Amnesty International publishes testimonies from E Chad

Remember the nonsensical sounding messages from Bin Laden? A few years ago, when I first started reading news reports on Darfur, I noticed that statements by Sudanese people like President Bashir sounded alien, from another planet. To my English born ears, the flow of African and Arabic speech when translated into English, sounded very strange. I found it to be expressive, passionate, flowery, poetic and quaint - from another world. The mindset was quite difficult to understand.

Nowadays, when I read certain reports or verbatim statements by Sudanese and Chadian people (especially uneducated rebels) I notice how their choice of words sound weirdly Western. At times I wonder to what extent Sudanese locals interviewed by Westerners are primed by the rebels. Translators probably convey stories to be understood by Westeners but overall it's the thrust and content that appears to have changed. Placards held by protesting IDPs calling for international troops I guess are geared towards a Western audience. It stands to reason that most of the women in the refugee camps could be related to rebel fighters. A mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, cousin, wife, girlfriend, in-law, friend of a friend.

These days I don't believe much of what I read in any one article and am wary of sources. Even religious and aid groups appear to have an agenda when it comes to fundraising for their work. I guess my point is, most news reports actually contain some form of propaganda. Sadly, I now take the following testimonies with a pinch of salt and can't be the only one doing so. People's real voices might not be heard.

Here's another thing. Sudanese rebels have access all sorts of equipment and know-how when it comes to communications technology, you'd think more video or digital camera reports of attacks by GoS forces, Janjaweed and such like would have appeared on our screens by now. Some reports say more than 400,000 Darfuris have perished in Darfur's war. That sure is a lot of bodies and funerals. Where and when are all the bodies buried? I've seen film evidence of two burials, one of a child in Darfur and the other of a man in Chad.

Click here to read some statements by Chadian internally displaced persons, published by Amnesty International 29 June 2006 [via ReliefWeb]. The accounts represent a selection of the testimonies gathered by Amnesty in Eastern Chad in June 2006.

African leaders face tough issues

African leaders are gathering in The Gambia to discuss some of the continent's most contentious issues. Topping the African Union agenda will be an attempt to persuade Sudan to allow the UN to take over the stretched AU peace mission in Darfur. - BBC

Al-Qaeda: New 'Bin Laden message' mentions Sudan

New 'Bin Laden message' released, BBC reported 30 June 2006:

Bin Laden says al-Qaeda will go on with operations against the US and its allies.

"We will continue, God willing, to fight you and your allies everywhere," he said, "in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Somalia and Sudan until we waste all your money and kill your men."

Gaddafi drives across Sahara for AU summit

Libyan leader Col Gaddafi was reported to be driving across the Sahara in a convoy on Thursday to arrive in Gambia for the African Union (AU) summit which will start in the capital, Banjul, on Saturday, IOL reported June 30 2006:

Four years ago Gaddafi arrived at the first AU summit in Durban after driving almost the entire length of the continent.

He has apparently been inspired to do another roadshow by the fact that the summit will be discussing a tighter integration of the sub-regional organisations of the continent to form something like the "United States of Africa", which he has always demanded. - Independent Foreign Service & Sapa

UK's David Triesman attends this weekend's AU Summit

Lord David Triesman, Minister for Africa at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, will arrive in Banjul today to attend the African Union Summit, Daily Observer reported 30 June 2006:

Lord Triesman will join delegates at the AU summit as part of the Commonwealth. He will during the visit, be focussing on a number of issues currently affecting Africa. These will include the conflict in Sudan and the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), as well as discussing the African Commission of Human and Peoples' Right (ACHPR) report on situations in certain countries. Lord David will also listen to President Obasanjo's preparation on the development of the AU and also discussions on UN Security Council reform and the UN itself. Lord Triesman will also have bilateral discussions with various Heads of State during which he hopes to focus on different issues, such as migration and human rights.

Bush surprise at Sudan briefing

Snippets from BBC report 29 June 2006:

US President George Bush expressed amazement when he heard that the south Sudan peace deal was not working 18 months after it was signed.

"That is not the information I'm getting," he told the BBC's Khartoum reporter Alfred Taban, who was in Washington to receive an award.

Our correspondent says he spent almost 20 minutes talking to Mr Bush, who was very keen to hear about the situation in Sudan.

"He asked me if the peace agreement was working and I said, 'Mr President, it is not working,' and he was very surprised," he told the BBC's Network Africa programme.

When the president said that this was not what he had been informed, our reporter said he told Mr Bush: "Well, whatever information you're getting, that peace agreement is not being implemented by the government in Khartoum."

He went on to tell the president that people in southern Sudan were still waiting to see improvements to their lives.

"There's no water, there's no electricity, nothing in Juba," our correspondent said, describing life in the capital of south Sudan.

During the discussion Mr Bush called one of his aides and asked to be given more details on southern Sudan.

"He appeared to be taking it very seriously," our reporter said, describing the president's manner as warm and welcoming, despite the intimidating surroundings.

"We've got a man from the Sudan who talked eloquently about free press," the president said.

"My spirits are enriched by talking to freedom lovers and freedom fighters."

Note, my understanding is the $4.5 billion pledged for southern Sudan by donors has strings attached. The development funds depend on a peace agreement for Darfur. Sudanese rebels refusing peace account for one of the reasons for slow progress, not to mention all the other obstacles (scroll through 2 years of this blog) like the Abyei boundary dispute, LRA rebel attacks and the undertaking by the UN to de-mine huge areas of southern Sudan to clear the way for development.



June 30 2006 Uganda Watch LRA victim: 'I cannot forget and forgive'

Sudan's head of intelligence and security Sala Gosh rejects UN force, calls for martyrdom

In a way to show the regime's opposition to a UN force in Darfur, the Chief of the security service said he prefers to die as martyr instead of accepting international troops, says an unsourced article at Sudan Tribune - excerpt:

The head of Sudan national security and intelligence organ, Lt General Salah Abdalla Gosh has declared on Wednesday 28 June his outright rejection of deployment of International peacekeepers in Darfur: "If the choice is between recolonialisation of Sudan and incursion into its soil by foreign troops, then interior of earth is better than its surface", he said.

Gosh received messages of support and allegiance at his headquarters, on behalf of president Omer al-Bashir, from 10 thousand members of the security organ and Popular Defence Forces, the Sudanese al-Ray alAam daily newspaper reported.

The security chief made his statement on the occasion that marked the end of a 3-day long walk from the centre of Gezira State to Khartoum in which thousands of security and land-based forces participated in a security operation that has been described as first of its kind.

[Reportedly, Mr Gosh's name is on a secret list of 51 suspected Darfur war criminals. The International Criminal Court received the list from the UN]

Apr 4 2005 UN list of Darfur war crimes suspects to ICC tomorrow - Khartoum must act quickly to avert a perilous threat

Feb 21 2006 List of top wanted Janjaweed leaders - Who's who on Darfur (African Confidential)

Mar 10 2006 Sudan's head of intelligence Sala Gosh given entry to UK

Jun 15 2006 International Criminal Court Prosecutor briefs UN Security Council on Darfur, says will not draw conclusions on genocide until investigation complete

Save Darfur Coalition (Washington, DC): Million postcards urge US Bush to stop Darfur genocide

June 29 2006 press release by National Council of Churches USA - NCC helps Save Darfur Coalition generate 1 Million postcards urging President Bush to stop Darfur genocide - excerpt:

Demonstrating that moral issues can overcome partisan politics, Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-Tenn.) and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) today signed the one millionth postcard from Americans to President Bush through the Save Darfur Coalition's "Million Voices for Darfur" campaign. The postcards urge the president to use the full power of his office to support a stronger multi-national force to protect the people of Darfur.

- - -

Email received today from Save Darfur Coalition (Washington, DC)

Dear Supporter, [Disclaimer: Sudan Watch Ed is not a supporter]

Click here today to make a critical contribution today!

I have some important news to report; we have reached our goal of one million postcards calling on President Bush to take stronger action on behalf of the suffering people of Darfur!

In a ceremony this morning at the U.S. Capitol, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) became the 999,999th and one-millionth postcard signers!

That means we now have one million postcards to deliver to President Bush urging action in Darfur. We reached this historic moment thanks to efforts by you - and hundreds of thousands of activists like you - and hundreds of organizations across the country.

While we've achieved this major milestone, the Darfur genocide is not yet over and so our work is not yet done. To help truly make a difference, your support right now is crucial.

Click here to make a tax-deductible contribution today to help us continue our efforts on behalf of the people of Darfur.

Millions in Darfur have already been displaced from their homes, with little hope of returning. They suffer in squalid refugee camps with little protection or hope for the future.

And hundreds of thousands have already died at the hands of a genocidal regime while every day more are killed.

President Bush has a critical role to play in stopping the Darfur genocide. His involvement was key in getting a signed peace agreement - an important first step.

But to truly stop the genocide in Darfur we must:

Deploy a UN peacekeeping force; and
Appoint an American envoy to be sure U.S. actions reflect the urgency of the crisis
Help the Save Darfur Coalition keep the story of Darfur in the news and on the minds of President Bush and members of Congress.

Click here now to make a tax-deductible contribution.
As always, your support is greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
David Rubenstein
Save Darfur Coalition
- - -

June 29 2006 Sudan Watch: Save Darfur Coalition (Washington, DC) plotting another rally to demand UN force in Darfur - Bad news. Save Darfur Coalition (Washington, DC) is plotting another rally to demand the UN to deploy a peacekeeping force in Darfur. The warmongering organisers of Save Darfur Coalition must know what message this sends to the Darfur rebels. I think America's bolstering of the rebels means the insurgents won't have to make peace in Darfur for a very long time. Pity the poor women and children of Darfur. God help them all - who else is really on their side?

Sudan to lobby Rwanda on UN

The Sudanese government is planning to send a delegation to Rwanda in its efforts to seek support from African countries in a bid to block a United Nations peacekeeping force from going to Darfur. Read more - New Times report via CFD 29 June 2006.

Note, the report points out, Ismail Dahab Mohamed, the Sudanese Deputy Head of Mission in Kampala said that the AU peacekeeping forces only need logistical and financial support to bring about stability in the area.

I say, news reporters seem to forget to mention some important points, ie current AU Mission in Darfur costs around $1 billion a year. Funding is at the whim of donors. More troops are needed in Darfur. The UN has onging budgets for peacekeepers. Troops in Darfur will probably be needed for more than one year, not to mention Southern and Eastern Sudan and Chad. Who is to pay for all the personnel and equipment? It seems only the UN has the capacity to support such a mission. I've read somewhere that Khartoum feels the UN could use its peacekeeping funds to pay the AU Mission in Darfur to continue after Sep 30.

A recent Arab League meeting resulted in Arab countries suggesting they pay for the AU Mission to continue in Darfur after the mandate ends Sep 30 - but from what I can gather, nothing like $1-2 billion was mentioned.

On July 7 in Brussels, international donors are raising more funds for Darfur and on July 26, an Arab League meeting is set to discuss Darfur relief aid.

Mar 28 2006 - Arabs agree funding for AU troops in Darfur from Oct 1, 2006 plus extra troops from Arab states

Mar 30 2006 - Arab leaders fail to fix amount for Darfur aid

June 7 2006 - EU hosts donors meeting July 7 on Darfur reconstruction

Worsening humanitarian situation in Sudan, Chad demands immediate action, UN Security Council told today

UN News Centre report 29 June 2006 says any UN peacekeeping mission that takes over from the AU in Darfur will need to work in "partnership" with the country's people and Government, the head of the recent Security Council mission there said today. Excerpt:

British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, addressing the 15-member body on the mission's report of its trip, also reiterated the importance of viewing the situation in Sudan in terms of the wider region, in particular the situation in neighbouring Chad where the delegation also visited.

"We came away I think all again reconfirmed in our view that, as the African Union has itself decided, it is right that the UN should take over the peacekeeping operation in Darfur, that's the short-term objective," he said.

"I would only end by stressing this: the wish that we all kept repeating and which is fundamental to policy, in wanting to see a partnership with the Government and the people of Sudan. It's a partnership, we can't do this without the consent of the Government, that is obvious.

"Our wish is to see an improvement in all aspects of the situation in Sudan and that the United Nations should play its part working with that Government and its people," the Ambassador concluded.

Sudan's Bashir rules out UN force in Darfur - AU summit this weekend hopes to persuade Sudan to accept UN force

Excerpt from Reuters via Sudan Tribune 29 June 2006:

In an open-air speech attended by thousands in Khartoum, Bashir said a U.N. force was out of the question.

"We will not allow international troops under the U.N. to deploy in Darfur," Bashir said in an address marking the anniversary of the bloodless coup that brought him to power in 1989.

"Life in Darfur will return to its normal state without the presence of the international community or the participation of international troops in Darfur," he added.

Note, the report points out that analysts say Khartoum has objected because it fears U.N. soldiers would arrest officials or militia leaders likely to be indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. I've yet to see any news report, analysis or opinion piece addressing this issue.



Photo: Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir (C), Wall Meyange (L), the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, and Al Motaffi (R), governor of Khartoum, wave to the crowd during a celebration of the National Congress Party's 17th anniversary at Green Square in the capital Khartoum, June 29, 2006. (Reuters)

AU summit hopes to persuade Sudan to accept UN force

Excerpt from Sudan Tribune 29 June 2006:

"Beshir fears that once the United Nations moves to Darfur, it will be difficult to stop the prosecution of some people before international tribunals," said another diplomat.

Recent developments have are also likely to complicate the scenario.

The hauling of former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor before an international war crimes court has not warmed the Sudanese to UN peacekeeping efforts. Now similar calls are being made for Chadian ex-dictator Hissene Habre, currently held in Senegal over alleged atrocities, to be extradited to face justice abroad.

"Some heads of state think that with what happened to Taylor, there is need to be cautious," according to a Western diplomat based in Ethiopia.

Nonetheless, the United States and the UN have relentlessely called for a rapid deployment of the UN peacekeepers to halt human suffering and help end the Darfur conflict that has now spilled into the neighbouring Chad.

Calling for Sudan to agree a U.N. force with Chapter 7 mandate seems like banging ones head against a brick wall. Why should Sudan agree? Such a move would threaten Khartoum regime's existence - unless, of course, the suspected Darfur war criminals on the UN's list of 51 names lodged at the ICC were given immunity.

Arab fatigue - The Arabs have succeeded in making the world believe that they condone terror

Al-Ahram Weekly Opinion piece by Salama A Salama - Arab fatigue - excerpt:

" ... But when you visit Madrid, capital of the country, which first pull its troops from Iraq, you cannot help but feel that people have had enough with the Arabs, with their whining and inability to resolve their own problems. The Arabs have succeeded in making the world believe that they condone terror. America and Israel, meanwhile, have succeeded in making terror top the agenda of each and every Arab problem. Then you sense the frustration felt in Europe over the illegal immigrants that keep arriving from the southern Mediterranean and Africa. The world has a limited attention span, and it is getting well and truly fed up with the parade of problems coming from this region - Darfur and Somalia, Iraq and Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

The world has a mental image of a divided and tormented Arab region. Regardless of the sympathy people may have abroad for some of our issues, they cannot see a point in trying to change what cannot be changed. People abroad are increasingly asking themselves: why help those who don't want to help themselves? ..."

The guiding ideology fuelling U.S. policy in Sudan is to establish democracy in the country - U.S.

UPI analysis "U.S. Supports derided Darfur Peace Agreement" by Stephanie Sonntag June 29, 2006 [via CFD] excerpt:

Michael Ranneberger, senior Sudan representative for the U.S. State Department, told United Press International the United States doesn't support the current return of the refugees to their southern homes.

"Our position is that people should not go home until security is such that it would be safe," Ranneberger said.

The current foreign policy, as outlined by the U.S. State Department, supports a peace agreement to end the Sudan conflict, seeks cooperation against terrorism and "is deeply concerned" about human rights violations. According to current department statistics, the government provides 89 percent of the country's food aid and has sent more than $1.3 billion to fund reconstruction, humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts.

The guiding ideology fueling U.S. policy in Sudan is to establish democracy in the country by ending violence and genocide, Ranneberger said.

Washington is working through humanitarian groups to provide adequate food, clothing and health care to the millions of displaced people. Humanitarian groups have expressed frustration in the two peace agreements' limited power and large failures, as yet, to establish a safe environment.

The International Rescue Committee has many humanitarian officials entrenched throughout Sudan and is working on restoring these people to their homes. Experts assert that returning displaced people is a complex issue and often involves neighboring countries. Currently many refugees are resistant to return home.

J. Stephen Morrison, Africa program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, offered several explanations for why many displaced Sudanese do not want to return.

"The population may be living a marginalized existence, but are somewhat protected," he said at a recent conference. "The movement of populations is highly political."

Amanya Michael Ebye, a deputy county representative for western Sudan, agreed that the returns process is a difficult road. He said many of the region's citizens are afraid to leave their houses, let alone take dangerous journeys back to their homes. Because traveling is difficult, Ebye said, travelers would need walking security and adequate space for humanitarian efforts.

"Looking at the whole process, the recovery needs to be putting into place basic needs... including the management of facilities so they can own this process," said Anne Mesopir, a member of the IRC's south Sudan program.

The African Union, a recently formed multinational coalition to provide "African solutions for African problems," has deployed nearly 7,000 troops to patrol an area the size of France. The United States and many United Nations' officials support a transfer of patrol power from the understaffed and poorly funded AU to the U.N., but the Sudanese government opposes the transfer.

Ranneberger said it is in the best interest of Sudan to allow the transfer.

"The African Union is doing great job in Darfur, but it is not set up to maintain forces for a sustained amount of time," Ranneberger told UPI. "The African Union could form the core of the force. Sudan will simply need to cooperate."

He said the United States expects the U.N. Security Council's full support in the transfer.

[If its true that "the guiding ideology fueling U.S. policy in Sudan is to establish democracy in the country by ending violence and genocide" one wonders what the Sudanese think when they hear the US wants to establish democracy in Sudan. It's a terribly arrogant statement for a U.S. official to make, don't you think? Some days, I wonder what's in the water over there. Americans can't hear themselves the way as the rest of the world hears them. I'm not alone in this thinking - see following item]

BUSH FACES CRITICS AT EU SUMMIT

Reuters, New York Times report via International Herald Tribune June 22, 2006 - excerpt:

On Wednesday, Bush issued an impassioned defence of his Iraq policy amid pointed reminders of how far the United States had fallen in the eyes of many Europeans.

"That's absurd!" Bush declared, dismissing a reporter's suggestion that most Europeans regard the United States as a bigger threat to global stability than North Korea, which has proclaimed it has nuclear arms, or Iran, which is suspected of developing them.

"I will do my best to explain our foreign policy," he said. "On the one hand, it's tough when it needs to be. On the other hand, it's compassionate. And we'll let the polls figure out - people can say what they want to say.

Note the report points out that Mr Bush fought back, citing U.S. aid to Africa to fight AIDS and his declaration recognizing genocide in Darfur.

AU to impose travel bans and assets freeze against Darfur holdout rebels

The Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Union (AU), at its 58th meeting, held at ministerial level, on 27 June 2006, in Banjul, The Gambia, adopted the following decision on the situation in Darfur.

See full text at Sudan Tribune June 29 2006.

How to put new life into Darfur's Peace Agreement - Pronk

UN SRSG Jan Pronk blog entry 28 June 2006:

There is a significant risk that the Darfur Peace Agreement will collapse. The agreement does not resonate with the people of Darfur. On the contrary, on the ground, especially amongst the displaced persons, it meets more and more resistance. In my view it is a good text, an honest compromise between the extreme positions taken by the parties during the negotiations in Abuja. That is why the UN, like all international partners, has endorsed the agreement. However, in politics objective rational calculations will always be confuted by subjective emotional perceptions and aspirations. And those perceptions are that the agreement does not meet the expectations of the people in Darfur, has been forced upon them and, rather than meeting the interests of all parties somewhere halfway, only strengthens the position of the government and a minority tribe, the Zaghawa.

This perception is a new political fact. Neglecting it would only reinforce the resistance and kill the agreement. It is not yet dead, but severely paralysed. How to put new life into the DPA?

Three steps are necessary. First: timely implementation of what has been agreed. So far, nothing has been done. None of the deadlines agreed in the text of the agreement has been met. The African Union is in charge but it clearly lacks the capacity to lead the process of implementation. The deadlines are tight. During the talks in Abuja we warned against too tight deadlines, which could not be kept, but this was disregarded. The military positions of the parties have not yet been verified; the demilitarized zones, the buffer zones and the humanitarian routes have not yet been demarcated. As a result of this the humanitarian assistance to people in areas to which we did not have full access during he war, cannot be resumed, despite the agreement on paper. The preparations of the Darfur-Darfur dialogue have not yet started. It is no wonder that the people in Darfur get the idea that the DPA is just another text without substance, like earlier cease fire agreements, and is not meant to be kept. This only reinforces their rejection of the agreement. It is not yet too late to start implementation, but we seem to be running out of time.

The second priority is broadening the circle of support for the peace agreement. In its present form the DPA is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for peace. The present tactic to do so by soliciting the support of splinter groups and by sanctioning those who took the political decision not to sign will not work. We need the support of Abdul Wahid and his followers, who together represent at least two third of the displaced people in the camps. His group may lose some who associate themselves with the DPA (such as some of Abdul Wahid's advisors who came to Addis and did so in a ceremony with much publicity) but at the same time it may gain support amongst people splitting off from Mini Minawi. Quite a few have done so. Minnie Minawi's position may have been strong in Abuja, it is less so in Darfur. His commanders are brutalizing dissenters and his forces do not refrain from human rights violations similar to those of the militia they had fought against.

Efforts to broaden the support for the DPA should not result in losing partners who have already signed. For this reason we should stick to the text of the agreement, but be willing to add a lot. This can be done in all three fields: security, power sharing and wealth sharing. Credible international security guarantees, visible disarmament of the Janjaweed, more money for compensation and a tangible reconstruction of the areas where the refugees and displaced people lived before they were chased away will have to be added soon in order to turn the present agreement into a sustainable pact.

Broadening and implementation should go hand in hand. The necessary additions and refinements should take place in he framework of the Darfur-Darfur Dialogue and in the DPA institutions, such as the Cease Fire Commission, the International Joint Committee (to oversee the security arrangements) and the institutions dealing with humanitarian assistance, reconstruction and he preparation of a transitory governance system. However, this requires a fast track towards making these institutions operational. It also requires an inclusive approach. Any further delay and any further exclusion of non-signatories who so far have complied with the agreement, without signing it) would bring us back to the unfortunate situation before 5 May.

Not all international partners are in favour of an all inclusive approach. Some say that Abdul Wahid have missed all opportunities to sign and should be penalized by exclusion from the benefits of the agreement and by sanctions. It is a reaction based on feelings of offence and annoyance. It is short-sighted and counter productive. Only one week before the agreement was reached Abdul Wahid hesitated whether he should sign while Minnie Minawi declared himself to be all out against. During that week the tables were turned. From the USA Zoellick and from the UK Hillary Benn came to the rescue of the agreement and were able to persuade Minnie Minawi that he should sign. Contrary to what some commentators have argued Minnie Minawi was not forced to do so. He took his own decision, under pressure, but in freedom, the same freedom that brought Abdul Wahid to his refusal. However, what the international facilitators had not understood was that the non-signing by the one party was a function of the signing by the other. Configurations within Darfur - identity considerations, tribal motives, historical grounds and power rationale - turned out to be more decisive than the relations with Khartoum. It would have been better if Abdul Wahid would have been persuaded to sign, even knowing that this would stiffen Minnie Minawi in his initial rejection.

This situation can not be reversed. The miscalculation of Abuja can not be undone by another mistake: exchanging Minnie Minawi for Abdul Wahid. It would result in the resumption of hostilities, civilian deaths, displacement, and human rights violations. This is no option. However, sticking to the position of Abuja, for which international mediators, facilitators and observers share the responsibility with the parties, is no option either. The flaw which has been built in the agreement has to be mended.

It is high time. In Darfur the people who are the victims of the war turn against the DPA. Those who are on the side of the government and of the tribes and militia which were responsible for the killings and the atrocities welcome the DPA. If the constituency of Abdul Wahid is not being brought behind the DPA, and if the UN is seen as working together with the government and with Minnie Minawi only, the UN risks to be seen as favoring the wrong side of the conflict.

A transition towards a UN peace keeping force is the third priority in a strategy to save the DPA. Without an effective UN peace force the security of the displaced people and other victims of the war can not be guaranteed. The AU peace force has done a good job but it is too weak. Without such a transition the government will continue to set the conditions for the implementation of the DPA on the ground. A transition towards a UN peace force will only be successful if it can reverse the present conditions of non-implementation and exclusion. That would require a unified approach and a unified command in the humanitarian, civilian, military as well as political sphere.

As I said: it is high time. However, we do need also some time to reflect in order to choose the right approach and to get consensus. A couple of days ago we were given some time. We did not ask for it. On the contrary, we got it against our wish. An official joint high level delegation of the UN and the AU which had come to Khartoum in order to discuss the role of the two organisations in the implementation of the DPA was told by President Bashir that he would not agree with a transition towards a UN peace keeping force in Darfur. "This is final", he said and he repeated these words several times. It is a set back for the people in Darfur. But I do not believe that it is final. What is final will be dictated by the situation on the ground.
- - -

UPDATE:

The press have taken three days to pick up on the above opinion piece. It's the first time I've seen them pay attention to Jan Pronk's Weblog - even though it is a great blog with superb pictures.

July 1 2006 Reuters Opheera McDoom UN envoy calls for changes to Darfur peace plan: Sudan's top U.N. official has said the Darfur peace deal should be amended to meet key rebel demands to save the foundering agreement, in an apparent shift from his previous statements.
Jan Pronk, on his Internet blog, said international guarantees of security, a more visible disarmament of the Arab militia and more compensation for war victims needed to be added to the pact.
All these have been demanded by two rebel factions who refused to sign the May 5 deal. Angry protests have erupted in some Darfur refugee camps against the agreement.
"None of the deadlines agreed in the text of the agreement has been met. The African Union is in charge but it clearly lacks the capacity to lead the process of implementation," Pronk said in his blog, seen by Reuters on Saturday and dated June 28.

July 1 2006 BBC UN envoy attacks Darfur agreement: The head of the United Nations mission in Sudan, Jan Pronk, has said the Darfur peace agreement is in danger of collapse and needs re-writing. Writing his weblog, Mr Pronk called for security guarantees, more disarmament, and more compensation for victims. He said the pact does not resonate with the people of Darfur, describing it as "severely paralysed".

July 1 2006 Sudan Tribune Darfur agreement is severely paralysed

July 2 2006 inthenews.co.uk Annan: Darfur out of control: The AU's mandate in Darfur ends in the autumn, but the situation was today confused by the head of the UN's mission in Sudan, Jan Pronk, who has criticised the Darfur peace agreement (DPA) signed earlier this year, despite originally being one of its main proponents. 'It is no wonder that the people in Darfur get the idea that the DPA is just another text without substance, like earlier ceasefire agreements, and is not meant to be kept,' he said on his personal website.

AU to discuss democracy charter

African Union foreign ministers meeting in the Gambian capital, Banjul, are to discuss proposals for a charter on democracy and governance, BBC reported today. The report says the AU is supposed to suspend governments which take power by arms.

What about rebel groups taking power by arms? Why are they free to come and go as they please? One wonders what they say to European and American Immgration authorities when asked to declare occupation, finances and reason for entry. Surely it's about time travel bans were slapped on rebels who refuse to make peace.

Save Darfur Coalition (Washington, DC) plotting another rally to demand UN force in Darfur

Bad news. Save Darfur Coalition (Washington, DC) is plotting another rally to demand the UN to deploy a peacekeeping force in Darfur. The warmongering organisers of Save Darfur Coalition must know what message this sends to the Darfur rebels. I think America's bolstering of the rebels means the insurgents won't have to make peace in Darfur for a very long time. Pity the poor women and children of Darfur. God help them all - who else is really on their side?

Organizers of April's Save Darfur rally are planning another event for September, JTA reported June 28, 2006 - excerpt:

The second protest to draw attention to the continuing genocide in Sudan will be held in New York City on Sept. 17.

Like its predecessor, the rally will be orchestrated by the Save Darfur Coalition, a collection of 150 faith-based advocacy and humanitarian aid organizations.

Discussions also are in place to stage rallies across the country that day, as well as in Europe and Canada.

Unlike the first rally, which was aimed at President Bush and policymakers on Capitol Hill, this event will court a more international audience, and will focus on the demand for the United Nations to deploy a peacekeeping force to Darfur.

[Europe eh? Bug off, you bunch of warmongering nutters]
- - -

Email received today from Human Rights First aka H.O.P.E. for Darfur: Help Organise Peace Envoy [they say their campaign grows out of HRF's work with Dr Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, a leading human rights defender in Darfur]

Ingrid, Darfurians are losing hope. Promised a better future with the May peace agreement, they've only seen more violence. But you can make a difference by taking action today.

Our concerns about the continued killings in Darfur have been deepened by unfortunate news on the home front: two U.S. officials who have shaped our nation's leadership role on the crisis in Sudan are leaving government service. The engagement of Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick and the President's special adviser Michael Gerson sent a strong message - to Khartoum and the world - that Darfur is a priority of the Bush Administration.

Will you join us in urging President Bush to immediately fill this gap by appointing an influential and high-level official to coordinate the U.S. response to the Darfur crisis?

Click here to ensure that Darfur remains a priority for President Bush.

http://action.humanrightsfirst.org/campaign/dont_forget/iudww6e2hj7ei6t?

Already, the departure of these two U.S. officials is being felt. Just when pressure from the U.S. is more important than ever, the U.S. government is not playing the critical role on Darfur that it has for the past several months.

A high-level official would take up where Mr. Zoellick and Mr. Gerson left off - expressing the will of the President and showing the resolve of the U.S. government to end the crisis.

We should be clear: Human Rights First is still calling on Secretary-General Annan to appoint a U.N. Special Envoy for Peace in Darfur. We believe the best hope for peace is a coordinated international response - an effort led by a U.N. envoy. But this envoy needs influential contacts within the world's most powerful governments - especially the United States.

Tell President Bush to immediately appoint a senior-level official to fill the gap left by recent departures.

At this critical juncture, your voice will make a difference! Thank you so much for helping us address this human rights tragedy.

Jill Savitt
Director of Campaigns
Human Rights First

Eritrea objects to deployment of UN forces in Darfur

Sudan Vision report via African News Dimension June 28, 2006:

Eritrea said it categorically rejects deployment of International Forces in Darfur, stressing that the solution should be a purely Sudanese one.

The Eritrean President Advisor Abdalla Jabir added that stability in Sudan is part of that of Eritrea, affirming that intervention in Darfur or eastern Sudan destabilizes the whole region.

Jabir added that replacement of AU Forces will further complicate the problem. He further pointed out that Eritrea has some reservations on the Abuja talks as to the non-attendance by some parties of these talks. Darfurians should be consulted in order for them to decide on their own affairs, he noted.

Jabir denied news that Eritrea has put forward an initiative aimed at bringing President Al Bashir, VP Kiir and the Darfurian Movements to meet.

Why has Eric Reeves pushed for military intervention in Darfur knowing humanitarian access will be severed and civilian destruction will be massive?

In his opinion piece June 28, 2006 - "Meaning of Khartoum's suspension of humanitarian access to Darfur" - Eric Reeves says Khartoum's decision to suspend most of the UN's humanitarian operations in Darfur for two days had little to do with the reason offered by the regime. Snippets from the piece:

To be sure, Khartoum's vicious Military Intelligence was angry that the UN moved Jamous without permission. ... Khartoum's action was, in effect, a pointed threat:

"We have the power to shut down humanitarian operations overnight --- and completely. The present suspension was simply a warning, a reminder. But if we are pressed, if our most consequential claims of national sovereignty are ignored, if the UN should demand that we accept a force capable of protecting civilians and humanitarians, then we will respond much more severely the next time."

There should be no doubt about the deadly seriousness of Khartoum's threat, or about the ghastly history that stands as its guarantor.

This apparently technical obstructionism has terribly real consequences for desperately needy human beings. ... Of one thing we may be sure: if war comes, then humanitarian access will be severed altogether, and civilian destruction will be massive.

So, why has Eric Reeves over the last two years relentlessly pushed for military intervention in Darfur? I don't get it, unless he is onside with SLM-Nur. Note, in the piece he criticises the AU, SLA-Minnawi and the Darfur Peace Agreement but not SLM-Nur or JEM. Why would an American academic in Boston, MA, USA who networks with USAID and many others in America and Sudan, fight (with a pen) onside with SLM-Nur? A pen can be mightier than a sword.

African Union Mission in Darfur ends September 30, 2006

According to an unsourced article at the SudanTribune (Paris) June 27, 2006, a press statement says a faction within SLM-Minnawi suspends Darfur Peace Agreement implementation provoking a tacit split against its leader Minni Minnawi who signed the peace deal.

Also today, an Associated Press report via Sudan Tribune tells us UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan hopes AU will pressure Sudan on UN peacekeepers - excerpt:

Despite al-Bashir's rejection of a UN force, Annan said he is not giving up ... "In politics, words like 'never' and 'forever' do not exist," Annan told reporters. "We have seen leaders say lots of things, but they also find reasons and ways to adapt, to shift, to change direction, and often forget that they have used the word 'never.'"

Surely such a statement coming from Kofi Annan is music to the rebels' ears. UN mediation and UN troops are what the Darfur rebels have wanted all along.

Surely such reports, along with the army of rebel supporters in America - not to mention their calls for UN troops - bolsters the rebels, giving them the confidence to hold out. Who is really on the side of the long suffering civilians in Sudan? There's a big pot of gold at stake for rebels. Three years of war in Darfur have now passed while another generation of Sudanese youngsters grow up without ever receiving an education. If those children resort to making a living through theft and murder (many in Darfur's SLA rebel group are as young as 16) when will the cycle of violence, fighting and war in the Sudan ever be broken?

Today, a BBC report reminds us the AU Darfur mission ends in three months - excerpt:

The peacekeepers will leave by the end of September [30] even if there is no agreement on replacing it with a United Nations force, an AU meeting agreed.

Sudan is vehemently against this move, but UN boss Kofi Annan hopes to change their mind at this weekend's AU summit.

South Africa's foreign minister said the AU did not have the money to continue even if it wanted to.

But the UN head of peacekeeping, Jean-Marie Guehenno, says the UN is committed to bolstering the AU mission.

"Whatever happens our mandate ends on 30 September unless there are new developments in the discussions between the Sudan and the UN," said South Africa's Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlaminini Zuma, who chaired an AU Peace and Security Council meeting on the subject.

"For us that mandate should end and the UN should be the one who takes over."

The meeting took place ahead of an AU heads of state summit in The Gambia.

In a separate move, the head of UN peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno has said the UN will strengthen its support for the AU Darfur mission. But, he gave no details.

"We believe that the United Nations can help the African mission," he told reporters at the UN after returning from an assessment mission in Sudan.

"We did not get any objection from the government of Sudan so we are going to work in earnest on that."

See comments at BBC's Have Your Say: What should the African Union leaders do?