Sudan's 'Peace' Protocols: Permanent Peace or Piece by Piece?

By Omar Hassan al-Bashir, Sudanese President, published in Views Section at IslamOnline, January 9, 2005.
- - -

UPDATE Jan 11: Thanks to Bill for pointing out in the comments here that the above link to President Bashir's report of January 9 now leads to a report titled "Framework for Peace or Blueprint for Disintegration?" dated January 10 by Kareem M. Kamel.

Regrettably, I did not take a screenshot of the first report. Clearly, the page has now changed with Kamel's report. Interestingly, the new report does contain elements of the first report. Even the title has been inserted into a section towards the end of the report. The only thing I did extract from the first report titled "Sudan's 'Peace' Protocols: Permanent Peace or Piece by Piece?" (that was clearly billed as being by the Sudanese President and made no mention of Kamel) is this:

"Consequently, by not putting regulations on the use of oil wealth and allowing both sides to purchase weapons with the oil revenues at their disposal, the combatants can quickly expand their military capabilities and renew the conflict anytime."
- - -

Note, I think this would be a good place to point to A Little Red Blog who asks the following good question. [I'd already thought the same question, which is why the above extract from Bashir's report caught my eye as I planned to write a post around it]:

"Now we'll have a better armed south, the existing northern forces and a new force made up of both but loyal to whom?"

A brief look at the Sudan peace process and agreement

The new interim unity government, and a new regional authority to be run by Garang called the Government of South Sudan, will have its work cut out to develop the south to a level where southerners warm to Khartoum.

Christopher at Mayflower Hill blog writes two great essays explaining why he does not believe there will be peace in the Sudan. He feels we should all be pessimistic and sceptical about Sudan's prospects for peace along the terms of the Naivasha Protocal signed today which, he says, mirrors the Addis Abab agreement of 1972.

Christopher's first essay, entitled "Hoodwinked", is dated January 3, 2005. The second essay, entitled "Historical Parallels" can be found in a post at Mayflower Hill dated January 8, 2005 [apologies unable to link the post].
- - -

A brief look at the Sudan peace process and agreement

The following is a brief look at the peace agreement reached between the government of Sudan and the southern rebels, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, which will cover the next six years.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: The 10 states in southern Sudan will be secular, while the north will practice Islamic law.

POWER SHARING: Former rebels will hold 30 percent of national posts, the south will be autonomous.

WEALTH SHARING: Oil revenues from the south will be split 50-50 between the north and south.

SOUTHERN SELF DETERMINATION: The south will vote on independence in 2011.

MONITORING: U.N. observers will monitor a cease-fire and demobilization of troops.

Please click here for a brief introduction to the peace process in southern Sudan.

[via ReliefWeb via Xinhua via COMTEX]

Further reading:

Amnesty international UK - Sudan: North-South peace deal signed, but what about human rights?
- - -

Limited opportunities in Sudan as most of the prospective acreage has been taken by non-Western companies

In a hurry yesterday, I extracted the following editorial from a Jan 8 news article but misplaced the link/source:

"Even if the conflict in Darfur is not related to the oil issue, the fact that the country is experiencing a humanitarian crisis due to conflict cannot be overlooked by anyone," said Christine Batruch, vice president of corporate responsibility at Sweden's Lundin Petroleum AB. She said Lundin, which has reduced its activities in Sudan but retains an interest in one block, would plan its activities for 2005 after the signing of the north-south deal. But she added: "Most of the prospective acreage has been taken by non-Western companies and as such there are limited opportunities."

Total said in December it had reached a deal with the government to update terms on a block it operated until security issues forced it to suspend activities in 1985, but added that operations could only resume once peace was restored. "The conflict in Darfur could potentially impact security in the south, in which case we would have to assess the situation," a spokesman said from Paris. Talk of imposing sanctions on Sudan over the Darfur conflict has added to uncertainty. But analysts said China, with its interests in Sudanese oil output and its veto power at the United Nations, would likely oppose any UN sanctions move."

UK pledges 50 million GPB for Darfur crisis and Sudan peace

Hilary Benn, UK International Development Secretary, who is in Nairobi today to attend the signing of the historic Peace Agreement has announced a contribution of 50 million GBP towards the UN's 2005 Workplan for Sudan and Eastern Chad.

The UK has set aside 100m GBP for Sudan in this coming year, based on the signature of a peace agreement and provided there is progress in Darfur. He said:

"The UN has led international humanitarian action on the Darfur crisis as well as responding to the needs of the Sudanese people. These needs will be enormous this year. I am therefore announcing our contribution of 50 million GBP towards the UN appeal. This early contribution will help UN agencies to meet these needs and I hope that other countries will do the same. This contribution, and our total pledge to Sudan next year, underlines the UK's continuing strong commitment to Africa and to tackling conflict."

The 50m GBP will be allocated against the UN's Workplan for the 2005 [calendar] year, and their Consolidated Appeal for Eastern Chad. Funding for this will come from DFID's 2004/5 and 2005/6 budget.

South Sudan peace deal signed - Garang says if it is not implemented Sudan will break apart

John Garang, leader of the new Government of South Sudan has a lot of work convincing those in the South to implement the peace agreement. And the Government of Sudan have to persuade northern opposition groups to accept the deal.

Mr Garang told a news conference yesterday that Sudan would be torn apart if today's peace agreement was not implemented.

"If this agreement is dishonoured then, of course, the country will break up," said Garang, who today signed the accord with Sudan's President Omar el-Beshir.

"But if it is implemented the way it is negotiated, there are good chances that the country can remain united," he said.

The comprehensive deal spells out how to share power and natural wealth, what to do with their armed forces during a six-year transition period and how to administer three disputed areas in central Sudan. After six years of autonomy, southerners will also be given a chance to decide whether to remain part of Sudan, or become independent.
- - -

CORRECTION: Please note, Sudan's First Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha and Sudan People's Liberation Movement leader John Garang signed the peace accord at a ceremony in Kenya's capital Nairobi, January 9, 2005. President Omar el-Beshir did not actually sign the accord. Apologies for error.
- - -

UPDATE: On the peace deal signed today: after ratification, which must come in two weeks, negotiators will work on an interim national constitution that will allow the peace agreement to be implemented.

Please click here to read highlights of the agreement and here for other news sites listed in right sidebar at BBC News online. Sudan Tribune also has good coverage of the day's historic events concerning Sudan.

Garang says he will not send his troops to fight Darfur

In August of last year, John Garang, leader of the SPLM, proposed a 30,000-strong peacekeeping force to "prevent genocide" in Darfur. He said a third of the force could consist of Sudanese army troops, while his group and international forces, preferably under the auspices of the AU, would each provide a third of the force.

Yesterday, the day before the signing of southern Sudan's historic peace deal, he said he will not send his forces to fight in the western Darfur region to end a worsening crisis there. He does not consider his country to be at peace until all fighting has stopped. And that peace talks were the only way to end the fighting in Darfur and rejected a military solution.

"I will not fight any other Sudanese," Garang said. "We want a fair and just political settlement for Darfur."

Of the Darfur peace talks tentatively set to continue on January 28 in Abuja, he said, "If I am invited, I will go. If I'm not, I will ask to be invited."

[Note some news reports suggest Mr Garang may not want to align himself with Darfur and violence as it could affect his already difficult and complicated task of making a success of his new Government of South Sudan - he says he would prefer to align himself with talks and negotiations, not any more violence. Also, as reported here a few days ago, the Darfur rebel group, JEM said it will not return to talks mediated by the AU, which it wants replaced by the UN although a UN spokewoman said this was not currently an option.]

Sudan opposition party to boycott Government

An AFP report carried by South African news online yesterday Jan 8 confirms Sudan's second largest opposition party has said it will not participate in a transitional government due to be formed after the peace deal is signed.

The report says the decision by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to stay out of the power-sharing administration could deal a blow to efforts by Sudan's President to garner support among northerners, which he needs to balance southern influence. "We will not participate in a transitional government," party leader Mirghani said.

Note, the leader's statement was released as his party reopened its offices in Khartoum for the first time in 15 years.
- - -

REMEMBERING GENOCIDE, IGNORING GENOCIDE

Kai Stinchcombe is a graduate student in political science and president of the Stanford Democrats. Here is an excerpt from his article "Remembering genocide, ignoring genocide" published by the Sudan Tribune on January 5, 2005:

Sudan is not going to stop the genocide on its own. Flush with oil revenues and eagerly armed by greedy weapons dealers and see-no-evil politicians, the government is intent on driving its black minority off their land. The only hope for Darfur is a U.N. Security Council resolution establishing a no-fly zone over Southern and Western Sudan, beefing up the African Union force already there with more international troops, and establishing a mandatory and enforceable arms embargo on Sudan.

Mr Stinchcombe concludes the article by saying: "It's time to take action in Darfur". Read full story.
- - -

GENOCIDE IN DARFUR INQUIRY REPORT

The UN intends to issue the results of a human rights inquiry around January 25, as requested by the council, that will also rule on whether or not genocide has taken place.

UN warns of massive build-up of weapons, intensification of violence, including air attacks, groups rearming and violence spreading beyond Darfur

A report in the Guardian today quotes Charles Gurdon, an analyst with a British consultancy firm, as saying Darfur was more important to the Sudanese government than the south, because its population is Muslim, like most of the north, and because the bulk of the army comes from there.

The report also quotes him as saying the southern Sudan peace deal was a result both of Western pressure and Sudan's desire to end its pariah status in the international community. "If Libya and Iraq and others can come off the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, Sudan also has to try," he said. "It is a calculated position - this way they can have more time to sort out western Sudan."
- - -

Note, Khartoum has so much breathing space now, it's unreal. No wonder Sudan's President is excited and acts magnanimous offering to now "consider" power sharing with Darfur. Khartoum must be feeling free to carry on as they wish. The peace deal means they don't even have to completely withdraw their troops from southern Sudan for another 2.5 years.

While Khartoum gives the impression of welcoming peace (what they really welcome is the heat being taken off them) it seems as though Darfur is back to square one. The past 22 months of hell -- costing 400,000 lives and displacing millions of people - and two U.N. Security Council resolutions threatening possible sanctions along with a bill signed by President Bush last month -- it's like none of it ever happened.



Early next week, the UN Security Council meets to discuss Kofi Annan's latest report warning that swift action must be taken over the security situation in Darfur or intense violence could break out. In the report, Mr Annan said groups were re-arming and violence was spreading beyond the region -- both the government and rebels had repeatedly violated the ceasefire agreement, and the government had started a massive build-up of forces and logistics -- and the massive build-up of weapons and intensification of violence, including air attacks, suggested the security situation in Darfur was deteriorating.
- - -

How many times have we heard that before? It feels like a return to April/May of last year. Even the BBC news online is dusting off its old Janjaweed photo [see below] from eight months ago. And the caption still seems the same.


Mr Annan says Khartoum is again using militia in its operations
- - -

SUDAN'S PARTIAL PEACE

Here is an excerpt from an article entitled "Sudan's Partial Peace" via Crisis Group Jan 7:

When the Khartoum government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) sign Sunday's peace deal, Sudan will take a big step away from two decades of war that have cost millions of lives but the hard part will just be beginning.

The agreement contains sensible compromises painfully negotiated over several years and demonstrates the effectiveness of African-led peacemaking supported by the wider international community. Yet, the document is more important for potential than immediate impact. If the parties uphold it, a principled peace will come to southern and central Sudan. If the government applies the blueprint it offers and moves vigorously towards peace in Darfur, the country could be transformed.

But most indicators point towards a different outcome. The government is signing partially to deflect pressure over Darfur. It is likely to use resulting goodwill to increase attacks there and further undermine opposition elsewhere in the country. Without great international vigilance, implementation of the deal with the SPLM will slide, risking a standoff and return to war.

Note, in the article John Prendergast says, "The government's objective is to maintain power. Supporters of the peace deal need to understand it pursues contradictory approaches in different regions with different opposition elements to confuse outsiders and defuse criticism. At once it is concluding peace with the SPLM, attacking in Darfur, and driving the armed groups from eastern Sudan out of the Cairo talks."

Khartoum agrees to "three days of tranquillity" starting Monday

A UN news report on Jan. 7 says at last week's JIM meeting, Jan Pronk, UN envoy to Sudan, expressed concern over increasing harassment of aid workers in Darfur.

Also, during the meeting, Sudanese government officials agreed to respect Mr. Pronk's request for "three days of tranquillity" starting Monday when a nationwide campaign [by WHO] begins to immunise nearly six million Sudanese children against polio.

As reported here a few days ago, 40,000 volunteers are to carry out the immunisation of six million children across Sudan. It's disappointing to find no news reports explaining the logisitics of such an operation. Where are the 40,000 volunteers arriving from, and how? How come within the space of three days outside agencies can reach millions of children in the Sudan but on all other days cannot get enough food, water and medicine to those most in need? Sudan expert Dr Eric Reeves and others say at least 10,000 people are dying in the camps each month because of malnutrition and disease.

Sudan's "remarkable" collaboration on information sharing with the U.S.

An AFP report entitled "Pat on back for Sudan" says the US removed Sudan from a list of countries considered to be uncooperative in the war on terrorism. The report, dated May 20 2004, is filed here for future reference. It reveals that:

(1) US Secretary of State Colin Powell made the announcement while demanding that Sudanese authorities allow unrestricted humanitarian access to nearly 1 million western Sudanese who had been uprooted by conflict;

(2) Sudan remains on the US department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, despite its removal from the second terrorism list, designed for countries which are "noncooperative" on terrorism. Four other countries remained on the list: Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Libya.

Also, the report states:

US official Boucher said Sudan was dropped from the list of countries not co-operating on terrorism because of its "remarkable" collaboration on information sharing with the US. Powell's action moves Sudan a step towards eligibility for receiving US military equipment. But the ban on such transfers remains in effect because the country is still regarded as a state sponsor of terrorism. Boucher said Sudan harboured Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, both listed as terrorist groups.

- - -

VIEW: China's African safari by Paul Mooney

"If sanctions were to block oil from Iran and Sudan, China would be forced to scramble to find other sources, which could be problematic. The question is whether or not Beijing is willing to sacrifice oil and its African partnerships to salvage its international image as a responsible global force," writes Paul Mooney in the Pakistan Daily Times. See full article.

Paul Mooney, a freelance journalist, has been reporting on China for 15 years. The above article appeared in YaleGlobal Online (www.yaleglobal.yale.edu), a publication of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. Copyright (c) 2003 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization.
- - -

QUOTATION OF THE DAY

"We were more generous when we were less rich. It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really."

"We are ahead of the technological revolution now logistically. But in terms of the moral climate, we are still in the medieval ages."

- Jan Egeland: The man who makes a difference. Read his profile courtesy Independent UK.

Heat is off Khartoum with much to be done in S. Sudan

A report in the Sudan Tribune today, says what many of us must be thinking. The peace agreement to be signed in Kenya on Sunday, helps take the heat off the Khartoum government.

At Mayflower Hill blog, Christopher writes a post on the peace agreement. He sent me the following comment [thanks Christopher, I couldn't agree more]

"What amazes me is how unabashedly supportive people have been of such a terrible agreement that rests entirely on good will that Bashir has never shown, and has no incentive to show in the future. I'm surprised there hasn't been any more critical discussions of the agreement."

- - -

A report by VOA today explains that once the peace agreement is signed, the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) will begin a long process of repatriating Sudanese refugees. The largest group of refugees from southern Sudan, about 223,000, is in Uganda. The rest are in Ethiopia, Kenya, DRC, CAR and Egypt.

UNCHR continues to operate eleven refugee camps in eastern Chad to accommodate about 200,000 Sudanese who have fled Darfur. There, the biggest problem still continues to be finding enough water. The UN warns resources will be severely strained if more Sudanese leave Darfur for eastern Chad.

The problem of clearing minefields is not mentioned in the report.

Bulgaria has new role in NATO and scheduled accession to the European Union

A report in Bulgaria's English-language newspaper Sofia Echo is based on an interview with the consul-general of Sudan in Bulgaria and gives a glimpse into the way Sudanese officials operate. Note, the report says:

The emphasis of his task in Sofia, which he took up eight months ago, is on the key elements of the positive present and future of his country.

Between the 1950s and 1990s, 6000 students from Sudan were educated in Bulgaria. "I always tell my Bulgarian friends, you have a very big lobby in Khartoum," he smiles.

And he says he believes that the international community must fulfil its promise to bring the peace process in Sudan to fruition.

The report points out that because of Bulgaria's new role in NATO, and its scheduled accession to the European Union, it means the country is orientated to its Western partners, and the enormous potential market of Sudan is not uppermost in official minds.
- - -

BULGARIA TO REOPEN EMBASSY IN SUDAN

According to a report in the Sudan Tribune Jan 7, 2005, Sudan opened a general consulate in Sofia, Bulgaria in 1999 and Bulgaria announced yesterday its decision to reopen its embassy in Khartoum but doesn't say when. It could be soon or years from now.

The report says recent years have seen an upsurge in trade and economic relations between Sudan and Bulgaria and that both countries see opportunities for participation of its companies in large-scale projects in Sudan, including design and construction of roads, bridges, water dams, irrigation infrastructure and power plants. Apparently, the absence of a Bulgarian embassy in Sudan creates a host of problems for Bulgarian companies and individuals with business in Sudan.

The Bulgarian Embassy in Khartoum shut down in 1990 and despite an agreement in 1992, Bulgaria took no action to reopen because of instability in Sudan and the sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council in 1995.

Note, on googling for info on Sudan-Bulgaria relations, I found an article entitled Special Weapons Agencies - Sudan dated a few years ago outlining a special project in Sudan receiving "technical assistance on weapons from Russia and Bulgaria".

Mkebi: Blame the vikings, they are the ones that started it ...a long time ago

A report in the South African Times today reveals South African President Thabo Mbeki recently hit the front page headlines whilst addressing the Sudanese assembly.

In the speech, the President delivered a scathing attack on some of Britain's most decorated figures such as Winston Churchill, calling them racists who had ravaged Africa and blighted its post-colonial development. His deplorable remarks were made worse by the fact that he made them in a speech in Sudan, a country whose government is one of the world's most notorious abusers of human rights.

South African opposition leader Tony Leon is quoted as saying Mbeki was guilty of "gross and deliberate mischaracterisation" of Sudanese history and an "own goal" against South Africa's image abroad. He said:

"Certainly, the British have much to answer for in Sudan — but so too do African countries such as Egypt, which was the first colonial power in the region in the early 19th century and whose rule included slave trading.

The late nineteenth century Mahdist regime, which Mbeki singled out for praise, had enslaved black people and also attacked Ethiopia and tried to attack Egypt. In the decades since independence, the slave trade had returned to Sudan, and the government had engaged in a series of brutal wars that pitted the Arab and Muslim north against the African Christian and animist south.

So while President Mbeki tries to portray himself, his government and Africa as a whole as the helpless, angry and self-pitying victims of colonial forces and racists past and present, the truth is rather more complicated.

And whatever argument the president wishes to make about history, it is no mark of courage to stand in Sudan today and rail against British colonial authorities (including Winston Churchill) long after they are gone and without saying a word to the country's present rulers about their present behaviour.

President Mbeki's remarks are a clear indication that human rights and democracy are at the bottom of his agenda. The politics and psychology of solidarity reign supreme."

Read full story.


South African President Thabo Mbeki recently welcomed by his Sudanese counterpart Omer El Bashir

Here are some comments from a Jan 5 report on President Mbeki's speech blaming British imperialism for Sudans problems. (3) and (9) are pretty funny.

(1) i am a zim living abroad and would like to tell u guys not to bother about mbeki. he is a nutter who supports the old school of thinking like his friend robert of zimbabwe. politically messed upstairs and not worth his position. black africans just want dignity and freedom of expression and development and mbeki shouldnt talk for us. average black south africans are desperately poor.neigbours to the north are even worse of because of the mugabes and mbekis. shame there can be only one mandela. - UK

(2) mbeki is oke. he is trying to badmouth the current british for past wrongs. if that is his logic, then he should commit harikari since he must then blame himself for all past wrongs in south african politics. - USA

(3) after reading this article i now have a better understanding of the current situation in sudan, its all churchills" fault. i have just heard from idi amin that king arthur and sir lancelot also had a hand in the current civil war in darfur. apparently the knights of the round table want to take over the region so they can dominate the fish & chip industry. rumour has it elton john wants to open anjaweed dating service in khartoum. henry viii has been seen in the area...peace. - CANADA

(4) i think mbeki was very clever to mention the british in this way. note how much more attention an article about sudan has been given. there are never this many comments. the world needs to give more attention to sudan. looks like it worked. - USA

(5) when are these africans going to get their act right . what's the use of going on blaming the british and other colonial powers who have left africa more than 50 years back. stop whing and get down to solving your problems ..... - INDIA

(6) mbeki is controversial president with big mouth, he even said do not cause british did not kll millions in sudan, bashir did it and mbeki has the gut to stand side by side with and make this comment, shyme on him. - USA

(7) it is typical for african leaders to blame everyone else, for their incapacities. brittish involvement in sudan, was shorter than sudan was independent from brittain. this article though, did skew mbekis statements a bit.when i read the transcript, it sounded to me as an appeal to britain, to accept a measure of blame , and participate in sorting this mess out. mbeki has never been emphatic, and his vaguery makes him easy to misquote. the anc and mandela, do not tolerate any violence. - S AFRICA

(8) in light of mbeki's comments, i think it would be only fair for the british to take over again and fix all the problems. - CANADA

(9) i blame the vikings, they are the ones thats started it........er a long time ago. when are they going to say sorry for all the blood shed the caused. - UK

(10) i do think mbeki is wrong, but in south africa we still get evrything that goes wrong still blamed on apartheid even though we just celebrated a decade of democracy. i do think to blame something so ancient shows how little the current government has done to rectify this, and sadly this goes for south africa as well. and i do not think mbeki and mandela is hurting south africans, other than their statements, as it is theirs and can not assume to speak for all south africans. - S AFRICA
- - -

QUOTATIONS OF THE DAY

"The tragedy of the tsunami was through the force of nature," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday. "The tragedy of Africa is through the failure of man."

"There is the equivalent of a man-made, preventable tsunami every week in Africa."

[via CBC News report Jan 7 - "Don't forget Africa in tsumani's wake, Blair urges"]
- - -

Here is a little gem from a report at the Guardian:

After the Boxing Day earthquake, many asked how a God could allow a tsunami to cause such suffering. That is the wrong question. Instead, we should be asking a question we can actually answer: how can human beings allow a mosquito to cause millions of deaths?

- - -

And, this snippet from a piece titled The Logic of Military Intervention - in which the author concludes we remain essentially uncivilised which is the reason why history records a never-ending series of the worst forms of conquest and repression, including the extremes of slavery, human sacrifice and genocide:

The only way our species can end war for all time is to transcend it, by changing our behavior such that we leave it behind. To do this we must learn, and then actively and continuously work, to cooperate and not compete, including in every aspect of life. It really is that simple. (Even a child can understand it.) Anytime we are in a situation involving other people, we should ask ourselves how we can help them and work together with them, not how we can position ourselves to get an advantage over them and defeat them.

U.N. Security Council hopes South Sudan peace deal will help resolve Darfur crisis

In a UN Security Council press statement read out by Argentina's Ambassador (Council President for January) the 15 members said they hoped Sunday's formal signing of the peace deal, initialled last Friday in Naivasha, Kenya "would have a positive impact on the situation in Darfur."

Jan Pronk, the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Sudan, will attend the signing ceremony. US Secretary of State Colin Powell will attend and discuss the Darfur crisis with the Sudanese. Former US President Jimmy Carter may attend.

The UN is to send a peacekeeping force to keep the peace in the six-year interim period that begins on Sunday after the major signing ceremony has been held in Nairobi. Britain has proposed 10,000 UN peacekeepers and says it will consider sending British troops. Within the next six months the UN will have set up its own offices in Southern Sudan.
- - -

PEACE TALKS MUST ADDRESS CIVILIAN PROTECTION

In a letter to Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the current AU chairman, Human Rights Watch said the AU should ask the UN Security Council for a full mandate to protect civilians.
- - -

ATROCITIES, IMPUNITY THREATEN LASTING PEACE

Lasting peace in Sudan requires security for civilians and justice for atrocities committed both in Darfur and Southern Sudan, says Human Rights Watch.

HRW report warns today that Sudan's peace agreement lacks any provision for a truth commission, prosecutions or other forms of accountability for past abuses in the southern conflict.

It will be interesting to see how the US handles this issue. It's possible the US may have to stand with China and vote against prosecuting those named in a UN report due out this month following the UN investigation into genocide in Darfur. The US and China, along with several rogue states, are the only ones refusing to join the new International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. After Bosnia and Rwanda, the ICC was set up to deal with suspected perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity.
- - -

21 SUDANESE PLEAD NOT GUILTY IN PLOT TO OVERTHROW PRESIDENT

On the opening day of a military tribunal in Khartoum on Wednesday, an AP report says 21 army personnel pleaded not guilty to a range of charges including allegedly plotting to overthrow Sudan's president last year.

Turabi, who has not been charged, helped President Bashir engineer his own 1989 coup to topple Sudan's last democratically elected prime minister, Sadiq el-Mahdi, but later fell out of favour with the president who believed his former aide was trying to make a grab for power.

President Bashir's government has accused the coup plotters - including Turabi, who is under house arrest - of fomenting the Darfur conflict. The defendants gave no testimonies, but are expected to do so when the tribunal resumes Sunday.

On Sunday, when the peace deal is signed, President Bashir is expected to lift Sudan's State of Emergency which means Turabi will be freed because he had been held under the laws of the Emergency.
- - -

SPLM REBEL LEADER BECOMES V.P. TO SUDAN'S PRESIDENT IN FEBRUARY 2005

No doubt the ceremony on Sunday will be quite a show with many leaders attending. The more witnesses there are to the peace deal, the better I guess. News reports say neither side trusts each other. It's a wonder how the warring parties expect outsiders to trust them. Personally, I find it difficult to imagine the leader of the southern Sudan rebel group SPLM, John Garang, working harmoniously as VP to Sudan's President Bashir and VP Taha. According to a report in today's Sudan Tribune, Garang becomes VP in February, not on Sunday.
- - -

SUDAN'S GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE 2.5 YEARS TO WITHDRAW THEIR TROOPS FROM SOUTH SUDAN

The peace deal on Sunday involves John Garang (note this does not include the rest of Sudan) agreeing to withdraw his SPLM rebels over a 6-month period and Sudan's President agreeing to withdraw his forces over a 30-month period. Two and a half years! They've wiped out 400,000 civilians during the last 22 months. Also part of the deal is Sudan agreeing to UN peacekeepers for the ceasefire agreement.

Some news reports give readers the impression that when the peace agreement is signed, massive amounts of development aid pledged for the following three years will be paid out by the international community. My understanding is Britain and the EU have made it clear they won't pay up until progress has been made on Darfur. But the 10,000 UN peacekeepers for Southern Sudan proposed by Britain at last months meeting of the UN Security Council in Nairobi was (as far as I am aware) on condition that the peace deal was signed.

As soon as the peace deal is signed, news of UN peacekeepers may start emerging. This concerns South Sudan only. 2,000 AU [not UN] troops are expected in Darfur by next month. 12,000 peacekeepers could start arriving in Sudan in dribs and drabs so as to not make it look like military intervention while keeping access open for humanitarian assistance. Khartoum could start dismissing aid workers on a whim.

NUBA GRIEVANCES EMERGE IN A STATEMENT

As noted here in a previous post, the Darfur rebels have admitted their sights are set on two regions adjacent to Darfur. Oil operations are situated in those areas. A rebellion could start up anytime in east Sudan by those who feel their region is as marginalised as Darfur in Western Sudan. East, west and central Sudan are not included in the final peace agreement to be signed on Sunday.

Some analysts say new rebel groups could spring up out of nowhere, even in Southern Sudan, after the peace deal is signed. Janjaweed camps were never dismantled. Arab tribal leaders, who are a law unto themselves, are still at large ruling over vast regions of Sudan. Sudan is a huge country without proper security forces. Bandits run amok, making their living through theft and looting. The outlaws say they are too proud to accept charity. Who is funding the rebels for so long, is a question I keep asking myself but cannot find answers to. News reports last year said the Darfur rebels have bases in Europe.

A timely statement out yesterday says the final peace deal fails to address Nuba Grievances. Please see map in sidebar here showing Nuba.
- - -

SUDAN'S FORGOTTEN VICTIMS LIVE LIFE ON THE EDGE

A report via Reuters today describes Hashim, a Sudanese, peeking out from the remains of his hut, partly bulldozed and then patched up with plastic sacking, to see if help had arrived to alleviate the misery of life in the slum suburbs of Khartoum. Again he was disappointed.

Hashim is one of hundreds of thousands of Sudanese who have fled conflicts in the south and west, or extreme poverty in the east, to come to the capital of one of the world’s poorest countries. These displaced camps get little help from humanitarian agencies and rarely see aid workers. Read full story.

Fresh fighting in West Kordofan and North Darfur

Just over a week ago, fighting took place in West Kordofan, despite a November 7 ceasefire agreement, says a VOA report. A post here below, dated a few days ago, features a map showing West Kordofan.

Also, a UN report says UN Advance Mission in Sudan (UNAMIS) reported fighting on Tuesday in Darfur between Sudanese Government forces and Darfur rebel group SLA. Government helicopter gunships were reported to have fired rockets at Sayah, a stronghold of the SLA in North Darfur. The number of casualties is unclear. Armed bandits are also reported to have attacked commercial buses and trucks across all three of Darfur's state and looted passengers of cattle and personal belongings.

Monday's clashes happened near Mellit, a town about 50 kilometres (31 miles) north of the North Darfur capital of Fasher. Both sides blame each other for starting the trouble.

The UN has sent out a plea for a three-day ceasefire Jan 10-12 to ensure thousands of children can be immunised to prevent a polio epidemic. A UN report says 40,000 volunteers will help with the immunisation of 5.9 million children or every child under the age of five across Sudan. Crikey. Where on earth do 40,000 volunteers come from and how do they get to Darfur?
- - -

UN OFFICIALS ARE INVESTIGATING LARGE NUMBERS OF REFUGEES RETURNING TO TINA

In North Darfur, UN humanitarian officials are being dispatched to an area around Tina to determine whether conditions there are safe and appropriate for large numbers of refugees to return, reports the Sudan Tribune.

The mission was arranged after refugees began returning to the area following an agreement between the Sudanese Government and the rebel National Movement for Reform and Development (NMRD), one of several rebel groups fighting with Khartoum.
- - -

UN WFP EXPECTS TO INCREASE DARFUR RELIEF THIS YEAR, DESPITE INSECURITY

UN World Food Program (WFP) had to suspend aid to some areas in Darfur but a VOA report says WFP operations will expand this year, despite continued lack of security and other aid agencies leaving.

WFP say they reached 1.3 million people in December. Later this year, starting around July, food needs will increase among the displaced. A spokesperson for the WFP said:

"What we had to do, and this was around the 27th of December, was to suspend our truck convoys because of fighting that was taking place in West Kordofan and this fighting was affecting the main route we use for land transport from central Sudan all the way through Darfur, so virtually road transport was suspended. What we had to do was to find an alternative route to be able to keep supplies moving into Darfur which we have done, but unfortunately it is a much rougher route, much longer, therefore more costly."
- - -

UN SAYS DARFUR REBEL THREAT SPELLS DISASTER

A report from IOL on Jan 5 says the SLA, one of two main Darfur rebel groups, threatened to withdraw from a ceasefire monitoring commission in Darfur. This would spell disaster for the faltering peace process, the UN said on Wednesday. It also said mediation between the warring parties was stuck with neither side willing to make concessions.

"The African Union and Chadian mediation is trying to do their best but we can only agree that this is not working," said a UN spokeswoman in Khartoum. "We know it is not working. Basically, I would say again just because the parties are still not in a mood for real talks."

A Chadian official at the Darfur peace talks blamed the rebels for the peace meeting's failure. "The rebels came with preconditions from the start of this meeting, only to scupper any talks," he told Reuters. He said the rebels had not respected their commitments under the April agreement to inform the AU of their positions.
- - -

NEXT ROUND OF DARFUR PEACE TALKS SET FOR JANUARY 28

A UN spokeswoman is quoted as saying the next round of Darfur peace talks in the Nigerian capital Abuja has been tentatively set for January 28.

The Darfur rebel group, JEM said it will not return to talks mediated by the AU, which it wants replaced by the UN.

The UN spokewoman said this was not currently an option.

"The mediation is being undertaken by the AU. That's still our stance," she told reporters in Khartoum. "So far there are no talks within the UN premises on taking over the AU role at all whatsoever."
- - -

SUDAN EMBASSY RESPONDS

In the Jakarta Post, the Sudan Embassy in Jakarta responds with a letter.
- - -

JOINT COMMISSION CALLS ON SUDAN TO WITHDRAW TROOPS FROM AREAS IT SEIZED FROM DARFUR REBELS

A report at Sudan Tribune confirms the Joint Commission that are monitoring a ceasefire deal said on Wednesday Sudanese troops should immediately withdraw from areas they seized from rebels in Darfur during the last round of peace talks.

698 AU troops preparing for Darfur - Janjaweed incorporated into Sudan's Army

An additional protection force of 698 troops will be deployed in Darfur in the coming days to join the 1,000 AU troops already on the ground, a statement by the African Union said.
- - -

Janjaweed incorporated into the Sudanese army

A Human Rights Watch report today warns the Sudanese government and its Janjaweed militia (many of which have recently been incorporated into the army, police and other government forces) are responsible for a scorched-earth campaign of "ethnic cleansing," which has resulted in one of the world's most serious humanitarian disasters.

"This is a critical moment for Darfur," said a HRW spokesman. "The government's failure to prosecute those responsible for war crimes has meant continued insecurity for civilians." The report says:

The U.N. Security Council in September authorised, under resolution 1564, the establishment of an international commission of inquiry to investigate serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law committed in Darfur and to determine whether genocide has occurred.

HRW urged the Security Council to refer the commission's findings, expected in late January, to the International Criminal Court to help ensure justice for the serious crimes committed in Darfur. "Ending impunity will help improve protection, but we also need to see more African Union troops on the ground. The Sudanese government has entirely failed in its responsibility to protect its own people, and others will need to ensure their security."

Khartoum admits arming some militias to fight the rebels but still denies any links to the Janjaweed, calling them outlaws. Who is to deal with these outlaws? Various news reports say neither side are willing to show their maps pinpointing where they have planted minefields. If the landmines are not cleared, they will cause delays for refugees returning home - or horrific injuries.
- - -

AFRICAN UNION TO HOST SECURITY SUMMIT JANUARY 10

On January 10 the AU will host a two-day summit in Gabon to discuss ongoing security issues in the Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of Congo and western Sudan, it was announced Wednesday. The summit will be attended by representatives of the 15-member AU Peace and Security Council.

On the agenda at the summit is the recent peace talks between the government of Sudan and rebel groups concerning Darfur. Those talks, held December 10 to 21 in the Nigerian capital Abuja and chaired by Nigerian president and AU chairman Olusegun Obasanjo, have stalled amid accusations of ceasefire violations by both sides. A report will be submitted to the PSC summit on the Darfur situation.
- - -

EUROPEAN FUNDING TO HELP SUDAN DEVELOP HAS STRINGS ATTACHED

Some journalists are under the impression that the West will pay out the vast sums of development aid it pledged for when a peace deal is signed. As pointed out here in earlier posts, the European Union and Britain have made it clear that the timing for the release of the funds pledged to help Sudan in its reconsctruction will depend on progress made in Darfur. [One can take that as meaning an actual peace deal for Darfur]

Here's what is at stake, for starters: the European Union pledged 400-million euros. Britain promised to increase spending on relief and other activities in Sudan, setting a target 28-million GBP (approx 43-million USD). The US pledged 200-million USD.
- - -

TSUNAMI RELIEF EFFORT SHOULD ENABLE THE UN TO PROVE ITSELF

An FT report says when President George W. Bush announced that a "core group" of countries consisting of the US, Japan, India and Australia would be co-ordinating the relief effort, it looked like a deliberate snub to the UN. Fortunately, the idea was abandoned after talks in Jakarta yesterday, when all four made clear that the UN would henceforth do the job.

It was a grudging admission on Washington's part. But the tsunami relief effort should be a perfect opportunity for the UN to prove itself.

It would be good if the US got its act together on the UN and started paying its subs on time. The UN is important as it is all we have. What is the alternative? The UN is undergoing reform. Important discussions take place in September, following last months recommendations by a high level panel on UN reform. A new UN Secretary-General will be in post in 24 months. Kofi Annan intends serving his full term in office which I believe expires January 1, 2007.

South African President insults Brits but mollycoddles Sudan's government

It looks like my hopes in South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki were misplaced. His insulting speech in Sudan based on stuff from 120 years ago saying "British imperialists ravaged Africa" must mean he was trying to ingratiate himself towards the dictators in Khartoum. I have him earmarked now as someone who is not to be trusted.

Bearing in mind that South Africa chairs the African Union (AU) committee on post-conflict reconstruction of war-affected areas in Sudan, see what the Guardian says about South Africa's President in a report titled "Mbeki attacks 'racist' Churchill".

According to the Guardian, South Africa's main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, said President Mbeki's speech was a missed opportunity to press Khartoum to rein in the Janjaweed militias. "Mollycoddling the Sudanese government is hardly appropriate in the face of its failure to put a stop to the Janjaweed terrorism," he said.

And a party spokesman, said: "It amazes me that President Mbeki feels that he should insult the memory of the greatest Briton by associating him with British colonial policy of 120 years ago. All this in order to create some superficial similarity between Sudan and South Africa. There is no similarity at all. South Africa has a liberal democratic constitution. Sudan is a country which is hardly governed and where the Arab north dominates the African south and west."
- - -

Footnote: As an exile in Britain in the 1960s South African President Thabo Mbeki was educated in England, UK at Sussex University and worked in the London office of the African National Congress. Once considered an Anglophile, his admiration for South Africa's former colonial power seems to have been cooled by spats over the Iraq war and strife in Zimbabwe.

My disappointment in President Mbeki is not so much the content of his speech, it is more to do with the next para here below (coupled with his sucking up to Khartoum) re PetroSA. OK that's one down - and one to go: I've still not pegged the President of the AU (who is also President of Nigeria) as corrupt or not. Some people in Nigeria say he is. Seems to me the only way Africa can move forward is for corruption to be eliminated and competent governors installed.

PetroSA to send technicians to explore oil possibilities in the Sudan

After attending last week's initialling in Kenya of a peace deal between Sudan's government and SPLM rebels, the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, paid a visit to Khartoum where he met his Sudanese counterpart, President Omar al-Beshir.

The two leaders agreed to encourage co-operation in the field of oil exploration.

Not long afterwards, news appeared online saying South Africa's national oil company PetroSA are to send technicians to explore oil possibilities in the Sudan. Various news reports say PetroSA signed an agreement with the Sudanese state oil company, Sudapet, for exclusive oil concession rights for oil Block 14 in the Sudan.

On January 4, 2005, PetroSA said in a statement that Sudan had awarded it a study agreement under which it would send technical personnel to conduct the necessary tests to ascertain the availability of oil in the block allocated. PetroSA is to send technicians to the Sudan to establish whether there are commercially exploitable quantities of oil in an exploration block that it has been allocated.

The department of foreign affairs said in a statement before Mbeki's visit that several South African companies had interests in the Sudan including the Global Railway Engineering Consortium of SA and PetroSA. It added:

Sudan will also send personnel to PetroSA for training to enhance their technical know-how. The Sudan will benefit commercially from the venture, while obtaining the critical skills they need to develop their oil industry further. The significance of this agreement is that it is an African country-to country partnership, where a win-win solution is pursued in line with the objectives of the New Partnership for Africa's Development.

Note, the Global Railway Engineering Consortium of SA concluded a $21 million contract with the Sudanese Railway Corporation for the rehabilitation of railways and rolling stock on December 9, 2004. And South Africa agreed that together with the University of South Africa (UNISA), it would train the SPLM leadership and other cadres to equip them with skills and experience that will enable them to participate needed to participate equitably in the transitional national government of the Sudan.

The state oil company PetroSA had already signed an agreement in May 2004 with the Sudanese state oil company, Sudapet, for certain exclusive oil concession rights.

African Union troops to Somalia 'in weeks'

A report by the BBC on Jan. 6 says the AU could have troops in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, within a few weeks to allow the newly elected Somali government to establish itself. At present the Somali president and parliament are working out of Kenya, because of fears for their security. Excerpt::

An AU official told the BBC that any force would be deployed as early as possible to protect the new government. Somalia has been without an effective government since the overthrow of President Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. During the past 13 years, rival warlords have battled for control of the country and Somalia has been divided into a patchwork of fiefdoms.

New Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf has asked the AU to provide between 15,000 and 20,000 troops. Uganda is reported to have offered 2,000 soldiers for the new force. AU Peace and Security Commissioner says troops could go to Somalia in the next few weeks, but the size and terms of their mandate were still to be decided.

- - -

It is interesting to note that in Somalia all of the major warlords are involved in the two-year peace process in neighbouring Kenya that led to President Abdullahi's election, raising hopes that Somalia could soon return to normal.

In the Sudan, Arab tribal leaders lord it over vast regions and rule through fear and benevolence. They are a law unto themselves and do not have a need to listen to Khartoum. Maybe they should have been involved in Sudan's peace process. How can Sudan enjoy long-term peace without taking the Arab tribes and their leaders into account?

If, as Khartoum say, the Janjaweed are bandits, how come Khartoum has not attempted to disarm them or dismantled their camps? My guess is the regime in Khartoum fear the Janjaweed who they have onside. Maybe Khartoum dares not arrest Janjaweed or their leaders, because they fear that if the West turns its back on Sudan, revenge will be taken.

Telecoms revolution in lawless Somalia

See how telecoms are thriving in lawless Somalia. A Nov. 19, 2004, BBC report explains that even though Somalia is a country divided into hundreds of fiefdoms run by rival warlords, where security is a major concern, a host of mobile phone masts testifies to the telecommunications revolution which has taken place despite the absence of any functioning national government since 1991. Here are some snippets from the report:

There is no need to get a licence and there is no state-run monopoly which prevents new competitors being established. And there is no-one to demand any taxes, which is one reason why prices are so low.

The main airport and port were destroyed in the fighting but businessmen have built small airstrips and use natural harbours, so the phone companies are still able to import their equipment. Despite the absence of law and order and a functional court system, bills are paid and contracts are enforced by relying on Somalia's traditional clan system.

"The government used to have a monopoly but after the regime was toppled, we were free to set up our own business," says Abdullahi Mohammed Hussein, products and services manager of Telcom Somalia, which was set up in 1994 when Mogadishu was still a war-zone. "We saw a huge gap in the market, as all previous services had been destroyed. There was a massive demand."

While Telcom Somalia has some 25,000 mobile customers - and a similar number have land lines - you very rarely see anyone walking along the streets of Mogadishu chatting on their phone, in case this attracts the attention of a hungry gunman. The warlords realise that if they cause trouble for the phone companies, the phones will stop working again, which nobody wants. "We need good relations with all the faction leaders. We don't interfere with them and they don't interfere with us. They want political power and we leave them alone," he says.

New internet cafes are being set up across the city and the entire country. It takes just three days for a landline to be installed - compared with waiting-lists of many years in neighbouring Kenya, where there is a stable, democratic government. And once installed, local calls are free for a monthly fee of just $10. International calls cost 50 US cents a minute, while surfing the web is charged at 50 US cents an hour - "the cheapest rate in Africa" according to the manager of one internet cafe. "Even small, remote villages are connected to the internet, as long as they have a phone line.

E-mail is the cheapest way of staying in touch and many Somalis can read and write their own language, instead of relying on English or French, which restricts internet users to a smaller number of well educated people. And Somalia's telecoms revolution is far from over. Read full story.

Rising hopes for African peace

Is peace breaking out across Africa? It is too early to be sure but the year has begun on a hopeful note says The Economist in its Jan 6 report titled Global Agenda.

Commanders of SPLA rebel group will seek to punish China

On December 30, 2004, the Embassy of Sudan in Washington, D.C., issued a press release entitled "The Washington Post and its misinformation campaign against Sudan."

A week earlier, on December 23, The Washington Post published a report by Peter S. Goodman entitled "China invests heavily in Sudan's oil industry." Note this excerpt:

"Three commanders of the southern Sudan rebel group said in interviews that the SPLA will seek to punish China once the rebels gain a formal decision-making role in the government.

The stakes could be considerable: Peace would allow the world's major energy companies to enter Sudan's oil patch. Moreover, roughly two-fifths of all known reserves -- oil worth more than $16 billion -- are now in rebel-controlled territory, according to the study by PFC, the strategic analysis group.

"The suffering of the people is on the hands of the Chinese," said commander Deng Awou. "The agreements for the Chinese company may be terminated."

Sudan's rebels aim to take over Kordofan and eastern Sudan - Fighting has erupted in east Sudan

A Reuters UK report out yesterday [updated today] entitled Darfur rebels wary of peace deal with south confirms the Darfur rebel group SLM said it would continue to struggle by political, military and diplomatic means and through negotiations for a comprehensive peace covering Darfur, the neighbouring Kordofan region and the east of Sudan.

"We warn that the war will take new forms and that the situation will not stabilise until we reach a just and comprehensive peace," it added. A spokesman for the JEM, contacted by telephone on Sunday, said they would speak about the southern agreement when the signing takes place.

The report states that fighting has erupted in the east of Sudan where ethnic rebels have accused Khartoum of neglect.

Darfur rebels in western Sudan set their sights on Kordofan and eastern Sudan

A December 24 report in the Sudan Tribune says Sudan's energy minister has declared that completion of work in the oil fields No. (3) and No. (7), West Kordofan State (see map below), which is due in August 2005, would contribute to increasing the country's oil production to 500,000 barrels per day.

The report points out that he recently attended an OPEC meeting and visited China, and he praised his Chinese partners for sticking to trade issues. "The Chinese are very nice," he said. "They don't have anything to do with any politics or problems. Things move smoothly, successfully. They are very hard workers looking for business, not politics."

Sudan is not a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), but it was granted observer status in August, 2001, a sign it is being recognized as a significant oil producer. Its proven reserves are currently 563 million barrels, double what they were three years ago.

Further reading:

A new rebel group named the National Movement for Reform and Development recently attacked an oil pump in central Sudan are mentioned in recent Scotsman report World put to shame as Sudan heads for disaster.


- - -

Government of Sudan seized power through the gun barrel

A January 1, 2005, article in the Sudan Tribune entitled "Sudan's Beshir: soldier turned Islamist turned peace-maker" explains how the present government of Sudan seized power through the gun barrel. Note the article mentions a recent coup plot supported by rebels from Darfur.

EU to provide 540 million dollars for peace deal on Darfur

On July 1, the Netherlands took over the rotating presidency of the European Union. On January 1, they handed the reins to neighbor Luxembourg. On a per capita basis, the Netherlands contributes the most to Brussels' coffers. Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot threatened the Sudanese government with sanctions if it didn't stop the violence in Darfur. But he had to back down after the EU was unable to agree on a common position.

On Sunday, The EU said it was ready to unblock financial aid if progress was made in Darfur. The Commission said it was ready to provide financial aid worth more than 400 million euros (540 million dollars) over the next three years to Sudan. "This process will, however, depend on the additional efforts to be made by all parties in order to improve the situation in the Darfur," the E.U. head office said in a statement.

Despite the freeze on development aid, the E.U. commission has continued to provide emergency humanitarian relief to Sudan, at around EUR160 million a year.

UN says thousands of IDPs being relocated from crowded camp - WHO Polio Campaign 10-12 Jan

A UN report says half of the estimated 120,000 internally displaced persons in the swollen Kalma Camp in Darfur will be relocated to three new sites early this month. Excerpt:

During a recent visit to the area, Manuel Aranda da Silva, the Deputy Special Representative for the Secretary-General in Sudan, expressed satisfaction at the ongoing process of relocation of IDPs, for whom three new relocation sites have been identified. The sites would cater to 60,000 IDPs, with 20,000 at each site, and the relocation would be carried out in the first weeks of January.

Mr. Aranda da Silva, who is in charge of humanitarian affairs and development, met with Sudanese local authorities and representatives of the UN agencies, including those working at Kalma Camp.

Meanwhile, with 15 new cases of polio reported, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) said its anti-polio vaccination campaign for Sudan would run from 10 to 12 January and would target 5.9 million children. As of last week there were 94 cases of polio in the country, with 40 of those in Sudan's capital, Khartoum.

Bretton Woods institutions adopt initiative to offer Sudan debt relief - Arab League joins Darfur ceasefire monitoring body

Last week I wrote a vent about the following article that appeared at the Sudan Tribune online. I vented against the invisible mysterious "suits" that quietly give such important initiatives the nod without explaining what it is all about to us the general public. After I cooled down, I decided against posting it. Here is a copy of the article that triggered the vent:

KHARTOUM, Dec 23, 2004 (MENA) -- The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) adopted an initiative to exempt Sudan from its debts and lure international finance for reconstruction operations and arrangements for the post-peace stage.

An IMF-WB Joint Assessment Mission (JAM), at the end of talks it held with a host of Finance and National Economy Ministry officials, underlined a strategy to combat poverty with a view to macro-economy regarding economic growth rates and fair distribution of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The mission discussed with the Finance Ministry and the Bank of Sudan institutional reforms to apply the government statistics system in the budget and upgrade the efficiency of cash flow management.

Further reading:

Dec. 23: Jim Moore writes: "What? Unbelievable, if it weren't true: Great time for the World Bank and the IMF to show support for the genocidal regime in Sudan. ... on the same day that Kofi Annan called for emergency help to stop the fighting in Darfur, and just after George W. Bush signed into law a new set of sanctions against Sudan, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund gave Sudan a high sign!"

Dec. 29: Sudan Tribune article: The Arab League head visits Sudan and denies discussing troop deployment: as for the role of the Arab League in settling the Darfur problem, he said the Arab League attended Abuja negotiations between the Sudanese government and the Darfur rebels and took part in all the follow-up committees of the negotiations. When asked about the Arab League reform file, he said new reform steps will be discussed during the Arab summit in Algiers in March, pointing out that the main step is to establish a joint Arab parliament and the formation of joint Arab troops. He called for unifying Arab ranks in confronting dangers facing the Arab world.

Dec. 2: Sudan Tribune article: The Arab League joins Darfur ceasefire monitoring body: the Arab League will now become member of all three international mechanisms following up the situation in Sudan's troubled region. Members in the cease-fire monitoring committee are the African Union, Chad, Libya, Nigeria in addition to the US, France, Britain, the EU, the UN and now the Arab League.

Danish Minister tough in Khartoum - British minister calls for reform of UN relief efforts

A report in The Copenhagen Post says as an incoming member of the UN Security Council from January, Denmark's diplomatic role carries new weight and if Sudan fails to shape up, Denmark will work actively for a UN crackdown on the African country. Read full story.

Note, as of January 1, 2005, Luxembourg takes over presidency of the European Union (EU) and Britain holds presidency of the G8.
- - -

British minister calls for reform of UN relief efforts

See Guardian UK special report December 30, 2004 Benn calls for reform of UN relief efforts.

Obstacles remain for Sudan's new hopes of peace

The following report by Andrew England in today's Financial Times gives a good summary of the latest news on Sudan's new hopes of peace. Note it mentions SPLA links to the Darfur rebels - and concerns that eastern groups could take up arms with demands similar to the SPLA's:

African leaders and western diplomats are expected to gather in Nairobi on Sunday to witness what could be a historic agreement to end Sudan's 21-year civil war.

The signing of a peace deal between the Islamic government and the southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) will in theory mark the beginning of a new era for a nation blighted by decades of poor government and civil conflict.

The belligerents on Friday signed two protocols clearing the last obstacles to a comprehensive accord.

For war-weary Sudanese, the breakthrough offers the hope of much-needed development after millions of dollars were wasted on a conflict that killed an estimated 2m people.

It also holds the promise of elections after more than a decade of autocratic rule by a government accused of human rights abuses and of sponsoring terrorists including Osama bin Laden.

And there is the hope that it will help end Sudan's latest crisis, a separate insurgency in the western region of Darfur. Yet the challenges and potential pitfalls that lie ahead are numerous.

The deal gives the SPLA 28 per cent of the posts in a transitional government. The ruling National Congress will have 52 per cent, and other groups will fill the remaining positions. John Garang, the SPLA's leader, is to be sworn in as vice-president during a six-month period beginning on Monday.

Elections are to be held in three years. At the end of a transition period lasting six years, southerners will decide whether to secede.

But each side deeply mistrusts the other.

The SPLA took up arms for a second time in 1983 in pursuit of a greater share of wealth and power for the south, which is inhabited mainly by Africans who are Christians or who follow traditional beliefs.

Since independence, Sudan has been run by Arab-dominated administrations, and Africa's largest country remains very underdeveloped, despite vast resources.

People in the east, west and south complain of marginalisation. The Darfur crisis erupted in February 2003 when rebels took up arms with demands similar to the SPLA's. There have been concerns that eastern groups could follow suit.

Meanwhile, Darfur continues to cast a huge shadow over the north-south peace process and will be a key test of the ability of the SPLA and the National Congress to work together.

Diplomats hope the southern deal will help end the insurgency because the SPLA had links to the Darfur insurgents. Some also believe administrative arrangements planned for three disputed areas in central Sudan could be used as models for other marginalised areas.

But increasing violence threatens the peace dividends expected by Khartoum, which hopes to be welcomed back into the international fold after years as a pariah state.

The European Union has said it will begin the process of unlocking €400m (£280m, $540m) in development funds held back since 1990 but will be closely watching developments.

A UK-led international initiative to help with Sudan's $26bn debt is expected to be delayed, however.

And it is unlikely that the US Congress, which has described the violence in Darfur as genocide, will allow sanctions to be lifted unless there is a dramatic improvement there.

Still, the international community's support for the peace process will be critical to its success.

"If the international community is not diligent, [the process] will go off-line so quickly our heads will spin because there will be such unwillingness to do the things they have made concessions on," warns John Prendergast, of the International Crisis Group think-tank. "There's a tremendous gulf between expectations and reality."

Further reading:

Dec 29 Eric Reeves: report on a peace "agreement" between Khartoum and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army: Has the regime done anything but change the subject?

Permanent truce signed in Sudan

The government of Sudan and South Sudan rebel group SPLM pledged in writing to the UN Security Council last month that they would sign a final peace agreement by December 31, when a temporary ceasefire was due to expire.

Today, within hours of the year-end deadline agreed with the U.N., two protocols were signed by middle-ranking officials of the government and the SPLM.

The newly signed agreements detail how to implement protocols worked out during two years of negotiations. The protocols cover how to share power and natural resources, including oil; what to do with their armed forces during a six-year transition period; and how to administer three disputed areas in central Sudan.

One protocol is a permanent cease-fire. The permanent truce will come into force some 72 hours after the cease-fire deal was signed, said Sayed El-Khatib, spokesman for the government delegation at the peace talks.

South African President Thabo Mbeki was in the Kenyan town of Naivasha to witness the ceremony along with his Sudanese counterpart Omar al-Bashir.

Mediators said a ceremony had tentatively been set for January 9 in Nairobi where both principal negotiators -- SPLM leader John Garang and Sudanese First Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha -- are due to sign the eight deals agreed by junior colleagues in two years of talks. The final peace deal calls for power sharing during a six-year transition period, after which the south will hold a referendum on whether to remain part of Sudan.

Two million people have died and four million people have been displaced since the war broke out in 1983, when rebels in the Christian and animist south demanded autonomy from the Muslim north.

The accords do not include Darfur in western Sudan. "The agreement that is being signed today is partial agreement," SLA chairman told Reuters by telephone from Darfur. "We in the SLA inform the government and SPLM clearly that this may be a step but is in no way a solution to the problem of Sudan."

Sudan, which on Saturday celebrates its 1956 freedom from Britain, has been embroiled in a series of civil wars for most of its independence.

QUOTATIONS OF THE DAY

"The peace deal is the beginning of real independence from Sudan," said Qamar Hasan al-Taher, a member of the SPLM.

"The war in the south is over," Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. "Our happiness will not be complete unless we solve the problem of Darfur," Bashir added.

In a statement issued by his spokesman, Mr. Kofi Annan said he looks forward to the official signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, ushering in "a new era of peace" in the Sudan, in which the U.N. is prepared to play a significant role.

Further reading:

Violence forces more charities to pull back from 'too dangerous' Darfur: The aid agencies are wary of criticising the Sudanese government in public, but a senior official said: "We are going to continue to see the humanitarian organisations drawing back. It is simply too dangerous. This means that the Sudanese government is effectively winning in its campaign to keep independent observers out of Darfur. It'll also be even more of a humanitarian disaster than it is now. It is astonishing the outside world does not realise this.

New group mounts pressure on Garang: It's emerging that radicals in and outside the movement are bent on putting up new demands that could pose a litmus test to Dr John Garang's grip in the south during the six-year interim period. A section of southern intelligentsia are saying absence of armed conflict in the south won't herald the beginning of peace as long as freedom fighters-both in and outside the country are not fully involved in the system. "If the southern Sudanese are not careful, the next strife in this country may emanate from southern Sudan, and between the southerners themselves," warned Lako.

Insecurity increases - UN food agency suspends food convoys to Sudan's Darfur region

The latest from the UK Press Association (PA) via Reuters confirms the UN World Food Program has suspended food convoys to Darfur after rebel forces attacked the market town of Ghubaysh and the government retaliated.

WFP halted 3 convoys of 70 trucks carrying more than 1,300 tonnes of food destined for the capitals of North and South Darfur state, the UN's OCHA said Tuesday.

The attack Monday on Ghubaysh in West Kordofan follows weeks of insecurity in Darfur in which the warring parties have attacked each other. It was the second attack by the SLA rebel since Dec. 19 when the Sudanese government agreed to an immediate cessation of hostilities, UN officials said.

The recent insecurity has blocked access from central Sudan to Darfur for UN and other relief agencies, OCHA said. As a result, some 260,000 people will miss their December rations in South Darfur as well as eastern parts of West Darfur, it said.

The UN said it also was concerned about reports that Darfur-based rebel forces have stolen 13 commercial all-terrain trucks leased to WFP and loaded with food in the last two weeks.

These thefts are in addition to multiple losses of commercial and aid-agency vehicles to armed groups in recent months, OCHA said. More alarming are reports that the rebel group that stole them may now be using some of these trucks for military purposes, it said.

Tony Blair on "A year of huge challenges"

Two particular tasks face the world's rich nations, argues Britain's prime minister in this article at the Economist today: sorting out Africa, and dealing with climate change. Unusually, it looks like the editorial is authored by Tony Blair, which is why it is copied here incase the article disappears into the archives or the link becomes broken:

BRITAIN takes over the presidency of the G8 this week. As each member-country holds this position in rotation, critics sometimes dismiss the presidency as little more than a chance to show-case the host nation at the annual summit. I believe they are wrong. I see it instead as an important opportunity to influence the international agenda of some of the world's most prosperous and powerful countries.

This doesn't mean, of course, that any country can successfully push the G8 in a direction the other members do not want to go. But the presidency can give an important impetus to tackling problems that the rest recognise need addressing. This is certainly the outcome I want from Britain's presidency in 2005. I have made it clear that our efforts will focus on progress on Africa and climate change.

Why? Firstly because, along with the threat from international terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, I believe they are the most serious problems facing the world today. Second, because they are both problems beyond the power of any single country, no matter how well-intentioned or powerful, to tackle on its own. A solution requires co-ordinated international action and, above all, leadership, which the G8 is uniquely placed to give.

Africa is a continent of breathtaking beauty and diversity with an extraordinary, energetic and resilient people. As I have seen from my own visits, given a chance, no matter how small, to better themselves, they seize it.

But Africa is also a place plagued with problems—debt, disease, conflict, corruption and weak governance—so embedded and widespread that no continent, no matter how prosperous, could tackle them on its own. And Africa is not prosperous.

It's the world's poorest continent. Half the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives in absolute poverty. And, uniquely, Africa is getting poorer. Average income per head is lower now than it was 30 years ago.

It is also the continent worst hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Twenty million Africans have already died from the disease, and it is going to get much worse. In some countries, four out of ten people are infected. Life expectancy is falling, and will soon be down to just 30 years. This catastrophe has single-handedly wiped out half a century of development gains.

In Sudan, and elsewhere, we have seen the tragic effects of war. At least 2m people have died in Sudan's north-south conflict over the past 21 years, and millions more have been affected. A comprehensive peace agreement could turn Sudan around; but Darfur remains a catastrophe, and we cannot turn our attention away from it. In Zimbabwe we see the great damage that can be done to a country, its economy, its people and their potential by the destruction of democracy and the failure of governance. We have worked with the international community to identify benchmarks to help Zimbabwe restore the rights and prosperity of its people.

Why we should care

Should this matter to the rest of the world? For democratic governments, it should, because it matters to our citizens. They give millions of dollars to help Africa and its people. They campaign for their governments to do more. They passionately believe, as I do, that it can't be morally right, in a world growing more prosperous and healthier by the year, that one in six African children still die before their fifth birthday. The worldwide campaign to make poverty history rightly challenges us to act.

But the state of Africa is also a case, unusual in politics, where heart and head are pushing us in the same direction. We must now all accept the utter futility of trying to shut our borders to problems abroad. Famine in Africa will affect our countries because it will be a trigger for mass migration. Conflict, too, drives millions to flee their homes. Both create the conditions for terrorism and fanaticism to take root and spread directly to Europe, to North America and to Asia. We spend billions on humanitarian aid to help pick up the pieces. A prosperous Africa, where its people have the chance to fulfil their talents, is in all our interests.

The sheer scale of Africa's problems can induce an understandable sense of hopelessness that progress can be made. It helps explain the shocking fact that aid to Africa, notwithstanding Britain's increased contribution, has fallen since 1995. But there are reasons for optimism. We have seen the emergence of a new generation of democratically elected African leaders, determined that their governments will work cleanly and effectively to improve life for their citizens. Their New Partnership for Africa's Development sets out a challenging agenda.

According to the World Bank, governance has been improving faster in Africa than in many other areas of the developing world. Conflict in Africa, although still devastating where it occurs, is also decreasing. Mozambique, a country brought to its knees by vicious fighting, has cut its levels of poverty by almost a third since peace. The civil war in Sierra Leone, thanks to the intervention of British forces, is over and the country is slowly recovering. The African Union is playing an increasing role in settling conflicts.

With a little more help, he can prosper

We know that the best way to reduce poverty is through economic growth. And we know that economic growth can be increased by aid. Fifteen countries in Africa had average growth rates above 4% throughout the 1990s. Half of Africa had growth of over 5.9% in 2001. Many of the countries which have benefited from increased aid, such as Uganda and Mozambique, have seen poverty fall over an extended period. Targeted British assistance, for example, has already enabled Uganda to introduce universal primary education and free basic health care.

We can also increase the effectiveness of our aid. Tied aid, directed by the priorities of the donor rather than the recipient and bypassing government systems, actually undermines effectiveness and internal accountability.

Getting others involved

I am proud that Britain's involvement is helping this progress. We are doubling our bilateral aid to Africa; it will reach £1 billion ($1.9 billion) in 2005, and will rise further. We have written off 100% of the debts of the poorest countries. We have dramatically increased help to tackle the big killers such as AIDS and malaria.

But to help Africa continue this progress we need a concerted, co-ordinated global effort. Ad hoc, short-term measures will not do. A comprehensive programme of action is needed with sustained commitment to implementation by Africa and by the international community. Truly, a new partnership is required. We need concerted action to improve opportunities and growth, to reduce debt, to tackle HIV, malaria and TB, to fight corruption and to promote peace and security. We also need to tackle trade barriers which push up prices for our consumers, prevent African countries exporting their products and see Europe spending more on subsidising its own farmers than on aid to Africa. This is an investment for our, and Africa's, future: more than half of Africa is under 15.

It is already clear what sort of measures are needed, and I believe the recommendations of the Commission for Africa, which will report in the spring, will take us further.

Action requires more resources, and now. There will be calls to double aid to Africa. I believe all the G8 members can do more: extending debt relief, providing more resources to tackle HIV, giving more girls the chance of education, reducing rates of infant mortality, building the infrastructure needed for private-sector growth. Investment is needed now, and we must look at ways to bridge the gap. Gordon Brown has set out one way we can do so through the International Finance Facility, which would raise extra aid money by leveraging capital markets and issuing bonds.

I hope the G8 will agree not only to a plan of action but also to its implementation, a process of monitoring and review. We all need to be accountable for carrying out the commitments we have made.

The changing climate

Africa, of course, is also seen by experts as particularly vulnerable to climate change. The size of its land-mass means that, in the middle of the continent, overall rises in temperature will be up to double the global rise, with increased risk of extreme droughts, floods and outbreaks of disease. It is estimated that African GDP could decline by up to 10% because of climate change.

But no country will escape its impact. And there can be no doubt that the world is getting warmer. Temperatures have already risen by 0.7°C over the past century, and the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1991. It's the fastest rise in temperatures in the northern hemisphere for a thousand years.

This temperature rise has meant a rise in sea level that, if it continues as predicted, will mean hundreds of millions of people increasingly at risk from flooding. And climate change means more than warmer weather: other extreme, increasingly unpredictable, weather events such as rainstorms and droughts will also have a heavy human and economic cost.

It is true, of course, that some scientists still contest the reasons for these changes. But it would be false to suggest that scientific opinion is equally split. It is not. The overwhelming view of experts is that climate change, to a greater or lesser extent, is man-made and, without action, will get worse. And as the evidence gets stronger by the day, the sceptics dwindle in number. From Arnold Schwarzenegger's California to China's Ningxia province, the world is taking climate change seriously.

But just as technological progress and human activity have helped cause this problem, it is also within our power to lessen its impact and adapt to change. Science has alerted us to the dangers our planet faces and will help us meet these challenges.

But we need to act now. Delay will only increase the seriousness of the problems we need to reverse, and the economic disruption required to move to more renewable forms of energy and sustainable manufacturing in the future. And the G8, again, needs to lead: not just because we currently account for 47% of global CO2 emissions, but also because it is our scientists, our industries and our economies that must help solve this problem.

Russian ratification of the Kyoto protocol means that we now have a new global treaty that is about to come into force. This is good news. But the level of change and ambition required will be far more than the Kyoto protocol is likely to provide. And with the United States, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, refusing to sign up to the protocol, this makes the measures we could secure through the G8 even more vital.

The melting ice-caps: a global responsibility

Although the United States will not ratify Kyoto, other approaches, such as the McCain-Lieberman bill now going through Congress, could stand a better chance of support. Some American states and businesses are also already taking a lead on initiatives to reduce greenhouse emissions. New York has a state emissions-reductions target of 5% below 1990 by 2010 and 10% by 2020. California has a string of policies in train, including regulating carbon emissions from vehicles and increasing the amount of energy generated from renewable sources to 20% of electricity sold into the state by 2010.

The United States is also leading investment and research in the new low-carbon economy. It is not a choice, as some suppose, between economic prosperity and tackling climate change. It is technological advances and economic development that will provide the realistic solution. It is the firms and countries that lead the way in adapting to this challenge that will have the competitive advantage in the future.

In Britain our economy grew by 36% between 1990 and 2002 while greenhouse gas emissions fell by 15%. British Petroleum has set and achieved targets, such as reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions by 10% in just three years. To achieve this, the company introduced an emissions-trading scheme: it cost $20m to implement, yet saved it $650m over the three-year period.

Those companies that adapt early to the demands of a future low-carbon economy know they gain competitive advantage. So this is not just the right thing to do for the sake of the planet. It is the right thing to do commercially.

Why we should act

Advocates for action on climate change must confront three economic arguments. First, if the case is so clear, why not just leave it to business? To that point I would say it is precisely in this kind of long-term challenge, where there are demonstrable and potentially irreversible social effects, with returns accruing over periods beyond commercial discounting, that government must play a clear role.

Second, critics charge that government is picking new, untried technologies that may fail. Here I would say the approach of clever governments is not to pick technologies, but to establish conditions where innovation is supported and encouraged into the market-place.

Finally, some argue that there are more immediate problems. In some senses, they are right: over the next five years, for example, water pollution will cause more harm worldwide. It is wrong, however, to see these problems as mutually exclusive. Without a stable climate, addressing other environmental threats will be impossible, ensuring a future of more degraded water and land. Every year lost on tackling climate change will take us further along the path where the costs of action multiply. And I have never believed that simple discounting can be an adequate tool for potentially catastrophic outcomes 50 or more years ahead.

We are at a stage where the role of government and global policy must be to encourage the development and commercial viability of the new technologies that have the potential to mitigate the effects of climate change. There is no single “silver bullet” that will solve the problem, despite what some enthusiasts for nuclear or hydrogen power may tell you. But a whole range of technologies are either available now, or will become available, which, taken together, can make a huge difference.

I believe the G8 can take a global lead both in making the world aware of the scale of the problem and in proposing ways to tackle them. Through the G8, we have the opportunity to agree on what the most up-to-date investigations of climate change are telling us about the threat we face. We could also endeavour to identify and support the technological measures necessary to meet the threat, which would complement rather than undercut the Kyoto protocol. And the G8 must also engage actively with other countries with growing energy needs—such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa—to ensure that they meet their needs sustainably and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, which seem inevitable.

Given the different positions of the G8 nations on this issue, such agreement will be a major advance. But I believe it is achievable and necessary.

I have no doubt that some may argue that aiming so high both on climate change and Africa is a hostage to fortune. I recall that fictional Whitehall mandarin, Sir Humphrey Appleby of “Yes, Prime Minister”, describing such ambitions as “courageous” when he hoped to put Jim Hacker off a particular course of action. But I remain hopeful that we can succeed in these aims. It is vital for the world that we do.


Photo courtesy AP - British Prime Minister Tony Blair on a recent trip to Africa for the launch of his Commission for Africa that is due to report by February/Spring 2005.