Sudan: The Passion of the Present

Yet Another New Addition to "RSS Feeds of News from Africa"

African Path, which I've been overlooking for a while, has now been added to the big, big batch of widget-based feeds of news from Africa. - EJM

Can Europe and China "Save" Darfur? (by John Prendergast)

A new opinion piece for allAfrica...

After all the U.S. government's rhetoric about Darfur's genocide, and all its finger-wagging over the inaction of other nations, it is an instructive irony that the forces finally emerging to actually address Darfur's ills are on the other sides of the Atlantic and Pacific. Indeed, the governments that seem mostly likely to walk the walk are in France, the UK, and - surprise - China.

Three years ago, the U.S. Congress harangued President Bush about not calling the Darfur crisis "genocide" until he finally did so. His administration then spent the next few years using the term repeatedly, bird-dogging other nations about their lack of action, issuing vague statements about the use of force for which the Pentagon has not done serious planning, strong-arming one of the rebel groups to sign a peace deal that made matters worse on the ground, imposing unilateral sanctions that had no impact on the culprits, and sending millions of dollars of humanitarian aid, to substitute for effective political action.

During this timeframe, the U.S. could be forgiven for being disappointed in China and Europe. Beijing ran interference for the Khartoum regime in the UN Security Council, while pumping Sudanese oil and selling arms to the government. France and the UK provided no direction to the European Union, and sat on the sidelines, despite a reservoir of leverage in Paris from its relationship with Chad, and high-octane speeches from former Prime Minister Blair about no-fly zones.

However, in one of those kairos moments, everything is suddenly changing. China has come under intense pressure from activists for its support for the Sudanese regime, which it wants to shake off, so [that] it can host a controversy-free 2008 Olympics. France elected a president who wants to work with the U.S. on Darfur. Britain's new prime minister plans to go with the new French president to Darfur to move the peace process forward. All three countries played constructive roles in getting the UN Security Council to pass a resolution a few weeks ago authorizing a force of over 20,000 troops to help stabilize Darfur.

This is the diplomatic and political equivalent of low-hanging fruit for President Bush, as he considers how to begin shaping his legacy. If his administration can set aside all its posturing, roll up its sleeves, send a diplomatic team to the region, and start working multilaterally, a real success story could be written.

And for the first time on an African issue, resolving the crisis in Darfur would have positive domestic political ramifications. Over the past few years, a movement has grown among politically active Americans to confront genocide in Darfur. In churches, synagogues, town halls, and university classrooms all over the U.S., citizens are telling their elected officials that it is unacceptable to stand idly by while genocide unfolds.   More than a million Americans have asked to be on the Save Darfur Coalition's e-mail action list. The book [that] I wrote with "actorvist" Don Cheadle rocketed to number 6 on the [New York] Times [Best seller} List, and at every stop of our book tour, we spoke to thousands of people hungry to learn what they could do to get our politicians to act. The highest-rated show on television last week was a "60 Minutes" episode on Darfur. Until there is a political cost for inaction in the face of genocide, author Samantha Power has written, we will get inaction.

What is needed isn't exactly rocket science. I've been working in Africa's crisis zones for 25 years, and contrary to popular perceptions, the continent is ripe with success stories about countries that have been ripped apart by civil war, but have been able to resolve their issues and move on. Mozambique, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Burundi, and others can attest to the formula: a serious peace process, combined with the deployment of relevant force works.

A quartet of President Hu, President Sarkozy, Prime Minister Brown, and President Bush should pursue a peace-and-protection initiative that would prioritize a peace deal between the regime and rebel groups, and enforce the rapid deployment of the Security Council's authorized multinational forces to Darfur and eastern Chad. They should be prepared to back targeted sanctions in the UN Security Council (President Putin, you are welcome to join in) against anyone - government or rebel - who tries to obstruct these objectives.  Not only would Darfur be "saved," but transatlantic and transpacific cooperation would also be enhanced at a time when such multilateralism is desperately needed.

President Bush, your legacy is calling. Will you answer?

John Prendergast co-chairs the ENOUGH Project (www.enoughproject.org) and is co-author with Don Cheadle of Not on Our Watch.

Rwanda: 800 More Troops for Darfur / Rwanda to send 800 troops to Darfur in October

Two stories:

From Rwanda's "New Times", reprinted on both allAfrica and (in a slightly different version) Sudan Tribune...

The Rwanda Defence Forces (RDF) have offered yet another battalion of 800 troops for the new hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping mission in the troubled Darfur region of Sudan.

Rwanda already has close to 2000 military men and officers in region where about 200,000 people have died and another 2.5 million [have been] left homeless since 2003. According to the RDF Spokesman Maj. Jill Rutaremara, the new contingent will be airlifted for the mission from October 15 [to] 26.

"The additional 800-strong battalion will be backed by a heavy support package, and will be deployed in Sector One, El Fasher," Rutaremara said from the RDF headquarters in Kimihurura.

He said that the new battalion will arrive in Sudan ahead of the logistics, adding that the contingent is already prepared.

The airlifting of the new battalion will coincide with the rotation of three RDF battalions that will have completed their mandatory six-months, which starts on September 20 through December 7 [sic].

The UN-AU joint mission will be more equipped for the job, as opposed to the AU peacekeeping mission, which is now phasing out.

Rutaremara said [that] the first battalion to be rotated is composed of 680 men and officers. They are now stationed in Sector One at El Fasher, Darfur.

The other two battalions of 1076 troops, each with 538 peacekeepers, are deployed in Sector Seven in Zalinje, and Sector Four in Kabkabiya.

Rutaremara said [that] the three battalions will be restructured to the standards of the UN peacekeepers during the next rotation.

In June, the Sudanese Government accepted the proposal for a hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping operation.

Subsequently, Sudanese foreign minister Dr Lam Akol visited Rwanda, requesting her to make further troop contribution for the 26,000-strong force. The hybrid operation is the third phase of a three-step process to replace the ill-equipped AU Mission in the Sudan (AMIS), which has made little impact on the killings of African farmers largely blamed on pro-government militias called Janjaweed.

From Panapress...

Rwanda will send a battalion of 800 troops for the hybrid AU-UN peacekeeping mission in Sudan's western region of Darfur mid-October, Rwandan military spokesman, Maj. Jill Rutaremara, told journalists here [Kigali] Friday.

"The deployment of the new Rwandan battalion will coincide with the return of 680 Rwandan soldiers who have served in Darfur over the past six months," Maj. Rutaremara said.

"Contrary to troops deployed under the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS), the new hybrid force will be militarily well equipped," he added.

The AU-UN force is part of the third phase of peacekeeping operations in Darfur, where a civil war has been raging for four years, killing over 200,000 and displacing over 2 million.

The 2,000-strong Rwandan contingent in Darfur [is] comprised [of] soldiers and police personnel.

Aiding a Defensive Sudan: Interview With Missionary Katie Gesto

A Zenit interview from Monday (also reprinted by Catholic Online)...

Three foreigners have been given orders to leave Sudan in less than a week, and according to a missionary working in the country, aid workers are periodically threatened with expulsion by the government.

Paul Barker, country director of CARE, told Reuters today [Monday] that the Sudanese government's Humanitarian Aid Commission had given him 72 hours to leave the country. Although no official reason was given for the expulsion, Barker speculated to the press that it has to do with an internal e-mail [that] he sent to CARE staff on the situation in Sudan, which was later leaked to the press.

In this interview with ZENIT, Katie Gesto says that cases like Barker's are anything but uncommon. She discusses her 10 years of missionary service in the African country as a nurse practitioner and consecrated virgin, and the challenges [that] all aid workers face in Sudan.

Q: What is your reaction to the expulsion of the country director of CARE from Sudan?

Gesto: I am not surprised about the expulsion, as I've had many colleagues, myself included, threatened with the same. Nongovernmental organizations like CARE are [supposed] to be neutral, but when it comes to keeping their people secure, it can easily appear that they have lost their neutral stance.

Aid workers know the real nitty-gritty, as they are living there and see with their own eyes, but if you publicly -- and e-mail is considered public these days -- declare your opinion, even though factual and true, it's common knowledge that you can get thrown out of the country.

My friend almost got classified as a persona non-grata -- PNG -- for allowing a sick Dinka on a plane leaving Sudan, rather than a less-sick Shilluk man; because she was in Shilluk territory. They said [that] she was being tribal, and put her under house arrest for a month, and threatened to declare her a PNG.

It's not so complicated really; you have to know the volatile emotional situation [that] all leaders are living in, and so they can react to remarks that others would think are not very significant.

Q: You have been working as a missionary in Sudan. What drew you to perhaps the most-dangerous missionary territory in the world?

Gesto: Ever since grade school, I listened attentively at Mass to the stories of missionary priests and sisters. God gave me the desire to be a missionary, even at that early age.

During my college years, I was involved with Campus Crusade for Christ, and as a Catholic, built great friendships with students going on missions to Russia and other difficult countries.

It was then that God burned in my heart a desire to serve our brothers in persecuted countries. Certainly Sudan is on that list.

I know [that] I can't do much alone, but when God calls, he does the work. In this beautiful work, he makes his love felt.

Q: Your work, as a nurse practitioner and a consecrated woman, was relatively independent of support from a specific group. How did you manage, both with regard to safety and basic necessities?

Gesto: The bottom line for me -- for any of us -- is "God, what do you want me to do? Where do you want me to serve?"

After getting a good sense for the country, by serving as a nurse with a relief organization, Medair, I felt [that] God wanted me to serve a bishop directly, since the bishops know what the real needs of their people are.

I then contacted a Catholic bishop in Sudan and offered myself, telling him: "I'll find five volunteers, we'll raise our own money and come serve wherever you see fit."

Well, two years passed while completing my [master's], and I didn't find anyone, so I went in faith and served in that diocese for two years, with two Ugandan priests and some sisters who were nearby.

I was very happy, and grew tremendously both spiritually and from the experience with the people.

Q: While in Africa, you discerned your vocation. What was your general experience of prayer in this dangerous desert, especially at times when you feared for your life?

Gesto: I have grown tremendously since starting my service to Sudan in 1996. It is a blessing to be in a place where one never knows if they will return home.

I was prepared for this by my many years of hospice service, and as far as I can tell, I am willing to die today, if God wills it. As my friend, who is a missionary in Somalia, says, "I just hope [that] they know how to shoot well."

One time when I was told [that] a commander wanted to kill me, because I told the bishop that I suspected him of something dishonest, it did make me nervous.

A possessed man, however, who had speared a few people in our village and who didn't like me made me even more nervous, since he lived next door to the house where I slept alone. But after a few days of restless nights, I said, "Enough of that! Jesus, you are more powerful than those forces! Give me the grace to let you have those fears."

For the most part, these threats didn't bother me too much after that, particularly once the crazy man moved far way and the commander cooled down!

But the willingness to die for our faith is a grace [that] we can all pray for and receive. For most of us, it won't happen physically, but for all of us, it will happen spiritually, if we want to grow to be like Jesus who was martyred.

I was able to hear clearly my call to be a consecrated virgin when I was in Sudan, because of the lack of distractions there -- it's only me and the Lord.

I could see that God allowed me to spend extra time with him in prayer, and to be free to be sent wherever he leads, and to develop a deep spousal relationship with him.

Q: What did you find to be the most-pressing need among the Sudanese people?

Gesto: Unity, learning how to respect each other, and healing from the past trauma.

The more-than-four-decade-long war has broken down good cultural values and the sense of dignity as persons. People have learned to often just fend for themselves, which has opened the door to corruption, tribal fighting, witchcraft, and other detrimental things.

When, through the Gospel, they learn to care for each other in simple ways, they begin to heal and also want to educate their kids -- particularly their girls who are so in need of education.

As this process continues, they will then hopefully work as a community to build the Church and culture, and [to] economically provide for each other.

Q: Upon returning to the United States after your time in Africa, what is most difficult in your transition back to everyday life?

Gesto: Time. Everyone is in such a hurry and worried about such petty things. There is a lack of simplicity, evidenced by constant spending of money on useless things.

People don't seem to have time for talking, laughing, or "being." I have to watch myself [in order] to keep from getting swept into this rat race.

All these distractions seep inside me, and I have to work at creating an environment that supports interior silence, so that I can "be" with Jesus -- a much-easier challenge in Africa!

Why can't we be friends? - Bouncing a foreign envoy from Ottawa is almost unheard of. So why did the government expel a Sudanese diplomat?

A new (apparently Web-only) "Maclean's" analysis feature...

(See also, most recently, Wednesday's batch of stories.)

Not since 1998, when Italian diplomat Giorgio Copello called Canada a "pig country" (among other complaints), has Ottawa turfed a foreign envoy. It was noteworthy, then, when it was announced earlier this week that an official from the Embassy of Sudan would be expelled effective [on] September 1.

The move came in retaliation for the African country's earlier decision to bounce Canada's top envoy there, Nuala Lawlor, after she was accused of "meddling" in Sudanese affairs - apparently by raising concerns over jailed opposition leaders. She was one of three foreign diplomats [sic] ordered out for similar infractions within a four-day period, the others being European Union envoy Kent Degerfelt and American Paul Parker, regional director of humanitarian group CARE.

Degerfelt was eventually allowed to stay, after the EU apologized. In stark contrast, Canada jumped to Lawlor's defence with a strong condemnation of Sudan's actions.

"Canada considers the expulsion of our chargé d'affaires to be entirely unjustified. Wherever they are posted, Canada's diplomats will continue to work to uphold Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law," Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier said in a statement.

What to make of Canada's unflinching stance?

Expelling a foreign envoy is "a very standard way of expressing, within the framework of diplomatic formalities, your displeasure with another government," Allen Sens, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia, tells Macleans.ca. "Because Canada does not have as many diplomatic clashes as some countries do, it’s not something that is done with great frequency." But, he says, "it does happen."

It's not as if Canada is burning bridges with a popular government. Sudan has few friends within the international community, with China a notable exception. Indeed, the government has struggled to fend off international criticism on a number of issues, especially its handling of (and alleged involvement in) the crisis in the Darfur region, which has left at least 200,000 people dead and about 2.5 million displaced in over three years of fighting.

In fact, some analysts see Sudan's expulsion of Lawlor as laden with ulterior motives, including the intention to distract from Darfur. Most recently, Amnesty International released photographs [that] it claims prove [that] the government has been deploying military equipment to the region, despite a United Nations arms embargo - a charge [that] the government vehemently denies.

"The Sudanese government doesn’t place a lot of emphasis on maintaining positive relationships with countries that it knows it’s not going to get a lot of hearing with," Sens says. "[Canada has] been quite vocal in regard [to Darfur], and I think [that] the Sudanese government looks at that, and makes the judgement that the benefits of a positive relationship [with Canada] are not worth it."

Ottawa has committed about [Can]$441 million to Sudan since 2004, making it the fourth-largest donor. Canadian aid dollars also flow into Sudan through international bodies like the UN and non-governmental groups active there. While bilateral aid to the government itself has already been cut off, Sens says [that] it's unlikely Canada would stop aid completely.

"Cutting off aid money punishes the most helpless," he says. "The Canadian government generally tries to avoid this."

So what does the unusual decision to boot the Sudanese envoy say about the Stephen Harper government?

"This fits into a more-vocal foreign policy with respect to expressing Canadian displeasure on certain issues," Sens says, pointing to Harper's complaints about human-rights abuses in China. The Prime Minister was criticized for not taking a similarly harsh stance on a more recent visit with Colombia's controversial president, Alvaro Uribe. But Ottawa's decision to stand up to Sudan seems to be almost universally popular, earning acclaim from editorial pages, members of Canada's Sudanese community, and even rare praise from Liberal leader Stéphane Dion.

As for how Sudan and Canada might ultimately resolve their diplomatic spat, these situations typically involve a period of posturing on both sides and then a gradual mending of fences, Sens explains, after which normal diplomatic relations are re-established. It's not yet clear what might lead to such a development, however.

"In this case, there aren't a lot of customary relations with respect to trade, or cooperation in multilateral organizations, between Canada and the Sudan that [will] really be interrupted," Sens notes. "There’s not a whole lot to talk about, except issues related to the southern Sudan and, of course, Darfur."

To those who wanted to give President al Bashir the benefit of the doubt… (by Save Darfur's Alex Meixner)

The latest post on the official Save Darfur blog...

As the opening of the United Nations General Assembly draws near, world leaders will begin to finalize their stance on how their countries will contribute to the success of the newly approved United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). Speeches are being written and policies [are being] set, and the world awaits its first glimpse of what the international community will do [in order] to ensure UNAMID's swift and successful deployment. Special attention will rightly be placed on members of the Security Council, which unanimously created the UNAMID mission on July 31.

While these preparations are made, it is critical that world leaders do not fall victim to the potential smoke and mirrors of Sudanese obstruction, which have doomed attempts to deploy UN peacekeepers to Darfur in the past. While Sudan has promised its cooperation, world leaders must not take that cooperation for granted. In fact, there is already evidence of further illegal activities on the part of the Sudanese government, in violation of its previous agreements and of several Security Council resolutions.

As photos within the latest Amnesty International report unequivocally illustrate, the Sudanese government continues to deploy banned offensive military equipment to Darfur. When our world leaders prepare for New York, it is these images, rather than Sudan's questionable promises, that they should keep in mind. With more than a hint of tragic irony, it is exactly these types of aviation assets - namely attack and transport helicopters - which are currently being sought by the UN for inclusion in the UNAMID mission.

To quote AI's press release following the report, "the Sudanese government is still deploying weapons into Darfur, in breathtaking defiance of the UN arms embargo and Darfur peace agreements." Since the beginning of August, Sudanese government Antonov bombers are reported to have carried out several raids on Ta'alba, near the town of Adila, as well as the villages of Habib Suleiman and Fataha. Reports indicate that an Antonov capable of such raids was transferred from Russia to Sudan in September 2006. Time will tell whether Russia will be similarly generous in providing needed military equipment to the UN mission which it itself voted to create.

It is sadly predictable that the Government of Sudan continues to attack civilians and violate an arms embargo while simultaneously professing cooperation with the international community. How world leaders will respond, however, remains anybody's guess. For the sake of Darfur, and their own credibility, they should use the opening of the UN General Assembly to affirm their commitments (of troops, police, funding, and equipment) to the success of the UNAMID force which they have created. They should also make clear, in no uncertain terms, that obstruction of UNAMID's deployment, or of a renewed peace process, will not be tolerated, from governments or rebels alike.

Brown and Sarkozy warn Sudan

An Al Jazeera story from today that's partially (but not primarily) about the "Times" op-ed...

(Concerning the op-ed itself, see also related AP, Reuters, DPA, AFP, Bloomberg, UPI, and BBC stories from over the past day. - EJM)

Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy have joined forces to warn Sudan that it faces sanctions, if it attempts to block Western efforts to end the conflict in Darfur.

In a joint editorial [sic] in the UK-based Times newspaper, the British prime minister and the French president urged international powers to intensify their action on the troubled territory.

The move came as the Sudanese government raised objections to the make-up of a joint African Union-United Nations force to be deployed in Darfur.

Khartoum had agreed to the force on the condition that it be made up of African forces, but African nations have not pledged equipment and air power.

Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary-general, has said [that] he believes [that] new negotiations with Sudan may be necessary [in order] to allow other nations to contribute to the force.

'African solutions'

Ali Sadik, a Sudanese Government spokesman, told Al Jazeera [that] any move to bring in non-African troops would be resisted: "The African Union calls for the solving of African problems by Africans themselves.

"This is why we accepted the African Union participation and involvement in the Darfur problem."

The full 26,000-strong force that is to replace a poorly equipped AU contingent is not expected to be on the ground before mid-2008.

However, Hassan al-Turabi, a Sudanese opposition leader and one of the leading critics of the government’s policy in Darfur, told Al Jazeera [that] he would not oppose troops from outside Africa being deployed.

"I know the record of African forces in the Congo and in West Africa, I follow it closely of course, and it's not good.

"The governments are not that democratic, the soldiers sometimes enjoy it here because they pay them a bit better, now they are inside the town, they are doing nothing actually.

"I don't mind leadership from other countries."

'Unacceptable progress'

In their Times editorial [sic], Brown and Sarkozy said [that] British and French junior ministers would visit Sudan, including Darfur, as part of a diplomatic push to bring about a quick ceasefire.

They said that only "a ceasefire, a peacekeeping force, economic reconstruction, and the threat of sanctions can bring a political solution to the region".

The pair vowed to "redouble our efforts to make further progress", noting that "the situation remains completely unacceptable".

They also called for a political settlement that would allow Darfur to participate in Sudanese national elections in 2009.

The UN has said that more than 200,000 people have died and more than two million have been displaced by four years of conflict in Darfur.

In Nubia, fears of another Darfur: As tensions flare over proposed dams, many fear the northern Sudan territory will be the next to region erupt in violence

By Edmund Sanders, from today's "Los Angeles Times"...

The tranquil Nubian villages along this Nile River stretch [Sebu] are best known for the brightly painted gates that adorn many of the simple mud-brick homes. With geometric shapes and hieroglyphic-like pictures, the oversized gates hark back to the stone-carved doorways the villagers' ancestors once built on pyramids that rivaled Egypt's.

These days, however, the elaborate entryways are shadowed by black flags. Government soldiers patrol once-quiet dirt streets, occasionally drawing stones from angry youths. Protest graffiti mar the walls, including one scrawling of an AK-47 with the simple caption: "Darfur 2."

First, southern Sudan erupted in a 20-year civil war, followed by the east and, most recently, the western region of Darfur. Now many fear that Sudan's northern territory of Nubia will be the next to explode over the fight for resources and all-too-familiar accusations of "ethnic cleansing" and complaints of marginalization by an Arab-dominated government.

Tensions have been high here since soldiers opened fire on an anti-government protest of 5,000 Nubians in June, killing four young men and wounding nearly two dozen. The government has arrested nearly three dozen Nubian leaders and four journalists who were trying to cover the violence.

Now a recently formed rebel group, calling itself the Kush Liberation Front, is advocating armed resistance to overthrow the central government, which it accuses of oppressing Nubians and other indigenous peoples in Sudan.

"Our efforts will not succeed unless they are backed by military action," said Abdelwahab Adem, a Nubian former businessman and co-founder of the Kush Liberation Front. "We need to get rid of the Arabs. Our goal is to realize a new Sudan, by force if necessary."

Adem said [that] the new movement would rely on "guerrilla fighting," targeting the capital, Khartoum, and other major Sudanese cities. He declined to specify what sort of tactics might be used, or how many fighters the group has.

With a separate language and culture, Nubians view themselves as a distinct ethnic group, and take pride in being one of Africa's oldest civilizations. Political observers say [that] the budding movement appears to be taking its cue from the rebellions in Darfur and southern Sudan.

"That's the lesson of Darfur," said one Western diplomat in Khartoum, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"The government will only listen to you when you pick up a gun."

Darfur rebels are a potential source of weapons and training for the Kush Liberation Front, observers said.

"We have good relations with our brothers in Darfur," said Adem, who is based in London. But he denied receiving support from the western Sudanese rebels.

The spark for recent unrest was a government proposal to construct two or three electricity-producing dams along the Nile in the Nubian heartland, between the villages of Kajbar, about 350 miles north of Khartoum, and Dal, about 100 miles from the Egyptian border.

This fertile Nile River strip is home to an estimated 300,000 Nubians, many of whom would be forced to relocate, if rising river waters swallowed scores of villages.

Also at risk are some of the world's richest archeological ruins, notably those around the ancient city of Kerma, the first Nubian capital, settled at least 8,000 years ago and lying just downstream from where the proposed 200-megawatt Kajbar dam would be built. The site is home to the oldest known man-made structure in sub-Saharan Africa: a 50-foot, 3,500-year-old mud-brick temple known as the Deffufa.

The proposals come on top of another controversial project, the 1,250-megawatt Merowe Dam, which is already under construction about 150 miles to the east. Flooding from that project will displace 70,000 Arab farmers and [will] engulf several hundred miles of unexplored Nubian archeological sites.

"They want to cut us from our roots, and [to] flood all of Nubia and its history," said Sharif Adeen Ali, 53, a Nubian farmer in the village of Sebu. "They've done this before."

In 1964, construction of the Aswan High Dam in Egypt forced the relocation of 50,000 Sudanese Nubians in the Wadi Halfa region, near the Egyptian border, and nearly 800,000 Nubians in Egypt.

Nubians see the new dams as a plot by Arab governments in Sudan and Egypt to exterminate their communities and seize the land.

"The two countries have never liked having Nubians, who are not Arabs, in the middle," said Abdul Halim Sabbar, a former doctor who is part of the Kajbar Dam Resistance Committee.

In Sebu, one of the Nubian communities that would be submerged by the Kajbar dam, once-welcoming residents now peer warily at the parade of unfamiliar trucks and SUVs that speeds through town carrying Chinese engineers to a work site a mile away. Though government officials say [that] they are only conducting a feasibility study, Chinese crews are installing giant cranes, water towers, floodlights, and other equipment that suggest to villagers that construction is [under way].

On a recent morning, nearly 400 government soldiers marched and drilled at a new military camp set up on the edge of Sebu to protect the Chinese workers. On hills overlooking the village, uniformed lookouts with rifles over their shoulders positioned themselves behind rocks.

"It's become very tense," said one villager, who was afraid to be identified. "Many eyes are watching."

Officials at Sudan's Dams Implementation Unit declined to comment.

A leader in Sudan's ruling party defended the dams, contending that they would help the Nubian communities by providing electricity and irrigation for farming.

"It's going to economically transform the area," said Osman Khalid Mudawi, foreign-affairs chairman in Sudan's parliament. He estimated that a lake created by the dam would irrigate 750,000 acres of newly arable land.

But some scientists and environmentalists questioned whether the dams would expand food production, noting that the region's soil is mostly desert sand and granite. Farming is possible only along the riverbanks, thanks to rich silt deposits from the Nile.

A recent report by the United Nations Environmental Program noted that Sudan's existing dams suffer from declining performance, because they are clogged with silt, which has proved difficult to remove. Water loss as a result of the high evaporation rates in the desert heat is another problem. Meanwhile, downstream from the dams, farm production has fallen, because the soil is no longer enriched by the silt.

It's a similar story at the Aswan High Dam, where the lake created by the dam is filling with silt much faster than anticipated, and downstream farmers are resorting to artificial fertilizers for the first time.

Nubians argue that the new dams are not intended to provide electricity and irrigation in Sudan, but to rescue the Aswan High Dam by capturing silt before it reaches Egypt. "These dams don't look at all like development," said Sabbar, the resistance-committee member. "It's clearly part of a programmed scheme between Egypt and Sudan."

For decades, Nubians have lived in relative isolation, shunning politics and priding themselves on self-sufficiency. Some years, the region found itself entirely left out of the federal budget, which is evident from the lack of paved roads and electricity. Nubians built their own hospitals and schools, though they are still prohibited by law from teaching in their native language.

The threat of renewed flooding, however, has drawn Nubians out of the political desert, and they are mobilizing for a fight.

In addition to demonstrations in Sudan, Nubians abroad are pressing the issue with the United Nations, [the] U.S. State Department, and human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. They've protested at the Sudanese and Chinese embassies in Washington and uploaded graphic footage of the June 13 clashes on the Internet.

"We have more freedom to express ourselves than those still inside Sudan," said Nuraddin Abdulmannan, a Nubian activist who is heading the resistance committee in Washington. He says [that] it is the duty of the international community to preserve the region's archeological sites, which include temples and pyramids built when Nubian kings briefly reigned over Egypt's pharaohs around 730 BC.

"This is an international treasure, and there's an international responsibility to protect it."

For many, the June clash with government troops was the final indignity. Witnesses said [that] soldiers tear-gassed the noisy but peaceful demonstrators, forcing many to jump into the river [in order] to escape the fumes. When protesters began to regroup, soldiers opened fire without warning.

"It was a murder, an assassination," said Ahmed Abdullahi Ameen, 63, whose son, 28, was one of the four killed. The young man, Sheik Adeen Haj Ahmed, was shot in the back of the head, as he climbed out of the river.

Many Nubians say [that] they have little to lose. Izzadin Idriss Mohammed, 71, a Nubian activist in the village of Farig, described the tensions with an old Nubian saying:

"One who is sinking in the Nile will reach for any branch [in order] to survive."

Stakes high for UN's Ban on Africa tour / U.N. Chief Visits Darfur Amid Ongoing Attacks

Two preview analysis features from today:

By Reuters' Patrick Worsnip (also here)...

The stakes are high for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon when he tours Sudan, Chad, and Libya next week [in order] to try to smooth the way for a peacekeeping force [that] he hopes will end the 4-year-old conflict in Darfur.

Ban has set ambitious goals for his six-day trip, saying [that] he wants to lay the foundations of a lasting peace in the western Sudanese region, where an estimated 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million [have] been driven from their homes.

The conflict began when mostly non-Arab rebels took up arms in Darfur, accusing Khartoum of neglecting the region, and the government mobilized mostly Arab militias to quell the revolt. Aid agencies say [that] one of the world's worst crises has resulted.

Sudan agreed in July to the dispatch of a 26,000-strong joint U.N.-African Union force of troops and police to replace 7,000 existing AU peacekeepers who have been unable to cope. It is not expected to deploy before the new year.

But Western diplomats on the U.N. Security Council remain cautious, saying [that] Sudan has made agreements before with the world body, only to cause problems later over the details of their implementation.

Ban, who arrives in Sudan on Monday, has acknowledged that Khartoum has the power to make the peace plan fail. It "cannot succeed without the cooperation of the government of Sudan," he told a news conference on Tuesday, adding that he would press President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for that support.

Despite a peace conference planned for October, a surge in violence in Darfur has claimed hundreds of lives in the past month, with rebels accusing the government of a daily bombing campaign. The armed forces have declined comment.

Khartoum also has ordered out European Union and Canadian envoys for what it said was interference in its affairs, as well as the country director of the U.S.-based CARE aid organization.

TOP PRIORITY

Ban's visit to Darfur will include a stop at a refugee camp. He also will travel to south Sudan, which has been semi-autonomous since a 2005 peace agreement ended 20 years of north-south fighting.

Problems have loomed in the south, too, with the northern army missing a July 9 deadline to move its troops out of vital southern oil areas.

Diplomats say [that] Ban has made settling the Darfur conflict the top international priority of his eight months in office so far, and [that] the Africa trip commits his prestige to that task.

The diplomats say [that] Sudan is now a critical test case for the United Nations itself. "If Darfur slips back into chaos, and the north-south agreement falls apart, the U.N. as a whole will slip back," a senior Western envoy said this week.

The leaders of Britain and France revived the threat of sanctions, in a joint newspaper editorial [sic] on Friday, if Khartoum does not comply. But many Security Council members oppose sanctions, as long as a peace process appears to be under way.

Ban also will go to Chad, which neighbors Darfur and hosts tens of thousands of refugees from there, [in order] to help put in place what he sees as the second prong of his strategy -- deployment of a peace force there to tackle the spillover from Sudan.

Because Chadian President Idriss Deby objected to U.N. forces, European Union troops will provide the military muscle for that mission for the first year, under plans expected to be approved in Brussels in mid-September. But a question mark remains over what happens after that.

The U.N. chief winds up his tour with a 24-hour stopover in Libya, whose leader, Muammar Gaddafi, has hosted talks between Darfur's fractious rebel movements, which currently number about a dozen.

By Haider Rizvi, for IPS...

Hopes for restoration of peace in the Sudanese region of Darfur appear to remain as distant as ever, although international efforts to resolve the four-year-long bloody conflict have recently intensified, and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is now getting personally involved.

But as Ban prepares to embark on his first-ever trip to Sudan next week, from Sep. 3 [to] 6, the official statements coming from Khartoum indicate that the mood there remains defiant, and [that] there are few indications of enthusiasm to cooperate with the international community.

On Tuesday, noting that violence in the Darfur region was on the rise, Ban said [that] he was "deeply concerned" that, early this month [August], several hundred people had been killed in violent incidents, including an attack on a police station and air strikes on villages in south Darfur.

In response, the regime quickly sent a rebuke to Ban, saying that his statement was based on "fabricated news stories." The Sudanese government categorically denied reports about continued military operations in Darfur.

"These accusations are false and founded on made-up information from organisations and agencies with a political agenda," foreign ministry spokesman Ali al-Sadek told reporters. "The government hasn't had any military activities recently, and the Sudanese army has no activities in Darfur."

Initially, the Sudanese government refused to accept the U.N. Security Council decision to deploy additional peacekeepers in the troubled region, but under international pressure, eventually agreed to a 26,000-strong United Nations-African Union hybrid force in Darfur, most of which will be shaped by troops drawn from African nations.

A spokesman for Ban reiterated the U.N. position that violence was escalating and [that] military operations were still going on in Darfur.

"These are established facts," said Yves Sorokobi. "We stand by our information."

Last week, the London-based human rights group Amnesty International released new photographs illustrating the Sudanese government's continued deployment of military equipment in Darfur, despite the U.N. arms embargo and peace agreements.

"An embargo is only effective if it there are repercussions for defiance," said Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director. "The Security Council must strongly enforce this embargo immediately.

The photographs, sent to Amnesty International and the International Peace Information Service in Antwerp by eyewitnesses in Darfur, reinforce evidence provided in Amnesty's May 2007 report "Sudan: Arms continuing to fuel serious human rights violations in Darfur."

In Darfur, more than 200,000 people have been killed [and] at least two million others [have been] displaced since 2003, when the armed conflict erupted between rebel groups from indigenous African tribes and Khartoum-backed Janjaweed militias.

Reports from the region suggest that in addition to civilians, many aid workers remain vulnerable to violent attacks by militias, which have continued since last September, when the Security Council first voted to send 20,000 U.N. troops to the region.

On [Tuesday], Ban said [that] he planned his trip to Sudan because he wanted to "see for myself the very difficult conditions" under which the proposed hybrid U.N.-African peacekeeping force will operate in Darfur.

He said [that] the objective of his trip was "to underscore the peace agreement, and to make progress in several areas related to Darfur -- [the] hybrid force, the political process, humanitarian access, and development of water sources."

Amid renewed calls for rapid deployment of troops, the civil-society groups involved in humanitarian and peace efforts in Darfur welcomed Ban's decision to visit Sudan, although many of them seem unsure if the talks with the Omar al-Bashir government would produce positive results.

"It's critical to put pressure on the government," Marie Clark Brill of Africa Action, a Washington-based political-pressure group that lobbies with the U.S. Congress on issues related to development in Africa, told IPS. "It's now time to put forward financial and logistical resources in place."

Like many other groups, Africa Action is demanding immediate deployment of troops in Darfur. "The peacekeeping operation is long overdue," she said, amid doubts about Sudan's promises to cooperate with the world community.

Scott Paul of Citizens for Global Solutions, another independent but influential policy think tank in Washington [sic], offered similar views on Ban's trip to Khartoum.

"We all know that the agreements reached thus far are as fragile as they are promising," he told IPS. "However, keeping the spotlight on Darfur is the best way to hold the government of Sudan to the promises that it has made."

In the United States, many groups involved in peace and humanitarian efforts in Darfur believe that, aside from collective efforts at the U.N. level, China alone can play a critical in ending the carnage in Darfur, but the giant Asian nation has so far failed to do enough.

China is thought to purchase as much as 70 percent of Sudan's oil, and has at least 3 billion dollars invested in the Sudanese energy sector. It has exported at least 24 million dollars worth of arms and ammunition to Sudan, as well as nearly 57 million dollars in parts and aircraft equipment.

This year and before, time and again, the United States tried to threaten Sudan with economic sanctions, but both China and Russia opposed such measures at the U.N. Security Council, where both countries enjoy veto powers.

However, earlier this month, China and Russia went along with the United States and other countries' proposal to send a 26,000-strong U.N. force to Darfur.

Many observers believe [that] China's acquiescence was due, at least in part, to the activist pressure brought to bear on the nation as it attempts to purify its image ahead of next year's Olympic Games.

U.N. officials say [that] the troop deployment could still take several months to implement. Meanwhile, as Darfurians await the troops' arrival, vast numbers of villagers -- as well as humanitarian-aid workers -- are likely to face further armed attacks by militias.

UN's Wahlstrom Says Humanitarian Situation Worsening in Darfur / Humanitarian situation in Darfur deteriorating, senior UN official says

Two stories:

By VOA's Suzanne Presto...

The U.N. Assistant Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, Margareta Wahlstrom, says [that] the humanitarian situation in Sudan's western Darfur region is worsening.  From VOA's United [Nations] bureau, Suzanne Presto reports.

Wahlstrom says [that] 4 million people in the Darfur region rely on humanitarian assistance.  She says [that] the region has been the scene of the world's largest humanitarian operation for the past three years, and she says [that] the problems have grown even more critical in the past few months. 

The U.N. emergency-relief coordinator says [that] violence and insecurity displaced another 55,000 people between June and late August, bringing the total to 250,000 this year, and 2.2 million people in total.

Wahlstrom says [that] aid workers are concerned that malnutrition is on the rise in Darfur.  She says [that] several surveys indicate that, in certain areas, about one-in-five people (17 percent) are malnourished.

Wahlstrom says [that] there is a lean season every year in Darfur, but she says [that] aid workers have never seen this pattern of decline. 

"With a huge effort of the international and humanitarian community, from [i.e., starting in] 2004, the situation stabilized from a health and nutritional perspective," she said.  "So this is the first time [that] we see the potential of a deterioration, for which we are very worried, and we put this in the context of the very unstable situation."

An estimated 200,000 people in Darfur have been killed during more than four years of fighting between rebels, the government, and militia groups.

In late July, the U.N. approved a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force for Darfur.  When fully deployed, it will be the world's largest peacekeeping mission, comprised of more than 19,000 military personnel and about 6,400 police officers.

Wahlstrom says [that] humanitarian workers have high hopes for this force.

"The expectation that the result of the deployment of the mission on the situation of people will yield almost immediate impact will be very high," she added.

On the subject of broader relief efforts, Wahlstrom says [that] Sudanese authorities have been more cooperative in recent months, particularly in terms of administrative tasks, such as issuing visas to relief workers.  But she notes that humanitarian groups are concerned that authorities ordered the top official in Sudan for the international aid agency CARE to leave the country.

From the UN News Service...

A United Nations official today [Friday] warned that the humanitarian situation is worsening in Sudan’s war-ravaged Darfur region, with more people being displaced, increased security risks to aid workers, and potentially rising malnutrition rates.

“We believe [that] it’s important to keep reminding ourselves that a credible ceasefire and controlling the lawlessness in Darfur are really the two bottom-lines that need to be sustained, and this is, of course, the intent of the international community,” UN Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator Margareta Wahlström told reporters at the world body’s Headquarters in New York.

In the period from June until 21 August, 55,000 people have been newly displaced, which bring the total of those fleeing their homes since January to a quarter million. Out of a total population in Darfur of 6.4 million, 2.2 million are displaced, while four million are dependent on humanitarian assistance, she noted.

“Also, the trend for aid workers is not positive,” she said, with a 150 per cent surge in incidents – including car hijackings, attacks on convoys, and other acts of violence – against humanitarian staff. She also reminded reporters that attacks on relief providers are having an impact on Darfurians as well.

Ms. Wahlström expressed concern regarding the recent expulsion by Sudanese officials of the country director of the non-governmental organization (NGO) CARE International. “We obviously think that this sends a very wrong signal to the international community, and we would like to hope that the Sudanese authorities will reverse this decision,” she said.

Recent spot surveys indicate that malnutrition is on the rise in the region, where at least 200,000 people have died since 2003 because of fighting between rebel groups, Sudanese Government forces and allied Janjaweed militias.

The results show [that] current malnutrition rates are “well over 17 per cent” in some areas, Ms. Wahlström said.

“With the huge effort of the international humanitarian community from [i.e., starting in] 2004, the situation stabilized from a health and nutritional perspective, so this is the first time [that] we see the potential of a deterioration, for which we are very worried, and we put this in the context of the very unstable situation in the area,” she said.

Ms. Wahlström voiced hope that the deployment of the hybrid UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur (UNAMID) from the start of next year will have a positive impact and [will] contribute to improving the humanitarian situation.