posted
The genocide has been going on in Sudan for decades. So, why did America suddenly become interested in events in Darfur, Sudan? The US pushed for and got a Security Council resolution against Sudan. In the Pax Hitler under Bush, Sudan has stated its response to the Security Council resolution;
There you have it. Soon, Alhaji Abu Ghraib Apologist Anaedo will give it his own twist, turning reason on its head.
Posts: 449 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Daud, While I'm not totally convinced as to the level of sincererity of Bush's intervention in Sudan, I know that without the American christian community, southern blacks in sudan will be slaves today to the murderous moslems of the north. Only a fool will take the Kartoum government pronouncements serious. Didn't you hear the recent news from Dafur immediately after sudan made their pledges?. Several villages and hundreds of inhabitants were chained up by the janjaweed and set ablaze. How do you explain that kind of barbarity?.
posted
Suddan is another shame of Africa followed by Nigeria. The satanic Suddan arab leaders controlled by satanic religion Islam, will someday pay for the atrocities they are committing in Suddan. What America/Bush has done is help save the life of those suddanese still alive in Darfur
Let nobody turn the genocide currently going on in Suddan into America/Bush bashing.
posted
Dafur is pregnant with implications for African dictators. That is why the role of the African Union (AU) should be watched closely. The leaders of Africa have an interest in covering up crimes. Unfortunately, the civilized world does not have the troops to get the job done in Darfur and places like it.
___________________ To Sin is Human, to Blog, Devine Posts: 12 | From: Blog Planet | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
Russia has deemed Sudan a major arms client and a model in the use of Russian military platforms to quell an African insurgency, the Middle East Newsline web-site reports.
Russian officials and industry sources said Sudan has become a leading importer of Russian weapons in Africa and an example of Moscow’s new policy to finance arms sales. They said Sudan has procured MiG-29 fighter-jets, Mi-24 attack helicopters and a range of weapons and munitions.
“Since 2002, there have been positive changes in military-technical cooperation between Russia and the African states,” the state-owned Russian arms export agency Rosoboronexport said. “There has been a noticeable activation in relationship between Russia and its traditional partners —- Angola, Ethiopia, Sudan, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Nigeria and Uganda.”
In August, Russia completed its delivery of 12 MiG-29s to Sudan. Officials said the delivery was completed five months ahead of schedule at the request of Khartoum.
Posts: 10 | From: Panama City, Florida | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
Mi amigo cuál es el punto previsto presentando la evidencia de los brazos superiores del gobierno sudanés? Usted no pudo seguir con su propia toma. Asumo que usted puede intentar subrayar el invencibilidad del gobierno sudanés, pero usted no necesita haber ido eso lejos a mirar.
Sin esos armamentos sofisticados de Rusia, uno debe recordar eso durante los días más embriagadores de Muammar Qaddaffi, y en los días anteriores de Ronald Reagan, el ajuste de la sierra de los USA para entrenar a Sudán entonces debajo del EL Nimeri de Gafar en ejercicios militares. En hecho condujeron "a tropas de lado a lado sudanesas repetidas de los juegos de la guerra" relativamente cerca de la frontera libia.
All,
In Sudan, one is looking at a country sufficiently previously trained and armed by the US, supported by the US in the extraction of the oil which exists just as much in the Southern and Christian part, and now (according to Fuertes Caminos’s presentation), supplied in sophisticated weaponry by none other than Russia.
The oil alone demonstrates that US interest in peace and human rights is only superficial to the extent it is more concerned about bad press for a client state.
The Arms and training on the other hand guarantee that the “AU” led by Obasanjo is merely there for window dressing purposes. Since Aremu is so scared of Hausa-fulani muslims, this is his opportunity to really kiss some more of their asses by saving their relatives in Dafur, and laying an Odi-like siege and destruction against the hated Arab Janjawid, and see what (Arab wannabe) Sudanese govt will do to “AU” troops.
It is already on record that “Nigerian” troops were being aided and abbetted by Shell and Chevron helicopters and pilots in their assaults against Asari Dokubo because they lacked both trained pilots and helicopters. It is also on record that logistically speaking most members of that “AU” who would wish to contribute resources, have had to appeal to western nations to contribute Chinook type helicopters and pilots in order to enable the airlifting of troops, as was done in Liberia.
Now tell me if those troops are trained on camel-back warfare, and if they have a crack maintenance team that will assure the operability of their donated armored vehicles once they are dropped into Sudan?
One may then conclude like Daud that those Muslim Darfurians being relatives of the almajiris usually hired by Hausa ruling class to come and kill Igbos in the north, are pretty much toast since the USA currently has no use other than politically motivated sympathy for them.
Only non-govermental entities like those led by former ambassador Holbroke have real sympathies and interest, and in this, even such decent types are willing to be shortsighted and ignore the evil that Obasanjo represents in Nigeria in order to tout his “willingness” as an opportunity to use the “AU” (instead of US and Arab troops which would be more effective being an Arab Muslim versus Black muslim type of problem) to bring dialogue and “peace’ among “warring parties”.
In my opinion, the readiness of the US to overlook, being gun shy from Somalia, and from the “confederate radical conservative” (aka racist radcons) constituencies back home, guarantees that the US as well as the West will continue with the short term fixes, as they’ve been doing in places like “Nigeria”, till someone like Dokubo goes and actually threatens to sabotage their direct interests, which will then necessitate a sincerely involved and revolutionary desire for long term solutions through “dialogue”.
___________________ YA CAIN'T KEEP A GOOD MAN DOWN :) Posts: 1182 | From: TEXAS | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Rebel Attacks Raise Tensions in Darfur Hostage-Taking Sparks Retaliations; Insecurity Cuts Refugees Off From Aid By Emily Wax Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, November 21, 2004; Page A24
ZALINGEI, Sudan -- The wobbly bus chugged up through the hills, bound for Fadel Sesese Mohamed's village. He was feeling tired but optimistic after a long journey from Libya, where the 72-year-old tribal leader had participated in a peace conference last month aimed at ending Sudan's civil conflict.
The bus suddenly stopped, and a group of men armed with AK-47 rifles leaped on board, Mohamed recounted last week. They poked at the luggage and asked if any passengers had military ID cards. They pulled a group of men off the bus, punching one over and over and shouting, "Are you a soldier?"
Then the gunmen, who wore the green and brown netted head covers of a rebel group called the Sudanese Liberation Army, motioned at the bus driver to resume his journey. Most of the hostages have not been seen since.
There are contradictory reports about how many passengers were taken. The United Nations has said 18 were taken. The African Union said five of the hostages had been released. It is also not clear whether they were civilians or soldiers, and whether they were all Arabs or included some Africans.
But the incident, which alarmed the international aid community, has highlighted the growing number of attacks by African rebels. Until now most of the human rights abuses in the western region of Darfur have been blamed on pro-government Arab militiamen.
Officials of the United Nations and the African Union, which has sent a force of military observers into Darfur to monitor a shaky cease-fire, said the hostage-taking incident also shows that rebel groups -- not just the Arab militias known as Janjaweed -- must be pressured to uphold an agreement signed in Abuja, Nigeria, on Nov. 9.
In a report issued this week, Human Rights Watch strongly criticized the Khartoum government for fueling the conflict, but it also blamed rebel groups and urged the Sudanese Liberation Army to release all hostages.
"There's no security. There's no stability. This is the main problem," said Mohamed, a leader of the Fur tribe, waving his walking stick in agitation as he recounted the story of the hostage-taking at home here. He said he sympathized with the African rebels, but that in this case they had "made a mistake."
Within hours of the hostage-taking, Janjaweed militiamen threatened to attack this hillside town and a cluster of nearby refugee camps if the captives were not released. Foreign relief organizations quickly pulled 82 staffers out of the area. No attack took place, but the workers have not returned.
Meanwhile, tribal leaders and human rights groups said, the government responded to the crisis by arming local Janjaweed members. On Oct. 26, a squad of uniformed Janjaweed militiamen ambushed an African Union mission trying to retrieve the hostages, killing a Sudanese Liberation Army commander and four others, officials said.
In camps for displaced families surrounding Zalingei, food was distributed Saturday for the first time since the end of September. Highway banditry had cut off aid to the 82,000 people there, and the once-bustling town remains in limbo, with few buses traveling the hazardous roads and only helicopters able to reach the remote spot.
Tony P. Hall, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. World Food Program, flew to Zalingei to tour the camps last week. Families living in tattered shelters told him that security was their main concern. On Friday, more than 50 women who ventured outside the camp to collect straw and firewood were stopped by militia forces and held for more than five hours, aid workers told Hall.
U.N. and aid officials said the African rebel groups, which enjoy support from African tribes in the area, are hurting the local populace as they resort to such tactics as ambushing food convoys, stealing aid trucks and taking hostages.
"The rebels are using the wrong instruments to make their points," Jan Pronk, the U.N. special representative to Sudan, said during a visit earlier this month to Nyala, the capital of South Darfur. "They have to stop. Otherwise they are blocking access to the very people they say they are protecting."
posted
From the Editorial section of the Washington Post:
quote:
Mr. Bush's Better World Sunday, November 21, 2004; Page B06
THE BUSH administration shrugged its shoulders last week at the genocide in Sudan's western province of Darfur. At an extraordinary meeting of the U.N. Security Council in Kenya, it sponsored a resolution that not only failed to advance those that passed in July and September but actually stepped back. The veiled threat of sanctions on Sudan's government was dropped. So was the demand that Sudan's government disarm and prosecute its allies in the Janjaweed death squads, which have burned villages, raped and murdered their inhabitants, and left nearly 2 million people homeless and at risk of starvation.
The Bush administration presents this abdication as a triumph. It argues that, by tolerating a weak U.N. resolution on Darfur, it was able to secure a unanimous 15-0 Security Council vote and that this may bring about peace in the separate conflict between Sudan's Muslim-led northern government and the Christian and animist southern rebels. The north-south civil war has been running for two decades and has led directly or indirectly to the deaths of an estimated 2 million people: Ending it would indeed be a victory. The two sides have already agreed to a cease-fire and to a complex power-sharing arrangement that guarantees rights and representation for southerners. Only details remain to be worked out, and Friday's resolution sets a deadline of Dec. 31 for their resolution.
This isn't the first such deadline in negotiations over the north-south conflict. Last year Sudan's government promised Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that it would conclude negotiations soon -- by Dec. 31, 2003 -- and the White House hoped that the two sides would mark their reconciliation by attending the president's State of the Union address. The Bush administration hopes that the new deadline will prove more meaningful because it has the imprimatur of a U.N. resolution. With luck it will be proved right, but the power of such resolutions has been compromised by Friday's failure to sanction Sudan's government for its flouting of past resolutions on Darfur. The Bush administration also argues that a north-south deal will improve Darfur's prospects: The power-sharing formula will be extended to all parts of the country, assuaging the grievances of rebels in Darfur whose violence provoked the government's genocidal response. Again, this may prove true, but probably not in the short term: Power-sharing will take months or years to implement.
Darfur's people cannot wait that long; their catastrophe is immediate. The families that have been driven from their villages have no means to plant crops or raise animals; they depend on food aid that is hostage to the budgetary whims of Western governments and Sudan's murderous tendency to restrict aid workers' access. The death toll is already enormous. The commonly cited number of 70,000 victims is a monstrous sugarcoating of reality: It leaves out deaths in areas not visited by aid workers, nearly all deaths from violence as opposed to malnutrition and all deaths before March. The Bush administration itself has described the killing there as genocide. How can it regard an uncertain and only loosely related advance in the north-south conflict as a substitute for punishing the perpetrators? How can it recognize genocide, shrug its shoulders and then carry on claiming that its vigorous foreign policy is about creating a better world?
The fires are still burning. Arab militiamen are still mowing down innocent Africans, and mysteriously, the world community keeps taking half-baked measures.
Why isn't the African Union (AU) taking bold and decisive collaborative action with regards to this collosal mess? What, if any, are they doing to stem the inhumanity being visited on fellow Africans by a nonchalant, criminal-minded, devious pro-Arab government with her partner-in-crime, the Arab Janjaweed militia?
quote:U.N. Council, in Nairobi, Again Warns Sudan By MARC LACEY
Published: November 19, 2004
NAIROBI, Kenya, Nov. 18 - The United Nations Security Council convened an unusual session in Africa on Thursday on the doorstep of Sudan, to try to bring peace to that country.
But even after traveling halfway around the world to look some of the combatants in the eye, the Council found its diplomatic dance on the complicated conflicts unfolding in Sudan just as challenging as it had been back in New York.
The Council secured a pledge from the Sudanese government and a rebel movement, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, that they would sign a peace accord this year, ending a north-south war that has become the continent's longest-running conflict.
But hanging over the meeting was another military clash, the war in Darfur, in western Sudan, which has continued unabated. On Darfur, the Council continued to hedge.
Council members waved a carrot at the government, pledging international aid if it reaches a peace deal with southern rebels after 21 years of fighting. But when it came to Darfur, where the government has been accused of unleashing armed militias on the people, Council members had a hard time coming up with a stick.
Members agreed on a resolution, which they will formally endorse Friday, that suggests unspecified action against those parties that do not cease hostilities in Darfur. But critics said it was just as toothless as two past United Nations declarations. Tougher language has been rebuffed by Russia, China, Pakistan and Algeria.
It was just the fourth time that the Security Council had met outside the United States. The session was organized by John C. Danforth, the American ambassador to the United Nations and the current president of the Council. He argued that meeting in the region would put pressure on the parties to resolve the north-south war in Sudan and, as a consequence, help put out the flames in Darfur.
Whether it will have its intended effect remains to be seen.
Negotiations to end the north-south war have stretched on for three years despite strong pressure from the United States and other governments. Last year, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell visited Kenya, where the talks have been held, and secured a promise that the negotiations would finish in 2003.
On Friday, the parties are expected to sign a memorandum pledging to complete a deal by the end of 2004.
"We've heard it so many times before, so there is skepticism," acknowledged Abdallah Baali, the Algerian ambassador to the United Nations. The Sudanese government has signed numerous agreements aimed at calming the situation in Darfur, which the American government has said amounts to genocide. Still, the crisis continues. Earlier this month, Sudanese officials agreed to a cease-fire with Darfur rebels, but the deal was quickly violated.
"I regret to report that the security situation in Darfur continues to deteriorate," Secretary General Kofi Annan told the Council on Thursday, pointing the finger at "the government and its militias as well as the rebel groups."
While the folks at the U.N are busy handing down weightless warnings after weightless warnings, lives are being lost in Sudan. This eerily reminds us of the U.N’s stonewalling during the Rwandan crisis ten years ago.
Some of the members of the U.N security council, in concert with a lot of the representatives at the U.N massively opposed Bush’s unilateralism in going to Iraq. If it could be rationalized that the U.N’s “overcautious” stance and its dogged opposition to the war in Iraq was borne out of a genuine desire to forestall an unnecessary waste of life, why are the same talking-heads in the U.N incapable of taking severe actions (with or without the assistance of an overstretched United States) to deter the government of Sudan from behavior which has received global condemnation? Is there really any interest in protecting life here or are U.N’s actions teleguided by monetary or financial considerations?
posted
From the Washingtonpost’s World News section comes this latest wire:
quote:
Khartoum, Darfur Rebels Split on Peace Chances.
Reuters
Thursday, December 9, 2004; 1:37 PM
By Opheera McDoom
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudan's government said on Thursday it hoped to reach a deal in talks resuming on Friday with rebels in Darfur, which the United Nations says is descending into chaos.
Rebels said they would attend the talks in the Nigerian capital Abuja but accused Khartoum of launching fresh attacks in the Darfur region in western Sudan.
"This is not a serious round of talks. The government is mobilizing its troops and directly attacking," said Khalil Ibrahim, president of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).
The Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), the other main Darfur rebel group, has also accused the government of increasing attacks in Darfur ahead of the talks.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said this week Darfur was in chaos, plagued by banditry, rape and village burnings with 2.3 million people in desperate need of aid. The United States said international efforts had failed to stop the violence.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Danforth said on Tuesday all sides were to blame for the crisis.
And on Thursday, chief U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said the African Union and the U.N. mission in Khartoum had reported renewed fighting between the government and rebels in Darfur.
Majzoub al-Khalifa, head of Sudan's delegation to the African Union-sponsored talks in Abuja, said there was "a lot of common ground for agreement."
"We are very much hoping to come to a final peace agreement in this round," he told reporters in Khartoum.
Khalifa said the government would do its best to reach an agreement "before the end of this year so that peace in Sudan will be finalized by January in all parts of Sudan."
Khartoum and rebels from southern Sudan promised the U.N. Security Council last month they would reach a deal to end a separate 21-year-old civil war by Dec. 31. Analysts say the Darfur crisis has slowed progress toward a southern peace deal.
Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said the government would also hold talks with a third group from Darfur, the National Movement for Reform and Development (NMRD).
The discussions with the group, which had no part in previous talks, would take place in the next few days and cover security and humanitarian issues, he said.
Khalifa, head of the government delegation, did not rule out the third group joining the Abuja discussions.
But JEM said the NMRD was not a rebel movement, simply a group of outlaws armed by Chad, and it would not accept them as negotiating partners in Abuja.
PROTECTING CIVILIANS The Darfur talks in Abuja adjourned in November, when the sides signed agreements on security and humanitarian issues.
African Union (AU) monitors have been deployed in Darfur to monitor an April cease-fire between the rebels and the government which both sides accuse the other of breaking.
Ibrahim said JEM was losing faith in AU sponsorship of Darfur peace efforts. "Unless the AU can stop the war on the ground, we will pull out of the peace talks," he said.
New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a letter to Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, whose country heads the AU, the organization must speed its troop deployment in Darfur and seek to expand its mandate to protect civilians.
The AU has pledged 3,300 monitors to Darfur but has only about 900 on the ground.
The World Food Program said on Thursday it had delivered food to almost 1.3 million people in November, more than in the previous month. It estimated that up to 2.5 million people in Darfur could be in need of food aid in 2005.
An estimated 1.6 million Darfuris have fled their homes since February 2003 for fear of attack by Arab militia mobilized by the government as auxiliaries in a campaign to crush a rebellion. Khartoum says the attacks on Darfuris were carried out by "outlaws" and it is not responsible for their actions.
Washington has called the campaign genocide. The Darfur rebels took up arms in early 2003 in protest at what they said was Khartoum's marginalization of the region.
(Additional reporting by Tom Perry in Cairo)
At least, those who possess some first-hand knowledge of the events in Darfur have accurately described the barbarity there as of “humanitarian and security concern” at best and a genocide at worst. This makes it all the more frustrating to witness the unnecessary posturing and rigmarole by the U.N. One wonders what sort of stalemate would be reached in the “peace” talks scheduled to take place some time in Abuja in the very near future when in stark contradiction to the established reality, the assumed leader of this emerging “peace” talk, the rotund heavily attired epitome of incompetence called Obasanjo volunteered from his easy chair while talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN recently, that the situation in Sudan was just a political problem.
posted
From the Editorial section of the Washingtonpost:
quote: Inaction's Consequence
Thursday, December 9, 2004; Page A32
LAST MONTH the United States and its allies signaled a change in Sudan policy. Rather than pressuring Sudan's government to halt its genocidal attacks against civilians in the western province of Darfur, they switched to pushing for a peace deal between the government and southern rebels. This change in priorities was a mistake. Although the north-south war has killed an estimated 2 million people over the past two decades, it is now in abeyance; by contrast, Darfur's conflict, pitting the government against three semi-organized rebel factions, is fueling malnutrition, disease and violence that are claiming thousands of lives each month. By emphasizing north-south talks, the United States risked sending a signal that the genocide in Darfur might be tolerated. Sure enough, the violence in Darfur has worsened. According to the latest U.N. assessment, government attacks on civilians continue; the number of people affected by the conflict has risen to about 2.3 million; Western aid workers are being blocked from helping civilians, and the head of Oxfam International's Sudan operations was recently kicked out of the country. On Sunday Sudan's foreign minister brazenly declared that his government was not conducting aerial attacks on civilians, despite evidence to the contrary collected by African Union monitors. The foreign minister also told The Post's Emily Wax that he looked forward to U.S. sanctions being lifted once the north-south deal was completed, as though the atrocities in Darfur would pose no obstacle.
The State Department hastened to respond that Darfur's crisis must be "addressed" before relations can be normalized. But it's not clear what this means, if anything, since the international community's pronouncements on Darfur are increasingly prone to criticizing rebel violence as well as official aggression. Darfur's rebels have indeed carried out attacks, perhaps in the hope of provoking government retaliation and, hence, outside intervention. But however bad the rebel violence, it pales next to the government's policy of systematically destroying ethnic African villages, then impeding humanitarian access to displaced civilians so that they die by the thousands. The moral equivalence of some official statements is counterproductive. By blurring the question of responsibility, it encourages the government in its calculation that genocide will go unpunished.
If the Bush administration really does want Darfur's crisis to be "addressed," it needs to upset that calculation. It could revert to its earlier strategy of pressing for U.N. sanctions on Darfur, which would require a willingness that's so far been lacking to go to the mat with opponents such as China. Or it could push for a much-expanded foreign troop presence, building on the African Union force of some 3,000 that is being deployed. Neither course would be easy. But the alternative to difficult action is to live with the consequences of inaction. On the best estimates available, about a third of a million people have died so far in Darfur, and unless the violence can be brought under control soon, there will be no spring planting next year and no fall harvest. More than 2 million people will continue to depend on Western food aid, and the lands of the displaced people may be taken by the perpetrators of the genocide. Thousands of dispossessed and desperate victims will sign up to join the rebels, perpetuating the cycle of violence and starvation.
Terribly sad how this problem has persisted and the US has been reduced to mere spectators while arabian vandals and a most inhuman government continues to butcher Southern Sudanese people.
Of course we have a black man as the immediate past secretary of State, and he is to be succeeded by another black woman. And oh, get ready for the shocker--we have a black and African man as the U.N Secretary-General but somehow, yes, somehow, they just can't seem to be able to use the powers of their office to deliver some progress on this uniquely African issue.
My brother thanks for reminding us keeping this Darfur story in our face in this forum.
Most of us in this forum seem to be ignoring it for reasons better known to them but you on the other hand keeps it in are mind, for that I say once again thank you and keep up the good work.
___________________ BIAFRA MUST RISE AGAIN. LONG LIVE BIAFRA!! Posts: 1080 | From: California, USA. | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
What is happening in Darfur right now is the same thing that happened 37 years ago. The world led by Britain looked the other way while over 2 million Biafrans were masacared by blood thirst Nigerians.
posted
As an former refugee (Biafra), the genocide going on in Dafur today higlights man inhumanity to fellow man. Many dafurites have fled to Chad and some are scattered all across the Desert. The Janjaweeds, supported by Sudanese military continue to wreck havoc and death to these people.
We must not stand by and witness the death of so many. In this day and age of technology advancement and the so called global village, what is tolerated in Dafur today, may be other portions tomorrow.
Just like the Dinkas(Southern Sudan) were tortured and killed by many Dafurites, who were used by same Sudan govt. that torment and kill them today, The world must not stand by and watch as these people reap what they sowed in Southern Sudan. As xtians, we must speak out against the grave injustice metted to Dafurites by the rampaging Arabs.
The United States have identified what goes on in Dafur as Genocide.
Obasanjo, filled with insincerity does not see it as genocide, but has decided to send Nigeria military to help . While we commend his effort in doing so, we must also, remind him that the Dafur incident did not start overnight. Events in Anambra could ballon to be even worst. Allowing Sharia states to ignore Nigeria constitution, may one day result in worst scenario in Northern Nigeria. Calling a spade a spade will help in sedning the message loud and clear.
Another issue, is that of refugee warehousing. In Kakuma camp(kenya), many refugees are packed like sardines and made live under inhuman conditions. The Somali Bantus have been in camps for over 15yrs. We all must speak out against these standards..
While we look up to the United States, Criticize and admonish the Western world, we also must commend them for coming to the aids of our brothers and sister in various refugee camps.
The United Nations has shown its relevance by providing for our brothers and sisters in various camps.
Lastly,We must condenm Africa Leaders, who out of greed plunge their nations into wars, steal the national resources of their various countries, use ethnic divisionary tactics to plunge their various countries into wars.
That is why most of us are sick and tired of Obasanjos tactics in Nigeria.
Bill Pressuring Sudan to End Darfur Genocide Clears Congress, Bush Expected to Sign TrueMajority members have been working hard to pressure Washington to help the people of Sudan.
Now, in a gesture of bipartisan compassion that we dream about but rarely see in Washington, both the House and Senate have now passed the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act, pressuring Sudan to end the genocide in Darfur. Bush is expected to sign the legislation into law soon.
The Act was passed after tens of thousands of TrueMajority members and folks from other groups made their voices heard.
The legislation calls on the President to impose sanctions on Sudanese leaders if specific progress is not made by certain dates. It also earmarks an additional $200 million in aid for the victims in Sudan and Chad. This serious pressure and assistance from the U.S. cannot come too soon as over 70,000 people are dead in Sudan and more than 1.5 million are displaced. America’s government did the right thing.
Thanks for joining together to help the Sudanese,
Andrew Greenblatt Online Organizer
Posts: 380 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
USCRI Welcomes President Bush's Proposed Budget for Refugees and Urges Freedom for Warehoused Refugees
WASHINGTON DC, February 9, 2005 The U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) applauds President Bush's funding proposals for refugee programs in his Fiscal Year 2006 budget and urges the President to lead in promoting freedom for millions of warehoused refugees who have been deprived of their basic human rights.
"The President's proposed budget reflects the generosity of the American people and our historic tradition of protecting refugees," said USCRI President Lavinia Limón. Each year the United States resettles thousands of refugees approved by the Departments of State and Homeland Security and helps them become new Americans through a network of resettlement agencies. USCRI, which has 30 community-based affiliates throughout the United States, participates in receiving and assisting them to achieve economic and social self-sufficiency. But resettlement rescues less than one per cent of refugees worldwide.
"We agree with the President that every man and woman on earth has the inherent right to live in freedom and dignity, and we urge him to adopt funding mechanisms and initiatives which will reverse the deprivation of basic human rights to most of the world's refugees," said Limón.
Of the world's nearly 12 million refugees, more than 7 million have been confined to refugee camps or segregated settlements, or otherwise deprived of basic human rights recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention, for ten years or more. These include the rights to work, run businesses, own property, receive basic education, move about freely, and other basic rights. This is why USCRI has mounted a campaign to end refugee warehousing.
Most U.S. refugee funding goes to the United Nations, whose programs are largely devoted to the care and maintenance of encamped refugees. But the UN has not yet been able to ensure that governments live up to their Refugee Convention commitments to accord refugees basic rights. "If refugees had their rights, they also would be less dependent on international assistance and more productive. Where refugees have been given even partial rights - as in Zambia, where selected Angolan refugees in rural areas were lent plots of land to farm - they have made a positive contribution to the local economy," said Limón.
As the world's largest donor of refugee assistance, the United States can lead the way toward changing donor practices, which currently focus on camps and basic assistance. The State Department is well poised to provide direct assistance to refugee hosting countries that honor refugee rights and to reimburse them for costs associated with basic public services.
The President's request for the Migration and Refugee Assistance account, which provides funding for refugee assistance overseas and refugee admissions to the United States, is $893 million, about $129 million above what Congress appropriated for 2005. His request for the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance account, which funds unanticipated refugee crises such as the Sudanese outflow to Chad, is $40 million, about $13 million above its current level. And the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement, which facilitates the resettlement and integration of refugees and others admitted on humanitarian grounds in the United States, received a $552 million request, a $68 million increase.
"President Bush has declared that freedom is the calling of our time," said Limón. "We encourage the President to lead donor and host nations to end the deplorable status quo which condemns most of the world's refugees to languish for decades in enforced idleness, dependent on the international community and deprived of basic freedoms. As a generous, prosperous, and moral nation, we can do this," she said.
The U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) is a non-profit, nongovernmental organization that has served refugees and immigrants and defended the rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons worldwide since 1911. USCRI's resettlement program and network of community-based partner agencies help thousands of refugees build new lives in the United States each year. USCRI publishes the World Refugee Survey and Refugee Reports.
_________________________________________________
While we commend GW's effort, we must remind our self that the plights of refugees worldwide is a creation of human acts. If leaders can promote fairness and equity; If greed and avarice is removed from leadership; If the the Western world can be sincere in dealing with other nations; If the United States, Britain, Switzerland, Germany, France and others will stop supporting kleptomaniac leaders; then and only then can the root cause of refugee plights be address. In all the Bush administration is taking the first step in stopping refugee warehousing.
Posts: 380 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
It will be the height of naivety and gullibility for anybody to think that the US, or any country for that matter, will meddle in other people's affairs if they had nothing to gain therefrom. Why do we think Obasanjo is after Togo for example? He just didn't want a precedence of "coup" to be set as it may happen to him in Nigeria! Period!
America must be seen to have the interest of Africa at heart and that's exactly what Bush is doing.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
