"That makes them all the more resentful of Western calls for action on Darfur"

Checking in on Sudan. From AI:

"Sudanese opposition leader arrested

© AP GraphicsBank">

Hassan Al Turabi, leader of Sudanese opposition party, the Popular Congress Party

© AP GraphicsBank16 January 2009

A Sudanese opposition leader has been arrested after calling on Sudan's president to present himself to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and face his responsibility for crimes under international law that have been committed in the conflict in Darfur.

Hassan Al Turabi, the leader of the Popular Congress Party (PCP), was taken from his home in Khartoum by armed agents of the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS), on 14 January. He has since been held incommunicado and without charge.

Al Turabi’s arrest came two days after he addressed journalists in the PCP offices. He told them that President Al Bashir should present himself to the ICC and face trial, to spare Sudan further internal crisis and collapse.( THAT MAKES SENSE )

He said that, because President Al Bashir was in power, he was politically responsible for crimes such as killing, rape, displacement and the burning of villages, which have been taking place in Darfur since the conflict started in 2003. ( TRUE )

Turabi is the latest in a series of individuals, including human rights activists and others, detained solely for the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression in Sudan.
Some of those arrested and detained were tortured and otherwise ill-treated. ( HELLISH )

These arrests have been happening especially since 14 July 2008, when the ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo applied for a warrant of arrest against President Al Bashir, for 10 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.( TO TRY AND INFLUENCE THE ICC TO LAY OFF BY COMMITTING MORE WAR CRIMES AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. )

Neither Al Turabi's family nor his lawyers have been officially informed of the reasons for his arrest. His family do not know how he is being treated, or how his health has been affected.
First held at an NISS detention centre, Al Turabi was then moved to Kober prison in Khartoum.

His family initially followed him to the NISS detention centre, but were not allowed to go in with him. The NISS have since refused to allow them to see him, to give him his medicine and special food. Al Turabi is about to turn 77 and requires medication as well as a special diet.

Amnesty International considers that Al Turabi’s arrest is arbitrary, carried out in response to his 12 January statement to journalists. The organization has urged the Sudanese authorities to charge Hassan Al Turabi with a recognisable criminal offence or else release him immediately. It has also urged them to allow Al Turabi immediate access to his family, legal representation and any medical treatment he may require.

Amnesty International has also called for an immediate stop to the harassment and unlawful arrest of human rights activists and members of the opposition for the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression and assembly.

Al Turabi was one of the key figures behind the 1989 coup d'état that brought President Omar Al Bashir to power. He fell out with the president in the late 1990s.

He was imprisoned in Kober from February to May 2001, after which he was put under house arrest until October 2003, when he was pardoned by presidential decree. He was never brought to trial. He was again incarcerated between 2004 and 2005."( WHAT A HELL HOLE )

From Reuters:

"By Cynthia Johnston - Analysis

CAIRO (Reuters) - When the International Criminal Court prosecutor sought an arrest warrant for Sudan's president, the move set off alarm bells in Arab capitals that fear it may showcase a new form of Western meddling in Arab affairs.

Arab leaders, many of whom run governments accused of rampant human rights abuses, worry the court could next turn its focus to other Arab states if it succeeds in prosecuting Omar Hassan al-Bashir for Darfur war crimes.

Anticipating the ICC move, Sudan swiftly called for an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers, whose ranks include strong North African friends of Khartoum and who swung to action with a plan that appeared aimed to avoid prosecution of Bashir.( A GREAT ORGANIZATION )

"A large part of the developing world is very, very suspicious of the ICC," Sudan expert John Ashworth said. "If you look at the Arab League itself, I guess there would be members of the Arab League who would fear being indicted as well."( THEY SHOULD BE )

Many Arabs believe that Muslim states are being targeted disproportionately by the West for any perceived missteps, citing the U.S.-led wars on Iraq and Afghanistan as well as pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.

Meanwhile, Arabs say the international community has failed for half a century to secure statehood for Palestinians or speak up about Israeli human rights violations. ( THE UN CONDEMNS ISRAEL ALL THE TIME. COME ON. )

That makes them all the more resentful of Western calls for action on Darfur, where the ICC prosecutor has accused Bashir of orchestrating genocide that has killed 35,000 people outright, at least another 100,000 through slow death( 135,000 ) , and forced 2.5 million from their homes. ( COMPARE THE NUMBERS WITH GAZA AND LEBANON. )

ARAB PLAN

Arabs' cultural and political affinity with Sudan's largely Arab north also means some may feel more natural empathy with the Bashir government than with mostly non-Arab Darfur rebels.

"All the Arabs now feel, and I think they have a right, that they are already targeted... For those average people, Omar al-Bashir represents Arab legitimacy, Arab dignity even," Cairo-based political analyst Diaa Rashwan said.( SO 135,000 PEOPLE NEED TO DIE BECAUSE 2000 DID IN LEBANON AND GAZA? )

Both the Arab League and the African Union want the U.N. Security Council to put on hold the ICC move to indict Bashir, and the Arab League said on Tuesday that it had secured a pledge from Sudan to try those it suspects of crimes in Darfur at home.( A JOKE )

The deal will allow the United Nations, African Union and Arab League to follow the proceedings, although it would be up to Sudan to decide who to try. The League did not say if two Sudanese indicted by the ICC last year would face charges.

The agreement, after a visit by Arab League chief Amr Moussa to Khartoum, showed the League may be well-placed to pressure Sudan. But the move may still not satisfy Western critics.

"From the Sudan government's point of view, what they clearly want to do is to get the Arab League to put pressure on the African Union to try and back up the president," said Patrick Smith, editor of UK-based Africa Confidential.

"Part of its strategy is to have at any one time four or five different initiatives to deal with what's going on in Darfur. So in that way the core issues are obfuscated," he said.

INSTABILITY FEARS

Some Arab states have practical concerns as well. Cairo, for example, fears a handful of potentially unpredictable new states emerging to its south that could threaten stability or covet Egypt's share of Nile waters, analysts say. Those fears are among factors that lead it to lend more support to Khartoum than to separatist rebels.

But there is by no means a true Arab consensus for full backing of Khartoum( GOOD ), and the League's criticism of the ICC has so far been relatively mild.

Analysts say some states may want to avoid strong criticism of the ICC or unconditional backing for Khartoum because it could embarrass them before the international community. ( I WONDER WHY?)

Yet if diplomatic efforts by Arab and African states are unable to delay an arrest warrant for Bashir, analysts said they doubt very much that the Sudanese leader would face any dangers in the countries of his Arab friends.

"I don't think at all that President Bashir will have any kind of problems in any Arab country," Rashwan said. "I think they will decide to receive President Bashir( A MASS MURDERER )."

(Writing by Cynthia Johnston; Editing by Samia Nakhoul)"

"An estimated 200,000 people have died in the violence and 2.5 million have fled their homes."

We can't ignore Darfur. From Reuters:

"By Andrew Heavens

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Darfur rebels accused Sudan's army of bombing their positions on Thursday, breaking a period of relative( THAT'S ALL IT IS ) calm in the country's violent west.

No one was immediately available to comment from Sudan's armed forces. International sources, who asked not to be named, said they had heard similar reports.

The insurgent Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) told Reuters government helicopters and Antonov planes attacked their fighters across a wide area of north Darfur from around midday on Wednesday until Thursday afternoon.

"There is bombing going on right now," said JEM commander Suleiman Sandal at 2pm local time (1100 GMT) on Thursday.

"They have seen JEM forces moving across the area. They think JEM is going to attack them ... This is the first for some time."

The reported attacks were around the towns of Kutum, Mallit and Um Sidir. Sudan's president announced an "unconditional" ceasefire in the region less than two months ago.

The joint United Nations/African Union UNAMID peacekeeping force said it was looking into reports of clashes between government and rebel forces in the days after the November ceasefire announcement. But the fighting appeared to die down in December.

JEM's accusation will add to tension mounting ahead of a ruling from the International Criminal Court on whether to issue an arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on charges of orchestrating genocide in Darfur.( PLEASE )

A senior foreign office official on Monday told Reuters the government had intelligence JEM was planning to attack Sudanese cities and oil fields as soon as the global court's decision was announced.

Sandal confirmed JEM was planning to mark the ruling with some form of action, but declined to go into details.

"It is true we are preparing for the ICC day. But we are not sure what day it will be," he told Reuters, speaking by satellite phone from Darfur.

"We are preparing militarily and with the IDP (internally displaced people) camps. There will be demonstrations. We are trying to make it an important day for justice."

Mostly non-Arab rebels took up arms in early 2003 accusing Khartoum of neglect. Khartoum mobilised militias to quell the revolt, who now stand accused of war crimes.

An estimated 200,000( 200,000 ) people have died in the violence and 2.5 million have fled their homes. Khartoum accuses the western media of exaggerating the death toll( RIGHT. THEY'VE ONLY KILLED HALF THAT NUMBER. )."

"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.

Nicholas Kristof on Darfur in the NY Times:

"A New Chance for Darfur

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

If Barack Obama wants to help end the genocide in Darfur, he doesn’t have to look far for ideas of how to accomplish that. President Bush and his top aides have been given, and ignored( TRUE ), a menu of options for tough steps to squeeze Sudan — even destroy its air force — and those will soon be on the new president’s desk.

The State Department’s policy planning staff prepared the first set of possible responses back in 2004 (never pursued), and this year Ambassador Richard Williamson has privately pushed the White House to squeeze Sudan until it stops the killing.

Mr. Williamson, who is President Bush’s special envoy to Sudan, wrote a tough memo to Mr. Bush this fall outlining three particular steps the United States could take to press Sudan’s leader, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir:

•

The United States could jam all communications in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital. This would include all telephone calls, all cellular service, all Internet access. After two days, having demonstrated Sudan’s vulnerability, the United States could halt the jamming. ( I AGREE )

•

The United States could apply progressive pressure to Port Sudan, from which Sudan exports oil and thus earns revenue. The first step would be to send naval vessels near the port. The next step would be to search or turn back some ships, and the final step would be to impose a quarantine and halt Sudan’s oil exports. ( I AGREE )

•

The United States could target Sudanese military aircraft that defy a United Nations ban on offensive military flights in Darfur. The first step would be to destroy a helicopter gunship on the ground at night. A tougher approach would be to warn Sudan that unless it complies with international demands (by handing over suspects indicted by the International Criminal Court, for example), it will lose its air force — and then if it does not comply, to destroy all its military aircraft on the ground.( I WORRY ABOUT THIS ONE. MAYBE )

Officials frustrated by the administration’s passivity shared these possible steps with me, partly to make clear that Mr. Obama can do more if he has the political will.

Mr. Williamson has been one of the unsung heroes of the Bush administration, fighting tenaciously and secretly — even twice threatening to resign — to redeem American honor by confronting genocide. President Bush himself seemed open to tougher action, officials say, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, always resisted, backed by the Pentagon. Ms. Rice and Mr. Hadley tarnished their own honor and America’s by advocating, in effect, acquiescence in genocide.

The naysayers’ objection was simple: Those are incredibly serious steps, with grave repercussions( NOT GOOD ENOUGH ).

They’re right. But then again, genocide is pretty serious, too.

That’s something that Mr. Obama and his aides understand. Partly for that reason, Sudan fears the Obama administration, and now for the first time in years, there’s a real chance of ousting President Bashir and ending his murderous regime.

Several factors are coming together. The leaders in Khartoum feel their government wobbling, particularly after rebels clashed with government soldiers on the outskirts of Khartoum earlier this year. They know that the International Criminal Court is expected to issue an arrest warrant for President Bashir, probably in February, but that no other top leader will be indicted after Mr. Bashir.

China, which for years has been President Bashir’s most important international supporter, now seems to be backing away — just as it eventually abandoned genocidal friends like Slobodan Milosevic and the Khmer Rouge. And an Arab state, Qatar, is now leading a serious diplomatic initiative to try to end the slaughter( GOOD FOR THEM ).

Thus there are growing whispers that key figures in the Sudanese regime may throw Mr. Bashir overboard in the coming months. The other leaders are ruthless and have blood on their hands as well, but some of them have in the past proved more willing to negotiate deals than Mr. Bashir has.

Hovering in the background is the risk that the north-south war in Sudan will resume, leading to a slaughter even worse than Darfur. One ominous sign is that Sudan is now stockpiling cash and weapons, apparently so that it can wage war on the south even if Port Sudan is blocked.

Mr. Williamson has suggested providing surface-to-air missiles to the separate government of South Sudan. Such weaponry would reduce the chance that Sudan would attack the south( YIKES. MAYBE. ).

If Mr. Obama and his aides can work with Europe, China and Qatar to keep the heat on — and to make clear that Sudan has no choice but to hand over President Bashir once the court issues the arrest warrant — then we just might avert a new war and end the first genocide of the 21st century in the new year."

My only problem is with increasing arms in the area and our military involvement. However, if I could be persuaded that these would be competently done, I would support them. Letting this happen is an international disgrace.