"International experts say almost six years of fighting in Darfur has killed 200,000 and driven 2.5 million from their homes. "

From Reuters:

1 of 1Full Size

By Andrew Heavens

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudan's army said on Wednesday it had bombed rebel positions in Darfur, a rare admission of air attacks in the western region.

Tension is growing in Darfur ahead of an expected ruling within weeks by the International Criminal Court on whether to issue an arrest warrant against Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on charges of war crimes in the region.

A statement said planes bombed near Muhajiriya in south Darfur, targeting rebels who had rejected a 2006 peace agreement and the unconditional ceasefire declared by Bashir last year.

"The Sudanese army has bombed this area to protect the Sudanese civilians living in this area," a spokesman said.( RIGHT )

No one was immediately available from Sudan's government to comment on whether the attacks broke the ceasefire or other agreements. Bombing is forbidden under terms of the 2006 deal and U.N. Security Council resolutions.( THEY DON'T CARE )

A commander of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) said the bombing took place on Tuesday. "They know our troops are moving in the area," said Suleiman Sandal, adding that he had no reports of casualties.

Both the government and rebels are preparing for more fighting if the global court issues a warrant for Bashir at the request of the court's prosecutor. He would be the first sitting head of state to be pursued by the court.( GOOD )

Officials from the joint U.N./African Union peacekeeping force confirmed the bombing on Tuesday and said they also had evidence that two people were wounded in bombing elsewhere in south Sudan on Saturday.

The rebels also accuse the army of bombing in North Darfur.

JEM chief negotiator Ahmed Tugud told Reuters there was evidence government troops had been re-arming militias and had succeeded in persuading some other rebel factions to join Khartoum in recent weeks.

Peace efforts in Darfur have faltered and rebel groups are increasingly fragmented. International experts say almost six years of fighting in Darfur has killed 200,000 ( 200,000 )and driven 2.5 million from their homes. Khartoum says 10,000 have died."

This is about to get bad again.

"it is local and international aid workers and non-political social activists who will likely be the real agents of change in Zimbabwe in 2009."

Checking in on Zimbabwe. From the Guardian:

"What does 2009 hold for Zimbabwe?

Will a government of national unity, if finally formed, be the solution to the country's problems?

Comments (11)

• 
• • Knox Chitiyo
  • guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 January 2009 12.00 GMT
  • Article history

As Zimbabwe limps agonisingly into 2009, there is one immediate question which the MDC has to answer; will they join the still notional government of national unity, or not? Morgan Tsvangirai stated that unless well-known activists Jestina Mukoko and other civil society and opposition figures are released, he will ask the MDC's national council to suspend negotiations.

After the tumultuous silence following their abductions, Mukoko and her co-accused were suddenly produced, rabbit–style, out of the police hat. Allegedly, the accused were involved in the recruitment and training of saboteurs to overthrow Robert Mugabe from bases in Botswana. Even if this were true( COME ON ) – and there is as yet no wisp of evidence to support the state's case – the inhuman treatment of the activists is utterly unconstitutional and goes far beyond any crimes they have supposedly committed( IS THIS A SURPRISE ? ). If the MDC wish to give force to their ultimatum, they should not allow themselves to be steamrollered by Zanu-PF, South Africa and Southern African Development Community (SADC), into joining a Government of National Unity (GNU) just so they can all feed from the same trough.( AMEN )

"Operation Chimumumu"

Here's what that is:

"MARONDERA – Zanu (PF) has launched “Operation Chimumumu” - a nationwide campaign aimed at eliminating MDC officials and activists and some staff of targeted NGOs – in a desperate attempt to force MDC President, Morgan Tsvangirai, into a marriage of inconvenience.
The MDC has continued to resist being pressurized into the formation of an inclusive government in which Robert Mugabe continues to wield all the power – in contravention of the letter and spirit of the agreement signed in Harare on September 29.
Thirty armed men are reportedly being accommodated at a house owned by a senior Zanu (PF) politburo member in Winston Park, Marondera. The gunmen are allegedly dressed in riot gear and have been arresting locals before whisking them away to killing zones.
Mugabe and his military junta continue to thwart the legitimate power-sharing demands of the MDC - with the connivance of former South Africa president, Thabo Mbeki, and other undemocratic regional leaders."

The post continues:

"– the late 2009( 2008-DON ) assault on opposition and civil society activists by the Police and Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) – is part of the carrot and stick strategy; the carrot is the shiny new passport for Tsvangirai (and the promise of a seat at the edge of the high table as Prime Minister if he plays ball). The stick is the inevitable arrests, abductions and torture of opposition and civil society activists and the threat of worse to come if the MDC does not co-operate( YES ). Oddly enough, Zanu-PF may have given the opposition succour in making their choice. High court judge Yunus Omerjee ordered the immediate release of most of the accused. He also ordered that they be given access to proper medical treatment (many of them bear the signs of torture( TORTURE ) ), full access to lawyers, and normal visitation rights. Instead, the state has placed them in the notorious Chikurubi maximum security prison – a facility originally designed for the most violent criminal offenders.

There are other issues which need to be resolved – the ministerial posts, the governorships and the question of who will control the finances. But both MDC groups should insist on an unconditional end to political violence as a precursor to a GNU. Zanu-PF has alleged that the MDC is training military recruits in Botswana. If this is the case, then indeed the MDC has a case to answer; but Zanu-PF has not yet produced any proof. There is currently a SADC investigation into these claims. The MDC should insist that the findings be published before any GNU is formed, otherwise it will simply be yet another stick that they will be beaten with( LITERALLY ). The state is also making a distinction( UNREAL ) between humanitarian politics and human rights politics. Humanitarian aid organisations have been allowed ingress into Zimbabwe's blighted communities; human rights activists, in contrast, have not been spared the rod. The MDC then, if it were to join a GNU, would need to be aware of what it was getting into. It can hardly be part of a coalition government while civilians are being abducted and killed. There is no "acceptable" level of political violence, and the GNU cannot be Zimbabwe's redemption if the drums are beaten on human skin.( TRUE )

And what of military intervention? I don't see it happening. The most common suggestion is a military invasion of Zimbabwe from, or by, a neighbouring country (possibly Botswana)( I'D BE FOR IT ). Idi Amin's removal by Tanzania's Julius Nyerere in 1979 is cited as a useful precedent. There are many similarities between Mugabe's Zimbabwe and Amin's Uganda; a brutal leadership, a broken economy, the flight of millions, and a restive military. But there are some vital discrepancies – Amin provoked Tanzania and sent Ugandan forces into his neighbour's country in a hunt for Ugandan "dissidents". Mugabe has been very careful not to overstep the mark in his war of words with Botswana, and it would be difficult for the Botswana Defence Forces or other neighbouring country to justify invading Zimbabwe, other than in self-defence( A FAIR POINT ).

That leaves the UK and the United States to mull the challenge of direct intervention( NOT A GOOD IDEA ). This won't happen; UK and US forces are at full stretch in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Caucasus and Middle East will always be considered more important than Africa; there is also little public or state appetite further military adventures in far away places. It would be a huge operation and there is little indication that anyone is willing to pay the costs. In addition, humanitarian military intervention is best applied when civilians are clustered in readily identifiable camps or zones which can be cordoned off and protected by an international mission. This is not the case in Zimbabwe at the moment – although there has been tremendous dislocation, most people are still in their rural or urban homes, and this makes it difficult to imagine how an operation such as this would work. More importantly, at the first intimation of a major military offensive against it, the security sector in Zimbabwe would target the opposition leadership for elimination or for use as hostages.

This is not to say that Zanu-PF will not face a military threat. Growing dissatisfaction within the rank and file of the security establishment, increasing indiscipline and possible small-scale mutinies might be complemented by a possible "third force" of anti-state military operatives beginning a campaign of violence if the politics remain unresolved. This third force, if it comes into being, would be a threat to both Zanu-PF and the MDC. It would not be an MDC organisation, but its existence would be used by Zanu-PF to justify further repression. For Zanu-PF, an open military challenge would bind supporters together, but it would also widen the fissures in the security sector periphery and lead to overstretch.

The year 2009 will start the way 2008 ended; with the Zimbabwe question unresolved. Zimbabwe will be on the SADC agenda in its January meeting, and it will also feature at the UN Security Council meeting early in 2009. Although the regime v opposition polemic will continue, for ordinary people what really matters is how their daily lives can be transformed for the better. In this regard, it is local and international aid workers and non-political social activists who will likely be the real agents of change in Zimbabwe in 2009."

A sad but realistic appraisal. We could do more. Certainly South Africa could.

"it is time for the UN to reflect on why this particular experiment has gone so very wrong"

Nice post on the Guardian about Sudan:

"Rebecca Tinsley

• 
  
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 January 2009 18.00 GMT
• Article history

Peacekeeping can never be an exact science. However, as Darfur's suffering continues a year on from the deployment of the much-lauded hybrid United Nations African Mission in Darfur (Unamid), it is time for the UN to reflect on why this particular experiment has gone so very wrong.( A JOKE, AS IN THE CONGO. )

The most obvious hindrance to the Unamid force has been its lack of troops. To date only 9,000 of the 26,000 troops promised are on the ground. Unamid is so resented and mistrusted by Darfuri people that is now being attacked by civilians who believe it is in league with the Sudanese government( THIS HAPPENS IN A LOT OF PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS. THE TROOPS ARE SEEN AS TAKING SIDES. THIS MUST BE AVOIDED. ). This in turn intensifies the conflict as angry young men become radicalised within the camps, frustrated that their people continue to be attacked and killed by the Sudanese with impunity.

From the start Unamid has lacked helicopters, logistics and communications equipment, all essential to cover an area the size of France with very few paved roads. For instance, only four in nine Unamid trucks in one area have batteries to power them. Unamid is unable even to protect itself from attacks, let alone protect civilians and humanitarian operations in Darfur.

Western powers cite their commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan when resisting calls for help from Unamid. Nevertheless, a show of unity from the international community, and a little political will, would boost Unamid's credibility, giving the Sudanese pause for thought as they impede the peacekeepers every step of the way. According to a recent report, at a conservative estimate Nato alone could provide 104 suitable helicopters not currently in active service elsewhere - four times the number that Unamid has requested.( SEND THEM. NOW. )

Added to the chronic lack of resources is the UN's curiously conciliatory attitude towards the Sudanese government( A DISGRACE ). In many ways Unamid was damned from its inception, undermined by the UN's willingness to appease President Bashir, making cordial relations with Khartoum its priority.

Before a single soldier set foot in Darfur, the UN had conceded to Bashir's demand that his government would dictate the terms of deployment. Unsurprisingly, the conditions set by Sudan have been so unrealistic as to render Unamid ineffective. After removing Unamid's teeth, Bashir then delayed its arrival by refusing to provide land for bases, stopping equipment leaving ports, delaying visas by six months or more, and randomly imposing restrictions on movement. Why did the UN ever agree to ask the permission of the architect of a genocide to use UN planes to investigate reports of that genocide?( PR )

Instead of applying sanctions that were long ago approved by the UN security council, the UN has favoured "regional conflict management" that in effect means using inexperienced and outnumbered African troops, some of whom go without pay for months.( PR )

Through its actions the UN has inadvertently allowed what could have been an effective regional peacekeeping tool, boosted by western support, to be manipulated into a political tool by the Khartoum junta. Bashir continues to outwit the international community, demanding that the renewal of Unamid's mandate is contingent on the withdrawal of International Criminal Court genocide charges against him.( NO WAY )

So long as the UN panders to Bashir, Unamid will remain ineffective. There will be neither peace nor justice in Darfur while Bashir is treated as our valued partner in the search for regional harmony. The same Khartoum dictatorship spent 20 years ethnically cleansing and killing its black African population in Southern Sudan, paying and arming local nomads to be its proxies, just as it does now in Darfur. Strangely, the international community still has not drawn the obvious conclusions about the nature of the regime it is now beholden to in Darfur.( HE'S A SERIOUS WAR CRIMINAL. )

In 2009 the UN must exert the will to control of its peacekeeping mission, giving it the diplomatic, political and material support to carry out its mission. Only then is there a realistic chance to end the bloodshed and suffering in Darfur, or to restore faith in the UN's capacity to restore peace and security anywhere else in the world's trouble spots."

It's time, after 20 years and millions of deaths, to get serious about Sudan.

"But this is an unhelpful resolution, and it looks like the Bushies are having a farewell snicker at the U.N. Plaza."

Daniel Levy about the last days of the Bush Administration's Israeli- Palestinian Peace Plan:

"The U.N. Security Council today passed its first resolution on Israeli-Palestinian peace process-related issues in 5 years. The resolution was essentially intended to anchor the Annapolis process as an ongoing effort in moving forward beyond the Bush Administration and it closely followed the language of a Quartet statement from last month. UNSCR 1850, however, not only contains little that is new, it also offers very little encouragement that progress is being made by the current approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace-making.

From the Bush Administration’s perspective it is a last gasp effort at legacy-building, having failed to achieve the goals set out at Annapolis one year ago. How ironic that this Administration would seek a U.N. imprimatur for that legacy, given its characteristic hostility to the U.N. and indeed to multilateralism and international law in general. But this is an unhelpful resolution, and it looks like the Bushies are having a farewell snicker at the U.N. Plaza.

From the international community’s perspective, this looks like a farewell gesture to an Administration who for seven years neglected Israeli-Palestinian peace-making and whose belated efforts were never really found to be convincing. So it can only be hoped that UNSCR 1850 in no way locks the Obama Administration into an Annapolis process that is structurally flawed. The resolution’s insistence on maintaining bi-lateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, on pursuing the Roadmap and on adhering to the Quartet principles for engagement with Palestinians all seem woefully inadequate when faced with the real challenges that will have to be overcome to advance progress toward Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution.

Only this month two of the most respected establishment Washington think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations and Brookings, suggested dropping those Quartet principles: “Washington should eschew the Quartet’s conditions on Hamas.” The bi-lateral negotiations themselves will almost certainly need to be buttressed by external intervention, as two of the wisest U.S. national security heads, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft have suggested: “A key element in any new initiative would be for the U.S. president to declare publicly what, in the view of this country, the basic parameters of a fair and enduring peace ought to be.” ( TRUE )

More than anything, UNSCR 1850 looks like a clumsy attempt to intervene in domestic Israeli and Palestinian politics—and one that is likely to backfire.

When Israelis go the polls in February, the main choice for Prime Minister will be between the Annapolis-supporting Tzipi Livni (Kadima) and the more hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud). If this resolution is designed to embarrass Netanyahu and to tie his hands when it discusses the “irreversibility of the bilateral negotiations”, then it is unlikely to succeed. The Israeli-voting public can be open to listening to messages from the international community, but not when they are delivered with so little sophistication, in a way that lacks meaning, teeth, or follow-up and that actually borders on being nonsensical—what on earth does the “irreversibility of the bi-lateral negotiations” even mean?

The effort to assist the Palestinian Fatah leadership in Ramallah is even more woeful, transparent, and unconvincing. The resolution “calls on all states and international organizations…to support the Palestinian government that is committed to the Quartet principles and…to maximize the resources available for the Palestinian Authority.” Yet one has to question how much of a selling point this resolution can be with the Palestinian public when the entire text makes no mention of occupation, settlements, or the humanitarian situation in Gaza—all things that might just concern the average Palestinian If anything this is only likely to further discredit the P.A.

A U.N. Security Council Resolution is a tool that if effectively deployed could be helpful in advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace, but Resolution 1850 only cheapens and demeans this tool. That the resolution has been largely well received is perhaps testimony to only how low the bar has now been placed for what is considered to be a positive development on Israel-Palestine. International support for such a timid approach, and one so steeped in the failure of the past, is unfortunate to say the least. It is also very out of sync with the hope and expectation of more effective and creative diplomacy that has characterized the international mood since the election of Barack Obama.

In fact, this is not the only issue on which the Bush Administration is trying to have a last laugh at the United Nations—they are also pushing for a UN Security Council Resolution on the situation in Somalia to militarily protect the discredited and impotent Transitional Federal Government there. Bush’s Somalia policy has come close to being matched in its wrongheaded ideological dogmatism and devastating effects by the policy towards the Palestinians. ( THEY AIM FOR CONSISTENCY )

The only good news is that this resolution was the product of U.S.-Russian co-sponsorship (nice to see) and that like the many Israel-Palestine resolutions that preceded it, this one too is likely ( CERTAIN )to be ignored."