can be done?
Sorry for this depressing post. The first one of its kind I believe. My friend made me feel stupid, like I was being silly and naive. I know I am probably all of those things. But over the past seven months, an inner voice tells me differently.
FeedBurner for Atom or RSS
Stayed up late last night setting up FeedBurner. I still don't understand how feeds work. According to FeedBurner, it sidesteps the format wars and distributes Atom or RSS versions of your feed automatically. Whatever, it's pretty simple to install and has features like protecting original work with Creative Commons licensing and linking into Flickr. I couldn't remember my Flickr ID code so passed on including it on the set up.
If anyone has problems using FeedBurner here, please let me know. There's a good introduction to Podcasts here.
If anyone has problems using FeedBurner here, please let me know. There's a good introduction to Podcasts here.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Time for a Kofi Break - by Glenn Reynolds, WSJ
Don't you love the title of Instapundit's column in today's Wall Street Journal? I do. Our top blogger Glenn Reynolds deserves to be applauded for having the guts to speak out about the U.N. and promoting the idea of replacing Kofi Annan with Vaclav Havel. It's such a milestone of an essay, I am copying it here in full incase the link gets broken. I'll comment more on this later. Just want to get this up here, and at M+O, asap.
Things are going badly for Kofi Annan. The oil-for-food scandal has revealed U.N. behavior regarding Saddam Hussein's Iraq that ranges from criminally inept to outright corrupt. Rape and pedophilia by U.N. peacekeepers haven't gotten the kind of attention they'd get if American troops were involved, but the scandals have begun to take their toll. And the U.N.'s ability to serve its crowning purpose -- the "never again" treatment of genocide that was vowed after the Holocaust, and re-vowed after Cambodia and Rwanda -- is looking less and less credible in the wake of its response to ongoing genocide in Darfur. And finally, the U.N. has so far played no significant role in defusing the Ukrainian crisis.
Things have gotten bad enough that some are calling for Mr. Annan's resignation, amid talk of former Czech President Vaclav Havel as successor. ("Havel for Secretary General" bumper stickers are on the Web.) But however you assess Mr. Havel's chances of becoming secretary general, for Mr. Annan the comparison is devastating. Mr. Havel, after all, is a hero on behalf of freedom: A man who helped bring about the end of communist dominance in Eastern Europe, despite imprisonment and the threat of death -- a man who could write that "Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can't be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by the use of force." Mr. Annan, by contrast, is a trimmer and temporizer who has stood up for tyrants far more than he has stood up to them.
If the comparison is damning to Kofi, it's even more damning to the U.N. Mr. Havel once wrote Czech dictator Gustav Husak, "So far, you . . . have chosen . . . the path of inner decay for the sake of outward appearances . . . of deepening the spiritual and moral crisis of our society, and ceaselessly degrading human dignity, for the puny sake of protecting your own power." One might say the same of the U.N. bureaucracy.
And that, perhaps, is the only argument against bringing Mr. Havel to the U.N. (Besides the obvious: He probably wouldn't take the job.) The U.N. is losing what shreds of moral legitimacy remain, even among those who were once sympathetic, as the extent of its corruption becomes too obvious to ignore. There's talk of replacing -- or, more diplomatically, supplementing -- the U.N. with a Community of Democracies that would draw its support from legitimate governments, not thugs and kleptocrats. At the very least, it seems likely that the U.N. will soon come under enormous pressure to reform.
But here's a paradox: It's hard to imagine that Mr. Annan could parry the pressure. But a U.N. headed by Mr. Havel might derive enough reflected legitimacy to resist such changes. According to Mr. Annan's Web site, the secretary general is supposed to serve as a "symbol" of U.N. "ideals." It may well be that he's doing that more accurately than Vaclav Havel ever could.
Mr. Reynolds, professor of law at the University of Tennessee, publishes InstaPundit.com.
- - -
Further reading - see previous post here below, and Nov 28, 2004 report Annan stonewalls on U.N. scandal.
UPDATE - what bloggers are saying - this list will be ongoing and added to - please let me know if you post on the U.N. and I will link to you. Thanks.
UPDATE - what bloggers are saying - this list will be ongoing and added to - please let me know if you post on the U.N. and I will link to you. Thanks.
Christopher Johnson at Mayflower: US Senator calls for Annan's resignation; when it comes to Oil-For-Food, Annan is guilty of, as Senator Coleman said, nothing "other than incompetence and mismanagement."
Jim Moore at the Passion: Glenn Reynolds on replacing Kofi Annan with former Czech President Vaclav Havel.
Norman Geras of normblog in England writes on the UN's biggest scandal.
Christopher Johnson of Mayflower Hill in America links to the Vaclav Havel for Secretary-General banner.
A rant about Kofi Annan by Blimpish on October 17, 2004. In a comment here today, Blimpish says: "Chrenkoff reckons Polish President Kwasniewski would be a better bet, and I think I agree. Much though Havel is one of my heroes, he's not enough of a pol to make it work."
October 17, 2004 Cox & Forkum: Hot Water
- - -
ANNAN THREAT
November 19, 2004 Cox & Forkum Annan Threat
[Thanks to Misspent in the October 17, 2004, comments at Blimpish]
Things are going badly for Kofi Annan. The oil-for-food scandal has revealed U.N. behavior regarding Saddam Hussein's Iraq that ranges from criminally inept to outright corrupt. Rape and pedophilia by U.N. peacekeepers haven't gotten the kind of attention they'd get if American troops were involved, but the scandals have begun to take their toll. And the U.N.'s ability to serve its crowning purpose -- the "never again" treatment of genocide that was vowed after the Holocaust, and re-vowed after Cambodia and Rwanda -- is looking less and less credible in the wake of its response to ongoing genocide in Darfur. And finally, the U.N. has so far played no significant role in defusing the Ukrainian crisis.
Things have gotten bad enough that some are calling for Mr. Annan's resignation, amid talk of former Czech President Vaclav Havel as successor. ("Havel for Secretary General" bumper stickers are on the Web.) But however you assess Mr. Havel's chances of becoming secretary general, for Mr. Annan the comparison is devastating. Mr. Havel, after all, is a hero on behalf of freedom: A man who helped bring about the end of communist dominance in Eastern Europe, despite imprisonment and the threat of death -- a man who could write that "Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can't be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by the use of force." Mr. Annan, by contrast, is a trimmer and temporizer who has stood up for tyrants far more than he has stood up to them.
If the comparison is damning to Kofi, it's even more damning to the U.N. Mr. Havel once wrote Czech dictator Gustav Husak, "So far, you . . . have chosen . . . the path of inner decay for the sake of outward appearances . . . of deepening the spiritual and moral crisis of our society, and ceaselessly degrading human dignity, for the puny sake of protecting your own power." One might say the same of the U.N. bureaucracy.
And that, perhaps, is the only argument against bringing Mr. Havel to the U.N. (Besides the obvious: He probably wouldn't take the job.) The U.N. is losing what shreds of moral legitimacy remain, even among those who were once sympathetic, as the extent of its corruption becomes too obvious to ignore. There's talk of replacing -- or, more diplomatically, supplementing -- the U.N. with a Community of Democracies that would draw its support from legitimate governments, not thugs and kleptocrats. At the very least, it seems likely that the U.N. will soon come under enormous pressure to reform.
But here's a paradox: It's hard to imagine that Mr. Annan could parry the pressure. But a U.N. headed by Mr. Havel might derive enough reflected legitimacy to resist such changes. According to Mr. Annan's Web site, the secretary general is supposed to serve as a "symbol" of U.N. "ideals." It may well be that he's doing that more accurately than Vaclav Havel ever could.
Mr. Reynolds, professor of law at the University of Tennessee, publishes InstaPundit.com.
- - -
Further reading - see previous post here below, and Nov 28, 2004 report Annan stonewalls on U.N. scandal.
UPDATE - what bloggers are saying - this list will be ongoing and added to - please let me know if you post on the U.N. and I will link to you. Thanks.
UPDATE - what bloggers are saying - this list will be ongoing and added to - please let me know if you post on the U.N. and I will link to you. Thanks.
Christopher Johnson at Mayflower: US Senator calls for Annan's resignation; when it comes to Oil-For-Food, Annan is guilty of, as Senator Coleman said, nothing "other than incompetence and mismanagement."
Jim Moore at the Passion: Glenn Reynolds on replacing Kofi Annan with former Czech President Vaclav Havel.
Norman Geras of normblog in England writes on the UN's biggest scandal.
Christopher Johnson of Mayflower Hill in America links to the Vaclav Havel for Secretary-General banner.
A rant about Kofi Annan by Blimpish on October 17, 2004. In a comment here today, Blimpish says: "Chrenkoff reckons Polish President Kwasniewski would be a better bet, and I think I agree. Much though Havel is one of my heroes, he's not enough of a pol to make it work."
October 17, 2004 Cox & Forkum: Hot Water
- - -
ANNAN THREAT
November 19, 2004 Cox & Forkum Annan Threat
[Thanks to Misspent in the October 17, 2004, comments at Blimpish]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)