April 28, 2007
By David Rolde
The United States has been waging war against Sudan for the past 15 years, and we need to stop it. Just like with Iraq, the U.S. war against Sudan is a war for oil and a war for Israel. The proposed invasion of Sudan is based on lies. The lie of accusing the government of Sudan of "genocide in Darfur" serves the same function as the lie a few years ago accusing the government of Iraq of "possessing weapons of mass destruction". The U.S. government, and its allies the Israeli and U.K. governments, are the real world champion purveyors of genocide and possessors of WMDs.
Sudan, the geographically largest country in Africa and the home of 35 million people, has been devastated by U.S. attacks for the past 15 years. In the early 90s the U.S. government declared Sudan to be a "state sponsor of terrorism" because the government of Sudan does not support Israel. The U.S. government imposed sanctions against Sudan. The U.S. sanctions and trade boycott escalated in severity several times during the 90s and 00s and damaged the Sudanese economy, causing immense human suffering. Throughout the 90s the U.S. government armed and funded the SPLA rebels in the south of Sudan in a war against the Sudanese government, and against rival southern groups, in which millions of persons were killed or displaced. Millions of southern refugees fled from the SPLA and now live in Khartoum, the northern capital. The culmination of U.S. support for war in Sudan was the so-called "Sudan Peace Act," signed by George W Bush in 2002, which allocated one hundred million dollars per year to the SPLA.
One notable episode of the U.S. war against Sudan happened in 1998 when the U.S. government of Bill Clinton, with a missile strike, destroyed Sudan's only pharmaceutical plant, the al-Shifa plant near Khartoum. This rendered Sudan unable to produce needed human medications to treat endemic diseases such as malaria and also veterinary medicines needed by Sudan's livestock industry which is a major part of the livelihood of the people of Sudan.
In 2004, during the U.S. presidential election campaign, the U.S. government started leveling false allegations of "genocide" against the Sudanese government in regards to the new civil war in Darfur in the west of Sudan. The U.S. media and pro-imperialist "human rights" organizations (such as Human Rights Watch which is controlled by billionaire George Soros and the Council on Foreign Relations) falsely portrayed the conflict in Darfur as a slaughter of black Africans by a "white Arab" Sudanese government. In reality it was a civil war among many armed groups, some of which were supported by the U.S. and Israel, fighting over limited resources in an impoverished region. Nearly everyone in Sudan is a black African. And nearly everyone in Darfur is a black African, Arabic-speaking Muslim. The numbers cited for the "genocide" in Darfur were inflated estimates of how many people might die from famine and disease.
This year the propaganda against Sudan in the United States has intensified again. On April 30, 2006, the U.S. government in conjunction with U.S. Zionist groups, staged a large pro-war rally in Washington DC. U.S. congresspersons, as well as members of the Bush administration, spoke at the rally calling for the war against Sudan to be escalated by sending in an invasion force of U.N., NATO or U.S. troops. Nearly every pro-Israel group in the USA has anti-Sudan propaganda on the front of their website. In Massachusetts an example of a Zionist group doing pro-war activism is the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) of Greater Boston.
The anti-Sudan rhetoric is no different than the rhetoric that the U.S. government uses against other countries that the United States is attacking. One aim of U.S. attacks against Sudan is to gain or maintain control over Sudan's natural resources: notably petroleum but also uranium, other minerals, gum arabic, and the Nile River which supplies water to Egypt. China currently has access to oil from Sudan, and the U.S. government wants to cut China off. Destabilizing and impoverishing Sudan serves American and Israeli hegemonic interests to make sure there are no prosperous independent nations in the Middle East and North African regions.
But within the United States the anti-Sudan rhetoric is useful for more than just getting Americans ready for more overt war against Sudan. Anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric regarding Sudan is part of the general anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propaganda that is used to gain U.S. domestic support for the war in Iraq, continued U.S. support for Israel, and the so-called "war on terror". Zionist groups in the United States have been purveying anti-Arab propaganda regarding Sudan for many years before the Darfur war, making false claims about "slavery" in Sudan. Slave redemption efforts in Sudan have been shown to be a hoax. Divesting from Sudan is a Zionist anti-Arab counter-proposal to the idea of divesting from Israel. Lies about Arabs divert attention from efforts to end Israeli apartheid in Palestine.
On September 1, 2006, the U.S. rammed a resolution through the U.N. Security Council calling for tens of thousands of U.N. troops, ostensibly "peace-keepers" but really an imperialist invasion force, to be sent to Darfur to replace the current smaller U.S.-puppet African Union force. On September 17, Zionists and other pro-war Americans held an anti-Sudan rally in Central Park in New York City. The keynote speaker at the rally was Madeleine Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, who is infamous for having admitted that the Clinton administration and the U.N. had killed half a million Iraqi children through the sanctions in the 90s but nevertheless defending the actions against Iraq as worthwhile. Rally attendees were asked to wear blue hats to signify their desire to send "blue helmet" U.N. troops to invade Sudan. These U.N. troops would not be "peace-keepers." We can see the likely outcome by looking at Haiti where, in 2004, the U.S. deposed the legitimate government and then sent in a U.N. occupation force which has terrorized the country and brutalized the Haitian people. When foreign U.N. soldiers get to Darfur and can't determine which black Arabic-speaking Muslims are the "bad Arabs" and which are the "good Africans", the U.N. troops will kill people indiscriminately. The Sudanese people will rightly resist. The situation will escalate. U.S. warmongers will call for sending more troops, including U.S. troops, and bringing the war to Khartoum. It will be a disaster. The U.S. war against Sudan needs to be stopped and reversed now.
Anti-war activists are not working hard enough to stop the U.S. and Zionist war against Sudan. The current threats against Sudan are just as serious as the threats against Iran. Anti-war activists should be focusing more effort to stop the war against Sudan and to work against U.S. imperialism in Africa in general - the current war against Sudan is just one manifestation of centuries of European colonialism and neo-colonialism in Sudan and Africa. The situation for the people of Sudan will improve once foreign intervention in Sudan stops.
Showing posts with label Sudan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sudan. Show all posts
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Sudan approves U.N. deployment in Darfur
Sudan approves U.N. support for Darfur
17 minutes ago
Sudan on Monday approved the deployment of attack helicopters and more than 3,000 U.N. troops, police, and other personnel in Darfur to beef up the 7,000-strong African Union force in the troubled region.
Sudan's U.N. Ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem informed the secretary-general in a letter that the government had approved the U.N. plan to send helicopter gunships, the last outstanding item in the U.N.'s "heavy support package" for the AU force.
"It is the sincere hope of the Sudan that implementation of the heavy support package would proceed expeditiously," Abdalhaleem said.
Sudan's Foreign Ministry confirmed the government's acceptance of the "heavy support" package.
The United States has 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 22,000 U.N. and African Union peacekeepers would be deployed in Darfur.
It is widely recognized that the current force of 7,000 AU peacekeepers is inadequate 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.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Bush’s Sudan Ambassador: There Is No Genocide in Darfur
UPDATE - April 13, 2007 - Editor's note: I am posting at the overflow blog(also see yesterday's articles below and at the secondary blog).
---
Editor's note: I am moving to post at the secondary blog(also new articles below and yesterday's postings at the overflow blog).
---
Anything coming from the Bush gang is generally a lie. In this case however it is a convenient truth. The Israelis and neocons want Sudan partitoned, meaning severely weakened, as they are accomplishing in Iraq.
Related
The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency
---
February 8, 2007
Natsios describes on-going Sudanese crisis
by Mariam Khan
Editors’ note: This article has been corrected. The original article contained substantial inaccuracies.
The on-going Darfur crisis is no longer a genocide situation, according to U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Andrew Natsios. Natsios, a Professor in the School of Foreign Service, spoke on Wednesday in Gaston Hall.
Natsios did note, however, that genocide had previously occured in Darfur, amidst the ongoing conflict between inhabitants of the Sadanese region and government-backed Janjaweed militias.
Darfur has been a hot button issue since 2003. 2.5 million people have been displaced and over 400,000 people have died as a result of the conflict, according to Natsios.
“The place is littered with mass graves,” he said. Over 2,000 villages were destroyed from the beginning of the war in 2003 to the present, according a United Nations count cited by Natsios.
Natsios pointed to property issues as a major aspect of the conflict, explaining that the Arab Janjaweed militia has been destroying homes and taking the land and animals.
“Without property in Darfur, you will die,” he said. “You cannot go back to your homes because you have nothing to live off of.”
Natsios called Darfur a catastrophe, but said that he is opposed to continuing to use the word genocide, which President Bush and the State Department use to describe the situation in Darfur.
“The term genocide is counter to the facts of what is really occurring in Darfur,” he said.
“The humanitarian crisis in Darfur, the everyday suffering of children, females and males, is beyond imagination,” Azanaw Mengistu (COL ’09), a STAND member who attended the lecture, said. “Every day millions of Darfurians are losing hope and the international community’s response has been unfortunately disappointing.”
Eric Wind (SFS ’09) agreed that the situation was dire, but his motives for attending the speech were slightly different.
“As a Christian, I condemn the human rights abuses going on in Darfur,” he said. “I hope that the efforts of Ambassador Natsios, world leaders and non-governmental organizations such as STAND will help end unnecessary bloodshed in Darfur.”
Natsios said that the proposed deployment of 10,000 more United Nations troops, along with extensive negotiations, is the next step in ending the conflict.
“If a negotiated approach does not work, then we have to go to Plan B.”
Natsios would not comment on the details of “Plan B” but said that it would involve drastic measures by the United States.
---
Special Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan
---
Editor's note: I am moving to post at the secondary blog(also new articles below and yesterday's postings at the overflow blog).
---
Anything coming from the Bush gang is generally a lie. In this case however it is a convenient truth. The Israelis and neocons want Sudan partitoned, meaning severely weakened, as they are accomplishing in Iraq.
Related
The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency
---
February 8, 2007
Natsios describes on-going Sudanese crisis
by Mariam Khan
Editors’ note: This article has been corrected. The original article contained substantial inaccuracies.
The on-going Darfur crisis is no longer a genocide situation, according to U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Andrew Natsios. Natsios, a Professor in the School of Foreign Service, spoke on Wednesday in Gaston Hall.
Natsios did note, however, that genocide had previously occured in Darfur, amidst the ongoing conflict between inhabitants of the Sadanese region and government-backed Janjaweed militias.
Darfur has been a hot button issue since 2003. 2.5 million people have been displaced and over 400,000 people have died as a result of the conflict, according to Natsios.
“The place is littered with mass graves,” he said. Over 2,000 villages were destroyed from the beginning of the war in 2003 to the present, according a United Nations count cited by Natsios.
Natsios pointed to property issues as a major aspect of the conflict, explaining that the Arab Janjaweed militia has been destroying homes and taking the land and animals.
“Without property in Darfur, you will die,” he said. “You cannot go back to your homes because you have nothing to live off of.”
Natsios called Darfur a catastrophe, but said that he is opposed to continuing to use the word genocide, which President Bush and the State Department use to describe the situation in Darfur.
“The term genocide is counter to the facts of what is really occurring in Darfur,” he said.
“The humanitarian crisis in Darfur, the everyday suffering of children, females and males, is beyond imagination,” Azanaw Mengistu (COL ’09), a STAND member who attended the lecture, said. “Every day millions of Darfurians are losing hope and the international community’s response has been unfortunately disappointing.”
Eric Wind (SFS ’09) agreed that the situation was dire, but his motives for attending the speech were slightly different.
“As a Christian, I condemn the human rights abuses going on in Darfur,” he said. “I hope that the efforts of Ambassador Natsios, world leaders and non-governmental organizations such as STAND will help end unnecessary bloodshed in Darfur.”
Natsios said that the proposed deployment of 10,000 more United Nations troops, along with extensive negotiations, is the next step in ending the conflict.
“If a negotiated approach does not work, then we have to go to Plan B.”
Natsios would not comment on the details of “Plan B” but said that it would involve drastic measures by the United States.
---
Special Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan
Monday, April 2, 2007
Arab tribe in Darfur reports 62 killed, 21 wounded in attack
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Monday, April 02, 2007
KHARTOUM: At least 62 people were killed and 21 wounded in an attack on an Arab tribe in the war-torn Darfur region of western Sudan, according to the victims' relatives on Sunday.
"Two new bodies were left at the hospital in Nyala," the south Darfur provincial seat, Abdel Rahman Hasaballah of the targeted Torjam tribe told AFP by telephone.
Tribal chief Mohammad Hammad Jalali initially told AFP that 60 people were killed by gunmen riding camels and donkeys who swooped down on villages to steal livestock.
"We buried 23 people on Saturday," he said at the time, with the rest still at the morgue.
Thirteen wounded villagers are being treated in the provincial capital of Nyala and another eight in the nearby town of Kas, he said.
Families initially refused to collect the bodies from the hospital in protest.
They finally agreed to do so after setting three conditions for the authorities - an impartial investigation to identify the perpetrators, better protection and compensation for the victims' families.
The Torjam are blaming the attack on the government-backed Janjaweed militia, often used by the Sudanese authorities to suppress a rebellion raging in the region for the past four years.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
But local officials quoted by the press blamed the killings on a rival Arab tribe in the region, the Rzigat Aballa - which in the past had provided recruits for the Janjaweed.
"We think the Rzigat Aballa is responsible for the attack because it occurred in the area of recent clashes between the two tribes," said Mohammad al-Ajeb, adding that some 500 heads of cattle had been seized and driven northwest. The authorities negotiated a truce between the two tribes in February after earlier confrontations.
United Nations and African Union envoys on recent visits to Khartoum bidding to find a peaceful solution to the Darfur crisis warned against tribal rivalries complicating the search for peace.
Since the outbreak of hostilities in the vast Darfur region in 2003, some 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced in the fighting, according to UN estimates. Some sources say the death toll is much higher.
A 2006 peace agreement with one rebel faction has failed to halt the fighting. - AFP
Monday, April 02, 2007
KHARTOUM: At least 62 people were killed and 21 wounded in an attack on an Arab tribe in the war-torn Darfur region of western Sudan, according to the victims' relatives on Sunday.
"Two new bodies were left at the hospital in Nyala," the south Darfur provincial seat, Abdel Rahman Hasaballah of the targeted Torjam tribe told AFP by telephone.
Tribal chief Mohammad Hammad Jalali initially told AFP that 60 people were killed by gunmen riding camels and donkeys who swooped down on villages to steal livestock.
"We buried 23 people on Saturday," he said at the time, with the rest still at the morgue.
Thirteen wounded villagers are being treated in the provincial capital of Nyala and another eight in the nearby town of Kas, he said.
Families initially refused to collect the bodies from the hospital in protest.
They finally agreed to do so after setting three conditions for the authorities - an impartial investigation to identify the perpetrators, better protection and compensation for the victims' families.
The Torjam are blaming the attack on the government-backed Janjaweed militia, often used by the Sudanese authorities to suppress a rebellion raging in the region for the past four years.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
But local officials quoted by the press blamed the killings on a rival Arab tribe in the region, the Rzigat Aballa - which in the past had provided recruits for the Janjaweed.
"We think the Rzigat Aballa is responsible for the attack because it occurred in the area of recent clashes between the two tribes," said Mohammad al-Ajeb, adding that some 500 heads of cattle had been seized and driven northwest. The authorities negotiated a truce between the two tribes in February after earlier confrontations.
United Nations and African Union envoys on recent visits to Khartoum bidding to find a peaceful solution to the Darfur crisis warned against tribal rivalries complicating the search for peace.
Since the outbreak of hostilities in the vast Darfur region in 2003, some 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced in the fighting, according to UN estimates. Some sources say the death toll is much higher.
A 2006 peace agreement with one rebel faction has failed to halt the fighting. - AFP
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Stop the Killing in Darfur! (I'm Sorry, I Mean Iraq)
Mar 27 2007 - 1:42pm
Yesterday's story from the BBC about the carnage visited on Iraq by the war-criminal from Crawford was widely ignored today:
Another story about Darfur from Saturday also got scant attention:
Put them together and here's what you get:
Berlin 27th March: Meeting here to celebrate the EU's 50th birthday, EU leaders are being asked whether they will finally take meaningful action on the genocide unfolding in Darfur (I'm sorry that should read: Iraq). Darfur (or rather Iraq) has been under attack since 2003 when the government of the Sudan (I'm sorry that should read: the US) invaded it on transparently trumped-up pretexts. The motivation of the Sudanese (again that should read: US) government, appears to be control of oil in the region.
According to experts, at least 200,000 people have been slaughtered by Sudanese (correction: US) forces. The number is growing by the day. Sudanese (I mean of course US) estimates of the number killed by their forces is drastically lower, with most Sudanese (or rather US) sources putting the figure at around 30,000. As many as 400,000 more Sudanese (which is to say, Iraqis) have been killed in the ongoing Muslim-on-Muslim civil war, triggered by the trumped-up invasion. In addition over 2 million Sudanese (yup, I know - Iraqi!) refugees have been forced to flee the fighting, which is now chronically over-extending the resources of neighboring states.
Although the actions of the Sudanese (I'm so sorry, I mean the US) government would seem to meet international definitions of genocide, no action has been taken by the EU or the UN, beyond formal protests. In addition the Sudanese (shit, shit the US!) government has blocked any UN role in the region; and UN resolutions are followed or ignored by the Sudanese (OK, OK the US!) government as it pleases.
In any case, as EU leaders point out, the US government (hey, I FINALLY got it right!) cannot possibly be guilty of genocide in Iraq or anywhere else, since its leaders are overwhelmingly rich and white.
Tony Blair was unavailable for comment as he was communing with his Savior (and his lawyers).
PS: The paperback of my novel The Messiah of Morris Avenue just came out. Please check it out.
by Tony Hendra permalink
_______
Besth
Monday, March 26, 2007
We must speak up for the dead and dispossessed in an epidemic of rage
Tom Stoppard
Published: 26 March 2007
If not now, when? If not we, who? News of murder, rape, arson and dispossession in Darfur has been coming in for something like four years, stopping and starting and stuttering, scaling up into horrifying film footage that blanks out the political story, and also down into declarations, resolutions and soundbites that veil the horror of what's really happening in a war so remote and so obscured that the numbers of dead arrive rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.
Is it 200,000 or 300,000?
Both figures keep popping up in the Darfur story in reproachable documentation and all you can think is that the sub-text "enough is enough" of Tony Blair's reported message to Angela Merkel the other day had an even darker meaning than the phrase was intended to carry.
But, yes, enough is indeed enough. And one of the things you'd think the UN would have had enough of is being treated with casual disdain by the Sudanese regime, whose latest gesture was to use troops to deny the UN's humanitarian delegation access to a refugee camp in the Darfur region.
A peacekeeping mission would be more to the point, and here again the UN is as helpless against its own vetoes as against President Omar al-Bashir's soldiers.
If the United Nations could die of shame it would have been dead years ago.
How can the EU do better? Can it be effective at all? Yesterday, the British Prime Minister and the German Chancellor were making the right noises. Stringent sanctions. No-fly zones.
But the unpalatable truth is that sanctions require a degree of collective determination, of which the UN appears constitutionally incapable. A no-fly zone over that vast remote area represents an enormous challenge. And would freezing Sudanese assets abroad, one of the suggestions in the "writers' letter", in itself turn the situation around?
Bob Geldof, who orchestrated the letter, said yesterday: "It's code to get the UN behind us."
Well, maybe. But the point about Geldof is that he is a populist. What is needed is to make rage and shame contagious, an epidemic. The situation will be turned by numbers, vast numbers of the living outraged, to speak up for the 200,000, or was it 300,000, dead.
Published: 26 March 2007
If not now, when? If not we, who? News of murder, rape, arson and dispossession in Darfur has been coming in for something like four years, stopping and starting and stuttering, scaling up into horrifying film footage that blanks out the political story, and also down into declarations, resolutions and soundbites that veil the horror of what's really happening in a war so remote and so obscured that the numbers of dead arrive rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.
Is it 200,000 or 300,000?
Both figures keep popping up in the Darfur story in reproachable documentation and all you can think is that the sub-text "enough is enough" of Tony Blair's reported message to Angela Merkel the other day had an even darker meaning than the phrase was intended to carry.
But, yes, enough is indeed enough. And one of the things you'd think the UN would have had enough of is being treated with casual disdain by the Sudanese regime, whose latest gesture was to use troops to deny the UN's humanitarian delegation access to a refugee camp in the Darfur region.
A peacekeeping mission would be more to the point, and here again the UN is as helpless against its own vetoes as against President Omar al-Bashir's soldiers.
If the United Nations could die of shame it would have been dead years ago.
How can the EU do better? Can it be effective at all? Yesterday, the British Prime Minister and the German Chancellor were making the right noises. Stringent sanctions. No-fly zones.
But the unpalatable truth is that sanctions require a degree of collective determination, of which the UN appears constitutionally incapable. A no-fly zone over that vast remote area represents an enormous challenge. And would freezing Sudanese assets abroad, one of the suggestions in the "writers' letter", in itself turn the situation around?
Bob Geldof, who orchestrated the letter, said yesterday: "It's code to get the UN behind us."
Well, maybe. But the point about Geldof is that he is a populist. What is needed is to make rage and shame contagious, an epidemic. The situation will be turned by numbers, vast numbers of the living outraged, to speak up for the 200,000, or was it 300,000, dead.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Judge rules Khartoum behind attack on USS Cole
Judge rules Khartoum behind attack on USS Cole
US federal judge blames Sudan for al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in 2000 that killed 17 seamen.
US federal judge blames Sudan for al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in 2000 that killed 17 seamen.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Bad News about Africa
January 2, 2007 Tom Fenton The snippets of news about Somalia that American network television has been presenting these days are a sad reminder of how poorly Americans are informed by their mainstream media. There is no context, no background. Viewers, if they pay any attention at all to these second hand reports that were mostly cobbled together in newsrooms far from the scene of action, are left without a clue about what is really happening in that far corner or Africa, and why. That’s a pity, because what is happening there could become another big problem for the United States. Americans need to take a cold, hard, look at what their government is doing in sub-Saharan Africa and what may be the possible consequences.
The latest outbreak of fighting in Somalia is more than just an isolated clan or ethnic conflict. It is one of a number of local conflicts in an inhospitable and sparsely settled region of Africa, from Darfur to the Red Sea, that could eventually lead to a broader war. Some of these conflicts go back for decades. There were religious and ethnic conflicts in Sudan and between Ethiopia and Somalia when I first went to Africa as a foreign correspondent 40 years ago. But the roots of these conflicts run far deeper. They can also be seen as part of a broad historical movement – a rise of expansionist Islam in sub-Saharan Africa that was temporarily halted by British imperialists in the late Nineteenth Century. It is now on the rise again. One of the first signs appeared in 1991 when the Islamic government of Sudan gave temporary refuge to Osama Bin Laden. Then American marines went to the aid of a starving population in Somalia and suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of tribal warlords in 1993. The United States turned tail and left Somalia in the hands of the warlords. It became a lawless land that was reportedly used as a safe haven by the Islamic terrorists who blew up the American Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Since then, tension has been rising in the region. When the United States chased al Qaeda fighters out of Afghanistan in late 2001, Pentagon planners feared they might establish new bases in Africa. The Bush Administration quietly sent small numbers of special forces to the sub-Saharan region to equip and train local government forces to deal with the potential threat. It also deployed a 1200-strong Combined Task Force in Djibouti, within easy striking distance of both the Red Sea shipping lanes and the restless countries of the region, including America’s predominantly Christian ally Ethiopia, as well as that country’s enemies, Eritrea and Somalia. All of this was done without fanfare while the American public’s attention was fixed on Afghanistan and Iraq. After the 1993 debacle, Washington had no appetite for going back into Somalia, but the CIA apparently poured money into a clumsy, covert attempt to create an alternative Somali government out of a collection of mutually hostile local warlords. That didn’t work too well.
Last June, an alliance of militant Islamic Somalis that calls itself the Union of Islamic Courts accomplished what nobody else had been able to do. It chased the warlords out of the capital Mogadishu, and most of the rest of the country, and restored a rough and ready Islamic brand of law and order after fifteen years of civil war. The people of Mogadishu were for the most part relieved to have a functioning government, even if it was puritanically Islamic. The Bush Administration was not. The Pentagon’s Plan B was apparently what we have just seen. Ethiopia’s armed forces, trained by the United States, swept into Somalia along with a small transitional government force and installed a puppet government in Mogadishu. That might be called a success for Washington if it were the end of the story. But it is not over yet. The transitional government’s forces seem too weak to hold the capital, let alone the rest of the country. Efforts are now being made to send in an African peacekeeping force, and the sooner that can happen, the better. Since Ethiopia is Somalia’s traditional enemy, the longer it remains in the country, the more the Somalis will resent a foreign (mostly Christian) army and the government it is propping up. Guns are coming out of closets. The old clan militias are back in Mogadishu, and militants linked to al Qaeda’s branch in Iraq are calling on Muslims to go to the aid of the Somalis. There are already early signs of an insurgency against the newly installed government in Mogadishu. There is also the danger that Eritrea, which had been sending arms and men to the Union of Islamic Courts, could be drawn into open warfare with Ethiopia. In addition, the several million ethnic Somalis who live in Ethiopia and neighboring Kenya could also be caught up in a broader conflict. If this happens, what will the American task force in nearby Djibouti do? Does the Pentagon have a Plan C? It’s all very complicated, so it might be a good idea if the American networks spent a little less time on such things as Americans who risked their lives in the dangerous sport of winter mountain climbing, and more on what is happening in Africa. Even if that would not be good for their ratings, it could be good for their country. Send us your thoughts on Tom Fenton's Journal at theworld@pri.org Tom Fenton Essayist Tom Fenton, whose long career as a foreign correspondent for CBS News covered more than three decades of world events, continues to follow international news from his base in London. He is the author of "Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News and the Danger to Us All." |
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
SOS Children's Villages - USA - Conflict breaks out near SOS Childr
Conflict breaks out near SOS Children's Village in south Sudan
| 12/12/2006 - Fighting has broken out in recent weeks in the area surrounding SOS Children's Village Malakal, located in the war-torn southern region of Sudan, where warring factions are mounting strikes against each other with tanks and guns. |
Ali Mahdi, director of SOS Children's Villages Sudan, said that although SOS Children's Village Malakal is not likely to become a direct target, it is in close proximity the Malakal airport, one of the areas of heavy fighting. Most of the fighting involves ground troops, and there are currently no air strikes in the vicinity of the children's village. However, there is a threat that some of the fighters may hide or take refuge in the SOS Children's Village, which would make it a direct target for opposing fighters.
Although the security situation in Malakal is worsening, it is not likely that SOS Children's Villages Sudan will evacuate the village and move the children to Khartoum. It would be too difficult to transport the children without compromising their security. Currently, SOS Children's Village Malakal is not facing any severe shortages of essential goods. Mr. Mahdi is very concerned nonetheless.
"The deterioration of the security situation in Malakal is affecting all aspects of life: in markets, shops and schools. The government offices are closed and that means difficulty in getting goods to Malakal," said Mahdi. "We transferred some food to the children's village for storage, and we sent the village director some money to stock up, but we don't know what will happen in the future."
SOS Children's Villages Sudan will provide emergency relief for the local community, such as cholera medication and emergency hospital units for the children's hospital in Malakal. There is already an SOS Emergency Relief Programme in the area, which will be extended with the renewed conflict.
Although the security situation in Malakal is worsening, it is not likely that SOS Children's Villages Sudan will evacuate the village and move the children to Khartoum. It would be too difficult to transport the children without compromising their security. Currently, SOS Children's Village Malakal is not facing any severe shortages of essential goods. Mr. Mahdi is very concerned nonetheless.
"The deterioration of the security situation in Malakal is affecting all aspects of life: in markets, shops and schools. The government offices are closed and that means difficulty in getting goods to Malakal," said Mahdi. "We transferred some food to the children's village for storage, and we sent the village director some money to stock up, but we don't know what will happen in the future."
SOS Children's Villages Sudan will provide emergency relief for the local community, such as cholera medication and emergency hospital units for the children's hospital in Malakal. There is already an SOS Emergency Relief Programme in the area, which will be extended with the renewed conflict.
Conflict in Darfur
Conflict has also flared up again in the unstable Darfur region of Sudan. SOS Children's Villages Sudan is currently operating an emergency relief programme in the Abu Shok Refugee Camp in Al-Fashir. The SOS Emergency Relief Programme includes three psycho-social centres that provide counselling and therapy services for all family members, as well as training and awareness sessions for mothers. Ali Mahdi remains cautiously optimistic and reports that even though the situation in Darfur is bleak, it is important that SOS Children’s Villages Sudan continue the project.
With the current conflict, SOS psychologists and social workers have moved out of their residences in the guest house in Al-Fashir, and have found accommodations with co-workers from the area. Communication is very difficult between SOS Children’s Villages in Khartoum and the emergency relief programme in Darfur. The Abu Shok refugee camp is now under curfew in the evening and it is dangerous for anyone to leave the camp.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Sudanese envoy says Nasrallah has accepted a deal
Monday, December 11, 2006
Report follows 'largest' demonstration 'in the history of lebanon'
By Leila Hatoum
Daily Star staff
BEIRUT: Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has accepted an Arab League plan to resolve the political crisis in Lebanon, an Arab official said on Sunday. Mustafa Ismail, an envoy from the Sudanese president, "was informed in Damascus today of the Hizbullah leader's acceptance of the proposals submitted to him," Ismail told AFP in Riyadh on Sunday.
Ismail told pan-Arab television station Al-Arabiyya that Nasrallah "has agreed in principle to the proposal." He did not detail the plan, saying only that "it has seven points."
Hizbullah MP Hassan Fadlallah announced late Sunday that Nasrallah had in fact told Ismail that "Hizbullah will deal in a positive way with any initiative that ensures a national unity government which secures a blocking minority."
"But in the end, our position will be decided after we hold discussions among opposition leaders," he added.
A source close to Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told The Daily Star late Sunday that Ismail had in fact met with Hizbullah representatives and Speaker Nabih Berri when he was in Beirut last week.
"Ismail is coming back to Beirut Monday. Siniora called him today and things look positive," the source said.
The reports came hours after opposition leader MP Michel Aoun told hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in central Beirut that Lebanon would have a caretaker government in a few days that would see the country through to new parliamentary elections.
Aoun, the head of the Free Patriotic Movement, addressed a massive crowd that poured into Downtown Beirut from across Lebanon to demand the resignation of the sitting government.
Accusing the government of corruption, forging votes and a lack of legitimacy after the resignation of six ministers in early November, Aoun said: "We will wait for a few days. This is the last massive demonstration we will hold. The squares are not big enough to fit all our supporters and the barbed wires cannot protect the Grand Serail because people are expanding in all directions."
"In a few days we will completely renounce this government and announce the birth of a transitional Cabinet," he said.
Aoun said Siniora's Cabinet had failed to meet its responsibilities on every level over the past 18 months.
"Two assassinations of two MPs, Gebran Tueni last year and Pierre Gemayel 10 days ago, and not one suspect has been arrested so far," he said. "The security apparatus follows the orders of this government but it doesn't want to bear the responsibility of security or economy or anything. It is only willing to increase Lebanon's national debt. What kind of a government is that?"
Sunday's demonstration was "the largest and greatest crowd in the history of Lebanon," Sheikh Naim Qassem, Hizbullah's second-in-command, told a roaring crowd mere meters from the Grand Serail.
Leading protesters in a chant of "death to the US and Israel," Qassem said: "I tell those who are hiding in their castles: 'Open your eyes and ears to this scene; enough searching for international support. By God, neither the support of the US nor the Western countries and some Arab countries will help you. This crowd and public want its country back.'"
"Today, the Christian stands tall next to the Muslim; the Shiite next to the Sunni next to the Christian next to the Druze, all bearing the flag of this country," he declared.
Addressing Siniora and his Cabinet, Qassem continued: "You want hegemony over power and we want partnership. You want to divide this country among sects and we want it to be a country for all. You want power for yourselves and we want power to serve the people. You want to bring the Americans and we want to drive them away ... Lebanon is strong and has no place for invaders."
The demonstration was "purely political and peaceful,
not sectarian nor violent," Qassem said. "It is a public move in the face of a failed and unconstitutional government."
Linking Druze MP Walid Jumblatt and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea to boiling sectarian tensions, Qassem said that both March 14 leaders had stirred the Sunni street and "are now sitting aside and watching."
"They are stirring sectarian feelings because they cannot have control in Lebanon unless they live in turbulent times. They are accustomed to internal wars and fights and spreading sedition, and their past clearly points to that," he said.
"I tell Premier Siniora and those with him, leave them because they would only take you to destruction," he said.
Addressing Siniora directly, the Hizbullah official said: "If you want to truly show that you support the resistance and this people, as you say, then I advise you to prove it by doing one of two things, if not both. The first is that you issue an order to the Lebanese Army to give the resistance back the truckload of arms which it confiscated [in November]. The other is that you declare that you resign in a press conference that you can hold tonight or tomorrow."
Siniora has denied an allegation from Nasrallah that the army confiscated weapons from Hizbullah, and he has repeatedly refused to resign.
A Cabinet session is scheduled to be held Tuesday to refer the formation of an international tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri to Parliament.
President Emile Lahoud refused Saturday to approve the decree. The issue now depends on Speaker Nabih Berri, who could convene Parliament to vote on the tribunal issue.
Report follows 'largest' demonstration 'in the history of lebanon'
By Leila Hatoum
Daily Star staff
BEIRUT: Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has accepted an Arab League plan to resolve the political crisis in Lebanon, an Arab official said on Sunday. Mustafa Ismail, an envoy from the Sudanese president, "was informed in Damascus today of the Hizbullah leader's acceptance of the proposals submitted to him," Ismail told AFP in Riyadh on Sunday.
Ismail told pan-Arab television station Al-Arabiyya that Nasrallah "has agreed in principle to the proposal." He did not detail the plan, saying only that "it has seven points."
Hizbullah MP Hassan Fadlallah announced late Sunday that Nasrallah had in fact told Ismail that "Hizbullah will deal in a positive way with any initiative that ensures a national unity government which secures a blocking minority."
"But in the end, our position will be decided after we hold discussions among opposition leaders," he added.
A source close to Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told The Daily Star late Sunday that Ismail had in fact met with Hizbullah representatives and Speaker Nabih Berri when he was in Beirut last week.
"Ismail is coming back to Beirut Monday. Siniora called him today and things look positive," the source said.
The reports came hours after opposition leader MP Michel Aoun told hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in central Beirut that Lebanon would have a caretaker government in a few days that would see the country through to new parliamentary elections.
Aoun, the head of the Free Patriotic Movement, addressed a massive crowd that poured into Downtown Beirut from across Lebanon to demand the resignation of the sitting government.
Accusing the government of corruption, forging votes and a lack of legitimacy after the resignation of six ministers in early November, Aoun said: "We will wait for a few days. This is the last massive demonstration we will hold. The squares are not big enough to fit all our supporters and the barbed wires cannot protect the Grand Serail because people are expanding in all directions."
"In a few days we will completely renounce this government and announce the birth of a transitional Cabinet," he said.
Aoun said Siniora's Cabinet had failed to meet its responsibilities on every level over the past 18 months.
"Two assassinations of two MPs, Gebran Tueni last year and Pierre Gemayel 10 days ago, and not one suspect has been arrested so far," he said. "The security apparatus follows the orders of this government but it doesn't want to bear the responsibility of security or economy or anything. It is only willing to increase Lebanon's national debt. What kind of a government is that?"
Sunday's demonstration was "the largest and greatest crowd in the history of Lebanon," Sheikh Naim Qassem, Hizbullah's second-in-command, told a roaring crowd mere meters from the Grand Serail.
Leading protesters in a chant of "death to the US and Israel," Qassem said: "I tell those who are hiding in their castles: 'Open your eyes and ears to this scene; enough searching for international support. By God, neither the support of the US nor the Western countries and some Arab countries will help you. This crowd and public want its country back.'"
"Today, the Christian stands tall next to the Muslim; the Shiite next to the Sunni next to the Christian next to the Druze, all bearing the flag of this country," he declared.
Addressing Siniora and his Cabinet, Qassem continued: "You want hegemony over power and we want partnership. You want to divide this country among sects and we want it to be a country for all. You want power for yourselves and we want power to serve the people. You want to bring the Americans and we want to drive them away ... Lebanon is strong and has no place for invaders."
The demonstration was "purely political and peaceful,
not sectarian nor violent," Qassem said. "It is a public move in the face of a failed and unconstitutional government."
Linking Druze MP Walid Jumblatt and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea to boiling sectarian tensions, Qassem said that both March 14 leaders had stirred the Sunni street and "are now sitting aside and watching."
"They are stirring sectarian feelings because they cannot have control in Lebanon unless they live in turbulent times. They are accustomed to internal wars and fights and spreading sedition, and their past clearly points to that," he said.
"I tell Premier Siniora and those with him, leave them because they would only take you to destruction," he said.
Addressing Siniora directly, the Hizbullah official said: "If you want to truly show that you support the resistance and this people, as you say, then I advise you to prove it by doing one of two things, if not both. The first is that you issue an order to the Lebanese Army to give the resistance back the truckload of arms which it confiscated [in November]. The other is that you declare that you resign in a press conference that you can hold tonight or tomorrow."
Siniora has denied an allegation from Nasrallah that the army confiscated weapons from Hizbullah, and he has repeatedly refused to resign.
A Cabinet session is scheduled to be held Tuesday to refer the formation of an international tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri to Parliament.
President Emile Lahoud refused Saturday to approve the decree. The issue now depends on Speaker Nabih Berri, who could convene Parliament to vote on the tribunal issue.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
U.N. chief: Darfur is in ‘free fall‘": Conflict has spread to two neighboring countries
2006/12
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer 7 minutes ago
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer 7 minutes ago
UNITED NATIONS - The conflict in Darfur has spread to two neighboring countries and is now in "free fall" with six million people facing the prospect of going without food or protection, the outgoing U.N. humanitarian chief said Tuesday.
"I think some of the Arab countries and Asian countries have not really understood we‘re in a free fall. It‘s not a steady deterioration. It‘s a free fall and it includes Darfur, eastern Chad, northern Central African Republic," he said.
More than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced in the fighting, and the violence has only increased since the government and one rebel group signed a peace agreement in May.
Egeland, who was the first to call Darfur the world‘s worst humanitarian emergency in November 2003, said that one of his greatest regrets is that key global leaders did not come together and offer the sticks and carrots to settle the conflict in 2004 when it only involved one million people.
Where is the free fall going?
Egeland recalled that the women and children he met during his recent fourth visit to Darfur thanked him for the food but pleaded for security. With the humanitarian operation collapsing in many places, he said, they will have nothing.
In a farewell speech on Monday to the U.N. Security Council U.N. Security Council, Egeland accused world leaders of failing to live up to a pledge made at a U.N. summit in September 2005 to protect civilians caught in armed conflict from genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. A Security Council resolution adopted in April reaffirmed their agreement.
"But what I do expect is that China, the United States, Russia, the European Union — the leaders come together and say we‘re going to push and pull and provide sticks and carrots until it changes," he said.
Nonetheless, he said, things are starting to change.
The Security Council adopted a resolution pushed by Britain and the United States to transfer peacekeeping in Darfur from an ill-equipped 7,000-member African Union force to a larger, better equipped U.N. force. But the Sudanese government rejected a U.N. force, claiming it would violate the country‘s sovereignty and was an attempt at recolonization.
He supported the resolution but said it did not get implemented, partly because it lacked support from African, Arab and Islamic countries for a U.N. force.
In late November, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Sudan had agreed in principle to a compromise "hybrid mission" from the African Union and the U.N. — but Khartoum wanted to discuss the size, the force commander and the head of the overall mission.
"At the moment I think it‘s more than sad to see that grown men with jackets and ties like me sit and quarrel of what is a
hybrid force‘ ... while women and children are dying," Egeland said.
"I‘m happy to note that in nine months we might have this force, but what about the next nine days where it could collapse completely?
© 2006 The Associated Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)