February 2006 News to Note

February 22, 2006

What Does President Bush Mean by "NATO stewardship" of Darfur Crisis?

By Eric Reeves

Excerpt:

President Bush declared this past Friday that a security force for Darfur will require “NATO stewardship, planning, facilitating, organizing, probably double the number of peacekeepers that are there now, in order to start bringing some sense of security” (New York Times, February 17, 2006). But crucially, Bush did not specify whether these additional peacekeeping forces would come from NATO---or indeed how and when they would be generated. And he certainly did not promise participation by US troops or personnel in any NATO deployment. After the President spoke, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter declared it is "‘premature to speculate’ on potential increases in US troops” (Washington Post, February 17, 2006). Privately, Bush administration officials make clear there is no intention of sending US troops to Darfur.

The Pentagon comment comports precisely with the statement by US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, following last week’s meeting between Bush and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan: "‘It's really premature to speculate about what the needs would be in terms of logistics, in terms of airlift, in terms of actual troops. And certainly in that regard, premature to speculate on what the US contribution might be’" (Reuters [Washington, DC], February 13, 2006).

But what, then, is the time-frame for “bringing some sense of security” to Darfur? The African Union monitoring force has revealed itself to be radically inadequate to the task; the US is declaring that “it’s really premature to speculate about what the needs” are for an adequate security force; and NATO officials in Brussels are also speaking of any significantly increased NATO role as “premature,” indeed seem clearly disinclined to provide more than NATO logistics, transport, and financial assistance.

When will the necessary “doubling” of troops occur? And again, who will provide these troops? Who will provide the “sense of security” the President spoke of? The failure to address these questions directly and specifically signals all too clearly a lack of real and timely resolve.

Mr. Bush’s comments will inevitably seem weak compared with the unambiguous language of a recent bipartisan Senate Resolution, introduced the same day (February 17, 2006) that the President spoke to a friendly, well-screened gathering in Florida.

February 17, 2006

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

19. RES. 383

Calling on the President to take immediate steps to help improve the security situation in Darfur, Sudan, with an emphasis on civilian protection.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 17, 2006

Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. FEINGOLD, and Mr. DODD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Calling on the President to take immediate steps to help improve the security situation in Darfur, Sudan, with an emphasis on civilian protection.

Whereas, the April 8, 2004, N'Djamena Ceasefire Agreement, calling for an end to hostilities in Darfur, Sudan, has been flagrantly violated by all parties to the agreement;

Whereas the Government of Sudan continues to commit crimes against humanity and engage in genocidal acts in Darfur; Whereas the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLM/SPLA) on January 9, 2005, has not resulted in an improvement of the security situation in Darfur;

Whereas United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has indicated that, `People in many parts of Darfur continue to be killed, raped, and driven from their homes by the thousands.';

Whereas United Nations officials have stated that at least 70,000 people have died due to violence and insecurity in Darfur, but that the total may be as high as 400,000 people;

Whereas nearly 2,000,000 people have been internally displaced, 3,000,000 people are dependant on international assistance to survive, and over 200,000 people are refugees in neighboring Chad due to the conflict in Darfur;

Whereas escalating tensions along the border between Chad and Sudan have increased instability in Darfur; Whereas neither the mandate nor the troop strength of the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) is adequate to protect civilians in Darfur;

Whereas the United States has demonstrated leadership on the Sudan issue by having United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations John Bolton, in his first action as President of the United Nations Security Council, request in February 2006 that Secretary-General Annan initiate contingency planning for a transition from AMIS to a United Nations peacekeeping operation;

Whereas, although the United Nations Security Council has concurred with this recommendation and taken steps toward establishing a United Nations peacekeeping mission for Darfur, it could take up to a year for such a mission to deploy fully;

Whereas, as the deteriorating security situation in Darfur indicates, the people of Darfur cannot wait that long for security to be reestablished;

Whereas the international community currently has no plan to address the immediate security needs of the people of Darfur; and

Whereas all members of the international community must participate in efforts to stop genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Darfur: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

1. strongly condemns--

1. the continued attacks on civilians in Darfur by the Government of Sudan and Government-sponsored militias; and
2. the continued violations of the N'Djamena Ceasefire Agreement by the Government of Sudan and rebels in Darfur, particularly the Sudan Liberation Army;

2. commends the Africa Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) for its actions in monitoring the N'Djamena Ceasefire Agreement in Darfur and its role in diminishing some acts of violence;
3. calls upon all parties to the N'Djamena Ceasefire Agreement--

1. to abide by the terms of the N'Djamena Ceasefire Agreement; and
2. to engage in good-faith negotiations to end the conflict in Darfur;

4. calls upon the Government of Sudan immediately--

1. to withdraw all military aircraft from the region;
2. to cease all support for the Janjaweed militia and rebels from Chad; and
3. to disarm the Janjaweed;

5. calls on the African Union to request assistance from the United Nations and NATO to strengthen its capacity to deter violence and instability until a United Nations peacekeeping force is fully deployed in Darfur;
6. calls upon the United Nations Security Council to approve as soon as possible, pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, a peacekeeping force for Darfur that is well trained and equipped and has an adequate troop strength;
7. urges the President to take steps immediately to help improve the security situation in Darfur, including by--

1. proposing that NATO--
   1. consider how to implement and enforce a declared no-fly zone in Darfur; and
   2. deploy troops to Darfur to support the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) until a United Nations peacekeeping mission is fully deployed in the region; and
2. requesting supplemental funding to support a NATO mission in Darfur and the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS);

8. calls upon NATO allies, led by the United States, to support such a mission; and
9. calls upon NATO headquarters staff to begin prudent planning in advance of such a mission.

February 15, 2006

As the International Community postures, Sudan’s many crises deepen

By Eric Reeves

As the International Community Postures, Sudan’s Many Crises Deepen: Darfur, Chad, Eastern Sudan, Southern Sudan---all remain victims of National Islamic Front tyranny and brutality.

Feb 14, 2006 — Yesterday’s meeting at the White House between President George W. Bush and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appears to have been a cautiously amicable affair. No deadlines were set, no firm commitments made, no explicit promises extracted, no mention made of the conspicuous realities of genocide in Darfur. Annan’s language of recent weeks, calling for a robust humanitarian intervention in Darfur---with significant Western involvement---was nowhere in evidence. The US for its part seemed happy with the day’s noncommittal vagueness, professionally rendered by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. Asked whether the US was willing to contribute troops to the mooted Darfur mission, McCormack would say only:

"’It’s really premature to speculate about what the needs would be in terms of logistics, in terms of airlift, in terms of actual troops. And certainly in that regard, premature to speculate on what the US contribution might be.’" (Reuters [Washington, DC], February 13, 2006)

For the thousands of Darfuris who die every month; for the more than 2 million internally displaced persons and refugees whose survival remains precarious; for the more than 3.5 million people in need of food and medical assistance; for these dying and acutely vulnerable civilians, the notion that commitment to humanitarian intervention is "premature" must be thoroughly unintelligible.

Click link to title for complete article.

February 10, 2006

Genocide International Network Update

Last Friday, the UN Security Council voted to move forward on developing plans for transferring the African Union Peacekeeping Mission in Darfur to a United Nations force. Although no direct action was mandated and the UN still needs approval from the AU and the government of Sudan, this vote was a positive step in the process of ensuring protection for the civilians of Darfur. Kofi Annan is now calling on wealthy nations to provide support to ensure that this force is robust and effective.

After pressure from members of the Genocide Intervention Network and other groups, the lobbyist hired by the government of Sudan in the United States has resigned.

Special Reports Summary

Human Rights Watch has documented militia attacks against Darfurian refugees in Chad noting numerous cross-border attacks by militia forces, some of whom had government backing.

This week, Professor Eric Reeves writes that the United States is reneging on its commitment to using the term genocide. He contends that the State Department is now seeking to rename the crisis because they never intended to fully support the actions necessary to halt the genocide.

February 7, 2006

Eric Reeves directs us to this excellent article by Julie Flint who has written extensively on Sudan. She is the author, with Alex de Waal, of "Darfur: A Short History of a Long War".

The looming conflict in eastern Sudan

On February 9, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), now part of a government of national unity, must start withdrawing its forces from eastern Sudan under the terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended the war in Southern Sudan a year ago.

In anticipation of a withdrawal, government troops are poised a few kilometers outside Hamesh Koreb, the main town in the opposition-controlled swathe along the Eritrean border, which the SPLM's allies in the Eastern Front have said they will not surrender without a fight - or an agreement. But, with only days to go before the withdrawal is supposed to begin, agreement is lacking. With luck, the deadline for withdrawal, already extended once, will be extended once again and there will be another chance, perhaps a last chance, to save eastern Sudan from a conflict that threatens to be, in a worst-case scenario, more like downtown Baghdad than Darfur.

Eastern Sudan is one of the richest and the poorest regions of Sudan. It has some of the most fertile agricultural land in the country; gas, gold and other minerals; livestock; fisheries and possibly even oil. Port Sudan, capital of Red Sea State, is the country's major seaport and export terminal. It is the terminus for three pipelines worth more than $1 billion and has recently begun tempting foreign tourists with cheap flights and expensive hotels. But in the slums of Port Sudan, the Beja and other pastoralists displaced from the surrounding rural areas by drought, the seizure of prime land and food shortages live on less than $1 a day. Until the Darfur conflict began - and perhaps even now - more babies and more children were dying in Red Sea State than in any other part of Sudan. Easterners have even more reason than Darfurians to be aggrieved.

Eastern Sudan's plight is not so very different from that of Sudan's other peripheries. The region is marginalized politically, exploited economically and neglected every which way. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) has accomplished nothing in this regard. There are seven Darfurians in the unity government but just one easterner - and he (like the Darfurians) is not representative of the region. In the last decade, the Eastern Front has fought side by side with the Sudan People's Liberation Army (which became the SPLM) on the latter's second front. Southerners in the unity government now have a special responsibility to help secure a fair, just peace for their former allies.

Click on article title for complete detail.

February 5, 2006

"You may have thought the terrible situation in Darfur couldn’t get worse, but it has. Sudan’s policy of arming militias and letting them loose is spilling over the border, and civilians have no protection from their attacks, in Darfur or in Chad." --Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa division, Watch.

See Darfur: New Attacks in Chad Documented for complete report.

February 4, 2006

Entire Darfur village of 55,000 flees after raids by Janjaweed gunmen

By David Blair in Menawashi

Exhausted refugees were building ramshackle shelters in a dry river bed yesterday after 55,000 people fled a raid mounted by the Janjaweed militia in the Sudanese province of Darfur.

It was the biggest movement of refugees there so far this year. The victims, many of whom have fled attacks twice or even three times before, are camped around the town of Menawashi in southern Darfur.