Sudan: The Passion of the Present

US lawmakers say UN resolution on Darfur does not go far enough / France’s FM says UN Darfur deployment offers hope

Two specific wire-service reaction stories that are related to tonight's big batch of story links:

From the AP...

Three U.S. senators criticized the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday for weakening a resolution to establish a 26,000-strong peacekeeping force for Sudan's ravaged Darfur region.

The resolution, which the Security Council approved [on] Tuesday, removed harsh language in an effort to pick up votes.

Speaking before the U.N. action, Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Africa, called it "welcome and overdue" that the Security Council was prepared to pass a resolution that would send a peacekeeping mission to protect the people of Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced since 2003.

He added: "I am very disappointed that the resolution's co-sponsors have succumbed to pressure from the Sudanese government" and removed the threat of sanctions. One item deleted was the Chapter 7 clause, which deals with threats to international peace and can be militarily enforced.

Two other senators also said [that] the resolution did not go far enough.

Sudan's government is accused of using a militia of Arab nomads known as the janjaweed to retaliate against a rebellion by ethnic African tribes. Sudan has denied the charge.

Feingold said [that] he understood the need for diplomatic compromise, but said [that] the resolution has been "unacceptably weakened." He said that under the resolution, the Sudanese government would evade its requirements without consequences.

"Should that happen, the toll of the genocide in Darfur will continue to mount, in lives lost and persons displaced, and fundamental human values that the international community has failed to uphold," he said.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said [that] he has spoken with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, as well as ambassadors from nations on the Security Council, about the need for a strong resolution.

"It's the first time [that] I've ever picked up the phone to call ambassadors from other countries about a vote in the United Nations Security Council, but I think [that] it's that important," he said.

"Today's action by the U.N. is a start, but it is only a start," Durbin said. "There is more to be done, and it needs to be done now."

Sen. Robert Menendez, also a Democrat, said [that] he was disappointed that the resolution had been "watered down."

"While I understand the need to negotiate a resolution that will pass, ultimately we cannot let this manipulation continue," he said. "We cannot let Sudan's ambassador have veto power over these lives. We cannot let nations with permanent seats and veto power on the council continue to act irresponsibly."

From AFP, reprinted on Sudan Tribune...

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said [on] Tuesday that the UN Security Council’s decision to authorise the deployment of a joint African Union-UN force in Darfur offered "great hope".

"It brings very great hope for Darfur," Kouchner said in a statement. "It is now up to us to make good on that hope."

Kouchner added that "the adoption of the resolution must not cause us to relax our efforts. On the contrary. We must do everything to ensure a rapid deployment ... in conditions that allow us to make a difference on the ground."

He noted that cooperation with the Sudan government would be necessary.

The Security Council voted unanimously [on] Tuesday to authorise the deployment of a joint African Union-UN force in Sudan’s strife-torn Darfur region, a move immediately hailed as "historic and unprecedented" by UN chief Ban Ki-moon.

The resolution mandated the 26,000-strong "hybrid" force, to be known as UNAMID, to take over peacekeeping in Darfur from 7,000 ill-equipped AU troops.

The Darfur conflict began in February 2003, when ethnic African tribes rebelled against what they consider decades of neglect and discrimination by the Arab-dominated Khartoum government.

New force faces morass of enmities in a hostile landscape / The Perils of Peacekeeping in Darfur

Two new analysis features that are tied in with tonight's big batch of story links:

By Jonathan Clayton of the UK's "Times"...

Clan loyalties and tribal affiliations long ago ceased to offer protection in Darfur, Sudan’s vast western province, where village has turned upon village, neighbour against neighbour, Muslim against Muslim.

In the past seven days alone, at least 50 people have been killed in clashes between rival Arab tribes in the western part of an area that is larger than France. The violence marked the seventh time since February that a supposed truce has been violated.

The fighting, like that now taking place in most of Darfur, centred on ancient rivalries over water, grazing rights and dowries. A void created by the absence of any responsible government and an incompetent African Union peace mission has now been filled by centuries-old disputes settled with 21st-century weapons.

The Rzigat Aballa Arabs previously formed the backbone of the dreaded Janjawid militia. Khartoum unleashed them initially on the area in 2003 to quash a rebellion by the black African majority that resented rule by the Arab-dominated Government. The African tribes, also Muslims, represent about 90 per cent of the 6.5 million population.

The Rzigat Aballa have been fighting the Torjum – with whom they allied briefly – for months over tribal lands west of Nyala, one of Darfur’s main towns.

Sudanese newspapers reported that the latest fighting began on July 25 when a group of Rzigat Aballa tribesmen fell on a band of Torjum. More than 25 people were killed in the ensuing fighting, which a tribal chief said flared again a few days later, when Aballa men were attacked from four directions. The fighting lasted all day and killed at least 34 people.

Fighting across the province, which has only a handful of roads, has now become so localised that it would take battalions of well-armed peacekeepers to quell. The rebels at the heart of the rebellion splintered into several factions, based on ethnicity, in 2006 and turned on one another. Some made deals with former Arab tribes and resorted to banditry. Black Africans from the Zaghawa and Fur tribes, historic rivals who united to demand more autonomy from the Arab-dominated Government in Khartoum, began fighting each other. One group even entered government after a Western-supported peace deal and then turned on its old allies.

The new United Nations/African Union force, urged by Gordon Brown, must enter this morass. It will be made up virtually entirely of African nations, possibly supported by troops from the usual developing countries that make up such missions – Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Morocco.

They will be operating in one of the world’s most-remote and -inaccessible areas, characterised by immense historical complexity. Half the population of Darfur, which is centred on the volcanic Jebel Marra massif, belong to the Fur tribe. The rest are divided among more than 15 different ethnic and linguistic groups, some nomadic cattle herders, some settled peasant farmers. All are Sunni Muslims. Political analysts say that only a mission with the capability to intervene forcefully and with great determination has any hope of success. Even then, they emphasise that it has to be accompanied by a renewed effort to obtain a political settlement.

The crisis in Darfur – where an estimated 200,000 people have been killed and more than a million [have been] made homeless – has spilt over into Chad, home to many of the same sedentary African and marauding Arab tribes. Last year it led to fighting in the capital.

“Peace will remain elusive unless the international community coordinates better to surmount obstacles, including the ruling party’s pursuit of military victory and increasing rebel divisions,” a recent report from the think-tank International Crisis Group said.

Sudan experts give warning that the failure to end the insecurity and violence in Darfur could now threaten the 2005 peace deal that ended the separate civil war in the country between the Muslim north and Christian south. “Although all sides in Darfur are Muslim, there are other tensions which are being reflected in the south, where factionalism is also taking hold. The Darfur disease could easily spread as the same problems – such as an absence of representation, which created it – exist elsewhere,” one said recently.

[sidebar]

4.2 million people depend on the world's largest aid operation

2.5 million have abandoned their homes to escape violence

200,000 are believed to have died in the conflict and from disease and malnutrition. About 9,000 deaths are acknowledged by the Khartoum Government.

8 aid convoys attacked in the past week

Sources: ReliefWeek [I assume that the reference is actually to ReliefWeb - EJM]; UN World [Food] Programme; USAid

By Alex Perry of "Time"...

Anyone wondering whether the world's largest peacekeeping force will be enough to end the conflict in Darfur already have their answer — from the people who created it. The new force, a hybrid U.N.-African Union contingent, was approved by the U.N. Security Council [on] Tuesday, and one of its key backers, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, told the Council that the plan was to "achieve a cease-fire, including an end to aerial bombings of civilians; drive forward peace talks and, as peace is established, offer to begin to invest in recovery and reconstruction." Simultaneously, however, officials accompanying him were briefing reporters that the new force alone "can't solve the problem."

Critics will decry the fact that the U.N. has taken so long (four years and counting) to consider meaningful action, and even then to not do enough, but the British assessment reflects reality. The fighting in Darfur, which pitches Arab supremacist militias backed by the Sudanese army against Darfur rebels, has killed an estimated 200,000 people and left 2 million homeless. Against that, the U.N. has authorized a force of 26,000 peacekeepers whose mandate is limited to monitoring — but never seizing — arms, and which can only act defensively to protect civilians and the free movement of humanitarian workers. What's more, the force's command structure is a recipe for confusion: The U.N. will provide "command and control structures and backstopping," but day-to-day decisions will be taken separately by an African Union general. To be effective, peacekeeping forces need to be towering buffers too intimidating for the combatants to challenge; this one is barely knee-high.

The British and other Western powers are hanging their main hopes for ending the conflict on talks with Darfur's various rebel groups in Arusha, Tanzania, due to begin in the next few days. That appears a slim hope. For one thing, the rebels are a fractious bunch. On Monday, a new split was reported in the ranks of the hardline Islamic Justice and Equality Movement (J.E.M.) over who would represent them in Arusha. And even if they can agree a common platform, the Sudanese government still has to agree to meet them. Khartoum's preferred method of dealing with Darfuris can be guessed at by [last] week's announcement from the World Food Program that gunmen have attacked nine food convoys across Darfur in the last two weeks, as many as in the first five months of the year. Kenro Oshidari, the WFP's Sudan representative, refrained from identifying who might be stopping aid from reaching Darfuris, but said that, as a result, the WFP had been unable to reach 160,000 refugees in June, up from a previous high of 60,000 in March.

That's not to say [that] there's an easy fix in Darfur. Resolving the conflict would require ridding the Sudanese government of its xenophobia in the short term, and, in the longer term, reversing climate change. (The Darfur conflict has its roots in the expansion south of the Sahara desert, which has pitched Arab nomads in competition with African-Arab pastoralists for ever-decreasing fertile land.) Until it is fixed, however, Darfur will haunt the international community. Sometimes the U.N. isn't enough, as Rwanda demonstrated 13 years ago. The question is: What is?

China still a target

The primary item in the latest "Embassy Row" column in the "Washington Times" (from Tuesday's edition)...

As a U.S. Olympics gold-medalist in speed-skating, Joey Cheek is not used to standing still. However, he waited patiently at the entrance of the Chinese Embassy for more than a half-hour to deliver petitions with 42,000 signatures, urging China to use its influence on Sudan to stop the genocide of the people of Darfur.

Finally, Chinese officials let him in to hand over the petitions, organized by the Washington-based Save Darfur Coalition. Cheek has long been active in raising money for Darfur refugees. He donated his $25,000 in award money from his 2006 Gold Medal to the Darfur cause.

The campaign to pressure China, the largest foreign investor in Sudan, did not stop with the petitions and a vigil outside the embassy last week.

"We absolutely are moving forward," coalition spokesman Allyn Brooks-LaSure said yesterday [Monday]. "We have no intention of yielding in actions to get China to take more-forceful actions."

The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not comment on the petition drive, but the Chinese Embassy in Britain complained after the coalition bought an ad in the London-based Economist magazine. The ad campaign, which also appeared in American publications, linked China's support for Sudan to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. The coalition is not calling for a boycott, as some news organizations have reported. It is highlighting China's role as host of the Olympics to urge it to assume greater leadership in Darfur.

Mr. Brooks-LaSure cited some press reports that said [that] China, in its position as president of the U.N. Security Council, is trying to weaken a resolution to authorize U.N. peacekeepers to patrol Darfur, where Arab militias have been raiding African villages and killing civilians since 2003.

Mr. Brooks-LaSure called on China to end its policy of noninterference in the domestic affairs of other countries in the case of Sudan.

"China consistently uses its 'noninterference' policy as a shield from doing more to stop the suffering in Darfur," he said, adding that Sudanese President Omar Bashir is "all too happy to hide behind" it.

Scottsdale woman gives Sudanese refugees help, love, support

From the "East Valley [Ariz.] Tribune" (thanks to Sudanese Online)...

After 8-year-old Gabriel Kuany heard the screams of friends and family in the village being slaughtered, he escaped, barefoot, to the nearby jungle. So did about 30,000 other boys between the ages of 4 and 11 from surrounding villages.

The journey to find a safe place took five years and thousands of miles. More than half did not survive.

“It was a nightmare,” says Kuany, now 26. “We settled in an Ethiopian refugee camp. There was no other place.”

For nine years Kuany and the other refugees survived on one meal and 2 liters of water a day. Many died of disease and starvation.

“We had terrible lives in Ethiopia,” he says. “We didn’t know if we were going to have a better life, ever.”

In 2001, things looked like they’d get better for Kuany: Through the United Nations, he and about 3,700 Sudanese males were moved to the United States. More than 400 of the Lost Boys of Sudan wound up in the Valley, thought to be the largest concentration of Sudanese refugees.

But adjusting to a completely different life wouldn’t be easy. It wasn’t until a chance meeting with a kind Scottsdale real estate agent that Kuany would finally feel safe and protected.

A new life

The Lost Boys had been forced to flee their home in 1987 during the second Sudanese civil war. During that time, an Islamic law targeted the black population that embraced Christianity, forcing them to convert or be killed. Many of the boys who survived attacks by government troops escaped because they were tending to cattle at the time.

But their journey didn’t end once the boys settled in the United States. Besides having serious medical and dental problems, they had no idea about the American way of life.

“Everything was new to me,” Kuany says. “They had to show me how to turn a light on and off, and flush a toilet. They had to tell us how to do everything.”

And before he had time to adjust, he was employed at his first job as a cart wrangler at a Scottsdale Safeway.

Soon after, he was approached by a short Scottsdale woman named Reita Hutson.

About 16 months earlier, Hutson had seen a television program about the Lost Boys and felt [that] a higher power was directing her to help them.

“Prior to that I had only heard about the Sudan once before,” she says. “I was so amazed by these boys and what they had been through.”

Hutson says [that] she knew [that] Kuany was a Lost Boy.

“I was nervous to approach him, but I felt like I had to do this,” she says. “That’s how this whole thing got started.”

Gabriel's Dream

After talking with Kuany about his life in Ethiopia and his journey to America, Hutson says, she wanted a way to help.

“Gabriel told me [that] there were only two things that he wanted: his education and his teeth,” she says.

In Sudan, it’s tribal tradition for the boys to have five or six of their bottom teeth removed as soon as their adult set comes in.

This makes it hard for them to eat American food or speak English intelligibly.

Hutson began speaking to Valley dentists and says [that] she was amazed by how many were willing to donate their services to the Lost Boys.

“Gabriel never asked me to fix his teeth,” Hutson says, who says [that] Kuany was surprised to find out [that] his teeth would be fixed. “I just wanted to find a way to help.”

Soon Hutson started talking with some of the other boys and expanded her efforts.

It evolved into Gabriel’s Dream, a nonprofit foundation that provides medical and dental treatment as well as scholarships to the Lost Boys who have settled in Arizona. The foundation has secured more than $1 million in dental treatment and more than $20,000 in scholarships.

But above securing funds and services, Hutson says [that] she really just wanted to give the boys the love, support and comfort [that] they had never had in their lives.

“They were never able to run or play like children. When they were hurt or scared, they had no one to love or comfort them,” she says. “That’s the No. 1 thing [that] I wanted to do for them, was to be a mom.”

And to the boys, that’s what she’s become. Most call her “Mom” or “Mama Reita.”

She goes with each one to their medical and dental appointments, and lets them stay at her home [in order] to recover. She’s also always available when one of the boys has a problem or needs advice.

Recently, Sudanese refugee David Buoth had surgery to fix an injury to his ankle that happened years before, on his journey to the refugee camp.

The care [that] Hutson provided was only what a mother could give, he says.

“We tell her [that] she’s our mom, because she takes care of us,” Buoth says. “But she’s not just a simple mom, she’s a great mom.”

Hutson says [that] taking care of the boys has been a privilege.

“Everyone always says [that] it’s so great, what I’m doing for these boys,” she says. “I feel like they are doing something for me. This has been like a gift to my life.”

Darfur Peacekeeping Force of 26,000 Approved in UN Council Vote

Links to various general/wrap-up post-vote stories (updated many, many times over the course of Tuesday evening/night and Wednesday morning):

(While some of these stories have been updated over the course of Tuesday evening/night, the current links should reflect the latest versions; in many cases, earlier versions are also still available.  Related analysis and reaction stories appear in newer posts.)

By Reuters' Evelyn Leopold

Related Reuters factbox

By Bloomberg's Bill Varner

From the AP

By DPA's J.T. Nguyen

By AFP's Gerard Aziakou

By Maggie Farley of the "Los Angeles Times"

By Colum Lynch of the "Washington Post"

By Betsy Pisik of the "Washington Times"

By Benny Avni of the "New York Sun"

From the "New York Times"

From the BBC

From the UK's "Times"

From the UK's "Guardian"

From the Press Association

From the UK's "Telegraph"

From the "Financial Times"

By David Usborne of the UK's "Independent"

From the UK's "Herald"

From the "Scotsman"

By VOA's Victoria Cavaliere

From IPS

From CNN

From Al Jazeera

From Canada's "National Post"

From the CBC

From CTV

From PBS "NewsHour"

From Australia's ABC

From Deutsche Welle

From the UN News Service

Canada willing to send aid to Darfur; troops doubtful

From the CP...

The federal government appears willing to send more humanitarian aid to the war-ravaged Darfur region of Sudan, but it's not saying if Canada will contribute troops to a peacekeeping mission approved [on] Tuesday.

International Co-operation Minister Josee Verner, who's in charge of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), said [that] the Conservative government has not yet been asked to contribute more food or soldiers to the international effort

“We are ready to respond to any requests in terms of humanitarian assistance,” she said following a news conference [on] Tuesday to announce a separate aid commitment to Africa.

She deferred questions about troops to either Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor or Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, both of whom were unavailable.

Ms. Verner announced [that] CIDA is setting aside [Can]$125 million over five years for a UN-sponsored school-food program, but the money will spent in African countries other than Sudan.

The UN Security Council approved plans [on] Tuesday to send a peacekeeping force to Darfur. The resolution is co-sponsored by Britain and France, and would see the deployment of about 26,000 troops in Sudan's western region.

When it's up and running later this year, it will be the international body's largest peacekeeping force.

Troops belonging to an African Union force have not been able to stop the violence said to have left 200,000 dead and two million homeless.

The resolution gives UN troops the power to use force to protect civilians and aid workers from violence. In addition, there is call for peace talks to proceed.

There are 31 Canadian Forces members currently serving in Sudan as part of a UN mission. Most of them are military observers deployed throughout the southern region of the country. Six soldiers serve as staff officers at UN Headquarters in Khartoum and El Obeid, Sudan.

Opposition parties have repeatedly criticized the Conservative government for not paying more attention to the crisis in Darfur. At the one point, the NDP even suggested [that] Canadian troops be pulled out of fighting in Afghanistan and redeployed to Darfur as peacekeepers.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, has said [that] the army has [its] hands full keeping up with the Afghan deployment, and doesn't have the troops to spare for missions elsewhere.

Ms. Verner said [that] Canada spends $59-million a year on aid to western Sudan, making it the third-largest recipient of Canadian international aid. Afghanistan is the No. 1 recipient.

The executive director of the UN's World Food Program, Josette Sheeran, said [that] no one should underestimate the contribution [that] Canada has made to easing the suffering of people driven from their homes in Darfur.

“Our program feeds two million (people) a day in Darfur,” she said. “If we weren't there with the support of the government of Canada and others, those people would starve.”

Ms. Sheeran insisted [that] the UN has seen some successes in the region, which erupted in fighting in 2003. The agency believes [that] it's been able to cut acute malnutrition by half.

She also praised Canada's separate renewal of its school food program. In the past, Canada has contributed to similar feeding programs in Ethiopia, Mali, Senegal and Tanzania, among others.

Ms. Sheeran says [that] the pledge is important to help the UN agency plan for the long-term.

British PM Brown Urges Swift UN Action in Darfur / Britain to Sudan: Take peace mission or face sanctions

Four stories from today specifically concerning Gordon Brown's UN visit and speech (with stories concerning the vote on the resolution--which has taken place--coming soon):

(The full text of the speech is on, among others, the BBC News site.)

From VOA...

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says [that] the United Nations must take swift action on a resolution to send U.N. peacekeepers to Sudan's war-torn Darfur region.  [As] Victoria Cavaliere reports from VOA's New York Bureau, the U.N. Security Council says [that] it will take up the draft resolution later in the day [on] Tuesday.

This is Mr. Brown's first visit to the United Nations since replacing Tony Blair as Britain's prime minister in June.

Brown told reporters [that] the U.N. Security Council must make an immediate decision on a resolution authorizing up to 19,000 peacekeepers to help stop the violence in Darfur.

"This is the world coming together to say: we have a plan now, we expect the authorities in Sudan to act, we will not tolerate further inaction, and the violence has to stop now," he said.

The U.N. troops would join the 7,000-strong African Union force already in place in Darfur.  The draft resolution was finalized [on] Monday night. It does not contain the threat of sanctions against Sudan, if it fails to rein in the janjaweed militia, which has been fighting ethnic African rebels.  The conflict has left more than 200-thousand people dead and 2 million more displaced.

On the subject of Iraq, Brown said [that] he will stand by Britain's commitments to the U.S.-led coalition.

"I've made it clear," he noted.  "We've got duties to discharge. We've got responsibilities that we're going to keep. We're operating at the support of the Iraqi government, and we're operating under the United Nations resolutions."

Earlier, Brown addressed the United Nations and urged governments, businesses and humanitarian organizations to help revive a stalled U.N. anti-poverty campaign.

Brown's U.N. visit followed a meeting with President Bush in Maryland, where he pledged Britain's support for military action in Iraq and Afghanistan and tough measures to tackle terrorism.

From the Press Association...

(An earlier version is also still available.)

Gordon Brown has appealed to the United Nations to back a 20,000-strong peacekeeping mission to curb the bloodshed in Darfur.

On his first visit to the UN's New York headquarters as Prime Minister, he insisted [that] it was "time for change" in the stricken western region of Sudan.

Mr Brown used earlier talks with President George Bush to secure US support for a British-French resolution paving the way for the deployment of troops within the next two months.

Aides expect the move to be backed by the UN Security Council when it is put to a vote shortly, and China has already indicated [that] it has no objections to the use of force. "The situation in Darfur is the worst humanitarian disaster the world faces today," Mr Brown told an invited audience at the UN.

Parts of the UN resolution tabled by Britain and France on Tuesday would allow the use of force in the protection of civilians and to enable humanitarian workers to go about their business. The mission would comprise mainly African Union and UN soldiers, who would join about 7,000 troops already in Darfur, where 200,000 have been killed and two million [have been] driven from their homes.

The additional force, hailed by Mr Brown as the world's biggest peacekeeping operation, would involve 19,555 troops and about 6,000 police units. Mr Brown said [that] he hoped [that] the resolution would be adopted later on Tuesday, so that peacekeepers could be swiftly put on the ground in Sudan.

"Immediately we will work hard to deploy this force quickly," he said. If agreed, the resolution allows for deployment by October 1.

Ahead of peace talks in Tanzania this weekend, Mr Brown called for a ceasefire and an end to the aerial bombardment of civilians. As peace was established, he added, investments in recovery and reconstruction would be vital. The Prime Minister warned that he would not shirk from trying to secure further sanctions against Khartoum, if it failed to co-operate.

The Sudanese government has already criticised a US-backed peacekeeping plan as "very ugly", threatening to block deployments. Mr Brown said: "We must be clear: if any party blocks progress and the killings continue, I and others will redouble our efforts to impose further sanctions.

"The message for Darfur is that it is time for change."

From DPA...

(An earlier version is also still available.)

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned the Sudanese government on Tuesday not to block the deployment of more than 20,000 United Nations and African Union troops to Darfur, because doing so would incur more sanctions.

Brown urged the UN Security Council to adopt a draft resolution to deploy the so-called hybrid force to take over the current 7,000-strong African Union peacekeeping mission that has been handicapped by funding and logistical problems.

'I am not prepared to let it continue without action, and today is decision day for the United Nations,' Brown told reporters following talks with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at UN headquarters on Tuesday, after a visit to the White House on Monday.

The 15-nation council was scheduled to meet later [on] Tuesday to possibly take action on the draft to deploy the hybrid force.

Brown said [that] 'further sanctions' will be imposed on Sudan unless the joint peacekeeping operation is allowed to be deployed in Darfur, where more than 300,000 people have been killed since 2003. The ethnic conflict pitting Khartoum-backed Arab militias against African groups have wrought havoc in the territory, with 4 million people now depending on international relief aid.

Brown attended early conference at UN headquarters with Ban and UN officials, to discuss the eight goals to be achieved by 2015, known as Millennium Development Goals, including halving poverty and end the spread of HIV/AIDS.

But he devoted a large part of his presence to talking about the tragedy in Darfur.

He said [that] a ceasefire should follow the deployment of the hybrid force, a stop in aerial bombings of civilians and peace talks starting in Tanzania this weekend. He said [that] recovery and reconstruction planning would follow.

'We must be clear: if any party blocks progress and the killings continue, I and others will redouble our efforts to impose further sanctions,' Brown said. 'The message for Darfur is that it is time for change.'

The draft resolution under consideration by the council calls for the deployment of the hybrid force under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which allows use of force by peacekeepers to carry out their mandate.

The force will be tasked to protect its own military and civilian personnel and to support an 'effective implementation' of the 2005 Darfur peace agreement reached in Arusha.

The force will 'prevent the disruption of its implementation and armed attacks, and thus to protect civilians, without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Sudan.'

It calls on 'parties to the conflict in Darfur to fulfil their international obligations and their commitments under relevant agreements, this resolutions and other relevant council resolutions.'

The draft mentions no sanctions, despite Brown's threat of 'further sanctions.' The UN has imposed an arms embargo and a travel and diplomatic ban on some Sudanese officials. US sanctions against Khartoum are more comprehensive, dealing with its oil investment and military operations and targeting a number of Sudanese involved in those operations.

From Bloomberg...

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said [that] Britain and France will propose a United Nations resolution backing deployment of an extra 19,000 peacekeeping troops to the Sudanese region of Darfur.

``The situation in Darfur is the world's biggest humanitarian disaster the world faces today,'' Brown told an invited audience at the UN today. The resolution ``will mandate a deployment of the world's largest peacekeeping operation.''

Sudan on July 24 said [that] a U.S.-backed plan to create a UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur was ``very ugly'' and might compel the government in Khartoum to block deployment soldiers and police in the region.

The proposal follows Brown's first visit to the U.S. since he took over from Tony Blair as prime minister. Brown is attempting to distance Britain's ruling Labour Party from Blair's decision to join the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Brown has sought to emphasize his support for international institutions such as the UN, instead of Blair's effort to stick close to the U.S.

The vast majority will be made up of troops for the African Union, said Michael Ellam, a spokesman for Brown, who is in New York. He suggested [that] Rwanda may be willing to contribute. The troops will have clearance from the strongest possible Security Council mandate to protect civilians and themselves, Ellam said.

The extra troops will add to a force of about 7,000 currently in the region. About 19,555 will be troops and about 6,000 will be police units, according to the draft resolution.

Aid Package

British and UN officials met last night to discuss the measures along with a package of aid and economic development for the region. China, a major investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil industry, last week urged further talks with Sudan before a vote is taken by the UN Security Council.

``The resolution has to be voted on within 24 hours,'' Ellam said. ``We expect it to go through.''

Ellam said [that] the U.K. will pledge 100 million pounds ($203 billion) for reconstruction. It will send no more than a ``handful'' of British troops to provide logistical support.

At a press conference with President George W. Bush yesterday [Monday], Brown said [that] the government would make a statement to Parliament in October about troop levels in Iraq. That would follow proposals from U.S. Army General David Petraeus due on Sept. 15 on military strategy for the region.

Britain has 5,500 troops in Iraq and 7,100 troops in Afghanistan. It also maintains about 5,000 soldiers in Northern Ireland.

Sudan's Position

Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem, Sudan's ambassador to the UN, has said [that] a resolution the council adopted in August 2006 calling for deployment of 20,000 UN troops and police in Darfur wasn't implemented because his government rejected it. That measure expanded the mandate of the UN force monitoring the cease-fire that ended a civil war in southern Sudan.

Brown today also urged the rich governments and companies to step up efforts to meet the UN's millennium development goals for fighting poverty. Those goals won't be met by the 2015 deadline, according to UN and British estimates.

``The message for Darfur is that it is time for change, and I am here to say that it is also time for change so that we can meet the world's millennium development goals,'' Brown said.

The goals including a two-thirds reduction in infant mortality, reversal of the Aids epidemic and primary-school education for every child. The number of people living on less than $1 a day, which decreased to 1 billion from 1.5 billion between 1981 and 2001, hasn't dropped since then. The target is 500 million by 2015.

Brown's plan is to sign up companies including Bechtel Group Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., to contribute by adapting their businesses so that they can favor development in the world's poorest areas.

``I hope [that] we can draw on the best of the private sector and the voluntary sector,'' said Brown.

US House targets Sudan investment / U.S. House of Representatives bill protects those divesting investments in Iran, Darfur

Four stories from over the past day:

(The ones from AFP and the AP are from after the vote; the ones from VOA and Bloomberg from before.  See also a related new GI-Net press release/backgrounder.)

From AFP...

The US House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill ordering the naming of companies that do business in Sudan, which backers said would shame those who profit in the shadow of Darfur "genocide."

The legislation, passed by a crushing 418-1 majority, would also prohibit US government contracts with such firms and clear the way for federal and state pension funds to divest holdings in firms which invest in Sudan.

"No one should have to worry that they are supporting genocide, whether it's through their tax dollars or their pension fund," said California Democrat Barbara Lee, who introduced the measure.

"This bill is designed to wash the blood off of our federal contracts, protect the rights of states to divest their own public pension funds from companies doing business in Sudan, and increase the financial pressure on Khartoum to end the genocide in Sudan."

Brad Miller, a Republican representative from North Carolina said, when the bill was debated on Monday, that it would "hold up for public shame the companies that invest in Sudan" and shine a spotlight on those who "seek profit in the face of the genocide in Darfur."

"I refuse to fail the people of Darfur, as we failed the people of Rwanda," said Miller.

The huge majority in favor of the measure is much larger than the two-thirds margin needed to override any presidential veto of the legislation.

The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act is similar to a current bill targeting investment in Iran, and modelled on legislation which helped state pension funds divest in firms involved in apartheid-era South Africa.

The Darfur conflict began in 2003, when an ethnic minority rose up against the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum, which then enlisted the Janjaweed militia group to help crush the rebellion.

An estimated 200,000 people have died in Darfur from the combined effect of war and famine since then.

The bill passed as the UN Security Council was to authorize later [on] Tuesday the deployment of a joint African Union-UN force in Darfur, and Britain threatened sanctions if the violence in the region did not stop.

The 15 council members were to endorse a revised Franco-British draft resolution mandating the 26,000-strong "hybrid" force, to be known as UNAMID, to take over peacekeeping in Darfur from 7,000 ill-equipped AU troops.

From the AP...

The House of Representatives voted [on] Tuesday to give legal protections to U.S. investors and state and local governments who decide to curtail investments in international corporations doing business in Iran and Sudan.

The bills, now heading to the Senate, provide safe harbor from lawsuits to managers of mutual funds and pension funds who divest funds from companies that invest more than $20 million (€14.6 million) in Iran's energy sector or in businesses that support Sudan's policies in Darfur.

The bills, said Finance Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Democrat, will "empower Americans, in their individual capacities, through their state governments, through organizations, to express in a concrete way the overwhelming opposition in our country" to the genocide in Darfur and to Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapons capacity.

The votes were 418-1 on Darfur and 408-6 on Iran divestment.

Under both bills, the federal government is to periodically update a list of companies that do business with Sudan or Iran's energy sector. They note that while U.S. companies are already barred from involvement in Sudan or Iran's energy sector, many Americans are unaware of the business connections of the foreign companies [that] they invest in.

The bills allow state and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list.

Rep. Barbara Lee, a Democrat and sponsor of the Darfur measure, said [that] 54 universities and 19 states have already taken steps to divest funds from companies investing in Sudan to protest the violence there that has killed some 400,000 people. She said [that] the bill would also bar the federal government from renewing and signing contracts with multinationals doing business with the Khartoum government.

The Iran bill focuses on those international corporations investing at least $20 million (€14.6 million) in Iran's energy sector, selling munitions to Iran or extending credit of $20 million (€14.6 million) or more to the Iranian government.

The House separately was voting on a bill to expand existing sanctions on Iran to include business in that nation's liquefied-natural-gas and petrochemical industries. It makes export-credit agencies, insurers and other financial institutions subject to sanctions for investment in Iran's energy industry.

"Responsible nations must immediately stop their multimillion, and in some cases -billion-, -dollar investments in Iran's energy sector," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican and the sponsor of the bill.

From VOA...

The House of Representatives is poised to approve legislation aimed at stepping up economic pressure on the government of Sudan because of the situation in Darfur. VOA's Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill that the vote is expected [on] Tuesday.

House lawmakers designed the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act to support the widening grassroots movement in the United States for states, cities, [...] universities, and mutual and pension funds to divest from or restrict investments in companies doing business in Sudan.

California Democrat Barbara Lee is the bill's main sponsor, and notes that, so far, 19 U.S. states, nine cities, and 54 universities have approved divestment measures.

"Throughout our country, our constituents are standing up and demanding that their hard-earned money not be used to support a pariah government that is killing its own people," she said.

Under the legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission would compile a list of companies [on] the New York Stock Exchange with ties to Khartoum, prohibit them from receiving federal contracts, and make it legal to divest from such companies, removing the threat of lawsuits in the case of pension and other fund managers.

House financial-services-committee chairman Congressman Barney Frank says [that] the Darfur measure, and a similar one for Iran, does not compel divestment.

"What these bills do is to make it clear, as I think they will once they become law, that the opposition to the genocide in Sudan, to the nuclearization, the weapons nuclearization in Iran, are widespread throughout this country," he said.

Among provisions, companies involved in Sudan would disclose the nature of their operations. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), an arm of Congress, would investigate any Sudan investments by the Thrift Investment Board, which oversees the federal-employee-retirement fund.

Companies would have to disclose activities with Sudan government or government-controlled entities, investments in military equipment sales, or oil-related activities.

Geographic exceptions are made for southern Sudan, providing humanitarian relief for people in Darfur, implementing the 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement, and providing military and other equipment for African Union peacekeepers or the United Nations and non-government organizations.

Republicans usually skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions supported the measure.

"Closing our financial markets to those who particularly directly or indirectly engage in the slaughter of innocent human beings is well within our ability and ought to be the bedrock of our principles," said Congressman Scott Garrett.

Congressman Frank Wolf has been the most-outspoken House Republican on Darfur.

"Many states have been reluctant, they have looked for excuses," he said. "Now, this legislation takes away all the excuses."

Republicans insisted on language calling for other governments to adopt similar measures.

The bill gives the U.S. president power to waive provisions on a case-by-case basis, in the interest of U.S. national security.

Bipartisan divestment legislation regarding Darfur is also pending in the Senate, where a measure proposes to identify securities companies with more than one million dollars invested in Sudan's petroleum industry.

So far this year, House lawmakers have also approved other measures urging China, and the Arab League, to use their influence with the Khartoum government to help stop genocide and violence in Darfur, and providing funds to help Darfur refugees living in camps in Chad.

From Bloomberg...

The House of Representatives is set to vote on legislation encouraging state and local governments to end their links with companies that do business in Iran or Sudan.

The House will hold separate roll-call votes tonight or tomorrow [Monday or Tuesday] on the package of three measures.

One measure would require the Treasury Department to publicize the names of companies that have an investment of $20 million or more in Iran's or Sudan's energy or weapons industries. Separate legislation would protect state and local governments or fund investors from shareholder lawsuits, if they sell their holdings in these companies.

``Divestiture needs to be part of a bigger diplomatic and economic strategy to isolate the government of Iran,'' said Representative Brad Sherman, a California Democrat. ``This bill sweeps away an excuse from those investment managers who haven't wanted to be bothered to divest, even when their investors are demanding it.''

A third measure would prohibit companies with federal contracts from conducting business with the Sudanese government, and would authorize states to create the same restriction.

The divestiture measure, proposed by Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, aims to preempt lawsuits such as the one brought in Illinois, where the National Foreign Trade Council sued to overturn a state law that divested state pension funds from Sudan.

`Genocide'

``Helping finance the genocide in Darfur, helping Iran get nuclear weapons, is not a good idea,'' Frank said in an interview.

State governments in California, Missouri and Florida are taking steps to sell Iran-related investments.

Frank said [that] he thinks [that] everyone should divest from such companies, while declining to name any company that might be hit by the divestiture movement.

It may prove difficult to create a list of companies that do business in Iran and Sudan, both countries that the U.S. State Department says sponsor terrorism. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission suspended its Internet posting of a list of companies with ties to countries that support terrorism after companies said it was unfair.

Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, asked the SEC to remove the list because it included companies whose ties to Iran, Sudan or other state sponsors of terrorism were peripheral. Steven Adamske, Frank's spokesman, said [that] today's legislation would exempt companies that are doing humanitarian work in Iran and Sudan.

`A Perfect List'

``It will be difficult to make a perfect list,'' Frank said. ``It won't be hard at all to come up with a pretty-good list.''

Companies around the world are pursuing long-term agreements to tap into Iran's reserves of oil and gas, the second largest in the world. The U.S. says [that] such efforts run counter to United Nations sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment. U.S. officials say [that] they suspect [that] Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, an act that would destabilize the Middle East.

Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat and presidential candidate, has introduced companion Iran legislation in the Senate.

U.S. Congressman Calls for Possible China Olympics Boycott

An interview feature by VOA's James Butty...

Visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said [on] Monday that he and President Bush will step up pressure to end violence in Sudan's Darfur province.  Brown, who [...] wrapped up two days of talks [with President Bush on] Monday in the United States, said [that] they agreed to expedite the UN resolution for a joint UN-African Union peacekeeping force for Darfur. 

Congressman Donald Payne is chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health.  He told VOA [that] he hopes [that] the new breed of European leaders would force the United States to do more about Darfur.

“I hope that the new prime minister of Great Britain and the new president in France have both taken a very strong interest, and this is a good sign, if we could get the Europeans more engaged to put pressure on and push our government. The members of Congress want to go further, but we’ve seen the administration sort of slow down once again, because Sudan is supposed to be assisting us against al-Qaeda, they claim,” he said.

Congressman Payne said [that] the United States was once again looking the other way while thousands continue to die in Darfur.

“Once again, we are looking the other way, as people die, because one issue is supposed to be paramount to this so-called war on terror. We cannot compromise all the principles for people [whom] we consider to be our allies because they say [that] they support the war on terror,” Payne said

Congressman Payne called for a boycott of the 2008 Summer Olympics, if China does not stop selling what he called illegal arms to Sudan.

“We must keep the pressure on China. I’d like to even see, if they continue to sell illegal arms to the government, that we should have a boycott of the Olympics in Beijing in ’08. It would be the blood Olympics, and we can’t let them have it both ways,” Payne said.

Payne, who also sponsored the Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights Advancement Act of 2007 last month, said [that] Congress was pleased about the recent release from prison of 38 opposition politicians.

But he said [that] the United States must keep up the pressure on the Ethiopian government.

“There are hundreds of more political prisoners, and the United States needs to keep pressure on Ethiopia, as we would on any other country that’s our ally and friend, to tell them that they must respect the rights of their people. We cannot go back to the days of the Cold War, where we supported totalitarian governments just because they were on our side, because in the long run, you lose,” he said.

On Zimbabwe, Congressman Payne hoped that the Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries would prevail on President Robert Mugabe to relinquish what he [i.e., Payne] called his [i.e., Mugabe's] strangle-hold on his people.

“Mr. Mugabe has just turned his back on many of us who have been trying to help Zimbabwe. And so something has to happen. The country cannot exist much longer in the manner in which he is running it,” Payne said.

Dozens killed in latest Darfur tribal clash

From AFP...

(Note that this story uses both "Torjum" and "Torjam"; I'm not sure which one would be the "better" spelling. - EJM)

At least 34 people have been killed in the latest clashes between rival Arab tribes in the war-torn western Sudanese region of Darfur, a tribal chief said on Tuesday.

"These clashes, coming just after the ones from last week, killed 34 and wounded 38 of our people," Mohammed Hammad Jalabi, chief of the Torjum tribe, told AFP by telephone from the provincial capital of Nyala.

He said that the rival Rzigat Aballa tribe, with which the Torjam have been clashing for months, attacked his tribal lands west of Nyala from four directions, and [that] fighting lasted much of the day before the army intervened.

There were no estimates to the number of Aballa dead.

On July 25, Sudanese papers reported that another 16 people died in clashes between the two tribes when Aballa men fell on a band of Torjum, killing nine.

The tribes, at odds over grazing rights and livestock raiding, have violated a February truce seven times, most dramatically in April when Rzigat tribesmen killed 62 Torjam in their villages.

Darfur came to world attention in 2003 when rebels took up arms against the government to protest at their region's marginalisation.

The government combated the rebellion with camel-riding Janjaweed militia, many from the Rzigat Aballa tribe, who have since been accused of atrocities and genocide.

About 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million [have been] displaced in the Darfur conflict, according to UN estimates. Some sources say [that] the death toll is much higher.