ME and Ophelia

Thursday, July 22, 2004

 
NO PROGRESS BY KHARTOUM ON DISARMING MILITIAS
Legally declaring genocide in Darfur will not help refugees

U.S. State Department report July 21 excerpt:

Secretary-General Annan's envoy Mr. Pronk said in New York Wednesday there has been "no progress what so ever" on security for the refugees.

The U.S. senior diplomat who spoke to reporters said it's hoped that Thursday's Powell-Annan meeting help focus public attention on Darfur and generate support for a Security Council resolution.

He acknowledged that "a few" members of the council were holding out against the draft, which would threaten an arms embargo and travel ban against the Janjaweed and their supporters within the Khartoum government within a month, if U.N. terms are not met.

The Bush administration has described actions of the Janjaweed as "ethnic cleansing." It is also examining whether the situation fits the definition of genocide, which could trigger far-reaching penalties against those responsible under a 1948 international convention.

But the senior diplomat said such a legal determination would be of no immediate help to hundreds of thousands of people in Darfur whose lives are in jeopardy, and the important thing now is to disarm the militias.
- - -

Powell Expects to Get 'Clearer Picture' From Darfur Reports

July 20 report in full re SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL AND SERBIAN PRESIDENT BORIS TADIC AFTER THEIR MEETING:

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you said in an interview last week that you expected to be getting reporting back from the ground in Darfur this week. Do you have any timeline for when you may be prepared to make that report? And since you've come back from Sudan, have you been at all encouraged by events on the ground?

SECRETARY POWELL: I will start to get some reporting in, I hope, this evening. It won't be a complete picture, but I've had people from our human rights bureaus and from our intelligence bureaus out interviewing individuals in Darfur and in Chad as well, and those reports will start to come in now, which will give us a clearer picture of the nature of this conflict and what the Jingaweit and the other militias have been doing.

How soon we can make a judgment that would lead us to characterize this situation one way or another remains to be seen. I can't answer that until the reports come in.

With respect to what's happened over the last couple of weeks since I visited there, since Secretary General Annan visited there and a number of congressional delegations visited, has been a mixed picture. With respect to humanitarian aid, more aid is going in. It is getting more difficult to retail it out to the needed populations, the needed camps, but more aid is coming in. They have removed some of the restrictions and they have been approving visas and transit documents more rapidly. So the Sudanese Government, they have taken some steps, has taken some steps to make it easier for the aid to come in and be delivered and for humanitarian workers to do their work.

We are also building up rapidly the size of the AU Monitoring Group, the African Union Monitoring Group, and I talked to Nigerian President Obasanjo on Sunday to see what I could do to assist in providing African Union troops to protect the African Union Monitoring Group, and we're working on that. We're trying to get the political process back on track as well, and my ambassadors in the region have had conversations with rebel leaders to get them back to the table.

On Sunday, I also spoke to Vice President Taha of Sudan and I spoke to Foreign Minister Ismail of Sudan. And while I took note of some marginal improvement in the humanitarian side, I also pointed out to them as clearly as I could that I, the President and the international community remain complete dissatisfied with the security situation. Not enough is being done to break the hold of the Jingaweit. Rapes are still occurring. People do not feel safe leaving the camps to go out and forage for food. The situation remains very, very serious and, first and foremost, the security has to be dealt with.

We will continue to consult with our international partners. I'll be talking to Secretary General Annan again this afternoon and Jan Pronk, his representative in the Sudan, is back to brief our Ambassador Danforth today and the Security Council tomorrow, and I expect to be in close touch with Kofi Annan later in the week to determine what further action might be appropriate for the Security Council and the international community to take.

Thank you.

# posted by Ingrid J. Jones @ 7/22/2004 0 comments  
- - -

BLAIR PLAN TO SEND BRITISH TROOPS
For possible military intervention in Sudan

From correspondents in London July 22: Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair had drawn up plans to send British troops for possible military intervention in Sudan where a bloody conflict has engulfed the western region of Darfur, a British newspaper said today.

"The Prime Minister has asked to look at all the options that will save lives and not to rule out the military services," a British government official was quoted as saying in The Guardian newspaper. According to the report, Mr Blair is considering three options: sending British servicemen only to help with the aid effort; sending logistical support for an African Union force; deploying British troops to protect refugee camps.

The final and most risky option would require the agreement of the Khartoum Government, which would be reluctant to give it, the newspaper said.

Mr Blair yesterday promised to keep in close touch with Washington and the United Nations over events in Darfur, where at least 10,000 people are estimated to have died since conflict erupted in February 2003.

"The key things now are, first of all, to make sure that whatever aid is given, it goes through to the people who need it most," Mr Blair told Parliament in answer to a question on the issue. "Secondly, to keep up pressure on the Government of the Sudan to make sure that they are dealing with the real problems that are giving rise to the violence and the ethnic cleansing. "And we continue to put as much pressure as we possibly can on them to do that, along with the United States," he said.

Quizzed on whether more international troops or monitors were needed for Darfur, Mr Blair said he had talked twice with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan about the issue. "We will continue to work with the UN and other countries which are involved in this, we will continue to monitor the situation very carefully and we rule absolutely nothing out in this situation," he said.
- - -

BLAIR DRAWS UP PLANS TO SEND TROOPS TO SUDAN
British Army could be used to protect refugee camps

July 22: Blair draws up plans to send troops to Sudan. U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is to fly to Sudan soon to assess the plight of the refugees at first-hand. Copy of report from The Guardian, here in full:

Tony Blair has asked Downing Street and Foreign Office officials to draw up plans for possible military intervention in Sudan, where more than a million refugees are at risk from famine and disease.

Despite a heavy commitment of British armed forces in Iraq and other troublespots, the prime minister has had discussions with advisers for on-the-ground involvement of troops.

The prime minister is still hoping that diplomatic and political pressure on the Khartoum government will resolve the crisis without the need for military involvement.

But with conditions in hundreds of camps sharply deteriorating this week with the onset of torrential rain, governments across Europe as well as the US are facing calls for action to prevent a repetition of the Rwanda genocide 10 years ago that claimed a million lives. A government official involved in the discussions said Mr Blair was being given regular updates on the condition of the refugees in the Darfur region.

"The prime minister has asked to look at all options that will save lives and not to rule out the military services," the official said. Three options for military action have been put forward in Downing Street:

· British servicemen to help with the delivery of aid if the humanitarian agencies can no longer cope. At present, the Belgian air force is helping to fly in aid. Britain is using civilian planes because they are cheaper.

· British logistical support for an African Union force of 60 monitors and 300-strong protection force being deployed in the Sudan. The AU force is short of equipment, including helicopters, vital given the poor state of Darfur's roads.

· British troops to protect refugee camps being harassed by marauding militias. This creation of safe zones would be the most risky of the options and would require the agreement of the Khartoum government, which would be reluctant to give it.

The fact that Mr Blair is prepared to consider military options, even limited ones, so soon after the Iraq war may create controversy, not least among critics who already regard him as too interventionist. It would be his sixth military venture since becoming prime minister in 1997.

Mr Blair, speaking at the Labour party conference in 2001, said he would have a moral duty to intervene in any country to prevent a repetition of Rwanda. Two years earlier, Mr Blair set out in Chicago a doctrine for intervention in humanitarian cases. Asked about Sudan in the Commons yesterday, Mr Blair did not mention the military option. But he said he "ruled absolutely nothing out".

A ministerial source said pressure was building on Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. "For Straw and Blair, Rwanda was a marker for the world," he said. "A reprise of Rwanda chills everyone's blood."

Mr Straw is to fly to Sudan soon to assess the plight of the refugees at first-hand.

The UN security council is shortly to table a resolution that is expected to set out a timetable to put pressure on the Sudanese government to resolve the crisis.

The Darfur refugees, mainly women and children, were forced to flee their homes after attacks by the Janjaweed, a militia armed by the Khartoum government to help combat rebels. The government, which initially slowed access by aid organisations to Darfur, has so far failed to fulfil promises to the UN to disarm the Janjaweed.

The onset of heavy rain in recent weeks has brought chaos to the camps by cutting off roads and aid, destroying shelters and disrupting water supplies, leaving malnourished refugees vulnerable to disease.

There is intense debate between Downing Street and the Foreign Office about the best approach. Some, especially in the Foreign Office, see military involvement as impractical given that Darfur is the size of France, and favour continuing to cajole the government into reining in the Janjaweed and making the camps secure.

Intervention in Sudan would help Mr Blair counter critics who accuse him of intervening only when US or British self-interest is at stake. Britain sent soldiers to Sierra Leone in 2000 in support of a beleaguered UN force: the other interventions were Kosovo, Afghanistan and twice in Iraq.

In spite of complaints by the Ministry of Defence about the overstretch of military resources, it could provide a few hundred servicemen. A request for thousands would be problematic. Government officials concede that the US is unlikely to put any troops on the ground and there is little support elsewhere in Europe.

At prime minister's question time, the Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, asked Mr Blair: "What scope do you see for further practical steps now ... to assist the millions of Sudanese facing ethnic cleansing and starvation?"

Mr Blair said he was in touch with ministers on the issue every day and had spoken to the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, twice over the past couple of weeks. He said it was vital to "make sure whatever aid is given gets through to the people who need it most and secondly to keep up pressure on the government of Sudan to make sure they are dealing with the real problems that are giving rise to the violence and ethnic cleansing."
- - -

OLIVER LETWIN MP
Writes to British Foreign Secretary on The Sudan

Clive at The UK Today may be interested to know that yesterday morning I received a letter from my MP Oliver Letwin. Here is a copy:

17 July 2004

Dear Ms Jones

Thank you for your recent e-mail.

I have recently had meetings with various constituents about the situation in The Sudan, as well as correspondence with the Bishop of Salisbury's chaplain on the subject.

As a result, I have written to the Foreign Secretary, asking him to ensure that the Government supports every effort to improve the appalling situation in that country. I assure you that my colleagues and I will continue to press for support for this beleaguered part of the world.

Yours sincerely
Oliver Letwin
- - -

Previous posts:
June 24: post re acknowledgement received from Oliver Letwin MP.
June 19: post copy of letter faxed to Oliver Letwin MP on June 8, 2004.
June 10: post re fax to Oliver Letwin MP requesting him to sign EDM1051 and EDM 2943.

# posted by Ingrid J. Jones @ 7/22/2004 0 comments

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

 
THE ORIGINAL SUDAN PEACE ACT
A powerful tool for coercing Khartoum
into stopping genocide?
The more oil that's found, the worse the violence will become?

This morning, Patrick Hall at The Horn of Africa kindly emailed me to say he has been reading a post by Mike, at Blog for Arizona, on the relationship between oil and the wars in Sudan. Apart from a few points, Patrick finds it quite convincing. Me too. The post links to some very interesting PDF files. I'm glad Patrick thought to drop me a line about it because I'd spent most of yesterday reading the same post that Mike had pointed out in his comment at this blog.

In Mike's post entitled "Powell's Sudanese Farce", he writes: "aspirations of independence are still alive in the South. Fear of that persistent desire and its attendant loss of vital resources, especially oil, is the major reason for the ongoing ethnic violence. The more reserves which are found, the worse the violence will become. Khartoum perceives a need to remove southern Sudanese from the regions surrounding this natural bounty, so that the wealth the oil produces cannot be denied to the government. Khartoum is terrified of a partitioned Sudan which leaves the north resource-poor, cut off from the productive lands of the south and unable to access its tremendous water and oil resources. In the last few years the pogrom has intensified and become more persistent, more violent, and more organized. The clear and simple reason is that in 2000 the recently discovered oil reserves of the south (PDF) were brought into production, providing Khartoum with the means and motive to expand their program terror and genocide in the south, especially against those live on or near the active oil fields."

If I had more time today, there's a lot more of Mike's post I'd like to quote from. Here are a few examples: "The tie between the oil resources of the south and the ethnic cleansing is the Gordian knot which must be cut to bring relative peace to Sudan. To force Khartoum to stop killing the people of the south, one would have to threaten their beneficial use of Sudan’s oil resources. That is exactly what the Sudan Peace Act (PDF) of 2002 was intended to do. Sections 8 and 9 of the House version of that bill would have made effective the embargoes imposed by Executive Order in 1997 by President Clinton, and maintained in force every year since."

This line of Mike's, I found especially interesting: "Only threatening their oil revenues will force Khartoum to stop the violence. A ghostly echo of the critical role of oil remains in Section 8 of the enacted version, stripped of context and bereft of all force by fiat of President Bush. Using oil production to stop the genocide would be highly effective, but it would also mean a potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars for the oil companies currently producing and exploring in Sudan.

If what Mike is saying is true, my new question is: are the US, UN and EU pushing for ways to threaten Sudan's oil revenues, if that's what will force Khartoum to stop the violence?
- - -

I've not yet had a chance to email Mike to thank him for his comment and post because yesterday I also received an email from Tom Pravda, out of the blue, who, like Mike, is another blogger new to me. I spent most of yesterday reading Mike's post and replying to Tom's email. Visitors are expected here tomorrow and Friday and I cannot spend the time I'd need to write a fresh post on the above. So, instead, I am copying the emails here.

I'd be most grateful for any feedback on Mike's post, and my email to Tom, as I hope to post further on defining what activists are hoping to achieve by pushing for UN sanctions against Sudan, secession, and for Genocide in Sudan to be declared .

Mike authors BlogForArizona: Grassroots Democrats. Here is a copy of the comment he yesterday here at this blog:

I wrote an article about the genocide and impact
of the gutting of the Sudan Peace Act by the Bush
Administration in 2002. No one seems to talk about
putting pressure on Sudan where it will hurt the
most since Bush killed very a effective method of
embargo in that bill. It seems that the oil
companies involved in development and exploration
in Sudan have effectively buried the strongest
tool we have to stop the killing.
http://dean4az.blogspot.com/2004/07/powells-sudanese-farce_01.html

Here is a copy of Tom's email to me. I am copying it here in full because it contains several useful links and leads to info on the die-in being held in Washington tomorrow:

On 20 Jul 2004, at 17:58, Tom Pravda wrote:

Dear Ingrid,
 
I came across your blog while looking for information about activism on Darfur in the UK.
 
I thought you, personally, might be interested in a new website we've set up on the "genocide" in Darfur. If you like what the site's trying to do, I was hoping you might post something about it and/or link to it from your blog. It's rather US focused at the moment (though we've had signups from the UK and Israel) but we're hoping to make it a global thing.

It's www.darfurgenocide.org
 
And we've got daily-updated news feeds and links to all the best press coverage, NGO reports and governmental statements etc., at www.darfurgenocide.org/info.htm
 
There's also links to slide shows and video footage: www.darfurgenocide.org/video.htm

People can sign international petitions calling on the international community to launch a humanitarian interevention, or mandate the International Criminal Court to investigate those responsible for the genocide:
www.darfurgenocide.org/action.htm

People can also sign up to organize events, raise money etc. in their town/city, www.darfurgenocide.org/localprotest.htm
People can donate to provide humanitarian aid or support advocacy efforts: www.darfurgenocide.org/donate.htm

I hope you'll take a few moments to look through it, perhaps get involved in some way, and consider either posting a comment about it, or providing a link (or both).
 
Best wishes, Tom Pravda, www.therespublica.org

Here is a copy of my reply to Tom:

Dear Tom,

Thank you for your email.

It was a wonderful surprise to hear from you.

I was already aware of the darfur genocide site and had already made mention of it and published news of the die-in.

Thanks for sending me the link to Res Public which I've now visited and glanced through (looks good - impressive three profiles - you all sound very interesting)

I'm so pleased you've made contact as it gives me an opportunity to give you some feedback in this reply and raise a few issues.

Firstly, for some unknown reason when I first found the darfur genocide site, my browser refused to capture the URL on your site. I was not able to provide a direct link to your site in my blog.

I've checked it out again today, and am still unable to capture the URL link.

I have a new Apple Mac PowerBook G4 with Safari browser, and have not encountered such a problem with any other site.

Secondly, I was curious to know how websites like yours get to know when another site is linking.

Weblogs have great services like Technorati, Feedster and Bloglines that tell us bloggers when other blogs are linking to us - which gives great feedback and a sense of community.

Hey, maybe each of you would consider starting a personal weblog: they're easy to start up and are completely free of charge over at Blogger.com :-)

Thirdly, there is something I've been mulling over that I cannot find the answers and was thinking how good it would be to be able to chew it over with someone who might know the answers to some of my questions.

Hey presto your email arrived. Seems you are the perfect person for me to ask. Here goes:

I am not an activist and so I have no understanding of what the activists campaigning for the Sudan are trying to achieve.

While I applaud all those who are pushing for "action" to help the people of Sudan, I can't seem to find any reports spelling out and making clear what exactly it is that they expect, and hope to have happen, as a result of:

(1) sanctions being imposed - and

(2) genocide in Darfur being officially declared.

From what I can gather, and please correct me if I am wrong, sanctions won't be effective enough to help the people in Sudan who are in need of help right now; and if genocide is "officially" declared, it will trigger large scale military intervention (which would take time to become a reality) that would have to entail the removal of the present regime in Khartoum and the capture and imprisonment of the perpetrators of the atrocities to be tried in court.

I have yet to see a report that "thinks through" the scenario - from beginning to end - of what is likely be achieved:

(1) from the time that sanctions are imposed - to the time they are lifted again;

(2) from the time that genocide is officially declared - to the time the perpetrators are captured and tried (who runs Sudan in the meantime?)

(3) what is to become of the 1m+ displaced people in the short, medium and long term If (1) and (2) are carried through and how is this all to be managed - and by whom?

(4) in reference to (1) and (2) above, how could the Peace Accord negotiations proceed, and ceasefire agreements hold? And what would be the plan in the event of a civil war starting up all over again?

As I have not yet found any explanations on the ramifications of (1) and (2), I am surprised that someone as high profile as U.S. Senator John Kerry can be so bold in his Speech on Darfur without explaining the pros and cons of his recommendation to classify Darfur as genocide, ie what role is the US to play? How many troops, if any, would President Kerry be willing to deploy? Considering that Africa is a tinderbox, what is the plan and who would carry it out? How long would the plan take to achieve, how much would it cost and where would the money come from?

I have published some posts touching on these questions (if you have time, please see my posts on the Sudan over the past few days - and just keep scrolling). I've posted almost daily since April 24, when I picked up on the story from Jim Moore's Journal out of Harvard.

Of course I don't expect you to be able any of my questions but I would be interested to have any feedback on these thoughts - and any pointers to reports that Dr Eric Reeves, or anyone else may have written that could help answer some of the questions here.

With kind regards
Ingrid Jones
England, UK
http://meandophelia,blogspot.com

PS
Today I received a comment at my blog from a complete stranger called Mike. Thought you might be interested to read it (copy below). One of the links within Mike's post leads to the following report --

"US business gears up to derail Sudan delisting law by Edward Alden in Washington and Ken Warn in Toronto, The Financial Times, June 20, 2001"::
http://southsudanfriends.org/issues/SudanDelisting.html

-- which I found rather special because it is dated one and a half years before Feb 2003 (when conflict in Darfur began) and makes me think of a question I've asked myself (ever since I started reading up on the Sudan in April) that I have not found any answers to, namely: "Why through all the years of negotiations on the Peace Accord did the US and Khartoum both see fit to exclude the western and eastern regions of Sudan?
- - -

Note: Also, I have sent a copy of the above to Patrick in the hope of getting some feedback because Patrick is very good at finding interesting reports and I agree with what he says about Mike's post.

PS Ref oil in Sudan - update from USAID: See Patrick's latest July 21 post to see why this link to "European Coalition on Oil in Sudan" is now officially the place to go for up-to-date information on oil companies still doing business in Sudan. [Good piece of good homework Patrick, thanks.]

Further reading:

July 21: "Emergency state in E. Sudan over expected 'attack' from Eritrea - Kassala State in eastern Sudan yesterday declared a state of emergency throughout the state in anticipation of an attack, which might be carried out by an armed opposition group from the territory of neighbouring Eritrea. This will increase the difficulties already facing the government in Darfur [State], western Sudan.

The state's governor, Faruq Hasan Nur, described it [the expected attack] as an Eritrean plan to see violence and instability spread in the country. He stressed that Eritrea is giving support to armed Sudanese factions and denied that the Sudanese government is backing groups opposed to the regime of [Eritrean President] Isayas Afewerki.

Meanwhile, the African Union [AU] has announced that it is making attempts to reactivate the stalled talks between Khartoum and the Darfur rebels at a time when the UN has said that attacks by Janjawid militias on African residents in Darfur are continuing. [Passage omitted] Source: Democratic Unionist Party web site, in Arabic 21 Jul 04
- - -

Further reading:

July 21: excerpt from Stephanie Ho's report: "'When we [the U.S. government] told the [American] oil companies that they had to lose their fields in Libya for some period of time because of national security issues, those companies just lost the right to operate in Libya, and that was the end of it,' she said. 'But in China, the oil industry is run by the government. It's owned by the government.'"

Posts from Passion of the Present weblog out of Harvard (provides daily postings of the latest major news re Sudan):
July 20: post: Do we have a duty to intervene?
July 20: The Passion post from the Passion: Lack of awareness of Darfur and the genocide in Sudan - Can we do more? Can the blogosphere help?
July 18: post: What you can do today to help stop the genocide in Sudan.

# posted by Ingrid J. Jones @ 7/21/2004 0 comments  
- - -

DJIBOUTI:
U.S. long-term Africa intelligence base

Thanks to a post at Karmalised, I found the following report from afrol.com. Here is a copy of the report, in full:

Djibouti since June 2002 is hosting 1800 US soldiers that are busy building a permanent military base to coordinate intelligence operations on the Horn and East Africa. Numerous US operations are already interfering with the aims of Muslim societies in the region.

The American military base at Djibouti's ex-French post Camp Lemonier is increasingly present in US media. Here, "the quiet battle" in the war against terrorism is waged by a new US military anti-terrorism taskforce, visiting American journalists conclude. The Djibouti base is turning into the most strategic cell in the US-led war against Muslim terrorists and alleged terrorists.

The US news agency 'Associated Press' (AP) recently sent its journalist Chris Tomlinson to Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, or what he calls "the heart of the Bush administration's quiet battle against Islamist militants operating in six nations in East Africa and in Yemen," from Kenya to Sudan.

The journalist observed great activity at the US base, where soldiers still sleep in tents. Great resources are however spent to upgrade the former French Foreign Legion post and the US troops leave no doubt that they intent to stay for a long time in Djibouti.

We are the gathering point and dissemination point for all information, Commander Cooper told the AP journalist. "We are empowering host nations to retake neighbourhoods that people are trying to take from them," added Brigadier-General Martin Robeson, referring to Muslim groups. Mr Robeson is the commander of the US task force in Djibouti.

The soldiers interviewed confirm that the US troops stationed in Djibouti are active in all the countries of the region, primarily coordinating intelligence work between Washington, military and civilian US representations in the region and the cooperating governments of the Horn. They claim to have disrupted several terrorist plots during their stay in Djibouti.

The US troops in Djibouti however also are directly involved in what normally is considered within the sovereignty of independent states. This includes border security and coastal security for the countries of the Horn.

Fishermen from the Somali southern city of Raas Kambooni this week learned what the US troops in Djibouti mean with coastal security assistance. According to the newspaper 'Houg Ogal', the fishermen had stumbled onto US intelligence cameras and other electronic devices, installed on the depopulated rocky island of Burr Gaabo near the Kenyan borders, but within Somali territorial waters.

In Kenya, the coastal town of Lamu currently again is experiencing a large joint Kenyan-US military exercise. According to the Kenyan Department of Defence, the US troops involved are part of the anti-terrorism task force for the Horn of Africa, based in Djibouti. The Kenyan-US anti-terrorism exercise is the fourth within short time.

Especially in Somalia and Kenya, the US troops believe to find essential links to their main enemy, the al-Qaeda terrorist network. Somalia has been without a central government for 12 years and a group connected with al-Qaeda in the 1990s temporarily established here. Its stronghold was in Raas Kambooni - where local fishermen now find electronic surveillance devices.

Kenya is the African country where most terrorist attacks have taken place. The US troops therefore keep an extra eye on this country, counting on total collaboration from Nairobi authorities. General Robeson in Djibouti claims that "hundreds of new al-Qaeda members have been recruited" in Kenya, "despite stepped-up anti-terrorism efforts."

But this alleged new recruitment of al-Qaeda members in the region has also been termed a failure of the US military taskforce in Djibouti. Analysts interviewed by the Nairobi-based 'East African' say that the US administration has "failed to respond appropriately to the election of a reform-minded president in Kenya."

Washington's rhetoric proved largely hollow, the Kenyan analysts added. While the military cooperation between the US and Kenya is booming, the chance to improve Kenyans' lives under the new government of President Mwai Kibaki, supporting his economic and social reforms, has been largely missed by Washington.

With misery still prevailing in Africa's Horn and Kenya, recruitment for Islamist extremists will not diminish, regional critics hold.
- - -

ASSISTANCE NEEDED -
"No violence required"

Interesting post at Karmalised blog entitled: "Assistance needed- "No violence required" by Diane Warth. On July 18, I left the following comment over at Karmalised, a blog I found in Jim Moore's list of blog links at Technorati. I often check his list because I figure the bloggers who are linking to Jim's Journal and Passion of the Present weblog on the Sudan will be likeminded:

Diane, very interesting post, thank you. I've spent about an hour here reading it but will have to come back later to digest more. I've been following the Sudan crisis closely since April 24 when I picked up on the story from Jim Moore's Journal out of Harvard. Looking forward to seeing more posts on the Sudan here, especially towards the end of this month when I feel things should start moving a lot quicker. I'd be interested to read what you think about the aid agencies effort so far. I'm appalled that the WFP are now saying they have only half the amount of food they need to feed one camp. Next week they are air dropping 1,400 tons into Darfur but don't explain who is on the ground to pick it up and distribute it in an area that is said to be becoming impassable because of the (long-forecasted) rainy season. Also why Jan Egeland says on the one hand that access is not really a problem - he says it's financial (blaming donors) but on the other hand he says the situation in Darfur may be getting too dangerous for aid workers (blaming GoS for not doing enough). The UN and international aid agencies have had 16 months of warning on this conflict and decades of expertise. What exactly is their problem do you think? I'd be interested to read your views on why in this day and age the multi billion dollar business of getting aid to those who need it most is still failing and why they are getting away with it - where is the accountability? Is anyone else asking these questions? Thanks again.
- - -

FACT OF THE DAY - JULY 21
Courtesy Scotsman.com

Today in 1994 Tony Blair became the youngest man to be elected leader of the Labour Party. He promised "new politics to take us into a new millennium".

# posted by Ingrid J. Jones @ 7/21/2004 0 comments  
- - -

WESTERN PAPERS SEE U.N. AUTHORISED INTERVENTION
As the only way to avoid "another Rwanda"

The collapse of the peace talks between the Sudanese government and rebels from Darfur has prompted comment in newspapers across the world. A report from the BBC says the situation in Darfur has been described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis at present, and papers express concern that things are now likely to get worse.

Some Western papers see UN-authorised intervention as the only way to avoid what they call "another Rwanda"." Read more in the BBC's excellent world news round-up on Sudan.
- - -

Pro-government militia in south Sudan vows to fight for survival:
July 18: Pro-government militia in southern Sudan which could be outlawed under a peace deal aimed at ending more than two decades of conflict has warned it will fight for its survival.
- - -

Sudan sets up groups to probe rapes in Darfur:
Khartoum, under global pressure to end violence in its western provinces, ordered on Saturday that committees of female judges, police officers and legal consultants investigate rape accusations and help victims through criminal cases. Thank you to my reader Clive Summerfield for emailing me the BBC report: "Rape 'a weapon' in Sudan war". I'll post more on this at a later date. Note [insert link] Amnesty International documents rape as tool of war in Darfur and Sudan's ambassador in Lebanon says only 2 cases occurred.

July 19: Darfur documents confirm Sudan's government policy of militia support.
- - -

Sudan militiamen face amputations:
BBC report: Ten members of Sudan's pro-government militia have been sentenced to have a hand and a foot amputated for their role in attacks in Darfur.
- - -

Rebels attacked a relief convoy in Darfur yesterday:
July 21:: Nine Sudanese Soldiers, 29 Rebels Die in Darfur Clash. Nine of the dead were military escorts and the others were rebels. The attack occurred Monday at Ambru in the north of the western province.

The incident was confirmed by Sudan's Humanitarian Affairs Ministry, which didn't give casualty figures, AFP reported. It brought to 109 the number of rebel violations of a cease-fire in force since April, AFP said.
- - -

UK cash pours in for Darfur appeal:
July 21: Donations have flooded in to a UK appeal to help the Sudan humanitarian crisis - raising £2.5m the first night. Some 4,000 phone lines manned by volunteers were jammed from 6.30pm on Tuesday until midnight. The average donation so far has been £44 - the amount needed to feed a family of five for two months.

The appeal, launched by actress Joanna Lumley, aims to help up to one million black Africans who have been driven from their homes in Darfur by Arab militias, allegedly backed by the Sudanese government. Brendan Gormley, chief executive of the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), which is organising the appeal, called it "a tremendous response".

Mr Gormley said: "The British public have obviously been touched by the plight of the refugees and have responded by donating generously.

July 21: Blair Blasts Sudan for Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur.

# posted by Ingrid J. Jones @ 7/21/2004 0 comments  
- - -

WITH PEACE, THE "NEW SUDAN" WILL HAVE ITS OWN CURRENCY
Rumbek may be capital of autonomous southern Sudan

July 19: When the (still to be finalised) Peace Accords take effect, the "New Sudan" will have its own currency: the New Sudan Pound (NSP).

It will also have its own flag, license plates and a system for the collection of taxes.

Under the provisions of the July 2002 accords signed (and still being negotiated* - the south of Sudan will benefit from a six-year interim period of autonomy before its citizens vote on whether or not to remain part of Sudan.

Rumbek is likely to become the capital of the autonomous southern Sudan.

"Hundred and two hundred notes of the NSP have already been printed and 10, 20 and 50 NSP coins are ready," said the manager of the Nile Commercial Bank which opened its doors in Rubek on May 30. So far, the bank has no computers, telephone lines or electricity, but 60 people have opened an account.

Currently, transactions in the southern part of the country are conducted in Kenyan and Ugandan shillings and American dollars, but never in the Sudan dinar, the legal tender of the northern part of the country.

Very few countries allow the circulation of more than one currency, the very symbol of national sovereignty. "We are going to be like China," said Samson Arap, manager of the bank, explaining that the Hong Kong and Taiwanese dollars and the Chinese yuan are all accepted currencies in the world's largest country.

# posted by Ingrid J. Jones @ 7/21/2004 0 comments Newer›  ‹Older