BS: Darfur

Subject: BS: more progress- Darfur.???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 06:51 AM

Egeland: 'Meltdown' in Darfur
POSTED: 8:38 p.m. EST, November 22, 2006
Adjust font size:
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Citing a "dramatic deterioration" of the situation in Darfur, the top U.N. humanitarian official said a crisis is approaching for the region in Sudan that could cost millions of lives.

"I was there in 2004 when there was 1 million people in need," Jan Egeland, the U.N. emergency relief coordinator, told reporters. "2005, 2 million ... in the spring, 3 million. And now there are 4 million in desperate need of humanitarian assistance."

Egeland briefed the U.N. Security Council Wednesday on Darfur.

In a report from Reuters, Egeland also accused Sudan of deliberately hindering relief aid in Darfur, attacking villages and arming brutal militia to combat rebels and bandits.

Egeland told the Security Council that international relief operations were threatened by government obstruction and members needed to talk to Sudanese officials immediately as well as put pressure on those sending arms to rebels.

"The next weeks may be make or break for our lifeline to more than 3 million people," Egeland said in the Reuters report. "This period may well be the last opportunity for this Council, the government of Sudan, the African Union, the rebels, and all of us to avert a humanitarian disaster of much larger proportions than even the one we so far have witnessed in Darfur."

Part of the problem, Egeland said, is a "meltdown in security. The humanitarians are confined to the towns. We cannot even reach many of the camps."

Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Wednesday that negotiations continue on whether Sudan will allow U.N. peacekeepers to be stationed in Darfur, and that he is waiting to hear from Sudanese President Omer Hassan Al-Bashir.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/11/22/un.darfur/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: more progress- Darfur.???
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 03:24 AM

This is begining to look like Rwanda all over again, in which case the UN has the right man at the top. To all those on this forum who keep harping on about the UN as being a great international institution, take a long hard look at how it deals with problems, it's own head declared over two years ago that the situation in Darfur was the most urgent and potentially the most dire human catastrophe facing the international community to date. Action taken - Zip.

The UN, a useless talking shop where only national interests take priority. Perhaps the Chinese have dropped a few hints to the Government of Sudan regarding the lessons learned in Tibet that can be effectively employed in Darfur, the fortieth anniversary of Communist China's attempts to erradicate Tibet and the culture of the Tibetan people is just around the corner.

A UN Peacekeeping force for Darfur will do nothing and achieve nothing, their hands are tied long before the troops involved leave their donor countries. What needs to be put in place is an armed force fully backed by the UN that will put affairs to rights in Darfur and allow those displaced the stability to return and rebuild in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: more progress- Darfur.???
From: mg
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 11:09 PM

True. And we need to train troops not just in fighting but in occupation and establishing and maintaining martial law until such time, hopefully sooner rather than later, as people can govern themselves and protect themselves. Next stop Uganda. mg

Subject: RE: BS: more progress- Darfur.???
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 12:55 PM

"...we need to train troops not just in fighting but in occupation and establishing and maintaining martial law until such time, hopefully sooner rather than later, as people can govern themselves and protect themselves."

If they failed to this in Iraq, what makes you think they can accomplish it in Darfur?

Subject: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:47 AM

ICC names first Darfur war crimes suspects
POSTED: 6:53 a.m. EST, February 27, 2007


AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (Reuters) -- Prosecutors for the International Criminal Court on Tuesday named a former Sudan state interior minister and a militia commander as the first suspects it wants tried for war crimes in Darfur.

Chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo asked pre-trial judges to issue summonses for Ahmed Haroun, state minister of interior during the height of the Darfur conflict, and militia commander Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-al-Rahman, also known as Ali Kushayb.

Haroun is currently Sudan's state humanitarian affairs minister, a post below the full ministerial level. Ali Kushayb was identified in press reports from 2003-2004 as a leader of attacks on villages in west Darfur around Mukjar, Bindisi, and Garsil where witnesses said hundreds of men were executed.

In a 94-page written filing posted on the court's Web site, prosecutors said there were reasonable grounds to believe the two "bear criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Darfur in 2003 and 2004."

There was no immediate response from the Sudanese government on the ICC filing.

"We will comment when we are ready," Sudan's Foreign Minister Lam Akol told Reuters.

A rights group said it was pleased by the court action.

"The figures identified are important ones. It is an important first step that could contribute to ending impunity for crimes in Darfur. But we want to see more," said Geraldine Mattioli of Human Rights Watch.

"The prosecutor should go high up in the echelons of power and in the military."

Experts say some 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million others driven from their homes in Darfur since 2003, when rebels took up arms against the government, charging it with neglect. Khartoum says about 9,000 people have died.

U.N. and African Union observers blame pro-government militias, known as Janjaweed, for the worst atrocities.

ICC prosecutors said security committees in Darfur made up of representatives of the Sudanese army, police and intelligence agencies reported to Haroun, especially on matters relating to the staffing, funding and arming of the Janjaweed.

"Haroun knowingly contributed to the commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, rape, torture, inhumane acts, pillaging and the forcible transfer of civilian populations," prosecutors said in the filing.

The Sudanese government has denied arming the Janjaweed, who it describes as outlaws.

Legal responsibility
The prosecutors said Ali Kushayb, a colonel in the Wadi Salih locality of west Darfur, commanded thousands of Janjaweed militia and personally led attacks on towns and villages.

They said Khartoum had a legal responsibility to cooperate to make sure the two suspects appear at the court.

"Ensuring the persons' appearance is a major challenge. It will be primarily the responsibility of the territorial state, the Sudan, upon the chamber's decision, either to take steps to arrest the persons ... or to serve the summons," they said.

Sudan's Justice Minister Mohamed Ali al-Mardi was quoted as saying on Monday the ICC had no jurisdiction over its nationals and it would not allow anybody to be tried outside the country.

Haroun's office said the minister was in Jordan for medical treatment and an official in his office said it could not comment on the prosecutor's statement.

Sudanese media also reported Khartoum would put several people on trial, including military personnel and paramilitary troops, for suspected involvement in attacks in Darfur.

The ICC is only supposed to prosecute when national courts are unwilling or unable to act, but rights groups say Khartoum's own investigations in Darfur have been largely for show.

The U.N. Security Council asked the ICC in March 2005 to launch an investigation into the violence in Darfur, which the United States has called genocide, a charge Khartoum denies.

Some analysts suggest Khartoum has resisted pressure to authorize a deployment of thousands of U.N. peacekeepers to support a 7,000-strong African Union mission in Darfur because it fears U.N. soldiers might be used to arrest ICC suspects.

The ICC, the world's first permanent war crimes court, started work in 2002 and is now supported by 104 nations, although still not by Russia, China and the United States.

Moreno-Ocampo had previously only charged rebels involved in conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:16 PM

It's a great pity BB, that all the misfortune that has fallen on Darfur could not be heaped at the door of George W Bush. Then you would have had a thread of mega-proportions, with all the "usual suspects" weighing in, but unfortunately that is not the case - All those hypocritical bastards are remaining silent.

Facts people:
- The most urgent and pressing human catastrophy that has ever occurred as described by the late Secretary-General of the UN in 2003.
- The UN has done absolutely damn all about it, it is now 2007 and the pace has not slackened one jot in those four years.
- One hundred times worse in terms of civilian suffering than Iraq, yet BB is the only person on Mudcat who consistently brings the matter to our attention.
- Conclusion must therefore be - If it can't be blamed on Bush it doesn't matter, doesn't even warrant discussion - thank you for that lesson in perspective our American cousins, land of the free, home of the brave and all that bullshit.

What a crowd of hypocritical two-faced bastards you are - don't mind me that's just my honest heart-felt opinion, to which I am perfectly entitled to but by Christ I believe that it is vindicated upon reflection.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:50 PM

Perhaps if bb were able to condense the article in his own words, we would bother to read it.

Its not as if we don't know its happening but lets face it, Bush has NATO tied up in Afghanistan and his U.S. allies in Iraq. While he's been killing thousands in a senseless war in Iraq, he could have been saving lives in Darfur if he had the will which although he claims its genocide, he doesn't have the balls to involve himself with the ICC.

International aid workers aren't even safe.

Where there's a will, there's a way but, obviously, oil is more important.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:55 PM

The anti-war human rights crowd seems to be so busy bitching about Iraq that they are unconcerned about Darfur.

Save Darfur Coalition

"The Save Darfur Coalition began on July 14, 2004 when the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and American Jewish World Service organized a Darfur Emergency Summit at the CUNY Graduate Center in Manhattan featuring Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Elie Wiesel. Mr. Wiesel inspired the group with his impassioned remarks about the suffering being inflicted on Darfurians: "How can I hope to move people from indifference if I remain indifferent to the plight of others? I cannot stand idly by or all my endeavors will be unworthy."

Imagine that. Jews concerned about the suffering of Muslims.

"Iranian media the campaign is criticized for presenting a one-sided picture of a ceaseless campaign of ethnic cleansing by the janjaweed against defenseless villagers, without presenting details on the region's rebels, who have committed some abuses of their own. In Iranian media the campaign has been compared by some outlets to the British "liberal imperialism" of the late 18th and 19th centuries.

Some groups on the radical left have accused the movement anti-Arab bias. From the perspective of various left-wing groups, the movement is a U.S.-government supported propaganda campaign targeting the Sudanese government for its opposition to the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq, support for the Palestinian cause, and strengthened economic ties to China.

Yoshie Furuhashi, a Monthly Review editor, has criticized the "Save Darfur" campaign for U.S. intervention as 'imperialism' in humanitarian guise, combined with a strong tinge of anti-Arab prejudice."

Imagine that. The Muslim extremists and the left wingers are opposed to the Save Darfur Coalition.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 12:09 AM

"obviously, oil is more important."

So Dianvan says the US is not there because thet is no oil there.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 12:51 AM

We are not there & that is our shame.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:14 AM

And seeing as we're not going to go there, let's keeping throwing our resources into Iraq & then into Iran. Let's continue to keep tossing away our money over there until we bankrupt ourselfs, keep our troops there then add some to that so we can't spare anyone for any peace keeping missions & then when it's all over in 5 or 10 or 15 years we can then say if there a Darfur left will help the now.

Don't go blaming the left for what's happening in Darfur. Speak to the government in charge, who hasn't got a care in the world when it's not about profits. But don't blame the left, that's like spinning shit.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:21 AM

I'd venture to guess that the common folk on the street wouldn't know the name Darfur never mind being aware of what's happening there. That's also our shame, everybodys shame, that knows about it.
So maybe the madia doesn't think it a worthy story, maybe the government does't have the time to discuss it or maybe it something the the charities are handling so why bother. Durfur is every bodys problem, & you 2 want to blame a scapegoat.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:47 AM

Darfur is one of thoese cases where intervention would have been good. Trouble is, unlike Sierra Leone (where it worked) it would have stirred up more shit than it solved.
In the UK it is largely underreported, and all we have is Blair coming out with hand-wringing statements like this in which he calls the situation 'totally unacceptable' and appears to do f*ck-all else.

It's unfair to blame the UN. The African Union has done surprisingly well at limiting the bloodshed (and I know that can be construed as racist and patronising, but having encountered some of those involved, I am hugely surprised) but it cannot afford a larger commitment. The Sudanese government is refusing to allow the UN to come in with a larger force and is also refusing to disarm the Janjaweed militia. It is also insisting that every faction involved signs the Draft Peace Agreement before any negotiation can begin. This has effectively stalled the work of the commission working towards a ceasefire and is prolonging the violence.

The Sudanese government is thus complicit - in my eyes - in appalling crimes against humanity. But, as we have learned elsewhere, armed intervention to effect a regime change is not actually legal. Thus, in Darfur, it is not an option, whatever the hawks might say.

No amount of protesting and NGA summit-climbing is going to help the people of the region. The only thing that will help is the voluntary disbandment of the militias. The UN cannot get in to start negotiations on that without permission from the Sudanese government - which will not happen because members of the government (which refuses to recognise the ICC) fear arrest on war crimes charges, as detailed above.

Thus the only agency that can effectively bring about a lasting change for the better in a region he size of France is the Sudanese government itself. As for how to make it do that - any suggestions? The idealist in me says to remove Omar al-Bashir by fair means or foul. The realist actually doesn't know. However donor nations (including the US and UK - sorry Terry, but Bush and Blair have to have some responsibility!) could live up to their promises and fund the African Union mission to make it more effective in keeping the murderous bastards away from the refugees while the UN and other governments keep chipping away with sanctions if necessary (backed by direct aid protected by the AU). So the US could pull its finger out and do a f*ck's sight more. As could the UK, France and almost every other country in the world. But, ideally, under the aegis of the UN, as words like 'colonialism' and 'imperialism' are already being bandied around in Khartoum.

So there you are Terry - I'm not blaming Bush directly. I'm also blaming Clinton, Blair, Major, Chirac and every other western leader over the past decade. But fair play to bb and you for the post. However much we may differ on why, it is shameful how little coverage there has been and how little has been done.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:39 PM

Justice for Darfur

By Angelina Jolie
Wednesday, February 28, 2007; Page A19

BAHAI, Chad -- Here, at this refugee camp on the border of Sudan, nothing separates us from Darfur but a small stretch of desert and a line on a map. All the same, it's a line I can't cross. As a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, I have traveled into Darfur before, and I had hoped to return. But the UNHCR has told me that this camp, Oure Cassoni, is as close as I can get.

Sticking to this side of the Sudanese border is supposed to keep me safe. By every measure -- killings, rapes, the burning and looting of villages -- the violence in Darfur has increased since my last visit, in 2004. The death toll has passed 200,000; in four years of fighting, Janjaweed militia members have driven 2.5 million people from their homes, including the 26,000 refugees crowded into Oure Cassoni.

Attacks on aid workers are rising, another reason I was told to stay out of Darfur. By drawing attention to their heroic work -- their efforts to keep refugees alive, to keep camps like this one from being consumed by chaos and fear -- I would put them at greater risk.

I've seen how aid workers and nongovernmental organizations make a difference to people struggling for survival. I can see on workers' faces the toll their efforts have taken. Sitting among them, I'm amazed by their bravery and resilience. But humanitarian relief alone will never be enough.

Until the killers and their sponsors are prosecuted and punished, violence will continue on a massive scale. Ending it may well require military action. But accountability can also come from international tribunals, measuring the perpetrators against international standards of justice.

Accountability is a powerful force. It has the potential to change behavior -- to check aggression by those who are used to acting with impunity. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has said that genocide is not a crime of passion; it is a calculated offense. He's right. When crimes against humanity are punished consistently and severely, the killers' calculus will change.

On Monday I asked a group of refugees about their needs. Better tents, said one; better access to medical facilities, said another. Then a teenage boy raised his hand and said, with powerful simplicity, "Nous voulons une épreuve." We want a trial. He is why I am encouraged by the ICC's announcement yesterday that it will prosecute a former Sudanese minister of state and a Janjaweed leader on charges of crimes against humanity.

Some critics of the ICC have said indictments could make the situation worse. The threat of prosecution gives the accused a reason to keep fighting, they argue. Sudanese officials have echoed this argument, saying that the ICC's involvement, and the implication of their own eventual prosecution, is why they have refused to allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur.

It is not clear, though, why we should take Khartoum at its word. And the notion that the threat of ICC indictments has somehow exacerbated the problem doesn't make sense, given the history of the conflict. Khartoum's claims aside, would we in America ever accept the logic that we shouldn't prosecute murderers because the threat of prosecution might provoke them to continue killing?

When I was in Chad in June 2004, refugees told me about systematic attacks on their villages. It was estimated then that more than 1,000 people were dying each week.

In October 2004 I visited West Darfur, where I heard horrific stories, including accounts of gang-rapes of mothers and their children. By that time, the UNHCR estimated, 1.6 million people had been displaced in the three provinces of Darfur and 200,000 others had fled to Chad.

It wasn't until June 2005 that the ICC began to investigate. By then the campaign of violence was well underway.

As the prosecutions unfold, I hope the international community will intervene, right away, to protect the people of Darfur and prevent further violence. The refugees don't need more resolutions or statements of concern. They need follow-through on past promises of action.

There has been a groundswell of public support for action. People may disagree on how to intervene -- airstrikes, sending troops, sanctions, divestment -- but we all should agree that the slaughter must be stopped and the perpetrators brought to justice.

In my five years with UNHCR, I have visited more than 20 refugee camps in Sierra Leone, Congo, Kosovo and elsewhere. I have met families uprooted by conflict and lobbied governments to help them. Years later, I have found myself at the same camps, hearing the same stories and seeing the same lack of clean water, medicine, security and hope.

It has become clear to me that there will be no enduring peace without justice. History shows that there will be another Darfur, another exodus, in a vicious cycle of bloodshed and retribution. But an international court finally exists. It will be as strong as the support we give it. This might be the moment we stop the cycle of violence and end our tolerance for crimes against humanity.

What the worst people in the world fear most is justice. That's what we should deliver.

The writer is a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 02:10 PM

bb - Please learn to condense and article, put it in your own words, and make a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 02:25 PM

"Please learn to condense and article, put it in your own words, and make a point. "


Please learn to be consistant- Several here have complained that I was interprting what was being printed. Either I condense and make my point, and get blamed for not telling the facts, or I give you a chance to see the source material.


TRY to be a good citizen, and INFORM YOURSELF about problems without being told what to think.


I HAVE stated my point in several earlier threads about the subject. If you really have a problem in getting updates on a continuing problem, there are several other threads that you should avoid as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 02:41 PM

Ex-Sudan PM explains resistance to U.N. By JASPER MORTIMER, Associated Press Writer
Wed Feb 28, 11:05 AM ET



CAIRO, Egypt - The main Sudanese opposition leader says the government is refusing to allow U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur because it knows the U.N. troops would help hunt down war crimes suspects for the International Criminal Court.

Former Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi said Khartoum's other reason for rejecting U.N. forces was that it still believes it can defeat the Darfur rebels militarily.

In an interview with The Associated Press while visiting Cairo, al-Mahdi challenged the government's official line in the standoff with the       U.N. Security Council, which is that it supports the May peace accord and that U.N. forces in Darfur would constitute a "colonialist" attempt to subjugate the country.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is still waiting for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to reply to a Jan. 24 letter that put forward specific proposals for the deployment of 22,000 U.N. and African Union troops to Darfur, the vast western region of Sudan where more than 200,000 have died and 2.5 million people have fled their homes in four years of fighting.

The Security Council initially ordered the deployment in August.

On Tuesday, the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court accused a minister of state in al-Bashir's Cabinet, Ahmed Mohammed Harun, of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, saying he paid and recruited militias responsible for murder, rape and torture.

The prosecutor also said the militia concerned, the janjaweed, was armed and financed by the government — a charge Khartoum has always denied.

The government rejected the prosecutor's remarks and reiterated it would not surrender anybody for trial in the ICC.

Al-Mahdi, whose Umma Party traditionally wins the plurality of votes in Sudan's elections, dismissed the sovereignty argument as inapplicable to gross abuse of human rights.

"Atrocities have been committed and those who committed them have got to be brought to book," al-Mahdi said.

Interviewed in his apartment in the Cairo suburb of Nasr City on Sunday, the man who was twice prime minister said his party, were it to return to government, would cooperate with the ICC and would allow the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur.

Al-Mahdi, whose government was toppled in a 1989 military coup led by al-Bashir, is known to have influence in Darfur. In the 1986 polls — the last to be considered free and fair — Umma Party swept Darfur by a landslide.

He is also the great grandson of the Mahdi, the 19th century nationalist who ousted Egyptian colonial forces under the British general Charles Gordon. Darfur played a major role in that rebellion and many of its tribal elders today revere Sadiq because of his illustrious ancestor.

The government's rejection of the U.N. peace force is "irrational and very insensitive to the humanitarian problem in Darfur," al-Mahdi said.

Wearing a white woolen hat and the white robes favored by Sudanese men, al-Mahdi said the government had reasons other than sovereignty for blocking the U.N. deployment.

"The existence of U.N. troops will make it more possible to police (for) the ICC," he said. He added the janjaweed militia was actually "the irregular troops of the government."

Al-Mahdi said the government was also rejecting the U.N. deployment because "they want to keep the military option open."

The chief external spokesman of the Information Ministry in Khartoum denied al-Mahdi's allegations. Bakri Mulah said the government is "not resorting to a military solution" and seeks to solve the Darfur problem "through negotiations."

The charge that the government fears U.N. forces would assist the ICC process is "false," Mulah said. "The government has nothing to hide," he said, adding it had allowed ICC inspectors to visit Sudan five times even though the country had not ratified the ICC charter.

Al-Mahdi said that for peace to come to Darfur, the Khartoum-appointed governors of the three states of Darfur — North, South and West — had to be replaced because they implemented the counterinsurgency policies that led to the atrocities.

"People now believe the present governors have blood on their hands," he said.

He also said peace would require new negotiations, particularly with the groups that did not sign the May accord, and the deployment of U.N. troops.

"Before any more negotiations, we have to get people to keep the peace in Darfur, and that is only possible through U.N. forces," al-Mahdi said. The African Union peace mission was "completely inadequate."

Earlier this month, al-Bashir warned that if the world were to deploy UN peacekeepers without Sudan's consent, they would receive "the lesson we taught you" in the 19th century — a reference to the Mahdi's victory.

Asked what he thought of al-Bashir exploiting his great grandfather, al-Mahdi replied it was a "gimmick."

"There is no comparison between now and the 19th century," he said. "The U.N. here is not contemplating conquering Sudan or conquering Darfur. It's there to help us with containing certain humanitarian problems."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 03:30 PM

bb - Its quite simple. Make your point and then link the article that gave you the idea and/or copy a portion of the article to back up your comment. If we want to read the entire article, we can do that by looking at your source. You don't need to copy the whole thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 03:33 PM

I have tried that in the past. If information is too much for you, don't read my posts- as if you bother to...


When I post only the link, with my comment, I am criticised- When I post the article, I am criticised... So feel free to make your comments- I will treat them as YOU have treated mine in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: more progress- Darfur.???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 03:37 PM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 04:10 PM

Omar al-Bashir is a terrorist and is responsible for keeping adequate U.N. forces out of Sudan.

Is that your point?

If it is, I might agree.

Subject: RE: BS: more progress- Darfur.???
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 04:36 PM

"A UN Peacekeeping force for Darfur will do nothing and achieve nothing, their hands are tied"

For once I agree with you, teribus.

Whats the solution? Where will these troops come from and who will overthrow the existing Arab govt.?

Subject: RE: The Horrors of Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 04:38 PM

The AU needs more help than they were given.

Subject: RE: The Horrors of Darfur
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 04:58 PM

Coping with the horrors of Darfur is easy for those who don't give a damn. Giving a damn is beyond hard work, its horrible work.

Amos you often look deep into the horrific maw of mankind's unkindness, as do I.

Acting to end utter inhumanity via representatives is certainly better than "wishful thinking" but do you ever feel the crushing burden from all the "dreadful thinking" regarding the folly of war?

Sometimes I feel I have become one of those people who aren't fun to be around because I might mention some "downer" of a disaster du jour.    Or even worse - I might show an illustration that I spent weeks making of the horror du jour in technicolor.

Have you ever reached the point where you aren't going to study horror no more?

Push the rock to the top and it falls down every time.
Perhaps the true heros are those who can wade through all the blood and gore of the worst inhumanities and still continue to fight against genocide, with a hopeful smile. A true smile, not a 'W' esque smirk.

In all seriousness, there have been war photographers who knew they made a difference yet still killed themselves.
There are people who can prove that war is as inevitable and never ending as the flu. A few even believe in the "survival of the sickest" - if you catch my meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:09 PM

Will the UN intervene while China is bankrolling this genocide? No.

BB, Teribus; don't blame the left, there is no left.

As observed above, the only way you'll get a real response here is if you can somehow blame bush and blair for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:24 PM

Dianavan please explain "obviously, oil is more important."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:32 PM

The U.N. sent African Union troops, Canada provided air support and the U.S., logistical support, but without the field support of other nations, what can they do? When will the rest of the world step up to the plate? South Africa, China and Egypt all have available troops and could and should be on the ground in the Sudan.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:37 AM

Dianavan please explain "obviously, oil is more important."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:42 AM

"Ahmadinejad arrived in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, Wednesday in a show of solidarity with Sudan.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir declared support for Iran's nuclear ambitions while Ahmadinejad said Iran viewed Sudan's progress as important as its own."

Seems they like each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:51 AM

Musa Hilal
Omar al-Bashir

Bang, bang.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:02 PM

Darfur crisis tops U.S. list of world's worst abuses
POSTED: 12:18 p.m. EST, March 6, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The continuing genocide in Sudan's troubled Darfur region was the world's worst human rights abuse last year, the United States said Tuesday in a global report that found freedoms eroding in numerous other nations, including U.S. allies Afghanistan and Iraq.

In its annual survey of human rights practices, the State Department also criticized Russia for a "further erosion of government accountability" and said China's human rights record deteriorated in some areas.

"Genocide was the most sobering reality of all," the department said in the 2006 "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices," noting that mass killings continued to "ravage" Darfur nearly 60 years after the world vowed never again following the Holocaust.

Just days before senior U.S. diplomats expect to meet Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in Khartoum, the State Department lashed out at the Sudanese government, blaming its military and proxy militia for the genocide in Darfur, the western Sudan region where more than 200,000 people have died and some 2.5 million have been displaced, according to some estimates.

"The Sudanese government and government-backed Janjaweed militia bear responsibility for the genocide in Darfur," the department said, adding that they, along with indigenous rebels, had and continued to commit atrocities as the four-year-old war rages unabated.

"All parties to the conflagration committed serious abuses, including widespread killing of civilians, rape as a tool of war, systematic torture, robbery and recruitment of child soldiers," the report said.

Washington first declared the situation in Darfur a genocide in 2004 when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell used the word in congressional testimony, but other countries and the United Nations have refrained from using the word, and some U.S. officials have recently toned down such language.

Tuesday's blunt criticism, particularly of Khartoum, comes a day before U.S. special envoy for Sudan Andrew Natsios is to see al-Bashir and a week before Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights Barry Lowenkron plans to meet the Sudanese president.

Ahead of those talks, expected to focus in part on the deployment of a hybrid United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force to Darfur, the State Department also noted that Sudan has continued to give mixed signals about its acceptance of the mission.

In addition to the crisis in Darfur, Tuesday's report said human rights conditions worsened in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Iraq, where deadly attacks have surged despite the formation of a democratically elected government following the ouster of Saddam Hussein, "both deepening sectarian violence and acts of terrorism seriously undercut human rights and democratic progress in 2006," it said.

The Afghan government has made "important" progress on the human rights front, but its performance "remained poor" last year, the report said, attributing lapses to a weak central administration, abuses by authorities, and Taliban and al Qaeda insurgents.

The report noted failures in Fiji and Thailand, where coups brought down democratically elected governments in 2006, and lambasted U.S. foes Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea for systematic violations of basic human rights.

On China, the report said there were an increased number of high-profile cases involving the monitoring, harassment, detention, arrest and imprisonment of journalists, writers, activists and defense lawyers.

The situation in Russia was highlighted, the report said, by continuing centralization of power in the executive branch, a compliant legislature, political pressure on the judiciary, intolerance of ethnic minorities, corruption and selectivity in enforcement of the law, and continuing media restrictions and self-censorship.

Major problems in Pakistan, a close U.S. ally in the struggle against terrorism, included restrictions on citizens' right to change their government, extrajudicial killings, torture and rape, the report said. The country experienced an increase in disappearances of provincial activists and political opponents.

The report had these observations on other countries:


Egypt: There were "serious abuses" in many areas, including torture of prisoners and detainees. Other shortcomings included limits on an independent judiciary, denial of fair public trial and lack of due process, and restrictions on civil liberties.


Iran: The country's poor human rights record "worsened, and it continued to commit numerous, serious abuses." They included severe restrictions of the rights of citizens to change their government peacefully and unjust executions after reportedly unfair trials.


Syria: "In a climate of impunity, there were instances of arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life, and members of the security forces tortured and physically abused prisoners and detainees."


Lebanon: There were limitations on the right of citizens to change their government peacefully. In a climate of impunity, there were instances of arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life, torture and other abuse.


Zimbabwe: The government engaged in the pervasive and systematic abuse of human rights. The ruling party dominated control and manipulation of the political process through intimidation and corruption. Unlawful killings and politically motivated kidnappings occurred.


Venezuela: Problems included politicization of the judiciary, harassment of the media and harassment of the political opposition. There were also unlawful killings; disappearances reportedly involving security forces; torture and abuse of detainees; harsh prison conditions; arbitrary arrests and detentions.


Cuba: There were at least 283 political prisoners and detainees at year's end. Thousands of citizens served sentences for "dangerousness," in the absence of any criminal activity. Other reported abuses were beatings and abuse of detainees and prisoners, including human rights activists; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including denial of medical care.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:26 PM

Dickey - I mean, it seems the infrastructure, extraction and transportation of oil is more important than human lives.

Why do you think farmers are being forced off their land?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:51 PM

Who is forcing them off their land?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:36 AM

Dickey - We are talking about Darfur. If you do not know who is forcing the farmers off their land, you should do a little research and stop posting nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:52 PM

IMHO, if there were oil resources in the Darfur area that the west relied upon this situation would have been addressed a long time ago.

Maybe I'm being cynical and wrongly accusing our governments of only being interested in world problems where they can see some benefit to themselves but from my relatively uninformed position that's what comes over to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:30 PM

jacqui c - Ther is oil in Darfur. Thats exactly why this situation has not been dealt with sooner. Doesn't matter which 'side' you are on, driving the people off the land is a must before exploration and extraction can begin. Both sides do not care about the plight of the refugees.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:35 PM

Dianavan:

You say farmers are being forced off of ther land but you do not say who is doing it. This is similar to your "what about the Sunnis" statement.

Who is forcing them off their land?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:51 PM

The war between the Sudanese government and various rebel factions is forcing them to flee.

Do your homework.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:29 PM

That does not say who is forcing them off their land? The government or the rebels?

Once you give up that guarded secret, the next question will be why are they forcing them off of their land.

You havn't explained fully "obviously, oil is more important." more important to whom for what?

Please make a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: fumblefingers
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:29 PM

There is oil in Darfur and a lot of oil exploration is taking place, mainly by the Chinese. There is also a Brit doing business in the area with the Sudanese government, Friedhelm Eronat. He owns an outfit called Cliveden. Google this stuff--there's plenty of oil exploration information available.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:18 PM

Teribus, you put armed forces in there, that will cement the problems already existing.
There has to be international will to confront this issue and it probably won't be coming from the US or England.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:12 AM

Just a few observations on the subject:

About four years ago Kofi Annan Secretary General of the United Nations declared that Darfur was the greatest human tragedy facing mankind - to date apart from talk the UN has done absolutely sweet FA about it. Tends to lend a bit of credance to the US approach to the threat that they perceived Iraq + Terrorist + WMD posed. The US went to the UN told it and Iraq, quite simply you act or we will. The US were right, as in Darfur, the UN would have done sweet FA.

US is accused of going into places to "steal oil" and there is one hell of an uproar about it. Seems to be perfectly OK when the Chinese, Russians and Indians do it. No sanctions will ever be put in place against Sudan for their behaviour in Darfur, China will veto any such resolution (China needs Darfur's oil).

Dianavan's contention that people have to be driven off the land before exploitation and development of oil takes place is a load of baloney. There are lots of places in the world where oil exploration and production exist neck and jowl with farming. In Darfur the Muslim Janjaweed Militia fully equipped, trained and supported by the Muslim Sudanese Government and armed forces are driving the idigenous population off the land because the greedy graspin' bastards do not want the wealth of those oil related activities to be shared with the locals. Perfectly reasonable as long as you are a follower of Islam on the side of the Sudanese Government. One thing is for certain though you will not read a word of condemnation on this in the arab press, too upsetting you see, runs totally counter to all the tenets of the Koran.

Stringsinger, do nothing and millions are going to die. It will be of no concern to those on this forum because in this particular instance the US and Bush cannot be blamed. Fact still remains, a properly constituted international armed force would stop the bloodshed and would force the varous parties to negotiate. It would mean taking on the Sudanese Government Forces as well as the Janjaweed, as both these parties have got to be made to realise that the game they are playing at the present is not worth the candle.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:54 PM

"...a properly constituted international armed force would stop the bloodshed and would force the varous parties to negotiate."

I agree with that but who will provide the necessary troops?

As you know, the U.N. are primarily peace keepers and really can't do much on the ground unless both sides are willing to negotiate.

Of course most NATO troops are in Afghanistan and the U.S. is in Iraq so who is left to stop the bloodshed in Darfur?

The African Union needs back-up.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:24 PM

But dianavan without the wicked USA the UN forces are such wonderful people, they have had over four years to come forward to avert this "greatest of human disasters" - so why haven't they? Come on the French, the Germans, the Chinese, hells teeth ther are hundreds of countries that are UN members who coud have acted. Why all of a sudden must it be the US and UK that acts - possibly because you can slag them if it doesn't turn out perfectly?

At the present the US internationally is looking out for its own best interests. Just lets you and me see how effective the UN is without the pro-active support of the US and the UK is, when it comes to doing good for mankind.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:14 AM

I repeat, "As you know, the U.N. are primarily peace keepers and really can't do much on the ground unless both sides are willing to negotiate."

NATO is not just the U.S. and Britain but they are busy mopping up the mess in Afghanistan. They can't be in two places at once, can they. The African Union could use alot more support. When will other nations step forward?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:41 PM

If the USA is so greedy for oil, I can't understand why it hasn'r invaded Darfur yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Peace
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:48 PM

#1   United States: 20,030,000 barrels per day   
#2   China: 6,391,000 barrels per day   
#3   Japan: 5,578,000 barrels per day   
#4   Russia: 2,800,000 barrels per day   
#5   Germany: 2,677,000 barrels per day   
#6   India: 2,320,000 barrels per day   
#7   Canada: 2,193,000 barrels per day   
#8   Korea, South: 2,168,000 barrels per day   
#9   Brazil: 2,100,000 barrels per day   
#10   France: 2,060,000 barrels per day   
#11   Italy: 1,874,000 barrels per day   
#12   Saudi Arabia: 1,775,000 barrels per day   
#13   Mexico: 1,752,000 barrels per day   
#14   United Kingdom: 1,722,000 barrels per day   
#15   Spain: 1,544,000 barrels per day   
#16   Iran: 1,425,000 barrels per day   
#17   Indonesia: 1,155,000 barrels per day   
#18   Netherlands: 920,000 barrels per day   
#19   Taiwan: 915,000 barrels per day   
#20   Australia: 875,600 barrels per day

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 03:38 PM

U.N. panel calls for action in Darfur By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writer
30 minutes ago



GENEVA - A U.N. human rights team criticized the international community Monday for failing to halt atrocities in Darfur, saying in a sharply worded report that the       United Nations must act now to protect civilians from a violence campaign orchestrated by Sudan's government.

The panel, headed by Nobel peace laureate Jody Williams, departed from the usual diplomatic niceties of U.N. reports to accuse major nations of letting Sudan obstruct efforts to quell ethnic fighting that has killed 200,000 people and displaced 2.5 million in four years.

The report urged quick       U.N. Security Council intervention, the imposition of sanctions and criminal prosecutions of those responsible for atrocities and other abuses.

"Killing of civilians remains widespread, including in large-scale attacks. Rape and sexual violence are widespread and systematic. Torture continues," it said, adding that rebel groups were behind some abuses but blaming most crimes on the government and its allies.

Sudan's delegation at the U.N. Human Rights Council meeting declined to comment, saying they would not discuss the report until addressing the body Tuesday. Sudanese leaders have denied encouraging violence in Darfur, an arid region with long conflicts over water and arable land.

There was no immediate reaction from other nations, but the team's findings already drew harsh objections behind the scenes from Sudan's allies on the rights council, chiefly members of the Organization of Islamic Conference.

It also isn't clear how the Security Council will respond to the team's call for urgent action, including travel bans and asset freezes for those accused of rights violations.

Sanctions have not been imposed because the veto-holding permanent "members of the Security Council were divided," said Jan Pronk, who was chief U.N. envoy to Sudan until last year. China buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil exports and Russia also has commercial interests in Sudan.

Human rights groups have been calling for the international community to do more to halt the bloodshed, but it is unusual for a U.N.-supported group to be so direct in its criticisms and calls for action.

The team's report said that while important steps had been taken, including by the African Union and the United Nations, "these have been largely resisted and obstructed, and have proven inadequate and ineffective."

Williams, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for spearheading the drive for a treaty banning land mines, was more explicit in criticizing the Security Council, which has passed resolutions on Darfur but has been stalled by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in deploying a proposed U.N.-AU peacekeeping force.

"If you're not prepared to act on what you say, don't say it," Williams said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from her home in Virginia.

The conflict began when members of Darfur's ethnic African tribes rebelled against what they consider decades of neglect and discrimination by the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum. Sudanese leaders are accused of unleashing a pro-government Arab militia, the janjaweed, that has committed many of the conflict's atrocities.

Some, including the Bush administration, have accused Sudan's government and its militia allies of pursuing a genocide campaign against ethnic Africans in the region, which now has a population of about 4 million.

The U.N. Human Rights Council commissioned Monday's report during an emergency session in December.

Williams' team consulted with aid groups working in the region, met with rebel leaders and refugees in neighboring Chad and consulted with African Union officials. After a 20-day attempt to visit Darfur was thwarted by Sudanese officials, Williams concluded Sudan had no intention of cooperating with the United Nations.

The government "has manifestly failed to protect the population of Darfur from large-scale international crimes, and has itself orchestrated and participated in these crimes," the report said, adding that "war crimes and crimes against humanity" continued.

"The principal pattern is one of a violent counterinsurgency campaign waged by the government of the Sudan in concert with janjaweed militia, and targeting mostly civilians," the team said.

It said there were credible reports of "torture, inhumane and degrading treatment" of detainees held by Sudanese security officials.

"The methods used include beatings with whips, sticks and gun butts, prolonged sun exposure, starvation, electrocution, and burning with hot candle wax or molten plastic," the report said.

The report also said rebel forces are guilty of serious abuses, including rape and torture of civilians.

Williams said some rebels should probably be tried alongside Sudanese officials and janjaweed militia members. "But I think that the overwhelming burden of guilt lies with the government and the militia," she said in the telephone interview.

Last month, prosecutors at the International Criminal Court in       The Hague, Netherlands, linked Sudan's government to atrocities in Darfur, naming a junior minister as a war crimes suspect for allegedly helping recruit, arm and bankroll the janjaweed.

Ahmed Muhammed Harun, the former junior interior minister responsible for Darfur, and a janjaweed militia leader, Ali Mohammed Ali Abd-al-Rahman, also known as Ali Kushayb, are suspected of a total of 51 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 03:46 PM

btw, Oil consumption per capita:

Rank   Countries   Amount (top to bottom)   
#1   Virgin Islands: 9.659 barrels per day per 10 p   
#2   Gibraltar: 8.428 barrels per day per 10 p   
#3   Netherlands Antilles: 3.296 barrels per day per 10 p   
#4   Singapore: 1.593 barrels per day per 10 p   
#5   Kuwait: 1.306 barrels per day per 10 p   
#6   United Arab Emirates: 1.21 barrels per day per 10 p   
#7   Luxembourg: 1.189 barrels per day per 10 p   
#8   Guam: 1.127 barrels per day per 10 p   
#9   Faroe Islands: 0.958 barrels per day per 10 p   
#10   Seychelles: 0.936 barrels per day per 10 p   
#11   Aruba: 0.908 barrels per day per 10 p   
#12   Nauru: 0.766 barrels per day per 10 p   
#13   Bahamas, The: 0.762 barrels per day per 10 p   
#14   American Samoa: 0.691 barrels per day per 10 p   
#15   Saint Pierre and Miquelon: 0.685 barrels per day per 10 p   
#16   Greenland: 0.683 barrels per day per 10 p   
#17   United States: 0.677 barrels per day per 10 p   
#18   Saudi Arabia: 0.672 barrels per day per 10 p   
#19   Canada: 0.668 barrels per day per 10 p   
#20   Cyprus: 0.667 barrels per day per 10 p

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Dickey
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 10:58 PM

BB, You are right on the Mark with those numbers. I did the math.

Here is the link

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 12:35 PM

Sudan tries to block U.N. rights report By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago



GENEVA - Sudan accused a       United Nations panel of bias and moved Tuesday to block the U.N. Human Rights Council from considering its report accusing the government of orchestrating attacks against civilians in Darfur.
Sudanese Justice Minister Mohammed Ali al-Mardi told the 47-nation council that the American head of the mission, Nobel laureate Jody Williams, took "a preconceived and hostile attitude against Sudan."

Al-Mardi said Sudan "strongly and resolutely" opposes any consideration by the council of the report, which he said should be dismissed because it was written without the team having visited Darfur. The team has said Sudan refused to grant them visas.

"Any attempt to confer legitimacy on this mission will constitute a serious and dangerous precedent in the eyes, not only of the Sudan, but also of many members of this esteemed council," al-Mardi said.

The sharply worded report, issued Monday, said the United Nations must move to protect civilians against a Sudanese government-orchestrated campaign in Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced by four years of fighting. Williams' panel called for       U.N. Security Council intervention, sanctions and criminal prosecution.

Sudan's government "has manifestly failed to protect the population of Darfur from large-scale international crimes, and has itself orchestrated and participated in these crimes," the report said, adding that "war crimes and crimes against humanity" were continuing in the region.

Al-Mardi claimed two of the six team members had failed to participate, invalidating the mission.

U.N. officials said Indonesian Ambassador Makarim Wibisono was the only member to withdraw. Gabonese Ambassador Patrice Tonda had to return to Geneva while the group was waiting in vain for Sudanese visas, but he remains a member of the panel, the officials said.

Al-Mardi also complained that the Mexican Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba, president of the Human Rights Council, failed to adequately consult countries before making appointments to the team.

"The selection came as a result of and in response to unjustified pressures," al-Mardi said. "No consideration was paid to our legitimate and objective reservations and concerns."

Western countries vehemently opposed the inclusion of ambassadors on the panel — as demanded by Sudan's allies on the council — arguing they could not be objective.

But after more than a month of protracted private negotiations on the council, Western countries agreed to the appointment of the two ambassadors in order to ensure that the mission went ahead.

Al-Mardi claimed Williams had given Sudanese authorities less than an hour to issue visas on Feb. 14 before calling off plans to visit Sudan.

Williams, however, wrote a letter last month to de Alba stating that more than a dozen requests for the visas were submitted to Sudanese authorities by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and others starting Jan. 26.

"By Feb. 14, after 20 days of these efforts and with little time to carry out our mandated work, it was clear that the government had no intention of issuing the visas," Williams said.

Al-Mardi claimed no similar mission had ever prepared a report without visiting the country under scrutiny. In fact, reports routinely have been written for U.N. human rights bodies when countries — including       Iraq, Cuba and       North Korea — have refused to admit the world body's experts.

Al-Mardi claimed the humanitarian situation in Darfur "is much more stable now there is visible decrease in malnutrition and mortality rates."

The conflict began when members of the region's ethnic African tribes took up arms against what they saw as decades of neglect and discrimination by the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum. In a tactic the U.S. has characterized as genocidal, the government is accused of unleashing a pro-government Arab militia, known as the janjaweed, that has committed many of the worst atrocities in the conflict.

Williams told The Associated Press that "the overwhelming burden of guilt lies with the government and the militia."

The team said that, even though it was unable to enter Sudan, it consulted widely with aid agencies working in the region and was briefed by African Union officials in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. It also spoke to some members of rebel groups and to Darfur refugees in Chad.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM

Intolerable Darfur
Western leaders are again saying the slaughter is unacceptable. Will they again do nothing?
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page A12


EUROPEAN UNION leaders spoke out strongly on Darfur at a summit in Berlin on Sunday. "The situation," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair, "is intolerable. . . . The actions of the Sudanese government are completely unacceptable." "The suffering is unbearable," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "I want to state frankly that we have to consider stronger sanctions."

It took less than 24 hours for the backing down to start. "You have to make sure that you do not raise expectations that cannot be met," an E.U. spokesman in Brussels told the Associated Press. Officials cited the usual obstacles: the resistance of U.N. Security Council member China to sanctions; the unwillingness of Arab and other Islamic governments to support steps against the regime of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir; the difficulty of military operations in an area the size of France.

Those are the excuses that Western governments -- including the Bush administration, which labeled the killing in Darfur "genocide" in 2004 -- have used for several years to explain the lack of effective action. Meanwhile, the slaughter goes on: According to the United Nations the death toll in Darfur exceeds 200,000, while more than 2 million have been driven from their homes -- including 86,000 this year.

China's inexcusable defense of the regime continues, as does that of Arab governments that portray themselves as partners of the West. On Saturday, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak flatly rejected a request by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon that he do more to pressure Mr. Bashir. "The issue is not pressure," said Mr. Mubarak's foreign minister.

In fact, more pressure is exactly what is needed. In addition to overseeing a renewed rampage by government-backed militias in Darfur, Mr. Bashir has reneged on an agreement to allow U.N. peacekeepers to join a tiny African Union force in the province. That position won't change unless either the regime's supply of arms or its oil-fueled economic boom is threatened.

Britain is said to be preparing a new Security Council resolution. But if the European Union leaders mean what they say, they don't need to wait for the Security Council. E.U. sanctions against Sudan are relatively light; they could be extended to cover trade and investment. Mr. Blair spoke of imposing a no-fly zone to impede air attacks in Darfur. That's an operation that would necessarily be carried out by Western powers, which could undertake it without U.N. sanction, as they did in Kosovo. If the situation in Darfur is "intolerable" and "unbearable" -- and it is -- Western governments should stop delaying the remedies that lie in their hands.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601687.html

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:41 PM

Unfortunately BB, by acting in the way they did over Iraq in 2002 the bulk of the E.U. has painted itself into a corner when it comes to options over what to do about Darfur - They cannot possibly be seen to be doing anything without the sanction of the United Nations for fear of being accused of acting "unilaterally".

The geography of the place makes it doubly difficult, your base of operations would have to be Chad. To get there you have to over-fly Libya. The one international power that would have to be involved would be the US, or alternatively NATO (the military alliance, i.e. the one without France). But both Britian and the US have seen how unreliable NATO member states can be when it comes to the crunch. The UN will continue to do nothing, because that is the safest and easiest thing to do, Oh it will make all the right noises, muted though they may be, but absolutely nothing will get done - unfortunately.

On this Forum this is not considered to be a very "hot topic" worthy of discussion because the usual suspects cannot blame George W Bush for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 08:00 AM

Top officials: U.S. to impose Sudan sanctions soon
POSTED: 4:48 a.m. EDT, March 30, 2007

Story Highlights• Officials: Tough new sanctions, mainly economic, expected within days
• U.S.wants to force government to stop bloodshed in Darfur
• Also aims to pressure Khartoum militarily by helping rebuild forces in south
• Goal to get President al-Bashir to accept an international peacekeeping force

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The United States will impose tough new measures against Sudan, likely within days, to try to force it to change course on Darfur and aims to pressure Khartoum militarily by helping rebuild forces in the south, U.S. officials said.

State Department, Defense, Treasury and other U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the goal was to "tighten the screws" on President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and have him accept an international force in the vast western province.

A White House announcement on sanctions and a further limit on dollar transactions was expected very soon, a State Department official said.

Military options like a no-fly zone over Darfur -- which Britain wants -- or a forced intervention have been ruled out for now, but the Pentagon has done some "back of the envelope" calculations on what might be needed, a defense official said.

Some Sudan experts said the new sanctions were too little, too late.

"This is the right idea but it is simply not enough and not multilateral enough to make an impact, a dent, in the calculations of the Sudanese regime," said John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group.

The United States had threatened an unspecified "Plan B" by January 1 if Bashir did not agree to a U.N./African Union force in Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have been killed since 2003 in what Washington says is this century's first genocide.

That deadline passed but it was Bashir's comments that he would not accept a hybrid force that pushed the administration to roll out "Plan B," senior officials said.

One idea: Bolster military force in the south
The U.S. government is also looking at how to change the military equation in Sudan.

One tactic is to help the government in the south build a strong force out of the former rebel Sudan People's Liberation Army which was at war with the north until a 2005 peace deal.

"If he (Bashir) is faced with a credible force in the south, he will start to relook at how his forces are dispersed and where his risks are," the defense official said.

But the initial focus will be on putting the financial squeeze on Bashir.

About 130 firms with ties to Sudan's government, including the two leading oil companies, are already on a U.S. sanctions list barring them from doing business with the United States or from using U.S. financial institutions to do dollar transactions -- the favored currency for lucrative oil trades.

Other companies will be added to the list, current sanctions will be tightened and existing loopholes closed, making it harder to do dollar deals.

"The goal is to be more pro-active and have tighter enforcement (of sanctions)," said a Treasury Department official.

Aside from slapping travel and banking restrictions on at least three more Sudanese individuals, including a rebel leader, Washington also wants to put more pressure on splintered rebel groups in Darfur.

'You have to squeeze them all,' Khartoum and rebels both
"You have to squeeze them all," said the defense official. "The goal is to get both Bashir and the rebels to come to the conclusion that they are not going to get anywhere with their current course of action."

The United States is working closely with Britain, which takes over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council next month, and is planning a new resolution on Darfur.

But a senior U.S. official made clear the United States would not wait months for the United Nations to act.

Britain has been pushing for a no-fly zone in Darfur but the Pentagon sees that as fraught with problems, as it does a forced military intervention which would ostracize Arab nations still smarting from the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"When you look at a no-fly zone, the conclusion that pretty much everyone comes up with is that it will not have any impact at all," a defense official said.

With Sudan's limited number of fixed-wing aircraft, it would also be a logistical nightmare maintaining a no-fly zone in an area the size of Texas, the official said.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 08:09 AM

Five African Union peacekeepers killed in Darfur
POSTED: 3:54 p.m. EDT, April 2, 2007
Story Highlights• The African Union operates a force of 7,000 in Sudan's Darfur region
• Gunmen kill five AU peacekeepers in deadliest single attack since late 2004
• Fifteen AU personnel have died in Darfur since the force was deployed there
• U.N. humanitarian chief warns aid efforts may collapse if situation gets worse

Adjust font size:
KHARTOUM, Sudan (Reuters) -- Unidentified gunmen killed five African Union peacekeepers in the Darfur region of western Sudan, the deadliest single attack against the force since late 2004, the AU said on Monday.

The five were guarding a water point near the Sudanese border with Chad when they came under fire on Sunday, an AU spokesman said.

Four soldiers were killed in the shooting and the fifth died of his wounds on Monday morning.

Three gunmen were also killed, he said.

The chairman of the African Union Commission, Alpha Oumar Konare, warned in a statement that continued violence raised the possibility "for a catastrophic and tragic breakdown of the security and humanitarian situation in Darfur".

"If this trend continues, the peacekeeping operation in Darfur will be in serious jeopardy," the statement quoted him as saying.

An AU spokesman said the attack had brought the biggest number of casualties for the force in one day since the operation started.

The AU operates an overstretched 7,000-strong force in Darfur. Sudan has rejected the deployment of a larger U.N. force in the region, where violence has persisted despite a 2006 peace agreement between the government and one rebel faction.

The pact has failed to ease violence plaguing the world's biggest humanitarian effort involving around 13,000 people.

The five dead peacekeepers were Senegalese soldiers, part of a national military contingent numbering 538 serving with the AU force, a spokesman for Senegal's army said in Dakar.

Senegal's army said in a statement sent to Reuters in Dakar the attack was carried out by members of the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA), which had signed the May 2006 peace deal.

But the group's spokesman Al-Tayyib Khamis vehemently denied any involvement.

"We are part of the unity government and we have absolutely no interest in killing members of the African Union who are in Darfur to help. There is no truth to this," he said.

The killings bring to 15 the number of AU personnel killed in Darfur since troops were deployed in late 2004. A senior Nigerian officer working with the mission has been missing since he was kidnapped in December.

No end to bloodshed in sight
The AU statement said it was imperative that U.N. forces were deployed to help the African Union, a proposal the Khartoum government has rejected, saying it amounted to colonialism.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir reiterated on Monday his position that the AU had the main security responsibility for Darfur but said a "dialogue" was under way on other issues.

Sudanese officials recently said they were willing to review U.N. proposals for easing the violence in Darfur, where AU forces have failed to tackle the bloodshed.

Bashir told parliament however that the key to ending the conflict in Darfur rested with the Sudanese.

Experts estimate that around 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million have fled their homes since the conflict flared in 2003, when rebels took up arms against Khartoum, charging it with neglect. The government says only 9,000 people have died.

Darfuris say government-backed militias known as Janjaweed have stormed through their villages, killing, raping and burning down their huts. The government says it has no ties to the Janjaweed, which it calls outlaws.

The attack on AU forces came a day after a helicopter carrying the AU deputy force commander came under fire.

The AU statement noted that the attack that killed five AU troops was carried out in SLA-held territory while the shooting of the helicopter took place in a stronghold of a SLA rejectionist faction led by Abdul Wahid.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 01:24 PM

From the Sudan Tribune:

"The rebels and the government entered into negotiations last year. But as the Darfur Peace Agreement was being finalized last spring, rebel leaders unhappy with the deal began breaking off.

There are now at least a dozen factions, a number that sometimes rises and falls in the course of a single day, according to a U.N. security official."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:57 PM

Google Earth maps out Darfur atrocities
POSTED: 1:47 p.m. EDT, April 10, 2007

Story Highlights• Google Earth highlights atrocities in Darfur region of Sudan
• Google official: Tool can be "catalyst for education and action"
• Google Earth has 200 million users
• Official: Technology will make it harder to ignore genocide
By Elise Labott
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If you Google the word Darfur, you will find about 13 million references to the atrocities in the western Darfur region of Sudan -- what the United States has said is this century's first genocide.

As of today, when the 200 million users of Google Earth log onto the site, they will be able to view the horrific details of what's happening in Darfur for themselves.

In an effort to bring more attention to the ongoing crisis in Darfur, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has teamed up with Google's mapping service literally to map out the carnage in the Darfur region.

Experts estimate that 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million more have been displaced since the conflict flared in 2003, when rebels took up arms against the central Sudanese government.

The new initiative, called "Crisis in Darfur," enables Google Earth users to visualize the details in the region, including the destruction of villages and the location of displaced persons in refugee camps.

Elliot Schrage, Google's vice president of global communications and public affairs, joined museum director Sara J. Bloomfield to make the official announcement about the new feature.

"At Google, we believe technology can be a catalyst for education and action," Schrage said. " 'Crisis in Darfur' will enable Google Earth users to visualize and learn about the destruction in Darfur as never before and join the museum's efforts in responding to this continuing international catastrophe."

The Google Earth mapping service combines 3-D satellite imagery, aerial and ground-level maps and the power of Google, one of the Internet's most widely used search engines, to make the world's geographic information user friendly. Since its inception in June 2005, nearly 200 million people have downloaded the free program.

Using the high-resolution imagery of Google Earth, users will be able to zoom into the Darfur region for a better understanding of the scope of the destruction.

More than 1,600 damaged and destroyed villages will be visible, as will the remnants of more than 100,000 homes, schools, mosques and other structures destroyed by the Janjaweed militia and Sudanese forces.

The Holocaust museum also has compiled a collection of photos, data and eyewitness testimony from its archives and number of sources, including the U.S. State Department, nongovernmental organizations, the United Nations and individual photographers. That material also will be available when Google Earth users visit the Darfur site.

The "Crisis in Darfur" initiative is the first of what is expected to be several collaborations between the museum and Google Earth to highlight the dangers of genocide around the world.

The museum also announced Tuesday the creation of a mapping project with Google Earth on the Holocaust, when Nazis killed 6 million Jews during World War II.

That project will use Google Earth to map key Holocaust sites, such as Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka, Warsaw and Lodz with historic content from its collections to illustrate the enormous scope and impact of the Holocaust. Each place links to a featured article with related historical photographs, testimony clips, maps, artifacts and film footage.

"Educating today's generation about the atrocities of the past and present can be enhanced by technologies such as Google Earth," Bloomfield said.

"When it comes to responding to genocide, the world's record is terrible. We hope this important initiative with Google will make it that much harder for the world to ignore those who need us the most."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 01:40 PM

U.S. cedes to U.N. demand to delay Sudan sanctions By Sue Pleming
1 hour, 28 minutes ago



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has delayed for several weeks imposing new sanctions against Sudan over its handling of Darfur to give the       United Nations more time to negotiate with Khartoum, said the U.S. special envoy to Sudan on Wednesday.


Special envoy Andrew Natsios told lawmakers that U.N. Secretary General Ban ki-Moon had asked the United States at the end of last month to wait for two to four weeks to enable him to negotiate a U.N./African Union peacekeeping force for Darfur, which Sudan has so far refused.

"As a courtesy to the (U.N.) Secretary General, we delayed," Natsios told the       Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "I am going to give him the four weeks," he added.

Britain, which has been preparing a new resolution in the       U.N. Security Council against Sudan, was also asked to wait a few weeks, the envoy said.

The United States was poised at the end of last month to impose stricter sanctions as a way to pressure Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to agree to allow the peacekeeping force into Darfur.

In addition, a U.S. congressional delegation was visiting Sudan at the time and also requested a hold-off on sanctions, said Natsios.

Several senators criticized the delay in imposing what the Bush administration has called "Plan B."

"If I was sitting in those camps I could not stand the counsels of patience and delay," said Sen. Robert Menendez (news, bio, voting record) of New Jersey, a Democrat.

"People are bleeding to death now," said Sen. Joe Biden, a Democrat from Delaware who heads the committee. "It is genocide, we should act now," he added.

Among sanctions the United States had planned to impose were the addition of 29 Sudanese companies, most of them involved in oil revenues, to a current U.S. sanctions list of about 130 firms.

Washington also planned to further limit dollar transactions from Sudanese companies and to slap travel and banking bans on three individuals, including a rebel leader seen as "obstructionist."

TOUGHER ENFORCEMENT

Another strategy was to more aggressively enforce sanctions on Sudan, using similar tools as those employed to put pressure on       Iran and       North Korea.

"We believe it will have a substantial effect (on Sudan's economy)," Natsios said of the planned new sanctions, pointing to those imposed on Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs as examples.

Natsios said he also hoped European nations would follow with their own sanctions including restrictions on Euro transactions in Sudan.

Biden asked Natsios why a no-fly zone had not been imposed over Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have been killed since 2003 and about 2.5 million more displaced from their homes by the conflict.

Natsios declined to discuss military options, except to repeat the Bush administration's view that "all military options are on the table."

Britain has also pushed for a no-fly zone in Darfur but U.S. defense officials say this is not an option being actively explored as such a measure would be hard to implement in an area the size of Texas.

The U.S. envoy said the situation on the ground in Darfur had become "increasingly chaotic" with neighbor Chad unstable as the war became "dangerously regionalized."

He urged Sudan's government to act with restraint as the war spilled over into Chad.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte is set to leave Wednesday for Sudan, Chad and Libya in a bid to try and ease the crisis in Darfur. He is due back in Washington on May 19 and any sanctions are unlikely until the end of his visit.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 04:55 PM

Such optimism....




Darfur showdown

Thursday, March 15, 2007

RWANDA, Kosovo and Cambodia were recent instances of genocidal slaughter that made an on-looking world promise never to allow a repeat.

Yet, it is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan, where 200,000 have died and more than 2 million have been made refugees. Despite steady diplomacy, public rallies and worldwide pressure, the Sudanese government refuses to allow peacekeepers in or to call off its murderous militia in the province.

A new U.N. report, one of the toughest ever by the world body, should break this stalemate. Intervention, sanctions and war-crimes prosecution are in order, the human-rights report says. Sudan's overseas funds, such as oil revenues, should be frozen, its leaders sould be barred from leaving the country and a beefed up military force should be sent in to restore peace, the panel added.

It's a welcome, though overdue, plan. The real question is whether the United Nations will do anything, starting with its Human Rights Council, which ordered the study.

The council was remade from the ashes of the prior and widely discredited commission, which included notable human-rights abusers such as Libya, Zimbabwe and Sudan. Since its creation last year, the new council has cited Israel as a human-rights violator and no other nation.

Sudan -- rest assured -- will play the delay game, calling in favors from allies such as Russia and China, which have fended off calls for action. It's past time for talks and negotiations with a nation that kills its own people and menaces a region of northern Africa.

The new U.N. Human Rights Council is due to take up the study this week, with the final stop being the Security Council. It's time for both bodies and the world community to end the killing in Darfur.

This article appeared on page B - 8 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 03:56 PM

China leans on Sudan to accept peacekeeping plan
POSTED: 8:23 a.m. EDT, April 11, 2007

Story Highlights• China wants Sudan to accept U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force
• West condemns China for not using its influence to stop violence in Darfur
• China buys Sudan's oil; all sides in Darfur war use Chinese ams despite ban
• Chinese official plays down Janjaweed; rejects sanctions against Sudan

BEIJING, China (Reuters) -- China urged Sudan in unusually strong terms on Wednesday to show more flexibility on a peace plan for its devastated Darfur region, but said the international community would get nowhere by dictating terms to Khartoum.

China, which buys much of Sudan's oil and wields veto power on the U.N. Security Council, has been criticized in the West for not using its leverage to force Khartoum to act to curb violence in Darfur, where ethnic tensions erupted into a revolt in 2003.

"We suggest the Sudan side show flexibility and accept this plan," Assistant Foreign Minister Zhai Jun told a news conference on his return from a three-day trip to the African country.

Sudan has rejected U.N.-A.U. force
He was referring to a peace plan put forward by former U.N. chief Kofi Annan to deploy a hybrid African Union-U.N. peacekeeping force. Sudan has had reservations about the deal.

Zhai met Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir as well as Foreign Ministry officials and visited refugee camps in Darfur -- a rare step for a Chinese official. He said on Wednesday Beijing was using its influence in its own way and rejected suggestions that it would get further by using threats.

"The international community should pay attention to the way of having consultations with the Sudan government in order to achieve better results. This is my opinion," Zhai said.

"On the Annan plan, China has played an essential role. Just because of the Chinese government, Sudan is adopting a flexible attitude," he said. "China can't do everything, but we respect each other and consult as equals."

But while insisting its role in Sudan is constructive, China has offered Khartoum increased military cooperation. Last week it played host to its Joint Chief of Staff in Beijing.

Chinese weapons are also used by all sides in the Darfur conflict despite an arms embargo on the region.

Calls Janjaweed 'only a group of bandits'
Zhai played down the strength of the government-allied Janjaweed, calling their militias "only a group of bandits". And he said China would not support sanctions against Sudan.

"We should help Sudan resolve this issue instead of creating further problems or complicating the issue. Therefore, we are not in favor of sanctions," he said, adding that it was too early to say if China would veto such a resolution.

Zhai's trip was the latest sign of China's intensifying engagement with Sudan and follows a trip by President Hu Jintao in February.

Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo also discussed promoting diplomatic efforts to resolve the Darfur issue with his U.S. counterpart John Negroponte by telephone earlier this week.

The four-year war in Darfur has killed an estimated 200,000 people and driven more than 2 million from their homes.

But the Khartoum government has been resisting the deployment of international troops to back ill-equipped African forces.

"Sudan has accepted in principle the three-phased Annan plan. However, on some of the details, it has reservations," Zhai said. "Sudan is most concerned about its sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 10:33 AM

Some insight into the methods and motives nehind genocide in Darfur. A nEw York Times editorial.

An excerpt (the link is subscription):

"Americans often misunderstand genocide, assuming it is impossible to stop because it is driven by millenniums of racial or ethnic hatreds. But historically genocide has mostly been rooted in cool, calculated decisions by national leaders that the most convenient way to solve a problem or stay in power is to scapegoat and destroy a particular group. So it has been in most past genocides, and so it is again in Darfur.

Nor is Mr. Bashir the only person in such a position. The on-and-off leader of the janjaweed militias, Musa Hilal, has unleashed his soldiers with particular brutality on another black African tribe, the Zaghawa. You can drive for hours through Zaghawa regions of Darfur where every single village has been burned; only corpses are left, and some of those have been stuffed into wells to poison them.

Yet, according to people from Musa Hilal's hometown, his own mother is Zaghawa.

Likewise, the rebels of Darfur have sometimes turned on their own tribes — raping and murdering their own people, or those of allied tribes.

So what motivates these people? Not ancient hatreds, but greed. They are not Taliban-style extremists, but rather amoral, ruthless, calculating opportunists.

Mr. Bashir and others in his government faced a genuine problem back in 2003: African tribes (including the Zaghawa) were staging a rebellion in Darfur. Calling in the army to fight the rebels was problematic because many soldiers in the regular army are from African tribes in Darfur and might not be reliable in combat against their brethren.

So Mr. Bashir adopted an approach he had already used against rebels in southern Sudan. He armed irregular militias and gave them license to wipe out civilians and depopulate large areas. This would deprive the rebels of their base of support and send a warning to any other tribe in Sudan that might contemplate a rebellion.

Presumably Mr. Bashir guessed that foreigners might not like the idea of mass murder. But he could deny visas to prying journalists, and he had Chinese diplomatic protection at the United Nations.

So after weighing the pros and cons, Mr. Bashir decided that genocide was the simplest counterinsurgency method. Some of the marauders were driven by prejudice, and Arab attackers routinely shouted racial epithets against blacks. But the leaders —— they were just cynics. Musa Hilal and some of the rebel commanders seemed to view murder and rape simply as paths to accumulate power and livestock.

All this makes genocide easier to stop than people imagine. Where it arises from a weighing of costs and benefits, then it is possible for outsiders to impose additional costs and change the outcome. That's what we need to do. The U.S. should lead other countries in pushing hard on all sides for a negotiated peace agreement among the warring factions, for that is ultimately the best hope to end the slaughter in Darfur and in neighboring areas in Chad and the Central African Republic."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 10:37 AM

Sudan accepts U.N. attack copters, 3,000 troops in Darfur
POSTED: 1:25 p.m. EDT, April 16, 2007

Story Highlights• This is the first time Sudan has allowed such a U.N. force in Darfur
• The United Nations will decide when to deploy 3,000 troops, gunships
• More than 200,000 have been killed and 2.5 million have been displaced in Darfur

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Sudan on Monday accepted the deployment of U.N. attack helicopters and 3,000 peacekeepers in Darfur, the first time it has allowed a significant injection of U.N. forces to help African troops struggling to bring peace to the region.

Sudanese Foreign Minister spokesman Ali Sadiq said Khartoum has accepted the so-called "second package" that outlines the deployment -- including the attack helicopters. The Sudanese government, however, had resisted a U.N. force in the past and frequently reversed its position.

"The heavy support package has been fully accepted by the Sudanese government, there is no more discussion," Sadiq told The Associated Press.

He said it was now up to the United Nations to decide when to deploy some 3,000 troops and the gunships to reinforce the African Union mission.

The United States had held off on imposing sanctions against Sudan to allow time for the government to decide to accept the U.N. plan, under which a joint force of U.N. and African Union peacekeepers would be deployed in Darfur.

Sudan's U.N. ambassador informed Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a letter that the government had approved the U.N. plan.

"It is the sincere hope of the Sudan that implementation of the heavy support package would proceed expeditiously," said Ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem.

The current force of 7,000 AU peacekeepers has been unable to stop the fighting in a region the size of France or Texas. About 2.5 million people have been driven from their homes in Darfur and are living in poorly protected camps in the province and eastern Chad.

Until now, Sudan has said it will accept only a small number of U.N. security forces and equipment to support the AU mission. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has said the deployment of U.N. troops would violate Sudan's sovereignty. Many believe he fears the U.N. force would arrest Sudanese officials suspected of war crimes in Darfur.

More than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million have been displaced in the four-year conflict in Darfur, which began when rebels from ethnic African tribes rose up against the central government. The government is accused of responding by unleashing the janjaweed militias of Arab nomads -- blamed for indiscriminate killing. The government denies the charges.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, in Sudan as part of an international push to pressure the government over Darfur, on Monday reiterated accusations that the government in Khartoum was actively supporting the janjaweed militia.

"The government of Sudan must disarm the janjaweed, the Arab militias that we all know could not exist without the Sudanese government's active support," Negroponte said.

He also said Sudan was hindering international efforts to help the refugees.

"The denial of visas, the harassment of aid workers and other measures have created the impression that the government of Sudan is engaged in a deliberate campaign of intimidation," he said.

The United Nations and Sudan agreed in November on a three-stage plan to strengthen the undermanned and under-equipped AU peacekeeping force in Darfur. It was to culminate in the deployment of a joint AU-U.N. force with 17,000 troops and 3,000 police officers.

The first phase, a light support package including U.N. police advisers, civilian staff and additional resources and technical support, has already been sent to Darfur.

The U.N., AU and Sudan agreed on a second phase last Monday -- including more than 3,000 U.N. troops, police, and other personnel as well as substantial aviation and logistics equipment. But Sudan rejected a proposal to include six attack helicopters.

Sudan's approval of the helicopter component will now allow the heavy support package to be deployed.

Al-Bashir has backed off from the final stage, saying he would only allow a larger AU force, with technical and logistical support from the United Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 10:57 AM

"What is harder to fathom is President Bush's refusal to stand up to the genocide for four years. Why not impose a no-fly zone, why not hold an international conference on Darfur, why not invite survivors to the White House for a photo-op, why not give a prime-time speech about Darfur?

Perhaps the explanation for Mr. Bush's passivity is the same as the explanation for Mr. Bashir's brutality. Maybe Mr. Bush has made his calculations, looked at the number of calls and letters he gets about Darfur, weighed the pros and cons, and decided that Americans really don't care enough about genocide to make him pay a major price for allowing it to continue. "

From 'Driving Up the Price of Blood '
By Nicholas Kristof, NY Times columnist
Published: April 17, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 11:04 AM

Amos,

So, after going to the UN and having NO action taken over a problem that Bush sees as urgent, YOU would want him to take unilateral action, or at best lead a coalition of the willing to deal with the situation???


Bush declared it to be genocide- The UN refused to, because it would mandate action.

After Iraq, HOW can Bush take ANY international action without UN approval, and NOT be criticised? Or are you saying that YOU get to pick and choose what international problems he gets to act unilateraly on?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 11:06 AM

And NO, I do NOT think he has done enough- but the voters in November told him NOT to deal with threats to the wellbeing of the US, or the rest of the world, according to the Democrats and THEIR mandate.

And WHAT have the Democrats, now in control of both houses, done about Darfur?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 12:20 PM

Some points regarding the ponderings of Mr. Nicholas Kristof:

1) What I find so extremely hard to fathom is the refusal of the United Nations to stand up to the genocide for four years. The man who so clearly stated to the world about four years ago that Darfur was the greatest catastrophy facing mankind was the then Secretary General of that organisation, one Kofi Annan. He was extremely well qualified to make such a statement, having been the UN's Special Representative with oversight for Rwanda during the genocide there. Any mention of any of this in Mr. Kristof's article Amos? Or were only the bits castigating the leader of the ONLY country in the world to decry the ongoing genocide in Darfur for what it was worthy of your "cut 'n' paste"?

2) On President Bush's failures of ommission with regard to the ongoing crisis in Darfur, as listed by Mr. Kristof:

- "Why not impose a no-fly zone"

I take it that Mr. Kristof is aware of the geography of the region and of Sudan, the country he is talking about.

I take it that Mr. Kristof is aware of the complexities of establishing and "imposing" a no-fly zone under such international constraints.

But I somehow think that both of those assumptions of mine are wrong, because if Mr Kristof were aware of them he would not be so ready to suggest such an impracticable course of action.

- "Why not hold an international conference on Darfur, why not invite survivors to for a photo-op, why not give a prime-time speech about Darfur?"

All of this, of course should have been done years ago by the United Nations - It was, and still is supposedly, their responsibility. But as we are all fully aware the UN is very good at doing nothing.

But Mr. Kristof is a journalist, a columnist for the NYTimes no less. Now had President Bush done all the things on Mr. Kristof's list, I would ask myself if and exactly how Mr. Kristof would have reported it? More neo-con empire building for oil perhaps? Big bad America out on the war-path again? Plenty on this forum would get right in step behind such drivel.

I particularly liked this bit of reasoning from Mr Kristof:

"Perhaps the explanation for Mr. Bush's passivity is the same as the explanation for Mr. Bashir's brutality."

To which I would make the following comment to Mr. Kristof:

"Perhaps the explanation for the American media's passivity is the same as the explanation for Mr. Bashir's brutality. Maybe MSM in America has made it's calculations, looked at the number of calls and letters they get about Darfur, weighed the pros and cons, and decided that Americans really don't care enough about genocide in Darfur to displace articles attacking the current administration to make them pay a major price for actually printing and publishing news."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:08 PM

WASHINGTON, April 18 (Reuters) - The United States and Britain, ratcheting up the pressure on Sudan, threatened it on Wednesday with sanctions and other punitive measures unless it agreed to accept a robust U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur.

President George W. Bush, impatient at the failure to halt the violence in the troubled region, warned Sudan's president he had one last chance to avoid sanctions by agreeing to the deployment of a full joint U.N.-African Union force.

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said talks would begin on Thursday on a new U.N. Security Council resolution to try to end the violence in Darfur.

"What is happening in Sudan at the moment is unacceptable, is appalling and is a scandal for the international community," Blair told reporters.

U.S. State Department No. 2 John Negroponte, on an African tour, reinforced the message by urging Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to back the deployment of international peacekeepers in Darfur and on the Chad/Central African Republic border.

Sudan agreed on Monday to a 'hybrid operation' in which 3,000 U.N. personnel and heavy support equipment would reinforce African Union peacekeepers in Darfur, but refused to accept the larger U.N. force, of some 10,000 more troops, that the Western powers believe are needed.

The 5,000 AU peacekeepers have been unable to stem the violence in Darfur, a territory as big as France, where at least 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million made homeless since 2003 in ethnic and political conflict triggered by a rebellion.

The violence has now spilled over to Chad and Central African Republic.

Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol said earlier in an interview in Dubai that the United States and Britain should help secure U.N. funds for the AU peacekeepers already on the ground in Darfur instead of pushing for a larger U.N. force.

"LAST CHANCE"

Bush, speaking at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, said he had decided to give U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon more time to pursue diplomacy with Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir but made clear his patience was limited.

"President Bashir should take the last chance by responding to the secretary general's efforts and to meet the just demands of the international community," Bush said.

"I'm looking at what steps the international community could take to deny Sudan's government the ability to fly its military aircraft over Darfur, and if we don't begin to see signs of good-faith commitments, we will hear calls for even sterner measures. The situation doesn't have to come to that," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:13 PM

Also from Reuters, some cautionary opinions:

"Menard and Smith believe a political solution is what Darfur needs first, so that the eventual U.N. peacekeeping force actually has a peace to keep.

But it's not surprising the public backs calls for peacekeepers, the authors say. They don't understand the realities on the ground because the European and U.S. media paint a simplistic picture of a conflict pitting government-backed 'Arabs' against 'black Africans'.

Hardly anyone mentions the fact there are 15 different rebels groups, which have been an increasing obstacle in getting humanitarian aid to the displaced. Throw in some peacekeepers and you get an even bigger mess, according to Menard and Smith.

Writing in Lebanon's Daily Star, Darfur expert Julie Flint agrees it's insane to put the "exclusive focus" on deploying U.N. troops and not devote energy to negotiating a peace deal.

Her recent visit to the region reveals a changing picture on the ground: rebels making deals with Janjaweed tribes, joint Arab-African markets being established, stolen animals returned. The International Herald Tribune reports similar developments.

In the absence of any peace agreement to monitor, Menard and Smith ask: "What right do we have to demand that anyone - be they our children or U.N. blue helmets from the Third World - go and die in Darfur?" "


Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.

---

1 response to "Darfur: Hollywood vs diplomacy"
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.


Kate Potterfield says:
17 Apr 2007 17:45:10 GMT
This blog entry highlights the importance of a comprehensive and coordinated approach, one that promotes PEACE, PROTECTS the people, and PUNISHES the perpetrators. The ENOUGH project details such an approach in its strategy paper "The Answer to Darfur: How the Resolve the World's Hottest War," found at http://enoughproject.org/reports/pdf/answer_to_darfur.pdf.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:36 PM

A useful interactive map for those who don't know their Rwanda from their Somalia.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:06 AM

There is no institution or country in the world that can solve the problems in Darfur except the UN. The US has no moral credibility in the world now thanks to Bush. It can never be an honest broker under this administration.

The Christian Right is using the Darfur tragedy to bolster their defense of Christians in that region. It is a form of proselytizing. They are making the matter worse.

The solution for the UN would be at the present time to move it outside the US. It might gain a little autonomy instead of being a Bush State Dept. Puppet.

When Geneva Conventions are ignored, what hope is there for peace in that tragic country?

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:51 AM

"There is no institution or country in the world that can solve the problems in Darfur except the UN." - Frank Hamilton.

Well done Frank, we'll all just leave it to them then, it's been on their plate for quite some time now - "Greatest human tragedy facing the international community" according to Kofi Annan about four years ago.

Care to enlighten us on what they (The UN, Darfur's only hope) have accomplished in that time Frank?

Just to put things into perspective Frank, the scale of death, displacement and destruction in Darfur is roughly ten times that in Iraq taking even the worst estimates. Not widely reported over the course of time, almost quietly ignored by most on this forum because they cannot beat GWB about the head over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:40 AM

Perhaps we should relocate the UN to Granada.

Teribus, you miss a very important distinction.

The Darfur crisis evolved locally, as far as we know. Somalia was not invaded by Ethiopia, AFAIK, or by bombers from the Cote d'Ivoire.

Iraq was unilaterally invaded on orders from the President of the United States, ten thousand miles away.

Darfur has been much neglected on this forum, but it has been comparably ignored by the mass media of Europe and the US, which probably has somethign to do with it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:44 PM

Amos,

The fact that - "The Darfur crisis evolved locally, as far as we know". Is irrelevant, I know that in accordance with its Charter the UN cannot intervene in the domestic affairs of member states, but there are exceptions that allow such intervention written into the UN Charter - one such exception is Genocide.

At anytime during the last four years the UN could have declared that what is happening in Darfur is genocide and they would then have been compelled to act - for reasons best known to themselves they did not. That is something that they will have to live with. No doubt they will do so with ease, just as they did with Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda.

Relocating the UN to Grenada would be a good idea, although I doubt whether the Grenadadian Government could afford to subsidize the UN to the tune that the US does. Before anybody does chip in and chatter on about how much the US owes the UN, the balance of who owes who what does lie in favour of the USA (i.e. the US is owed money by the UN).

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:09 PM

My point was neatly avoided, T -- you were telling us that Darfur has not attracted attention here because we can't blame it on Bush. It was inaccurate of you to draw the comparison. Bush's invasion of Iraq is a more compelling issue to those of us who live in his country, for reasons I would hope are obvious.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 08:31 PM

Point not missed at all Amos, it proves conclusively how insular you lot are. The only important thing with respect to this forum is that no matter how dire things are internationaly, no matter what topic, if it can't be linked in some detrimental way to GWB it is not worth discussing.

One thing that the lot of you do really want to get over is that in the 2000 Presidential Election, the guy you lot all said won conceded defeat and handed the result to the present incumbent, who by the bye definitely won the 2004 contest hands down. Now please give the rest of the world a break - accept it - there's not a damn thing you can do about it - it done and dusted. Jesus-H-come-dancing-Christ what a bunch of children.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:38 PM

Please, it proves nothing of the sort. It proves that the actions of a government we are responsible for are of great interest to us, and nothing more than that.

Especially when they disappoint us repeatedly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 03:11 AM

From 'Driving Up the Price of Blood ', by Nicholas Kristof, the NY Times columnist I get the distinct impression that he is trying to apportion blame for what has happened in Darfur to President Bush and the current Administration. Perhaps he really is concerned and wrote that article knowing it would be the only way it would get the chattering left in America to pay heed to an international problem that in magnitude totally eclipses events in Iraq. After all in Iraq there is the prospect of hope, for those left alive in Darfur there currently is none.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 03:26 AM

"The UN, a useless talking shop where only national interests take priority." - teribus"

Speaking of 'national interests', I think Israel could be doing more when Sudanese refugees arrive on their doorstep. These people have crossed the Sinai to escape. They say the desert is littered with the bodies of those who didn't make it.

"Although the numbers are fluid, an estimated 300 Sudanese have arrived in Israel over the past two years. Of these, some 120 remain in prison; the rest are in alternative detention, meaning crisis centers, kibbutzim or moshavim, where many of them work and live but are not free to leave the premises. Another estimated dozen or so Sudanese men in the Sinai are partnered with Israeli women and have children but cannot enter Israel for fear of arrest."

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17477

If Israel can't even deal with 300, how is the U.N. supposed to deal with 4 million?

What do you suggest, teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 01 May 07 - 03:18 PM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: dianavan
Date: 01 May 07 - 03:22 PM

Doctors Without Borders have sent me an e-mail with a journal written by personnel in the area. Some people really do care and are doing as much as they can. I think if you also care, this organization could use your tax deductable donations.

http://www.msf.ca/blogs/JamesM.php

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 07 - 03:24 PM

Teribus:

You're awfully facile at choosing your despised "chattering left" as the correct group to come lend a hand in Darfur. Seems to me, if you are asking this imaginary group to shell out major dollars on a cause of your selection, you might speak of them less disrespectfully. Or do you think it is just natural law that somehow elects them, rather than, for example, the blithering right, with their billionaire hedgefund managers, who should step forward?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 05:32 PM

from the Dem. debate-

"So, consider, first, Biden's comments on Darfur:

"I went there. I sat on the borders. I went in those camps. They're going to have thousands and thousands and thousands of people die. We've got to stop talking and act. . . . By the time all these guys talk, 50,000 more people are going to be dead! They're going to be dead!"

Washington Post

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 02:27 PM

U.N. lauds Darfur pact

POSTED: 1:44 a.m. EDT, June 14, 2007

Story Highlights• Sudan accepted agreement Tuesday
• Agreement calls for day-to-day command by AU, overall command by U.N.
• U.S. had expressed skepticism; China welcomed agreement

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called Sudan's agreement on a large force for Darfur "a milestone" on Wednesday, but U.N. envoys acknowledged challenges on command structures and finding enough troops.

"It was a milestone development," Ban said. "Even though slow, we have been making steady progress ... and we are now moving toward the right direction."

Sudan accepted the agreement in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on Tuesday. (Full story)

Jean-Marie Guehenno, the undersecretary-general for peacekeeping, backed Sudan's contention that Khartoum would accept non-African troops in the combined U.N.-African Union force of up to 23,000 soldiers and police.

American officials had expressed doubts on Tuesday about Sudan's acceptance of non-African troops, which would make impossible the mission to quell the looting, rapes and killings in Sudan's western region of Darfur.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad threatened U.N. sanctions if Sudan imposed conditions on the force. He will be part of a Security Council delegation going to Khartoum on Sunday.

Ban questioned the skepticism, saying he was aware of "different interpretations" by the media and diplomats about the agreement.

"I was a little bit concerned by skeptical reporting and understandings, observations on this issue," Ban said." I think it would be desirable for the major stakeholders, the international community as a whole, to look at this milestone development of the situation."

Belgian U.N. Ambassador Johan Verbeke, this month's U.N. Security Council president, said, "generally there was a welcoming of this agreement" by members after Guehenno gave assurances that "we can move forward."

The United Nations said priority would be given to African infantry soldiers, but troops from other regions would be recruited if not enough Africans volunteered.

"There will be African, there will be some non-African," Guehenno told reporters. "And I was pleased to see ... that was accepted" by Sudan.

Khartoum has signed several agreements in the past on Darfur which have not been fully implemented. In four years of violence, about 200,000 people have died, experts say.

Sudan's negotiator in Addis Ababa, Mutrif Siddig, said Khartoum had accepted the proposal on troop composition but emphasized that overall control would go to the African Union, not the United Nations.

China, Sudan's main oil customer and oil supplier, welcomed the agreement in a statement released by its foreign ministry.

"The facts show that dialogue and consultation on an equal footing are the effective channel for political resolution of the Darfur issue," ministry spokesman Qin Gang was quoted as saying.

China has been accused by critics of shielding Khartoum in U.N. debates and U.S. activists launched a fresh campaign on Wednesday to press Beijing to persuade its ally to stop the violence.

Who's in charge
The agreement calls for day-to-day command by the African Union and overall command by the United Nations. But explicit language on how this might work was removed from the final document at the African Union's request, prompting concern among some non-African troop contributors at the lack of clarity and putting their participation in doubt.

Guehenno, however, was upbeat, saying "we believe that we have the fundamentals of a new type of operation," including command and control.

The United Nations would recruit staff for administration and logistics, and the mission would operate under "U.N. rules and procedures."

The new hybrid force is not expected to be deployed until next year. The United Nations will field about 3,000 military personnel in an interim arrangement to shore up the beleaguered African Union force of 7,000 now in Darfur. Some troops have not been paid for months.

Sudan has not yet agreed to engineering battalions from China, Pakistan and elsewhere, but Guehenno said informal consent had been given.

Non-Arab rebels took up arms in early 2003 accusing the government of neglecting their plight. Khartoum mobilized brutal militia, known as Janjaweed, who then killed, pillaged and raped. In the past year rebel groups have fought each other and also attacked civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 04:07 PM

I've been reading about the American teenagers who have gotten more than 2000 high schools involved in fundraising for Darfur. Does anyone know any new developments on it?

By the way, when we lament the UN's inaction aren't we also finding fault with its member nations? Why don't we build fires under them?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 11:16 AM

from the Washington Post:

A Date Certain on Darfur

By Michael Gerson
Friday, August 10, 2007; Page A13

After four years of brutal raids, ethnic cleansing and systematic rape in Darfur, Sudan -- and nearly three years after the Bush administration declared this a genocide-- the U.N. Security Council has finally approved a credible peacekeeping force. For 2 million displaced people in the camps, this is a wisp of hope on the horizon. For the 200,000 dead, it comes too late.

The most disturbing part of the latest U.N. negotiations was the continued leverage exercised by the regime in Khartoum, which has a long history of mass killing. In the polished manners of the United Nations, blood on your hands is not a disqualification for a seat at the diplomatic table. With the expected help of China, and the disappointing support of France and Britain, the Sudanese envoy weakened the mandate of the peacekeeping force -- no weapons are to be seized from the militias -- and removed the threat of sanctions if Khartoum fails to cooperate. The regime protested that its "sovereignty" over the people of Darfur must be respected -- which is really the sovereignty of lions over the herds they hunt.

But even this diluted resolution is useful. It authorizes what will be the largest peacekeeping operation in the world -- upward of 25,000 soldiers and police under joint United Nations and African Union control. It sets specific dates for the transition to that force. And it mandates the protection of both aid workers and civilians.

Khartoum's grudging acceptance of U.N. peacekeepers is the result of global pressure. For all its tactical confusions, President Nicolas Sarkozy's France is tougher on the regime than was Jacques Chirac's France. China can no longer be too obvious in its support of Khartoum or it would risk a boycott of its Olympics next year. And a new round of American sanctions on Sudan has begun to bite, pressuring international banks to stop accepting Khartoum's billions in oil money. The Sudanese, one U.S. official told me, "are feeling financial pressures across the board, really flailing on the financial side."

Is this momentum real? There are two benchmarks that will help answer this question, one way or the other.

In October, the United Nations must have its headquarters -- its command and control structure -- operational in Darfur and take over the financing of African troops already on the ground.

By December at the latest, the United Nations will need to have in place what is called the "heavy-support package" -- hospitals, attack helicopters, 2,000 new African troops and 3,000 police. It will also need to know which countries will contribute the rest of the troops to the peacekeeping force.

If the United Nations has met these realistic goals by New Year's Eve, it will be a good beginning, a sign of seriousness.

The signals out of Khartoum are mixed. The United Nations has informed U.S. officials that it is already getting resistance from the regime on logistical issues. If the Sudanese continue to play these games, as they have done before, there will need to be penalties.

The United States has immediate responsibilities as well -- to provide airlift support through NATO, training for command staff, communications and computer equipment, and generators. America is obligated to pay 27 percent of the cost of the peacekeeping force, which will probably require a supplemental funding bill from Congress in 2008.

But the implementation of this resolution is, above all, a test for the United Nations. In dealing with Darfur, U.N. officials are determined to learn from past mistakes. The problem is choosing which mistake to learn from.

U.N. military planners want to avoid the debacle of Somalia that began in 1992, when peacekeepers entered a chaotic situation piecemeal and eventually left in defeat and failure. So in Darfur they want the U.N. intervention to be large and decisive -- a "big bang" -- even if that means the timeline is delayed. During a genocide, however, patience and delay have casualties.

Another U.N. failure is worth recalling and avoiding: Rwanda in 1994. While waiting for perfect circumstances to intervene, the world did little and now lives haunted by a million ghosts.

No historical analogy is exact. But the Darfur genocide is closer to Rwanda than Somalia. It requires the urgent establishment of security first.

For all the Americans who have worked and prayed for Sudan over the years, for all the churches and synagogues with banners that call us to conscience, the time to push has arrived. There are many complex steps of negotiation and reconciliation between government and rebels down the road. But we should begin with one step: 5,000 new police and troops in Darfur by the end of this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 08:46 AM

U.N. accuses Sudan militia of mass abduction and rape

Story Highlights
Report: About 50 women and children forced into "sexual slavery"

Popular Defense Forces militia and the Abu Gasim faction to blame, report says

Sudan denies mass rapes in Darfur
   
GENEVA, Switzerland (Reuters) -- The United Nations' human rights office on Tuesday accused forces allied with Sudan's government of mass abduction and rape of women and girls in Darfur, acts it said could constitute war crimes.

Its latest report, based on testimony from victims and witnesses, called on Khartoum to investigate reports that about 50 women were forced into "sexual slavery" after an attack on the rebel-held town of Deribat in South Darfur's Jebel Marra region last December.

The abductees, who included many children, were held for about one month, and beaten and raped repeatedly, often in front of each other, the report from the office of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said.

"Witnesses indicated that the abduction, rape and other human rights violations that continued throughout the period were committed by the same group of men who conducted the actual attack," it said.

The report concluded that the Sudanese government bore responsibility for the abuses committed by the official Popular Defense Forces militia and the Abu Gasim faction. Sudan's army had provided air and ground support for the raids which resulted in 36 civilian deaths.

The U.N. report named three men as possibly sharing criminal responsibility for leading the attacks on Deribat, and the abductions and sexual abuse.

"A series of violations have been committed that constitute both violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Some of these may also constitute war crimes," it said.

"The government should issue immediate clear instructions to all troops under its command including PDF and other militias that rape and other forms of sexual violence will not be tolerated, that they constitute war crimes," it continued.

An estimated 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have fled their homes in Darfur since mostly non-Arab rebels took up arms against the government in the vast western region in 2003.

Sudan denies mass rapes in Darfur. On Monday Justice Minister Mohamed Ali al-Mardi said that reports by international rights groups on abuses were "criminal."

"All reports ... about genocide and mass rape are frivolous and obviated by malice," he told Reuters. "They are executing policies of other nations like the United States ... against Sudan."

The U.N. report said a "pattern of mass abduction" which began with the Darfur conflict, appeared to be ongoing. The report covers a six-month period ending in May 2007.

The victims in Deribat, who were mainly from the Fur tribe, may have been targeted because the Fur community in Jebel Marra has been perceived as sympathetic to Sudan Liberation Army rebels who stayed outside the 2006 Darfur peace deal, it said.

Jebel Marra region is a stronghold of Abdul Wahed Mohammed el-Nur, leader of a faction of one of the Darfur rebel groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:58 AM

from the Washington Post:

In Darfur, From Genocide to Anarchy

By Alex de Waal and Julie Flint
Tuesday, August 28, 2007; Page A13

Imagine you are a U.S. Special Forces officer and you get a call: You are being posted to Darfur. Your job is to protect African villagers from marauding Arab horsemen and to show the Sudanese security chiefs that their bluff has been called -- at last, the international community is standing up to their evil schemes.

What can you expect? According to news reports, a sort of slow-motion Rwanda in the desert. What will you find on arrival? A reality that's complicated and messy. A Darfur that has more in common with Chad, southern Sudan and -- dare we say it? -- Somalia.

In Darfur today, knowing who is on which side is not straightforward. The savage counterinsurgency offensives, with their massacres and scorched earth, that Colin Powell called "genocide" in September 2004 had in fact largely concluded by the time Powell made that historic determination. This isn't a moral exculpation; it's simply a fact. It's also been a regular sequence in Sudan's recurrent wars over the past 25 years. Episodes of intense brutality and mass displacement are followed by longer periods of anarchic internecine fighting, ably exploited by the government.

Because the vanguard of government offensives is tribal paramilitaries -- well known to prefer soft civilian targets to hardened rebels -- the result of each offensive is a fractured and demoralized society in which every group is armed and most leaders cut opportunistic alliances to preserve their power bases. The warlords who prosper in this environment deal only in the currency of power, switching alliances as their calculus shifts.

For the past three years, Darfur has been descending into this murky world of tribes-in-arms and warlords who serve the highest bidder, with some community leaders of integrity trying to carve out localities of tranquility. Many Arab militias are talking to the rebels; many erstwhile rebel leaders have struck bargains with the regime, receiving high-sounding positions and nice villas in return for providing an adornment to the government's attempts to show a pluralistic facade.

While the script of many rights campaigners and activists has remained stuck in the groove of "genocide," Darfur faces something that can be just as deadly in the long term: anarchy. The government is a dictatorship, but its writ doesn't run beyond the first checkpoints outside the towns. The army has a fearsome arsenal, but two much-heralded offensives last year were smartly and bloodily annihilated by rebels. The air force is rarely used, except when targets of opportunity arise -- or the rebels have the army on the run. There have been no large-scale offensives by the government in 2007.

The Sudanese government relies on its Arab militias for a semblance of control, but increasingly these militias pursue their own agendas. The largest loss of life this year occurred in clashes between two Arab militias, most recently at the end of July, when 100 militia members and Arab civilians died. The other big ongoing crisis, and the major cause of more than 100,000 people being displaced this year, is a multisided conflict in Southern Darfur involving warring Arab militias; rebel commanders from the Sudan Liberation Army who are now allied with the government, though other commanders are fighting it; a militia drawn from West African immigrants; and a rebel commander from the Justice and Equality Movement who answers to no one but himself. Simple, it isn't.

What's keeping Darfurians alive in this dismal war of all against all is their own skill at survival and, in the camps for the displaced, an immense relief effort. For the past two years, mortality rates among people reached by international aid have been lower than they were before the war. That's a tremendous achievement -- though the annual "hungry season," now upon us, is showing a worrying decline in child nutrition.

But the very scale of the aid effort brings its own problems. Aid agency vehicles are a tempting prize for bandits and militia leaders in a land without law. During the height of the massacres, aid agencies were scarce and their neutrality was largely respected -- not least because the two sides' military focus was on one another. It is a different story today. And as the attacks on humanitarians increase, the relief agencies duly report that things are getting worse.

For them, it is true. For the people of Darfur, the story is more complicated. So, if you are dispatched to Darfur as a peacekeeper, best to wise up quickly. Leave that fortified camp, step out of that armored car and ask the Darfurian people: "Just what the hell is going on here?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:19 PM

U.N. chief, Sudanese leader set talks


By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 52 minutes ago



KHARTOUM, Sudan - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir said Thursday that new peace talks to end the four-year conflict in Darfur will start Oct. 27 in Libya.

There was no immediate word from the Darfur rebels on whether they would attend the conference. Most rebels have rejected a peace deal that one rebel faction signed with Khartoum last year, and Ban — on his first visit to Sudan — has been pressing to get the groups to the negotiating table.

A joint communique issued by Ban and al-Bashir after their second round of talks in Khartoum stressed the importance of reaching a political solution to the conflict that has left more than 200,000 people dead and 2.5 million uprooted from their homes.

Ban has pressed hard to get the splintered rebel groups back to the negotiating table. His joint announcement with al-Bashir signaled that a date and venue have been set — but the real test will be whether rebel movements who in the past refused to join the peace process attend the Libya talks.

The May 2006 peace deal signed by the Sudanese government and one rebel group in Abuja, Nigeria, has largely fallen apart and the continued violence has prompted the need for deploying U.N. peacekeepers.

Tripoli has in the past hosted several lower-level meetings to try to get the disparate rebel groups together, with no success. Ban, who is on a weeklong Africa tour, will fly to Libya on Saturday after a stop in Chad.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey welcomed Thursday's announcement of a new round of talks in Libya. "As we have seen, Libya and other neighboring states have all moved to put all of our combined efforts behind the U.N. process. We want to see a united front on the part of the international community on how to move ahead," Casey said. "I think the Libyans have come on board to that approach."

Darfur's bloodletting began in 2003, when ethnic African rebels took up arms against the Arab-dominated central government, accusing it of discrimination. Khartoum is accused of retaliating by unleashing janjaweed militias, blamed for the worst atrocities against civilians. The government denies the accusations.

Ban and al-Bashir's joint note also expressed hope that the rebel groups will "cooperate fully ... to ensure that the negotiations are concluded as expeditiously as possible."

For its part, the Sudanese government pledged to "prepare for and participate constructively in renewed negotiations on Darfur" to be held under U.N. and African Union mediation, it said.

In the note, made available to The Associated Press, Sudan also pledged to work with the U.N. and AU to "facilitate the timely deployment" of a new 26,000-member joint AU-U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur.

The United Nations, in turn, pledged "to do its utmost ... to deploy the hybrid operation in a timely fashion in support of peace consolidation in Darfur."

At a news conference later, Ban and al-Bashir expressed concern at "continuing humanitarian suffering and insecurity in Darfur."

When Ban took the reins of the United Nations in January, he made Darfur a top priority and appointed former Swedish ambassador Jan Eliasson to join the AU efforts to get all rebel factions to the peace table.

Ban's visit in Sudan also focused on pressing the government for speedier deployment of a the new peacekeeping force for Darfur.

After visiting Darfur on Wednesday and seeing the plight of the Darfurians, Ban said he had even great resolve to try to bring peace to their land.

In Al Salaam, home to 46,000 Darfur refugees, Ban promised to step up efforts to end the protracted conflict and urged the world to be more sympathetic to the millions whose lives have been uprooted.

He brushed aside a brief disruption during his meeting Wednesday at a U.N. compound with representatives from three Darfur camps that heightened security fears, and a small protest by well-dressed women shouting against the upcoming deployment of U.N. troops there.

Ban said he understands the frustrations of the millions uprooted from their homes. "They really wanted to see some hope from me, from the United Nations, from the international community," he said.

There was speculation Wednesday that Ban's trip to a Darfur refugee camp would be called off because of security concerns. There was no violence during his brief visit to the Al Salaam camp, but U.N. deputy spokeswoman Marie Okabe said there were reports of some clashes afterward.

Most of the refugees who greeted Ban appeared to be supporters of Abdel Wahid Nur, who leads a major faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement group and is the key holdout in getting all rebel groups and the government back to the negotiating table.

At every opportunity, the U.N. chief stressed the importance of reaching a political settlement and deploying the AU-U.N. force quickly.

AU officials who talked with Ban said they told him the beleaguered AU force now in Darfur has fewer then 6,000 peacekeepers deployed in a region nearly the size of France — down from its authorized strength of 7,000. AU officials said the groundwork for deploying the hybrid force is on schedule, but it is not expected to start arriving until early next year.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:22 AM

From the Washington Post:

What I Saw in Darfur
Untangling the Knots of a Complex Crisis

By Ban Ki-moon
Friday, September 14, 2007; Page A13

We speak often and easily about Darfur. But what can we say with surety? By conventional shorthand, it is a society at war with itself. Rebels battle the government; the government battles the rebels. Yet the reality is more complicated. Lately, the fighting often as not pits tribe against tribe, warlord against warlord.

Nor is the crisis confined to Darfur. It has spilled over borders, destabilizing the region. Darfur is also an environmental crisis -- a conflict that grew at least in part from desertification, ecological degradation and a scarcity of resources, foremost among them water.

I have just returned from a week in Darfur and the surrounding region. I went to listen to the candid views of its people -- Sudanese officials, villagers displaced by fighting, humanitarian aid workers, the leaders of neighboring countries. I came away with a clear understanding. There can be no single solution to this crisis. Darfur is a case study in complexity. If peace is to come, it must take into account all the elements that gave rise to the conflict.

Everything I saw and heard convinced me that this is possible. And we must succeed. Outside El Fasher, the largest city in North Darfur, I visited the El Salam camp, which is sheltering some 45,000 internally displaced people. My heart went out to them. I felt their hopelessness and frustration. I saw children who had not seen life outside the camps. I wanted to give them a sign. I promised that we would do our best to bring peace and to help them return to their villages.

We have made a good start. The U.N. Security Council has authorized the deployment of 26,000 multinational peacekeepers, jointly conducted by the United Nations and the African Union (A.U.). In going to Darfur, I saw the difficult conditions our forces will encounter -- and saw, too, that our logistical preparations are underway.

No peacekeeping mission can succeed without a peace to keep. We need to push, hard, for a political settlement as well. Indeed, that was the principal purpose of my trip.

In Khartoum, the government of President Omar al-Bashir renewed its unqualified commitment to support the peacekeeping mission as well as comprehensive peace talks. We agreed that negotiations should begin in Libya on Oct. 27, under joint A.U.-U.N. leadership. The government also confirmed its pledge to an immediate cessation of hostilities, as the rebel groups did last month in Arusha. Within hours of my visit, however, there were reports of tensions, clashes and bombings in the northern Darfur town of Haskanita. It is important that both parties exercise restraint and create conditions conducive to the talks.

In dealing with Darfur, we must look beyond it. In Juba, the capital of South Sudan, political leaders are worried that Darfur could deflect attention from the peace agreement signed two years ago, ending a long civil war. As we tend to Darfur, we must not neglect this fragile situation, lest a broader war break out anew and undermine all our efforts.

Any peace must have deep roots if it is to endure. In Juba and El Fasher, I heard about the importance of listening to the voices of a broad range of society -- tribal leaders, representatives of independent political movements, women's and refugee groups, local and national officials. We need a social contract for peace.

When I met Libya's leader, Col. Moammar Gaddafi, in his tent in Sirte, he generously offered to host the peace talks and assured me that he would do his utmost to help make them a success. "It is now or never," he said, emphasizing the widespread view that these negotiations must be final.

During my visit, I was shown Gaddafi's Great Manmade River: hundreds of miles of pipeline carrying millions of gallons of fresh water from beneath the Sahara. In a region where water is so scarce, this is remarkable. Flying over Lake Chad -- a vast inland sea that has shrunk to one-tenth its original size -- the previous day, it was obvious that this region's future also depends on supplies of water.

In N'Djamena, Chad, President Idriss Deby told me that without water, there can be no economic development. Without the prospect of economic advancement, he went on, the quarter-million Darfuri refugees living in the eastern part of his country might never go home. Security and development, he said, go hand in hand. In this regard, the international community can play an important role.

All this underscores the need for a comprehensive approach to the conflict in Darfur. Solutions cannot be piecemeal. The crisis grew from many causes. We must deal with all of them -- security, politics, resources, water, and humanitarian and development issues.

Dealing with complexity makes our work more challenging and difficult. Yet it is the only path to a lasting solution.

The writer is secretary general of the United Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:35 AM

Sudan ready to declare cease-fire

By MARTA FALCONI, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 11 minutes ago



ROME - Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir said Friday his government is ready to implement a cease-fire with rebel forces at the start of peace talks over the conflict in Darfur, scheduled for next month in Libya.

It was the first time al-Bashir — in Italy to meet with the Pope and Italy's leaders — had called for a cease-fire since the announcement last week that U.N.-backed peace talks will take place in Tripoli, Libya, beginning Oct. 27. A top rebel leader has demanded that hostilities end before negotiations can begin.

"We have announced we are willing (to put in place) a cease-fire with the start of the negotiations to create a positive climate," al-Bashir said at a news conference following talks with Italian Premier Romano Prodi.

"We hope that the negotiations in Tripoli will be the last ones and that they will bring a final peace," al-Bashir said.

Khartoum has regularly agreed to cease-fires but all have been quickly breached by the parties involved in the conflict.

More than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been uprooted since ethnic African rebels in Darfur took up arms against the Arab-dominated Sudanese government in 2003.

Sudan's government is accused of retaliating by unleashing a militia of Arab nomads known as the janjaweed, a charge Khartoum denies.

Abdel Wahid Elnur, who leads a major faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement rebels, has said negotiations should not start until a cease-fire is in place and a planned U.N.-African Union joint peacekeeping force is on the ground. U.N. officials have said troops could start to deploy in October for the 26,000-strong joint peacekeeping force.

Al-Bashir said he had asked Prodi to push those European countries hosting rebel leaders to pressure them to take part in the talks, mentioning particularly Elnur, who is based in Paris.

Prodi praised al-Bashir's offer of a cease-fire saying that "this is an important signal, a strong signal that I welcomed with favor."

Al-Bashir's offer came just four days after a major attack launched by his forces against units of the Justice and Equality rebel group in Haskanita, a small town in northern Darfur. Sudanese army helicopter gunships and Antonov aircraft bombed the town in violation of a U.N. military flight embargo, killing over a dozen people.

Al-Bashir, who came to power in 1989 in a military and Islamic coup, was making a rare, high-profile visit to Western Europe that raised concern from human rights advocates and some politicians.

The Vatican said that Pope Benedict XVI and al-Bashir spoke for 25 minutes at the papal summer residence in Castel Gandolfo in the Alban Hills southeast of Rome.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi described the atmosphere during the talks as "very respectful."

"One could see there was a great commitment by Sudan for this meeting, as demonstrated by such a high-level delegation with evident care to showing great attention and respect for the Vatican," Lombardi told reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 08:37 AM

I don't suppose anyone here cares enough to read this, but it takes Bush to task for NOT sending military forces into Sudan...


Washington Post:

U.S. Promises on Darfur Don't Match Actions
Bush Expresses Passion for Issue, but Policies Have Been Inconsistent

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 29, 2007; Page A01

In April 2006, a small group of Darfur activists -- including evangelical Christians, the representative of a Jewish group and a former Sudanese slave -- was ushered into the Roosevelt Room at the White House for a private meeting with President Bush. It was the eve of a major rally on the National Mall, and the president spent more than an hour holding forth, displaying a kind of passion that has led some in the White House to dub him the "Sudan desk officer."

Bush insisted there must be consequences for rape and murder, and he called for international troops on the ground to protect innocent Darfuris, according to contemporaneous notes by one of those present. He spoke of "bringing justice" to the Janjaweed, the Arab militias that have participated in atrocities that the president has repeatedly described as nothing less than "genocide."

"He had an understanding of the issue that went beyond simply responding to a briefing that had been given," said David Rubenstein, a participant who was then executive director of the Save Darfur Coalition, which has been sharply critical of the administration's response to the crisis. "He knew more facts than I expected him to know, and he had a broader political perspective than I expected him to have."

Yet a year and a half later, the situation on the ground in Darfur is little changed: More than 2 million displaced Darfuris, including hundreds of thousands in camps, have been unable to return to their homes. The perpetrators of the worst atrocities remain unpunished. Despite a renewed U.N. push, the international peacekeeping troops that Bush has long been seeking have yet to materialize.

Just this weekend, peace talks in Libya aimed at ending the four-year conflict appeared to be foundering because of a boycott by key rebel groups.

Many of those who have tracked the conflict over the years, including some in his own administration, say Bush has not matched his words with action, allowing initiatives to drop because of inertia or failure to follow up, while proving unable to mobilize either his bureaucracy or the international community.

The president who famously promised not to allow another Rwanda-style mass murder on his watch has never fully chosen between those inside his government advocating more pressure on Sudan and those advocating engagement with its Islamist government, so the policy has veered from one approach to another.

Meanwhile, a constant turnover of key administration advisers on Darfur, such as former deputy secretary of state Robert B. Zoellick and presidential aide Michael Gerson, has made it hard for the administration to maintain focus.

"Bush probably does want something done, but the lack of hands-on follow-up from this White House allowed this to drift," said one former State Department official involved in Darfur who did not want to be quoted by name criticizing the president. "If he says, 'There is not going to be genocide on my watch,' and then 2 1/2 years later we are just getting tough action, what gives? He has made statements, but his administration has not given meaning to those statements."


Since the United States became the first and only government to call the killing in Darfur genocide, Bush and his aides have grappled with how to provide security for civilians in a large, remote area in the heart of Africa.

While almost everyone involved in Darfur policy agrees that an African Union peacekeeping force of just 7,000 troops is not up to the task, the United States has refused to send troops and, despite promises of reinforcements, has yet to secure many additional troops from other countries. At the same time, it has been unable to broker a diplomatic resolution that might ease the violence.

Even Bush has complained privately that his hands are tied on Darfur because, with the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, he cannot be seen as "invading another Muslim country," according to people who have spoken with him about the issue.

"It's impossible to keep Iraq out of this picture," said Edward Mortimer, who served as a top aide to then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and says resentment over Iraq caused many countries to not want to cooperate with the United States on Darfur.

Bush advisers argue that the lack of success reflects the limitations of working through institutions such as the United Nations, NATO and the African Union. They cite the billions of dollars of U.S. relief aid that has kept millions of Sudanese alive. They say U.S. pressure has kept the issue on the world's agenda.

"If there was ever a case study where the president sees the limitations and frustrations of the multilateral organizations, it is the issue of Darfur," said Dan Bartlett, former White House counselor. "Everybody for the most part can come to a consensus: Whether you call it genocide or not, we have an urgent security and humanitarian crisis on our hands. Yet these institutions cannot garner the will or ability to come together to save people."

There is no doubt that responsibility for inaction on Darfur can be spread around. The Sudanese government has resisted cooperation at every step in the saga and has been shielded at the United Nations by China, its main international protector. Few other Western nations, with the notable exception of Britain and some Nordic countries, have shown much interest in resolving the crisis. The process of raising peacekeepers from U.N. members has proved tortuously slow.

"There's an enormous stain on the world's conscience," said Mitchell B. Reiss, former State Department policy planning chief. "We collectively stood by and let it happen a decade after it happened in Rwanda."

A President's Passion

In late 2005, Bush gathered his most senior advisers to discuss what to do about Darfur. He wanted to know whether the U.S. military could send in helicopter gunships to attack the militias if they launched new attacks on the refugee camps. Could they also shoot down Sudanese military aircraft if necessary? he asked. His aides worried that the United States could get involved in another shooting war, and the president backed off.

"He wanted militant action, and people had to restrain him," said one senior official familiar with the episode. "He wanted to go in and kill the Janjaweed."

The meeting underscored both Bush's personal investment in Sudan, dating back to the beginning of his administration, and his instinct, which aides have kept in check, to take direct action.


Many close to Bush believe that this intense interest in the issue was heavily influenced by American evangelicals, who have adopted the cause of Christians in southern Sudan. Even before the crisis in Darfur, in western Sudan, one of Bush's foreign policy goals was to try to end the civil war between the Muslim government in Khartoum and rebels in the south, a conflict that had lasted more than two decades and cost more than 2 million lives.

Former senator John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), whom Bush appointed as his special envoy for Sudan, said the president's interest in the country is rooted in a larger sense of morality. "This isn't a country that has much strategic interest for the United States," he observed.

Bush's initiative to broker a north-south deal worked. Despite difficult negotiations, Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir agreed in January 2005 to a plan to share power and oil revenues with the rebels -- and even gave the south the right to secede in six years if the leadership could not reconcile their differences.

But by then a separate conflict had exploded in Darfur, as long-standing conflicts between African farmers and Arab herders over land, and a failure by the Khartoum government to redress local grievances, boiled over into armed rebellion.

The government turned to a tactic it had employed in fighting the southern rebels: arming local Arab militias, the Janjaweed, to carry out a counterinsurgency on its behalf. The militias rampaged throughout Darfur starting in mid-2003, burning hundreds of villages, raping women and summarily executing African villagers, according to numerous human rights reports. More than 200,000 people have died in Darfur since the crisis erupted, according to U.N. estimates. Some estimates place the figure as high as 450,000.

Many familiar with Sudan believe that Bush and his aides initially averted their gaze to the flaring violence in Darfur because raising the issue might interfere with the difficult negotiations with Bashir. Some U.S. officials saw another reason for the reluctance to get involved: preserving a burgeoning intelligence relationship with Khartoum, which had begun sharing critical information about al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists.

"There was a tendency not to see Darfur initially for what it was," said Gerard Gallucci, who served in 2003 and 2004 as the top U.S. diplomat in Khartoum. It was well known among Western governments, he said, that Sudan "was using terror to cleanse black Muslim Africans from land that they had promised the Janjaweed."

Such claims are vigorously contested by Danforth and other Bush advisers, who say the president repeatedly warned Bashir about the consequences of sending Arab militias after defenseless civilians.

Over time, Bush has become increasingly outspoken about the situation in Darfur, raising the issue with foreign leaders and meeting privately with dissidents and other little-known political players in Sudan to encourage a solution. In recent months, he has singled out Bashir for harsh condemnation, accusing him of subverting efforts to bring peace to Darfur.

Meeting with the Darfur activists, Bush acknowledged that Sudan had cooperated in anti-terrorism initiatives -- but he insisted that Khartoum could not "buy off" the United States, Rubenstein said.

Last spring, when the White House worked on a new plan to try to press Sudan's government to accept international peacekeepers, it was the president himself who was the driving force in the interagency process, many officials involved the debate said. According to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, Bush refused to accept a program developed to confront Sudan because he was concerned that it was not tough enough. He kicked it back to the bureaucracy.

"I've had it with this incrementalism," Hadley quoted the president as saying in the Oval Office. "We're going to lead, and if people don't want to follow us, they're going to have to stand up and explain why they are willing to let women continue to be raped in Darfur."

At one point, one senior official said, Bush wanted action to crimp Sudan's booming oil business, a move that would have severely aggravated relations with China -- and that no one else in the government favored.

There was stunned silence in the room, the official said, when Hadley disclosed Bush's idea to other government officials. Hadley made clear he was not interested in having a discussion, but the administration never went as far as the president seemed to be demanding. Instead, Treasury officials came up with a sanctions plan aimed at tracking and squeezing key individuals and companies in the Sudanese economy, including the oil business.

Wary of Sending Troops

At an appearance in Tennessee this summer, Bush raised a question many have asked about the situation in Darfur: "If there is a problem, why don't you just go take care of it?" But Bush said he considered -- and decided against -- sending U.S. troops unilaterally. "It just wasn't the right decision," he said.

With the United States tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, skepticism about using U.S. soldiers, even in a limited way, cut across agencies and bodies that often disagree, from the State Department to the Pentagon to Vice President Cheney's office, according to many current and former officials.

Advisers say Bush came to accept, albeit grudgingly, the arguments against using U.S. military assets -- especially the possibility that they might attract al-Qaeda. "In my mind, there would never be enough troops to impose order on this place," former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said an interview. "The only way to resolve this problem was for there to be a political settlement between the rebels and the government."

Sharing this belief was Powell's bureaucratic nemesis, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who advocated sending troops to Iraq but not to the middle of Africa, according to many officials in the government.

This aversion to any use of force was frustrating to some lower-ranking government officials, who saw a modest U.S. military effort as indispensable to making the Sudanese take American diplomacy seriously. Early in the crisis, in the summer of 2004, the U.S. mission in Khartoum made clear to Washington its belief that the African Union was incapable of dealing with the security problem in Darfur on its own.

It recommended that several hundred U.S. troops help fly in African Union forces and provide other assistance, according to a former State Department official. The idea was never seriously entertained, the official said, and it was not until two years later that the United States began making efforts at the United Nations to bolster the overmatched African mission.

Roger Winter, a former State Department official who was intimately involved with Sudan policy during the Bush administration, argues that the United States has never been serious about pressuring the Sudanese government. "They know what we will do and what we won't do," he said. "And they don't respond unless there is a credible threat. And they haven't viewed everything that has happened up until now as credible."

Carrots vs. Sticks

Over the course of the conflict, Bush has found himself torn between different factions in his administration over how to handle Sudan -- whether, simply put, to try carrots or sticks.

In early 2006, Bush empowered Zoellick to seek a peace deal between Khartoum and the Darfur rebel groups. Zoellick, now president of the World Bank, was essentially pursuing what one senior U.S. official described as a policy of engagement with the Sudanese government, even though the Bush administration believed it was involved in perpetrating the atrocities in Darfur.

Zoellick worked closely with senior Sudanese officials and dangled the possibility of improved relations and other incentives should Khartoum cooperate in bringing peace to Darfur. And he came close to pulling it off: An agreement to end the violence was negotiated in the spring of 2006, but it fell apart after key rebel leaders refused to sign on.


Some U.S. officials say Bush never completely bought into Zoellick's approach. He seems to have been influenced in that regard by Gerson, the then-speechwriter who was given a wide-ranging policy berth in the early part of Bush's second term.

Gerson, now a Washington Post columnist, is a devout Christian who was especially animated by the part of the Bush agenda that focused on alleviating suffering in Africa. He traveled to Sudan with Zoellick in late 2005, a trip that included a meeting with Bashir, and came back convinced that Khartoum was not seriously interested in efforts to improve conditions in Darfur.

"There was always a series of incremental steps, and nothing changed on the ground," Gerson said later.

Returning to Washington, Gerson told Bush that Bashir was feeling no pressure to cooperate and that the African Union peacekeepers were not up to the task of protecting civilians. He also suggested that it might be useful to establish a no-fly zone to prevent the Sudanese government from flying bombing missions in support of Janjaweed attacks.

Several months later, Gerson sent Bush some articles criticizing the U.S. approach as anemic, and Bush summoned his aide to the Oval Office, a little hot under the collar because he did not agree with the criticism. But he assured Gerson, as the former aide remembers, "I want you to know we are acting on this."

In February 2006, Bush proposed using NATO forces to help quickly bolster the beleaguered African Union mission. The president seemed so excited about the idea that he mentioned it, almost casually, in response to a question about Uganda during a public appearance in Florida. The statement stunned some in the U.S. bureaucracy.

But even Bush's efforts to promote the idea did little to move the process along. The French were leery of a new NATO mission outside its normal sphere of operations, and there was no interest from Sudan or the African Union in a major role for this quintessentially Western military alliance, according to U.S. officials. The plan went nowhere.

Now, 20 months later, with Zoellick and Gerson gone, new administration figures are working with other countries on new plans for peace and peacekeepers in Darfur. Given the track record, those who have handled Darfur over the years are cautious.

"Overall," concluded John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "Sudan is a case where there's a lot of international rhetoric and no stomach for real action."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 10:23 AM

Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offers several active, positive steps short of invasion.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:10 AM

Still waiting on UN action...


Report: 5 Darfur peacekeepers killed, 17 missing

19 minutes ago



KHARTOUM, Sudan - Five peacekeepers from a joint U.N.-African Union force were killed and 17 were missing after their patrol was ambushed in northern Darfur, Sudan's state news agency reported Wednesday.

The SUNA agency quoted an unidentified official from the joint force as saying the peacekeepers were attacked Tuesday by a huge convoy of gunmen riding in 40 sport utility vehicles.

Another 18 peacekeepers were wounded, and ten U.N.-AU vehicles were destroyed, the report said.

Among those killed, three were from Rwanda, one from Ghana and one from Uganda, SUNA said. It did not give details about the gunmen.

The joint United Nations-AU force took over peacekeeping duties in Darfur earlier this year with about 9,000 soldiers and police officers.

It is authorized to have 26,000 members, but has contended with chronic shortages of staff and equipment and less-than-adequate cooperation from the Sudanese government.

The peacekeeping force has been unable to persuade the U.S. and other governments to supply attack and transport helicopters, surveillance aircraft, military engineers and logistical support it needs to safely navigate Sudan's remote western Darfur region.

Last month, four U.N.-AU staffers were assaulted and held at gunpoint in Darfur. One of the staffers was stripped of his belongings, kidnapped briefly and then released by Arab militiamen on horseback, according to a statement from the joint force

The U.N. has warned of rising banditry and insecurity in Darfur. Attackers killed an Ugandan peacekeeper in May.







...................................................................


And they wait...

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:51 PM

UPDATED

UN says 7 Darfur peacekeepers killed in ambush

By MOHAMED OSMAN and MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press Writer
25 minutes ago



KHARTOUM, Sudan - About two hundred gunmen on horseback and in SUVs ambushed peacekeepers from a joint U.N.-African Union force in Sudan's Darfur region, killing seven in fierce gunbattles that lasted more than two hours, U.N. officials said Wednesday.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's office said 22 peacekeepers were wounded in the attack Tuesday on a joint police and military patrol investigating the killing of civilians in North Darfur state. It was the worst attack on the combined U.N.-AU peacekeeping force since it deployed in December.

A group of about 200 assailants riding horses and driving 40 SUVs mounted with anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons exchanged gunfire for more than two hours with the peacekeeping force that included 61 Rwandan soldiers, the U.N. said.

Five Rwandan soldiers and two police officers, one from Ghana, the other from Uganda, were killed. At least seven of the wounded were in serious condition, Ban's office said.

"We are outraged by the attack," Shereen Zorba, deputy spokeswoman of the U.N.-AU mission known as UNAMID, told The Associated Press. "We are not part of the conflict, but a tool to alleviate the suffering of civilians. We try to establish some level of peace and security in the ground. But to drag us in to be part of the conflict is unjustifiable."

The gunmen attacked the peacekeepers Tuesday afternoon in an area called Umm Hagiba, about 60 miles from UNAMID's camp in North Darfur. Zorba said the ambush occurred as the peacekeepers were returning to their camp after investigating the recent slayings of two rebels affiliated with the Sudan Liberation Army. She declined to say who was behind the attack.

The U.N. secretary general "condemns in the strongest possible terms this unacceptable act of extreme violence" against peacekeepers, his spokeswoman, Michele Montas, said at U.N. headquarters in New York.

The attack was the deadliest on Darfur peacekeepers since October, when 10 African Union peacekeepers were killed in an ambush on a military base in Haskanita in South Darfur state. Rebels were blamed for that attack.

That attack came before the joint United Nations-AU force took over peacekeeping duties from an all-AU force in the remote western region of Sudan in December with about 9,000 soldiers and police officers.

It is authorized to have 26,000 members, but has contended with chronic shortages of staff and equipment and less-than-adequate cooperation from the Sudanese government.

The peacekeeping force has been unable to persuade the U.S. and other governments to supply attack and transport helicopters, surveillance aircraft, military engineers and logistical support it needs to safely navigate Darfur.

Last month, four U.N.-AU staffers were assaulted and held at gunpoint in Darfur. One of the staffers was stripped of his belongings, kidnapped briefly and then released by Arab militiamen on horseback, according to a statement from the joint force.

In May, an Ugandan officer was found fatally shot in a vehicle operated by the UNAMID force in North Darfur — the first U.N.-AU peacekeeper killed since the mission deployed in January. UNAMID had described the killing as "an act of cold blooded murder."

U.N. peacekeeping chief Jean-Marie Guehenno has said there was an alarming increase in violence in the Darfur, which also spread recently to the capital Khartoum and said it could escalate further.

Zorba urged the international community to send the mission additional equipment including tactical and surveillance helicopters.

The Darfur conflict has claimed up to 300,000 lives and uprooted 2.5 million people since ethnic African rebels took up arms against the Arab-dominated government in 2003. Critics accuse Sudan of arming janjaweed Arab militias that have terrorized Darfur villages — a charge Khartoum denies.

____

Osman reported from Khartoum, Michael from Cairo, Egypt. Associated Press reporter John Heilprin contributed to this report from the United Nations.

(This version CORRECTS RECASTS; UPDATES throughout with higher death toll, details and quotes from UN, attack is worst since joint force deployed; corrects that Haskanita is in South Darfur state, sted northern Darfur.)





ANd still waiting...

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 09:02 AM

China says heed fears about Bashir genocide charges

By Chris Buckley
Fri Jul 18, 3:34 AM ET



BEIJING (Reuters) - World powers should heed the worries of African and Arab states in responding to genocide charges against Sudan's president, China's envoy on Darfur said, warning that the court steps could imperil peace efforts.

Liu Guijin, Beijing's envoy for the ravaged region of western Sudan, said on Friday the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor's application for the arrest of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir could threaten deployment of peacekeepers and hopes for fresh negotiations in Darfur.

Judicial moves should not upstage the other efforts, he said.

"The United Nations is using these different measures, and it should ensure its own priorities, and the use of one measure should not undermine the other measures," Liu told a small group of reporters. "Don't send wrong or chaotic signals," he added.

The veteran Africa diplomat's comments were China's first lengthy public response to the announcement on Monday by ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo that he wants Bashir tried for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

They were also the clearest signal yet that China might back a U.N. Security Council resolution suspending the ICC case.

The renewed attention on Darfur comes as Beijing readies for the Olympic Games in August, when its arms and oil ties with Sudan will come under a blaze of global attention.

Moreno-Ocampo accused Bashir of a campaign of genocide that killed 35,000 people outright, at least another 100,000 through "slow death" and forced 2.5 million to flee their homes.

China and other governments have said indicting Bashir could unleash a rash of complications in Darfur, a tribally mixed region where government-backed militia have fought rebels against Khartoum's rule for five years.

Human rights groups critical of Bashir have called the case a blow for justice that could force Sudan to seek peace in Darfur.

Sudan has asked Russia, China and members of the Arab League and the African Union to seek a Security Council decision suspending the court action against Bashir for 12 months.

Diplomats at the United Nations say the Arab League and the AU's Peace and Security Council are in coming days likely to urge the Security Council take the blocking action.

Liu did not directly say whether China would propose or support such a suspension, but he stressed the major powers should listen to African and Arab states.

"We want to see more of the further plans of the AU and Arab League, and then use the channel of the U.N. Security Council or other appropriate channels to ensure the development of the situation does not affect resolving the Darfur issue," he said.

Beijing has sought to show itself as a helpful force in Darfur, coaxing Bashir to accept a joint United Nations-African Union mission that took over peacekeeping in Darfur in January.

But China also sells many weapons to Khartoum and is a major investor in Sudanese oil, and critics say self-interest has led Beijing to shield Bashir's government from pressure over Darfur.

"China seems far more concerned with protecting al-Bashir than inspecting, and adjusting, its own economic, military and diplomatic support of a regime now charged with genocide," said Isaac Shapiro of the U.S.-based Save Darfur Coalition, which supports the prosecution of Bashir.

Western critics and media have "distorted" views of his country's normal ties with Khartoum, including controlled sales of weapons, Liu said, adding that the Beijing Olympics in August should not become a target for protests over Darfur.

"The Olympic Games are not an appropriate setting for resolving all the world's problems, including Darfur," Liu said. He would not say whether Bashir would attend the Games.

China this week sent 172 military engineers to Darfur, bringing all of its 315 promised peacekeepers into place.

The U.N.-AU mission force has struggled to establish control in Darfur, and since last week eight of its troops have died in attacks. With 9,500 people in Sudan, it is far below its planned full strength of 26,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 08:16 AM

shhhhh....

They are not being killed by Jews, so it must be ok.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: number 6
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:42 AM

good point BB.

Only 96 posts to this thread (should make us all wonder) .... All I can say is I hope for peace, humanity and for all the madness the world over to end.

We are all guilty in some ways.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:40 PM

and a third of the total posts are mine...


I guess the murder of innocents is not of much interest, unless the blame is being put on Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: SINSULL
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:45 PM

Sounds like you are trolling for an argument, bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:50 PM

re nickhere claiming to protest Jewish deaths ... ( or even the deaths of any other than anti-Israeli Palestinians)

still looking for an example.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 03:33 PM

Mary, of course that's what he's doing. Trolling and copy/pasting other people's work. I'd be happy if we could have a moratorium on people re-posting news with little or no commentary in their own words. Why do people do that? Does it make them feel significant to tell all the stupid people what they are likely reading somewhere less populated by trolls?

(I normally avoid bb's garbage but I DID read SINSULL's post.)

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 07:56 AM

Not at all Jeri, Sinsull, all he is doing is pointing out a fact of life on this forum that has been obvious over the last eight years at least. If it's not GWB, the USA, the UK or Israelis killing people it isn't worth commenting on. If it actually happens to be muslims killing people, apart from a few who mention it, there is a marked silence on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 04:02 PM

Clooney returns from Darfur, on a quest for peace

Story Highlights
CNN's Larry King talks with George Clooney about his trip to see Darfur refugees

Clooney meets with Vice President Joe Biden, urges aggressive U.S. diplomacy

Actor on Darfur refugees: "They're hanging on by a thread"

Clooney says he'll be back on "E.R." for final episode of long-running series

   
(CNN) -- On Monday night, CNN's Larry King had an exclusive interview with actor George Clooney, who returned from the strife-torn Darfur region of Sudan and just finished meeting with Vice President Joe Biden.

King spoke with the activist actor live from the White House on the humanitarian crisis Clooney says we must confront, along with getting a couple of tidbits about what's next for Clooney's acting career.

The following is a partial transcript, edited for brevity and clarity:

Larry King: We begin with George Clooney, the Oscar-winning actor and activist. He's traveled to Darfur at the refugee camps near the Sudan/Chad border last week and met with Vice President [Joe] Biden today.

He's standing, as you see, in front of the White House, where it's 12 degrees. And we thank him for doing this, because he's freezing to death.

George Clooney: I should have worn an overcoat tonight.

King: You have no coat on?

Clooney: No -- and no pants either ...

King: Well, you've always been a little strange, George. Anyway, you met with the vice president today about Darfur. What did you tell him?

Clooney: Basically, we were just talking about coming back from Chad, right on the border of Darfur. And we were talking about there's a moment coming up relatively soon, probably by the middle of next week, where the International Criminal Court is going to indict the president of Sudan for war crimes, which has never happened before -- a sitting president.

And we talked about this being an opportunity, perhaps, not just for the United States, but all of us together to work with the international community in a real diplomatic effort to try and bring some sort of peace to this region.

King: What scale of interest did Biden show?

Clooney: Vice President Biden has been incredibly vocal on the issue. We had a long talk about the idea of, first and foremost, appointing a high level, full-time envoy that reports directly to the White House so that it's not just temporary. We need somebody working on this, you know, every day -- getting up every morning with their sole job to find peace in the area.

King: What did you see last week?

Clooney: It was rough. You know, it's always rough over there. You feel terrible for them. They're hanging on by a thread.

We saw an awful lot of fear. There was [also] a tremendous amount of hope. You know, there was a lot of hope that these indictments and this new administration are going to be able to help move the international community toward toward a real peace.

King: How do you handle just meeting with these people and seeing this tragedy? Personally, how do you handle it?

Clooney: I could tell you a million stories about how it actually affects you personally. But I don't think people should be going there and coming back and saying how it affected them. I think somehow we should all know that these people are hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

King: Was your safety in jeopardy?

Clooney: Oh, you're talking about the U.N. story.

King: Yes. What, they pulled your security, right?

Clooney: I was never in jeopardy. I was with journalists who wanted to go into some areas that weren't particularly safe. And we decided that we would go. And that wasn't necessarily part of what the U.N. was looking to do.

And so we just went on our own. It was fine.

I wanted to say something, also, Larry, which I forgot to say about what I just did today. I delivered 250,000 postcards signed by people all across the country who wanted to help give some political capital to and remind this administration of how important this issue is. It was from the Save Darfur people. But it's from all across the country. And we're probably going to have another 700,000 by the end of the week.

King: What specifically, George, do you want Secretary of State Clinton and the administration to do?

Clooney: It doesn't appear that the United States is going to send troops in or that the U.N. Is going to send in an army to do this. What it really means is that we're going to need diplomacy. And diplomacy has to start and it has to be aggressive and it has to start soon. We have an opportunity here.

King: One other quick thing. Are you going to be in the final presentation of "E.R. ?"

Clooney: Actually, I'm doing a remake of "Friends," which -- I didn't want to break the news.

King: Oh, my gosh.

Clooney: I'm going be playing the Jennifer Aniston role.

King: I'm thrilled for you, George.

Clooney: Thank you. It's a career move. It's a choice.

King: Are you going to be in "E.R.?"

Clooney: I am. I'm in the last episode with Susan Sarandon and Julianna Margulies. So it should be fun.

King: Thanks, George. Get out of the cold.

Clooney: Thank you. It's good to talk to you

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:32 PM

Re: the accusation that people who protest what the government of Israel is doing but are not particularly vocal about the situation in Darfur... first of all, I note that the person making the accusation is particularly vocal about human rights abuses in conflicts in which the government of Israel has a political reason to push a certain stand (such as Darfur), but is totally silent about similar and sometimes even worse atrocities committed in other countries (such as the situation in the Congo). So that person is very cynically using human rights as a smoke screen for their own anti-human rights agenda.

However, for my part, since my tax money is being used by the government of Israel to kill Palestinians, I have an obligation to speak out against that, and I would even if Israel was the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster state, and not the Jewish state. The poster who keeps saying that it's just because Israel is a Jewish state that people are protesting is very cynically using this accusation as a way to cover up their own particular bigotry against people who are not Jewish.

Furthermore, the situation in Darfur is not as cut and dried as that poster is trying to suggest. Since the conflict is not between the victims and one set of aggressors, but is, in fact a conflict between super powers who are using two different factions as proxies in a resource war in which innocent civilians are caught in the middle, the person who habitually and recklessly throws around accusations that people are discriminating against Jews is, themself covering for one of the super powers that is backing one of the factions that is victimizing the civilians.

Now that Bush is out of office, I hold somewhat more hope that the US will stop backing one of the sides in the conflict that is victimizing innocent civilians, and the war will wind down on its own.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:34 PM

"is totally silent about similar and sometimes even worse atrocities committed in other countries (such as the situation in the Congo)."


And YOUR threads about it???

I have started a number on other human rights issues ( The "Should We Care..." threads)- YOU have not- YOU are the one "very cynically using human rights as a smoke screen for their own anti-human rights agenda."

Sorry, the Jews won't sit back and be killed again. Live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:37 PM

I don't start threads on any of these kinds of subjects. Not Israel (with the exception of one with resources for people who want to get involved), not Darfur, and not the Congo. So I am not being inconsistant, unlike the person who only starts human rights related threads when the government of Israel has a stake in the outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:39 PM

"the person who only starts human rights related threads when the government of Israel has a stake in the outcome. "

Another lie- Iguess if you repeat it enough, you think peopele will accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: gnu
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:43 PM

sigh

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:55 PM

It's not a lie. I've already proven it is the truth on another thread (possibly this one a long time ago).

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:59 PM

CarolC,

I have shown at least one thread that proves you false- YOUR statement "the person who only starts human rights related threads when the government of Israel has a stake in the outcome." is a lie, and your continued use of it is proof that it is YOU that has the anti-human agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: gnu
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:06 PM

Bruce... CC has an anti-human agenda? I have not read 99.9% of this stuff, but that statement is fucking ludicrous.

I shant be back. Because, I really don't... ah... give a fuck about the bullshit I HAVE read.

Have fun with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:10 PM

No, I have already shown that all of the threads started by the person throwing around accusations about other people's motives, are about conflicts that are resource wars in which Israel has a vested interest in the outcome. It's in one of my posts in one of those threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:12 PM

Actually, I'm going to change that. All of them are either resource wars or balance of power conflicts in which Israel has a vested interest in the outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:17 PM

PROVE it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:29 PM

Hassan al-Turabi

Did he convert to Judaism?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: pdq
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 07:05 PM

There is no connection between the various conflicts that beardedbruce has expressed concerns about, and Israel, either direct or indirect.

About Israel, they are going to defend themselves against the relentless rocket and missle attacks because they can. The war will stop when the Arabs stop killing people. Get used to it.

As Kinky Friedman said: "They Ain't Making Jews Like Jesus Anymore".

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 08:36 PM

Another CarolC lie.


Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:32 PM

...is totally silent about similar and sometimes even worse atrocities committed in other countries (such as the situation in the Congo).




Should we care about Africans?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:50 PM

"More than 1,500 civilians have been slaughtered since September, many hacked and clubbed to death in unspeakably brutal attacks, according to humanitarian groups. Aid workers and others say the U.N. force and Congolese military received almost daily alerts as the death toll mounted and the rebel offensives multiplied."




Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about Africans?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:33 PM

UN accused of failing to protect Congo civilians
      

Michelle Faul, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 17 mins ago AP

– U.N. humanitarian aid chief John Holmes, center,visits the pediatric ward of a hospital in Dorouma, Congo, …

DUNGU, Congo – Early in the morning the warnings came: Rebels notorious for vicious attacks on civilians were advancing on this eastern Congolese town of thatched roof huts along the winding Kibali River.

Aid workers alerted nearby U.N. peacekeepers, but for hours no one came.



Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about Africans?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:37 AM

More than 40 Hutu rebels killed in Congo air raid
         

GOMA, Congo – More than 40 members of a Hutu militia suspected of atrocities during Rwanda's 1994 genocide were killed in an overnight air raid, a Congolese military spokesman said Friday.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 08:43 PM

"No, I have already shown that all of the threads started by the person throwing around accusations about other people's motives, are about conflicts that are resource wars in which Israel has a vested interest in the outcome. It's in one of my posts in one of those threads."

You have shown no such thing. Your stating it does not make it so- and I have provided examples that prove you are lying.

YOU have stated that a SINGLE Jew in the West ank is proof that the Palestinians have not driven Jews out of the West Bank.

A SINGLE example of a thread not about "conflicts that are resource wars in which Israel has a vested interest in the outcome." is PROOF BY YOUR STANDARD that you are lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:25 AM

Darfur - where the government of Israel has been arming and supplying the rebels who are, along with the government of Sudan, committing attrocities against the landowner/farmers. My guess is that Israel's interest in the rebels has to do with the oil in Darfur. The government of Sudan has been more inclined to do business with China that with Western oil interests. The war there is a proxy war between Western governments (who are backing the rebels) and China, who is backing and working closely with the government of Sudan.

South America - the opening post focuses on Hugo Chavez, who is openly critical of the government of Israel and has friendly relations with countries that Israel is in conflict with, such as Iran. There could be an oil connection there, too.

Africans - the focus of the thread is Zimbabwe where Mugabe openly criticizes the government of Israel and who supported the PLO, and is also friendly with the government of Iran. The government run newspaper has questioned the legitimacy of Israel's existence.

Burma - the international boycott of Burmese rubies that has resulted from the Junta's crackdown on civilians is hurting Israel's very important gemstone industry. There could be an oil connection there as well. Israel has been an important supporter of the Junta in the past.

Bangladesh - where the government does not recognize Israel and is openly critical of Israel. There could be an oil connection there as well.

The situation in Georgia - where Israel helped train the military, and has a strong interest in seeing a pipeline built that would extend from Georgia to Israel, bypassing Russia.

Sri Lanka - the government of Israel trained the Sri Lankan military in the tactics they are using now against the Tamils. This, combined with the fact that the person starting these threads never started any threads about the Tamils prior to just recently (I have mentioned them quite a few times over the last few years), tells me that something has changed between the government of Israel and the government of Sri Lanka in recent days. I don't know what it is just yet, but it's quite possible that it is similar to the situation in Burma. It's only been fairly recently that the general public has become aware of the plight of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and if they decide to boycott Sri Lankan gems, it could hurt Israel. There could be an oil connection there as well. I'll continue to look into this one as things develop.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:29 AM

I should also mention the numerous threads this person has been starting about human rights issues in Russia. See the part about Georgia above for Israel's connection there.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:15 AM

On the subject of Congo...

We see multiple threads like this one about Darfur where somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000 people have been killed, while there are no threads at all from the person who started this thread raising the alarm that five million people have been killed in the conflicts in the Congo. Hmmm...

In Congo, the government of Israel actively supports and arms both the government as well as the rebels so an Israeli/American businessman can have the mining rights to some of the richest diamond deposits in that country. If the government of Israel was supporting only one side in the conflict, I have no doubt that the person who started this thread would start a thread railing about the human rights abuses of the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:37 PM

????????????????????????

The plot thickens.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: pdq
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 05:50 PM

Perhaps you mean "the plot sickens"?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 05:52 PM

Well, at least Isreal isn't getting blamed for climate change.






















Yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 05:52 PM

Here is an example of "the big lie": If she repeats it enopugh, we are supposed to believe it

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:15 AM

On the subject of Congo...

We see multiple threads like this one about Darfur where somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000 people have been killed, while there are no threads at all from the person who started this thread raising the alarm that five million people have been killed in the conflicts in the Congo. Hmmm...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Of course, when she claims "there are no threads at all from the person who started this thread raising the alarm that five million people have been killed in the conflicts in the Congo." she has not even looked at the ones here on Mudcat, that prove her wrong.

..........................................................

Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about Africans?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce - PM
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:50 PM

"More than 1,500 civilians have been slaughtered since September, many hacked and clubbed to death in unspeakably brutal attacks, according to humanitarian groups. Aid workers and others say the U.N. force and Congolese military received almost daily alerts as the death toll mounted and the rebel offensives multiplied."


Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about Africans?
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:33 PM

UN accused of failing to protect Congo civilians
      

Michelle Faul, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 17 mins ago AP

– U.N. humanitarian aid chief John Holmes, center,visits the pediatric ward of a hospital in Dorouma, Congo, …

DUNGU, Congo – Early in the morning the warnings came: Rebels notorious for vicious attacks on civilians were advancing on this eastern Congolese town of thatched roof huts along the winding Kibali River.

Aid workers alerted nearby U.N. peacekeepers, but for hours no one came.

So tens of thousands of townspeople fled — on foot, on bicycles, on motorcycles, anything to escape. Some did not get out on time and were slaughtered on the spot. Others were abducted and killed in the bush.

......
Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about Africans?
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:37 AM

More than 40 Hutu rebels killed in Congo air raid
         

GOMA, Congo – More than 40 members of a Hutu militia suspected of atrocities during Rwanda's 1994 genocide were killed in an overnight air raid, a Congolese military spokesman said Friday.

The air raids targeted the rebel Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, or FDLR, said Oliver Hamuli, a spokesman for a joint Rwanda-Congo military operation aimed at stamping out the remnants of the Hutu militia.

The group is made up primarily of ethnic Hutus from Rwanda who fled across the border into Congo after being linked to the 1994 slaughter of more than 500,000 mostly ethnic Tutsi civilians.

------------------------------------------------------------


But then, the truth has never been one of her strong points.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: pdq
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:05 PM

"It's only been fairly recently that the general public has become aware of the plight of the Tamils in Sri Lanka...'

No, we have heard about the fighting in Sri Lanka for years.

The problem seems to be with the Tamil. They are native to the subcontinent, not the island of Sri Lanka. There are about 3 million ethnic Tamils, mostly still in India, and should be considered armed interlopers in Sri Lanka.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:19 PM

I said "no threads" about the Congo. This person has started multiple threads about Darfur, where a few hundred thousand people have died, and how many... three posts (but no threads) about a conflict in which more than five million people have been killed. I stand by what I said.

Some people have been aware of the terrorism of the Tamil Tigers for years, but most people have never heard of them. And the plight of the Tamil who are not terrorists has not been in the news in this country at all until recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:25 PM

Addendum to the above...

...and in those three posts about the Congo, no mention whatever of the more than five million people killed (in part with weapons provided to their killers by the government of Israel).

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:44 PM

"and how many... three posts (but no threads) about a conflict"

She does not know how to count, either.



Other posts that she does not bother to read before commenting on: ( from ONE thread about AFRICA.



Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about Africans?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 07 - 11:53 AM

Villagers flee killings as 'peace' plan backfires
POSTED: 1:15 p.m. EDT, May 9, 2007

Story Highlights• "I buried my child in the forest," says one mother who fled village in Congo
• 600,000 flee homes as army meant to protect them kills, rapes villagers
• Violence result of plan to integrate rebels into regular army

NYONGERA, Congo (Reuters) -- "I buried my child in the forest," said Jeannette Nyirarukundo, who fled her village in eastern Congo when it was attacked by the government army meant to protect it.

Six-year-old Moise starved to death before the family reached the safety of a camp at Nyongera, 70 kilometers (44 miles) from North Kivu's provincial capital Goma.

Some 113,000 civilians have fled fighting in Democratic Republic of Congo's North Kivu since February, and the province now has 600,000 displaced people, according to the U.N. humanitarian coordination agency OCHA.

'They came for us there, too'
"We slept in the forest for two weeks, and then they came after us there too. It wasn't safe anymore, and we came here," said Nyirarukundo, 28, who was accompanied by her husband and three surviving children.

Eastern Congo is no stranger to violence, but ironically the latest surge in killing started with a deal designed to bring peace to this corner of the vast country nearly four years after a nationwide accord officially ended a 1998-2003 war.



Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about Africans?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 08:49 AM

10,000 Congolese Refugees Flee to Uganda

Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:11 PM EDT
world-news, refugees, congo, uganda

Katy Pownall, AP WriterKAMPALA — As many as 10,000 Congolese refugees have crossed the border into Uganda in the last two days, fleeing violence in their villages, local government officials said Wednesday.

Some of the refugees said they fled after a demonstration by villagers protesting the failure of U.N. peacekeepers to improve security in their remote southeastern Congolese territory.

Refugees told of demonstrators hurling rocks at U.N. troops, and some said they feared that the situation would deteriorate, said David Masereka, the district commissioner of Kisoro, which sits along the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo.

"The influx began yesterday morning and continues up to now," Masereka said.

He said the refugees had gathered on the site of a primary school in the small border town of Bunagana.

"It is mostly women and children that have arrived but they came in haste and were unable to bring food. These people are already hungry but we have no supplies to give them," Masereka told The Associated Press.

Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about Africans?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 04:22 PM

Washington Post:

'A Different Kind of Genocide'

By Michael Gerson
Thursday, December 6, 2007; Page A29

WALUNGU, Congo -- This village, surrounding a small Catholic church, is as far down the red dust road as you can go without entering territory controlled by the exiled perpetrators of Rwanda's genocide. The rebels often come in civilian clothes to trade in Walungu's open-air market. At other times they raid the nearby farms for supplies and women. The region is known as "the quarter of rape."

In the shadow of the church is a facility run by Women for Women, an organization that matches international sponsors to local women in need of help. Listening to one of those women, I heard the story of a suffering nation in a single life.


Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about Africans?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 08:17 AM

A Glimmer of Hope in Africa
By Ben Affleck Thursday, Feb. 12,

The picture of the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo has grown tragically familiar: a region with great natural wealth, riven by war, racked with hunger and traumatized by a long history of colonial abuse, postcolonial kleptocracy and plunder. In the past 10 years alone, millions have died here, and more die each day as a result of the conflict. Most die not from war wounds but from starvation or disease. A lack of infrastructure means there is little medical care in the cities and none in rural communities, so any infection can be a death sentence. The most vulnerable suffer the worst. One in five children in Congo will die before reaching the age of 5 — and will do so out of sight of the world, in places that camera crews cannot reach, deep in a vast landscape and concealed under a canopy of bucolic jungle.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:46 PM

CarolC,

As your presenting ONE Jew in the West Bank is supposed to invalidate my comment that the Jews were driven out by the Jordanian occupation ( 1948 to 1967), MY presenting even ONE example of a comment about the Congo ( I gave the first three I found, going backwards) is as much proof of your lies.

Get over it- YOU LOSE this one.

Next time, don't make a personnal attack just because you have not provided any evidence to support your OPINION.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:51 PM

"This person has started multiple threads about Darfur,"

Another lie- there are two threads about Darfur, and I started ONE of them.

One is multiple to her.

I did start one about Sudan, but if Africa does not include Congo, how can Sudan include Darfur??????

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 07:01 PM

"threads at all from the person who started this thread raising the alarm"

I have raised the alarm in the thread on Africans. It seems odd that the person complaining has never mentioned ANY deaths unless she could blame them on Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 07:15 PM

I see the rebels in Congo are being criticized. I'm going to have to go see if something changed in 2007 in the relationship between the government of Israel and the rebels. I see there's no criticism of the government of Israel for helping to arm the rebels, though. More hypocrisy. I also note that though the government of Sri Lanka is being criticized for its treatment of the Tamils, there's no criticism of the government of Israel for training the government of Sri Lanka in the techniques they are using against the Tamils. More hypocrisy. The person making the accusation about people only being interested in the deaths of innocents when Jews are responsible is only interested in the deaths of innocents when Jews aren't responsible.

However, the fact that I haven't until now, mentioned anything about Israel's involvement in Darfur, Congo, Sri Lanka, and Burma proves that the person making that accusation is lying. Had I only been interested in situations in which Jews are responsible for the deaths of innocents, I would have brought them up a hell of a lot sooner.

But honesty was never that person's strong suit.


BTW,there's many more Jews in the West Bank than just one.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 09:00 PM

"The person making the accusation about people only being interested in the deaths of innocents when Jews are responsible is only interested in the deaths of innocents when Jews aren't responsible."

Actually, I did not chgeck to see WHO was responsible. Perhaps it was the US- Perhaps the Russians. So what- the situation needs to be commented on regardless.

Glad to know some of the Jews on the West Bank have not yet been killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 09:18 PM

Perhaps the US, perhaps the Russians... but never admit when there's Israelis involved, right?


The Jews in the West Bank who are living as equals with the Palestinians are very much welcome there. The ones who are living as lords and masters of the Palestinians in the apartheid settlements are not so much welcome there. It has nothing to do with Jewishness and everything to do with supremacists trying to subjugate another people.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 10:56 AM

Jewish supremacists, there's an interesting topic!

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:19 PM

WASHINGTON, April 27 (UPI) -- Five members of Congress were arrested outside the Sudanese Embassy in Washington Monday as they demonstrated against the situation in Darfur.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died in Darfur in western Sudan in what the U.S. State Department has described as genocide.

The protesters spoke out against the general situation in Darfur and Sudan's expulsion of outside relief agencies.

A spokesman for Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., told The Hill that the five and organizers of the protest from the Save Darfur Coalition crossed a Secret Service perimeter around the embassy and ignored three warnings to leave the property. They were expected to be fined for a misdemeanor and released.

Members of Congress arrested were Edwards; Jim McGovern, D-Mass.; John Lewis, D-Ga., a veteran of the civil rights movement in the 1960s; Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the only Muslim member of Congress, and Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

Also arrested were Jerry Fowler, coalition president; John Prendergast, co-founder of the Enough Project, and Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

---

THis is really a remarkable incident. I do not recall ever having heard of Congress-people going out on a demonstration before. Is this a historical first? And being arrested for it?? My god, the Baby Boomer spirit is still alive!! :D



A

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 11:57 AM

I hadn't heard anything about Israel being involved with the government of Sri Lanka in helping to defeat the Tamil rebels. Might we have a Sri Lanka thread for this and keep the topic on Darfur, and so avoid the standard thread creep by the standard thread creeps?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 02:36 PM

I think it could be kept on Darfur if the thread originator decides to keep it that way, instead of trying to smear people who criticize the government of Israel by saying they should be protesting Darfur instead. That's a standard hasbara tactic for trying to silence dissent, and it needs to be shown for what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 07:47 AM

"Sudan truce offers some hope for peaceful change

Thursday, February 25, 2010

RAVAGED BY war and genocide, ruled by a dictator who has been indicted for war crimes, Sudan is a prime candidate to become a crisis for the Obama administration. But there is also a small chance for peace and groundbreaking change in the next year. A hint of that came on Tuesday, when President Omar Hassan al-Bashir signed a truce with the biggest rebel group from the region of Darfur. A full peace accord remains to be worked out, and previous truces have fallen through. But this deal -- brokered by a U.N. and African Union team, with help from the government of Qatar -- looks somewhat more promising, and it comes at an auspicious moment. "

The war in Darfur, which is estimated to have caused more than 300,000 deaths and prompted a global campaign to defend its 2 million refugees, may have ended. The head of the international peacekeeping force declared it over last summer. There has been little fighting in recent months, though most of the refugees remain in their camps. Mr. Bashir, who has been dodging an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for nearly a year, may be ready to make peace. He agreed this month on a separate truce with the president of Chad, which has helped to sponsor rebels in Darfur and has been plagued by Sudanese-backed insurgents in return.

Mr. Bashir's peacemaking is partly driven by his desire to free himself from the war crimes charges and sanctions against his government. But he also has two major political hurdles ahead of him. One is a national election scheduled for April 11, the first in 26 years, in which he is running for president against 11 other candidates. That vote, in turn, will set the stage for a referendum in January in which southern Sudan will decide whether to become an independent country. Most likely it will do so -- which means its government and that of Khartoum would be faced with trying to negotiate the terms of separation.

The potential for violence in all this is enormous. Fighting along tribal lines is growing in the south, along with accusations that the fighting is being fueled by Mr. Bashir's government. If war returns to the south, where 2 million people were killed before a 2005 peace accord, the fighting in Darfur could quickly resume as well. Though the Khartoum regime would like to prevent southern independence, it would be hard to do so by force -- especially since the southern army now deploys tanks and other heavy weapons.

So Mr. Bashir has an incentive to negotiate with representatives of Darfur and southern Sudan -- and the Obama administration, in turn, has reason to encourage him. The nuanced policy for Sudan that Mr. Obama adopted in October, a mix of incentives and possible punishments, provides some latitude; the administration's special envoy, Scott Gration, was in Doha, Qatar, when Tuesday's truce was signed. While it's hard to imagine that the restoration of normal relations between the United States and a government headed by Mr. Bashir could ever be justified, stranger things have happened: Ask Libya's Moammar Gaddafi. For now it makes sense for the administration to encourage completion of the Darfur peace talks and peaceful staging of the April elections. Preventing another explosion of violence will count as a success.




Looking back,

"Egeland: 'Meltdown' in Darfur
POSTED: 8:38 p.m. EST, November 22, 2006

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Citing a "dramatic deterioration" of the situation in Darfur, the top U.N. humanitarian official said a crisis is approaching for the region in Sudan that could cost millions of lives.

"I was there in 2004 when there was 1 million people in need," Jan Egeland, the U.N. emergency relief coordinator, told reporters. "2005, 2 million ... in the spring, 3 million. And now there are 4 million in desperate need of humanitarian assistance."

Egeland briefed the U.N. Security Council Wednesday on Darfur.

In a report from Reuters, Egeland also accused Sudan of deliberately hindering relief aid in Darfur, attacking villages and arming brutal militia to combat rebels and bandits.

Egeland told the Security Council that international relief operations were threatened by government obstruction and members needed to talk to Sudanese officials immediately as well as put pressure on those sending arms to rebels.

"The next weeks may be make or break for our lifeline to more than 3 million people," Egeland said in the Reuters report. "This period may well be the last opportunity for this Council, the government of Sudan, the African Union, the rebels, and all of us to avert a humanitarian disaster of much larger proportions than even the one we so far have witnessed in Darfur."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 10:25 AM

WASHINGTON: The recent discovery of an enormous underground lake in Sudan could spell an end to four years of conflict, say geologists.

More than 200,000 people have been killed and some two million displaced in the conflict in the drought-stricken region of Darfur, sparked in part by competing claims to scarce natural resources, according to humanitarian organizations.

"Access to fresh water is essential for refugee survival, it will help the peace process and provide the necessary resources for the much needed economic development in Darfur," said geologist Farouk El-Baz from Boston University, in Massachussets, USA.

Lake larger than Belgium

His team's discovery was reported last month in the International Journal of Remote Sensing and the Sudanese government has since launched its "1,000 Wells For Darfur" campaign in an effort to raise sufficient funds to tap the precious resource.

The lake was spotted by satellite and lies more than 550 m below sea level. With a surface area of some 30,750 km2 it is slightly larger than the country of Belgium.

It may have contained up to 2,530 km3 of water in the past and was discovered using images from three satellites, one belonging to NASA, another to Canada and a third from the Pentagon.

The geologists were spurred into looking for the lake after the discovery a decade earlier of an underground lake in Egypt north of Darfur that is now used to irrigate some 60,000 hectares of land, Baz said.

Egypt has already committed to sinking the first 20 wells free of charge while the United Nations has sought help in selecting the best sites to sink the wells, said Baz.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 04:43 PM

And another nonrenewable resource gets tapped?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 10 - 01:51 PM

Int'l Court charges Sudan president with genocide
            

Mike Corder, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 52 mins ago

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – The International Criminal Court on Monday charged Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir with three counts of genocide in Darfur, a move that will pile further diplomatic pressure on his isolated regime.

The decision marked the first time the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal has issued genocide charges.

An arrest warrant for al-Bashir said there were "reasonable grounds to believe" that since April 2003 Sudanese forces attempted genocide against the Darfur tribal groups Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa.

Last year, judges issued a warrant against the president for crimes against humanity, but refused to indict al-Bashir on genocide charges as sought by prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo. The prosecutor appealed that ruling, and four months ago an appellate court ruled that the lower court's decision was legally wrong.

Prosecutors then filed their case again, and on Monday judges issued an arrest warrant charging al-Bashir with three counts of genocide: by killing, by causing mental and physical harm, and "by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction."

David Crane, the former chief prosecutor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone who indicted ex-Liberian leader Charles Taylor, called the decision a "proper step forward" that completes prosecutors' picture of atrocities in Darfur.

"It is an odd presentation if the genocide was not allowed to go forward," said Crane, who is now a law professor at Syracuse University. "They would almost have to dance around the obvious. Now we have a complete indictment that captures all the offenses that have taken place."

Genocide, the gravest crime in international law, requires proof of an intent to wipe out "in whole or in part" a racial, religious or ethnic group.

Moreno Ocampo accuses al-Bashir of keeping 2.5 million refugees from specific ethnic groups in Darfur in camps "under genocide conditions, like a gigantic Auschwitz."

Al-Bashir, who was re-elected to a new five-year term earlier this year, refuses to recognize the court's authority and has repeatedly said he will not turn himself in to stand trial.

He was charged in March 2009 with five counts of crimes against humanity and two of war crimes for allegedly orchestrating atrocities in Darfur.

The court has no police force of its own and relies on international cooperation to arrest suspects. Al-Bashir has flown to friendly nations since his original arrest warrant was issued. However, he has curtailed his travel to other parts of the world, fearing he could be arrested in countries that are prepared to execute the court's warrants.

The United Nations estimates 300,000 people have died and 2.7 million have been forced from their homes since ethnic African rebels rose up in 2003, accusing Sudan's Arab-dominated central government of neglect and discrimination.

Al-Bashir's hardline regime threw out 13 international aid agencies working in Darfur when the court first indicted him, further compounding the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.

Moreno Ocampo, who was not available for comment Monday, said then that the ejection of aid groups confirmed that al-Bashir's "intention is the physical destruction of these people."

In an interview with The Associated Press last month at the United Nations, Moreno Ocampo said he was sure al-Bashir would one day appear in his court in The Hague.

"The destiny of Bashir is to face justice," he said. Whether it "will be five years, 10 years, 15 years, he will face justice. The problem is how many people will die, how many people will be raped? Justice can wait. Stopping the crimes cannot."

Crane, who had to wait two years from the time he unsealed an indictment against Taylor to his arrest, agreed.

"It is a matter of time and frankly I think President Bashir knows it's a matter of time," Crane said. "He will be handed over. It is just a matter of when that political decision is made."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 03:06 PM

And still no-one cares...

Amnesty accuses Sudan of deadly Darfur chemical attacks
AFP•September 29, 2016

"United Nations (United States) (AFP) - Sudanese government forces used suspected chemical weapons in a mountainous area of war-torn Darfur, killing scores of children and civilians, rights group Amnesty International charged on Thursday.

More than 30 such attacks are believed to have been carried out on several villages as part of a massive military campaign against rebels in Darfur's Jebel Marra between January and September, Amnesty said in a report.

The group said its investigation "has gathered horrific evidence of the repeated use of what are believed to be chemical weapons against civilians, including very young children, by Sudanese government forces in one of the most remote regions of Darfur over the past eight months".

"Between 200 and 250 people may have died as a result of exposure to the chemical weapons agents, with many or most being children."

Amnesty said government forces also carried out "indiscriminate bombing of civilians... unlawful killing of men, women and children and the abduction and rape of women" in Jebel Marra, home to Darfur's most fertile land."

more at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/amnesty-accuses-sudan-deadly-darfur-chemical-attacks-045225005.html

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 03:20 PM

So now you like and respect Amnesty International, Bruce? When they criticze Israel you throw a veritable tantrum of abuse on 'em and anyone who dares to believe their reports.


I'll remind you next time you pan A.I. for bunch of antisemite dupes.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 03:23 PM

Ditto the International Court's opinions on Israel in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 16 - 04:12 PM

No Jews, no news.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 09:30 AM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-push-halt-genocide-south-191839505.html


RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:40 PM

and a third of the total posts are mine...


I guess the murder of innocents is not of much interest, unless the blame is being put on Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 09:42 AM

    ?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 09:52 AM

Still having problems with reading comprehension, GregtrF?


Genocide is ok by you, it seems. Glad you are the "liberal" posterboy- I would not want you supporting anything I thought well of.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 10:12 AM

Leave them to it, Greg. This was reopened for trolling purposes only.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Dec 16 - 10:27 AM

Genocide against black communities is just trolling, according to the Liberal Viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 06:58 AM

More news for the "Liberal" spokesboy to make fun of...


https://www.yahoo.com/news/onward-struggle-refugee-crisis-uganda-slideshow-wp-060141851.html


"Every day, on average, more than 2,400 South Sudanese refugees cross the border into Uganda, escaping violence at home. Last week, a UN human rights commission warned that South Sudan is showing signs of "impending genocide" with the potential for a repeat of Rwanda, circa 1994. South Sudan, the world's youngest country, gained independence in 2011, but conflict flared in 2013 between President Salva Kiir and then-Vice President Riek Machar. A peace deal was struck in 2015, but violence reignited this past July. More than 1 million South Sudanese have sought refuge in other countries; Uganda shelters the most, with nearly 600,000."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 08:33 AM

Nobody argues with what is happening in Darfur Bruce - we deplore it.
We also deplore people like you using a human tragedy to make Islamophobic capital out of the plight of human beings in dire trouble - your efforts are sick, sick, sick
If you expressed a modicum of concern for the horrors that are taking place elsewhere, especially those being perpetrated by your Israeli friends, you might have a point and you might get some response - as it is, nobody wants to be smeared by your shitty Islamophobic crusade.
Get a conscience, for humanity's sake
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 09:00 AM

You should look into this, Jimmy boyo: It is aimed at anti-Semites like YOU.


https://pjmedia.com/faith/2016/12/12/germany-combats-antisemitism-with-new-rent-a-jew-program/?singlepage=true

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 09:13 AM

The kind of antisemitic I response we have come to expect from you Bruce
My offer of a generous donation to any charity you would care to name for any antisemitic comment I have ever been found to make still stands
So far, none of you people have ever taken it up (perhaps you don't believe in caharities - wouldn't surprise me.
As it is, I obviously need to remind you that equating Israeli crimes against humanity is antisemitic by definition.
Personally, I am proud to stand with all those SELF-HATING JEWS who abhor human rights abuses and mass murders being carried out in ther name - holocaust survivors among them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 09:22 AM

Jimmy boyo,

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: GUEST,beardedbruce - PM
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 08:36 PM

Another CarolC lie.


Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:32 PM

...is totally silent about similar and sometimes even worse atrocities committed in other countries (such as the situation in the Congo).




Should we care about Africans?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:50 PM

"More than 1,500 civilians have been slaughtered since September, many hacked and clubbed to death in unspeakably brutal attacks, according to humanitarian groups. Aid workers and others say the U.N. force and Congolese military received almost daily alerts as the death toll mounted and the rebel offensives multiplied."




Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about Africans?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:33 PM

UN accused of failing to protect Congo civilians
      

Michelle Faul, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 17 mins ago AP

– U.N. humanitarian aid chief John Holmes, center,visits the pediatric ward of a hospital in Dorouma, Congo, …

DUNGU, Congo – Early in the morning the warnings came: Rebels notorious for vicious attacks on civilians were advancing on this eastern Congolese town of thatched roof huts along the winding Kibali River.

Aid workers alerted nearby U.N. peacekeepers, but for hours no one came.



Subject: RE: BS: Should we care about Africans?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:37 AM

More than 40 Hutu rebels killed in Congo air raid
         

GOMA, Congo – More than 40 members of a Hutu militia suspected of atrocities during Rwanda's 1994 genocide were killed in an overnight air raid, a Congolese military spokesman said Friday.


NOW, show me ONE post of yours complaining about slaughters that does NOT blame Israel.

You are the perfect example of an anti-Semite, by the definition.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uk-leader-introduce-official-definition-anti-semitism-132512286.html

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 09:31 AM

https://antisemitism.uk/definition/

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 10:05 AM

Give CowFart some credit - he stayed on his meds this time for 11 days in a row!

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 16 - 11:32 AM

"Jimmy boyo,""
No idea what any of that has to do with anything we are discussing other than to show Israel is no different to any other vicious regime so all are as bad as one another and that excuses excuses all atrocities and war crimes and abuses of human rights.
I've just posted this to Bobad, but it equally applies to you.
"Apparently that's all you can say - though you might be far more effective you you actually answer the point.
What do you hope to achieve by behaving as you do?
You answer nothing
You pour out bilious accusations of antisemitism and refuse to qualify them with proof.
You just present yourself as an incredibly unpleasant individual so unsure of his arguments that he can replace them by pure vindictiveness.
Is that the way you behave at home or in public life - is that the way you've been brought up to behave - do your want your cause to be associated with such behaviour?
Sorry Bobad - people like you are totally beyond me.
GET HELP - you are doing neither yourself nor Israel any favours
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 10:01 AM

"The world's youngest nation, South Sudan descended into war in December 2013, leaving tens of thousands dead and more than 3.1 million people displaced."



https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-seek-un-security-council-vote-south-sudan-153105103.html

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 10:26 AM

HATE TO THROW A FLY IN THE OINTMENT
I have no doubt this will lead to shrieks of "anti-Semitism" from the old usual sources.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 10:37 AM

+972 Magazine is a blog-based web magazine that is jointly owned by a group of journalists, bloggers and photographers whose goal is to provide fresh, original, on-the-ground reporting and analysis of events in Israel and Palestine. Our collective is committed to human rights and freedom of information, and we oppose the occupation. However, +972 Magazine does not represent any organization, political party or specific agenda.

We see +972 as a platform for our bloggers to share analysis, reports, ideas, images and videos on their channels. Each blogger owns his or her channel and has full rights over its contents (unless otherwise stated). The bloggers alone are responsible for the content posted on their channels; the positions expressed on individual blogs reflect those of their authors, and not +972 as a whole.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 10:57 AM

"972 Magazine is a blog-based web magazine that is jointly owned by a group of journalists, "
HOW ABOUT THE TIMES OF ISRAEL THEN?
You people make me sick
You wring your hands about these over these conflicts when you think there is Ialamophobic ammunition in them and when you find your own flavour of the month brand of terrorism is involved.......!!
Bet you're not particularly interested in the fact that the Times reported that British cluster bombs are being used in South Yemen
Thought not!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 11:16 AM

"The panel said fighters loyal to the South Sudanese rebel leader Reik Machar recently turned up in the Democratic Republic of Congo armed with Israeli-made automatic rifles that were part of a stock sold to Uganda in 2007.

The weapons were likely taken from South Sudanese government stocks either through battlefield capture or defections, said the report sent to the council last week"


From your clickey- even bother to read it?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 11:18 AM

"A Bulgarian firm delivered a shipment of small arms ammunition and 4,000 assault rifles to Uganda in July 2014, which were later transferred to South Sudan.

The firm, Bulgarian Industrial Engineering, worked through an intermediary in Uganda identified as Bosasy Logistics, whose chairman Valerii Copeichin is a Moldovan national.

The report said recent arms supplies were likely to have been made "through the same modality."

UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous has called on the Council to move quickly to cut off the arms flow, but Russia opposes the move while African countries have expressed reservations."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 11:27 AM

As for arms exports...



http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/state-approved-euro64m-in-israel-arms-exports-283664.html

"Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Export licences for €6.4m worth of military goods for Israel have been approved by the Government in the past three years, the Irish Examiner can reveal."

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:10 PM

So CFB, you agree with Senator Power:

"I think it is outrageous that we are selling military equipment to Israel, and that equipment could be used as part of their attacks on women and children in Gaza," she said. "Those licences should be suspended immediately.

PS: your article is more than 2 years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:19 PM

"Export licences for €6.4m worth of military goods for Israel "
Sorry - the point of this evades me completely
Does this mean the Israeli supplied weapons are not being used or that it is ok that they are?
Israel is rapidly entering the world's arms-dealing stage - and it should be remembered that they tried to encourage apartheid South Africa to become a Nuclear power
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:42 PM

Jimmie boyo,

It is that Ireland sent weapons to Israel more recently than Israeli weapons were sent to Sudan- BY THE BULGARIANS.

Try reading the posts.

Greggie,

Talk to Jimmie boyo about that.I stated nothing of the kind- haven't you made enough false claims about my posts to have learned your lesson?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:53 PM

Ever read "What is the What?" by Dave Eggers. Biography of a young Sudanese refugee and his experiences in South Sudan and coming to America. Trials and tribulations. Makes it plain that South Sudan was prey to horror from the very 'freedom fighters' trying to establish it as an independent nation. Since then pitiful civil war victimizing civilians on every side. Very goddam sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:55 PM

"Jimmie boyo,"
Rattled again Brucie
Israel supplied weapons - end of story
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 07:02 PM

HAARETZ CORRESPONDENT
And wire-tapping equipment
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 08:15 AM

Ireland supplied weapons directly to Israel. End of story.


Jimmie boyo, did you learn to read English yet?

Isrzali MADE weapons were sold TO UGANDA. Ask the Ugandans who they sold them to- " which were later transferred to South Sudan."






"A Bulgarian firm delivered a shipment of small arms ammunition and 4,000 assault rifles to Uganda in July 2014, which were later transferred to South Sudan.

The firm, Bulgarian Industrial Engineering, worked through an intermediary in Uganda identified as Bosasy Logistics, whose chairman Valerii Copeichin is a Moldovan national.

The report said recent arms supplies were likely to have been made "through the same modality."

UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous has called on the Council to move quickly to cut off the arms flow, but Russia opposes the move while African countries have expressed reservations."




"The panel said fighters loyal to the South Sudanese rebel leader Reik Machar recently turned up in the Democratic Republic of Congo armed with Israeli-made automatic rifles that were part of a stock sold to Uganda in 2007.

The weapons were likely taken from South Sudanese government stocks either through battlefield capture or defections, said the report sent to the council last week"




So according to Jimmie boyo, the WWII weapons used in Lybia ( *As Seen On TV!) were sold by the Nazis and Italian Facists to the rebels. Must be true; Same logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 09:13 AM

IRAN SAUDI
YEMEN
DARFUR
APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA
"South Africa also acquired the technology to build nuclear weapons. South Africa developed at least six nuclear warheads, which it later acknowledged, along with a variety of missiles and other conventional weapons. These projects were undertaken with some cooperation from Israel -- another technologically advanced, militarily powerful, nuclear-capable nation surrounded by hostile neighbors.
CHINA
AZERBAJAN
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10649567/US-investigates-illegal-military-equipment-shipments-from-Israel-to-Iran.html
(Iran again, can't clickie)
A blossoming trade with lost and lots of savoury customers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 09:17 AM

another technologically advanced, militarily powerful, nuclear-capable nation surrounded by hostile neighbors.


YOU admit that Israel has hostile neighbors?

My, what next- that they have the right to defend themselves????

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:03 AM

from your clickey:
"Meanwhile, Israel, which has no diplomatic ties with Sudan is said to be
collaborating with Jewish groups in the
US to send humanitarian aid to Darfur,
where close to two million people have been displaced and thousands killed by the
fighting."


And what is Ireland doing, jimmy boyo?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 12:14 PM

"The security forces were there to help maintain law and order,"
Israel is a hostile neighbor which invades countries and massacres people
How many times has Israel been invaded
"Defence" has been an excuse for terrorism throughout my lifetime - Lidice being a prime example.
Israel is the thuggish bully that squeals for the teacher when his victim hits back
Quibbble as much as you like - these are the countries Israel is selling arms to or has in the past
Over and out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 12:22 PM

Wrong again, Jimmie boyo.

After the Arabs were given 77% of Mandate Palestine in 1923, they attacked the Jewish settlements in the remainder.

After the Arabs were offered the majority of the remainder of Mandate Palestine, and refused, saying they wanted it all, they attacked the Jews.

They attacked again in 1967, and lost.


All invasions.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 01:48 PM

Wrong again Brucie
No mandate entitles anyone to drive out a people who have occupied a land for many centuries to make room for settlers, especially if thet mandadte is drwan up on behalf of a dead Empire.
Israel is a terrorist state and the only reason it has not faced trial for crimes against humanity is a string of U.S. vetoes.
As ytou choose to ignore all the examples of arms sales, I assume that we are in agreement that Israel sells arms to states with as iffy human rights records as their own
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 01:57 PM

"No mandate entitles anyone to drive out a people who have occupied a land for many centuries "


You mean like the 820,000 Jews driven out of Arab nations in 1948, leaving a few hundred behind, while 640,000 Arab Moslems left Israel, leaving over a million behind to become Israelis?

Sounds like you are calling the Arab League to account, then.


And as YOU chose to ignore all the examples of Irish arms sales, I assume YOU are in agreement that Ireland is worse than Israel for selling arms to iffy countries, and encouraging crimes against humanity.

Only fair to apply to you the standards YOU apply to others.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 02:04 PM

Jim,
Israel is a terrorist state

Says who Jim?
No decent democracy. Only some of the most despicable regimes in the world. Why is that?

No mandate entitles anyone to drive out a people who have occupied a land for many centuries to make room for settlers,

Where is that happening Jim?
Surely you can not mean the underpopulated West Bank. How many have been pushed out and where did they go, or is it all made up Jim?
We can find room for hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year in our very densely populated country. What is the problem that West Bankers have with immigrants?

Israel is a hostile neighbor which invades countries and massacres people

Again, says who?


How many times has Israel been invaded

Lots of times starting on the first day of its existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 02:39 PM

"How many times has Israel been invaded"

1: 1948 on Israeli declaration of independence

2: 1949 to 1956 Israel subjected to attacks by Arab Fedayeen based in Jordan and Egypt

3: 1956 Suez Israel ports blockaded by Egypt - classified as an "Act of War" by the UN.

4: 1956 to 1967 Israel subjected to attacks by Fedayeen in direct contravention of the UN ceasefire agreement.

5: 1967 - Six Day War when Israel's neighbours mustered five armies on it's borders and threatens Israel with annihilation.

6: 1973 - Yom Kippur War Israel invaded from Syria in the North and from Egypt to the South.

7: 1975 to 1982 Israel subjected to attacks from PLO based in South Lebanon

8: 1982 Lebanon War IDF clear PLO from South Lebanon to prevent their attacks into Northern Israel.

9: 1987 to 1993 First Intifada

10: 2000 to 2005 Second Intifada

11: Since the end of the Second Intifada over 15,000 missiles have been fired from Gaza into Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 07:15 PM

JEWISH OPPOSITION TO ISRAELI POLICY
You know as well as I do that these "invasions" are nothing of the sort and the atrocities committed by Israel against non-combatants far outweigh any third world attempt to stop them.
HATE SPEECH BY ISRAEL

A reminder off what this is really about
I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept
that?
David Ben Gurion

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 07:41 PM

Who was it that asked the rather simple question:

"How many times has Israel been invaded"

I thought that it was Jim Carroll.

Nothing of the sort says Carroll - but as on most things of course Carroll knows the square root of S.F.A.

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 05:38 AM

these "invasions" are nothing of the sort

Of course they were Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:08 AM

I asked how many times has Israel been invaded - what was given was a list of times the Israeli Ministry of Defence claim they have been invaded (carefully unlinked)
I could have go that for myself.
These are not invasions - they are conflicts based on the aggression based on Israel's SEIZURE of LAND (given to them by God, as David Ben Gurion put it) and the insecurity that this created in that part of the world.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:44 AM

Jim, on the first day of Israel's existence, five Arab nations invaded it, intending to seize all of it.
What had they done in those few hours to deserve that?

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 08:06 AM

"Jim, on the first day of Israel's existence, five Arab nations invaded it, intending to seize all of it."
As the British steamed away from Palestine Israeli freedom fighters were throwing grenades into occupied buildings to make rooom for the new settlers - go read Max Morris.
Israel was an Empire cock-up that pleased nobody - any unrest that occurred was down to that fact
The parralels with the formation of Israel and the Irish Treaty are incredible - both led to oppression and war
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Darfur
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 02:32 PM

There were atrocities on both sides Jim.
It is dishonest to suggest otherwise, and those five Arab nations invaded Israel on its first day to destroy it and seize all of it.
Nothing to do with the atrocities that both sides were committing.