Would sanctions work to end the genocide or are they absolutely pointless?

On Darfur, Questions of Ban’s Calls and Kazakh Plane Allegations

By: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press, News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, May 18 — About Darfur, the UN says many things.

But which of them are true?

On May 16, Ban Ki-moon gave an interview to Reuters television, which Reuters online the next day reported:

“Ban, in an interview with Reuters television on Wednesday, said, ‘We have a firm agreement in principle between the Sudanese government and United Nations and African Union that there will be a hybrid operation, so therefore it is a matter of implementing this commitment. It is very important for Sudanese government to keep their commitment,’ he said, after having conducted a series of telephone calls with Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir.”

But Al Rayyam newspaper in Khartoum on May 18 quoted a Sudanese official who “denied any contact with the UN Secretary General on the AU-UN hybrid operation in Darfur” and who said that “the last phone call between Ban and the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was ‘three weeks ago.’”

Which is it? The Al Rayyam report was picked up the same day by the Sudan Tribune, which is an English-language publication which is included in the Ban’s spokesperson’s “morning headlines. But this Sudan Tribune report, with the headline ” Sudan denies discussing hybrid force with UN Secretary General,” was not included, only another story not directly contradicting the Reuters piece which, whether accurate or not, made Ban look relatively strong and effective.

The Reuters piece went on to quote unnamed Ban “aides” directing the press and public to a speech Ban made to a by-invitation-only event at the Korea Society:

“Aides describe Ban as persistent in pursuing agreement on the force, noting that he told the Korea Society earlier this week that Darfur put to the test ‘the authority of the Security Council, the image of the United Nations in the Arab world and the credibility of the United Nations.’”

The UN’s credibility is not only put to the test by the presence or absence of violence in Sudan, but by statements made right at its headquarters in New York. Did Ban’s office seek any correction from Al Rayyat? UN envoy Jan Eliasson, presented to the select(ed) press Friday by Ban’s Spokesperson, said that Sudanese “civil society” must be engaged. So one would think the UN would repudiate false reports in the Sudanese press, if they were false.

Or perhaps Reuters mistakenly tied Ban’s boasts on Wednesday to the “series of calls” with Bashir which Reuters only surmised. But then it would have been important for the UN to seek clarification and amendment by Reuters. Because the result is Ban’s claims about conversations with Bashir being directly denied in the Sudanese press, to the Sudanese civil society than Mr. Eliasson says is so crucial is peace is to be restored, by the UN or anyone else.

con’t at http://www.innercitypress.com/darfur0518 07.html

To the media:

There has been a lot of talk recently about China being “the enabler of genocide” due to their support of the Khartoum government. Why hasn’t there been talk or focus about who the enablers of the rebels are? The rebels receive support from certain groups whether directly or indirectly. Shouldn’t those groups be scrutinized too for playing an enabling role in the conflict and dragging it further?

To intervention supporters:

The goal of intervention supporters is to help ease Darfur’s pain. Do pro-interventionists truly believe that intervention is going to make things better? Jihad is inevitable. That certainly ought to make the war messier and more violent. What will UN troops do then?

To the Sudanese Ambassador to the UN:

The Darfur conflict generally hasn’t been portrayed accurately in the Western media. However on the other hand, don’t you believe the way the conflict is being downlplayed by the Sudanese government shows a lack of respect for Sudanese lives especially when statements like “only 9,000 have died” are stated openly?

Also, I very much want to go to this panel but I don’t see the location listed on the website. Could you please post it more prominently? (My apologies if I simply missed it)

It is evident that sustained pressure is required: “ordinary” people must continue to speak relentlessly about Darfur - the media will catch on if we are persistent enough. And if the media truly catches on, the world will follow. Sustained efforts to keep Darfur in the news are required on all of our parts: individual calls for China to pressure Khartoum and for a cohesive peace process (see International Crisis Group’s report on Darfur from late April) add up to a powerful voice which will be heard if only we sustain it.

What does Khartoum want?

From Gareth Evans: “It has taken the world an insanely long time to come to terms conceptually with the idea that state sovereignty is not a license to kill that there is something fundamentally and intolerably wrong about states murdering or forcibly displacing large numbers of their own citizens, or standing by when others do so.”

Do private citizens have to form their own peacekeeping force to protect the people of Darfur? Is that the only they are going to be protected?