Sudan Liberation Movement Welcomes

Sudan Liberation Movement Welcomes USA Sanctions on Sudan Regime

Sudan Liberation Movement welcomes toughens sanctions on the current and former Sudan regime. Since 30th June 1989 people of Sudan suffer from this regime. Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) ensure through the announcement of Chairman Mr. Abdul Wahid Alnour deployment of United Nation Force in Darfur is the only way to stop killing people of Darfur by Sudan regime. (SLM) look forward for tougher sanctions on Sudan regime such as No fly zone over Darfur, and also expand the list of people commit crimes against humanity and war crime in Darfur. Issued in London on 29th May 2007 Yahia Elbashir Spokesperson of Sudan Liberation Movement Phone: 00 44 79 616 08 397 Email: yhbashir@yahoo.co.uk Web: www.sudanslm.net

Sudanese advocate and scholar named to UN genocide prevention post

Sudanese advocate and scholar named to UN genocide prevention post

31 May 2007 – The director of Sudan efforts at the United States Institute for Peace and a scholar associated with several universities has been named by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as his new Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities.
Francis Deng also served as the Secretary-General’s Representative on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from 1992 to 2004, after holding a range of positions in the UN and the Sudanese Government.
Mr. Deng succeeds Juan Méndez of Argentina, the first Special Adviser on genocide prevention who was appointed in July 2004 with a mandate to collect existing information on serious violations of human rights that could lead to genocide and to bring potential genocidal situations to the attention of the UN Security Council.
Among his activities, Mr. Méndez has made repeated visits to Darfur, resulting in varied recommendations to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council about what needs to be done in the strife-torn region of Sudan.
On the 12-year commemoration of the Rwanda genocide, Mr. Méndez wrote an op-ed published by several European and Asian newspapers in which he stressed that despite international obligations – such as the 1948 Genocide Convention – the global response against genocide continues to fall short of what is required.
In May 2006, Secretary-General Kofi Annan established a prominent group of experts – including Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu and the former United Nations Force Commander in Rwanda Romeo Dallaire – to support the Special Adviser and contribute to the broader efforts of the UN to prevent such massive crimes against humanity.
According to today’s announcement, Mr. Ban has asked Mr. Deng to devote himself full time to the genocide advisory post, and is looking for additional ways to strengthen the office.

US briefs China on plans to sanction Sudan over Darfur

US briefs China on plans to sanction Sudan over Darfur

May 30, 2007 ( BEIJING) — The U.S. briefed China Wednesday about the administration’s plans to introduce a new U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning Sudan’s government for failing to do enough to halt the bloodshed in Darfur.
The sanctions resolution is expected to face a tough time in the council, in part because of long-standing opposition from China, a veto-wielding council member.
"I wanted to be very clear about what our position is, and the Chinese were equal to the task of explaining how they see the situation," said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill. "I think we are united by a desire to resolve the matter."
The U.S., which has condemned the crisis in Darfur as genocide, has long pushed for a tougher stance against Sudan’s government while China has consistently opposed attempts to pressure Khartoum, saying the issue should be resolved through diplomatic negotiations.
Hill refused to talk about the gap in their positions and gave few additional details about his conversation with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei. He said he expressed support for China’s decision to send engineers to Darfur to support a small force of U.N. peacekeepers that Sudan has agreed to.
U.S. President George W. Bush ordered new economic sanctions Tuesday to pressure Sudan’s government to halt the bloodshed in Darfur. He also directed U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to draft a proposed U.N. resolution to strengthen international pressure on the Sudanese government of President Omar al-Bashir.
The biggest buyer of Sudanese oil and a major investor in Sudan’s economy, China faces growing criticism for not doing enough to pressure Khartoum to end the violence in Darfur.
Hill, who was in China on a one-day stopover, said he and Wu also talked about ways to restart stalled international talks on dismantling North Korea’s nuclear programs, climate change and bilateral relations.

Alrabae Adam Ezaldeen Take Action

Take Action
STAND Canada Action Alert - March 19, 2007
TELL YOUR MP TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT DARFUR
Friends,
Today the House of Commons returns from a two-week break. It’s time to address the situation in Darfur. We have done nothing for too long. This government says it’s serious about human rights; it’s time for them to show it.
On March 1st Canada announced increased funds for the African Union (AU) mission; however, this is not enough. Canada needs to be a vocal leader on the international stage to rally international efforts and catalyze action. Money alone won’t save Darfur.
Our government is not serious about Sudan. It is doing the minimal amount necessary to appear that it is. It is not taking any constructive steps to:
End the violence in Darfur and implement a robust-international protection force
Condemn the Government of Sudan for its flagrant disregard of past agreements
Condemn the Government of Sudan for failing to take seriously the recent ICC naming of two Sudanese suspects for war crimes and crimes against humanity
Condemn the Government of Sudan for failing to take seriously the recent UN human rights report that outlines its role in perpetrating crimes in Darfur
Work with rebel groups to also hold them accountable to past agreements and unite under one banner committed to peace
Significantly increase funding for Darfuri refugees and urge other countries to do the same
In short, Canada is not doing nearly enough, but you can help change that.
Write to your MP – and after 3 days when they don’t respond, send a follow up, and keep following up until you hear back from their office. It’s time to make our voices heard. In your letter you should outline the points above. Yet, the most important part of your letter is demanding a response. Ask your MP what s/he personally plans to do to address this issue and how s/he will work with his/her peers to make Darfur a priority of the Canadian government.
You can find your MP’s email address here: http://canada.gc.ca/directories/direct_e.html#mp
A sample letter is below.
Please pass this email to friends and family. We need to make our voices heard for those in Darfur who no longer have their’s.
STAND Canada (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur)www.standcanada.org

Dear ___buch___________:
I am one of your constituents. I would like to thank you for all the work you have done on my behalf. However, there is one issue, close to my heart, that has not been getting the attention it deserves and I am looking to you as someone who can help change that.
Darfur. I do not need to remind you why we cannot turn our backs Darfur. I do not need to remind you of the 400,000 dead or the over 2 million displaced persons. Nor should I have to remind you about the countless women who have been raped and villages razed. As an MP, you already know about these horrors.
Then why have we remained so silent? Our government is not doing nearly enough to end this crisis.
We are not vocal enough in our criticism of the Government of Sudan and its constant human rights abuses, refusal to abide by past agreements and its intransigence towards international efforts – whether those of the AU, ICC or UN – to help end this crisis
We are not generous enough in our humanitarian dollars to help feed and assist Darfur’s refugees in what is currently the World Food Programme’s largest aid project
We are not active enough with our allies in putting together and implementing the necessary international protection force for Darfur that will takeover for the struggling African Union mission
There can be no more delay. We have just passed the four-year anniversary to the start of hostilities in Darfur. Our silence speaks loudest in the cries of the victims.
In this light, I would like to know what you plan on doing in this coming session of Parliament to address the plight of Darfur. How will you work towards making this country’s response to the crisis more effective? How will you work with your peers to make Darfur a priority of this government?
Together let us realize the potential of this great country by working harder to end the suffering in Darfur. The road will not be easy; it will take determination and persistence. However, we cannot afford to do any less. As Canadians we have a special responsibility, to others, but most importantly, to ourselves.
Thank you,
YOUR NAME Alrabae Adam EzaldeenYOUR CONTACT INFORMATION

US Senator Biden to meet with UN Secretary General on Darfur

US Senator Biden to meet with UN Secretary General on Darfur

By Wasil Ali
May 20, 2007 (WASHINGTON) — Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, will meet with the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on Monday to discuss progress in resolving the conflict in Darfur.

Biden has been one of the most outspoken US lawmakers in urging the US administration intervention in Darfur. He called last April for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.
Last month Biden summoned Andrew Natsios, President Bush’s Special envoy to Sudan to testify before the committee on the Darfur crisis. Natsios came under fire from Biden and other US lawmakers who expressed impatience with lack of progress in Darfur.
Biden told Natsios during the hearing that “it’s time to put force on the table and use it [in Darfur]”. He added that senior U.S. military officials in Europe told him that 2,500 U.S. troops could "radically change the situation on the ground now."
The US has threatened Sudan with a ‘Plan B’ if it doesn’t agree to the proposed deployment of a "hybrid" force of 20,000 United Nations and AU peacekeepers and police officers. However the US has held off on sanctions at the request of the UN Secretary General.
Last week the US has signaled its impatience with the fruitless diplomacy of the UN Secretary General. US officials recently revealed to Reuters that the White House may proceed with sanctions as very soon pending a decision from President Bush.
(ST)

A Plan B with Teeth for Darfur

A Plan B with Teeth for Darfur
Posted by Alrabae Adam Ezaldeen Supervisor of foreign
An ENOUGH Project Strategy Report
By John Prendergast, Colin Thomas-Jensen
May 10, 2007
If there is a Guinness Book of World Records entry for most threats issued with no follow up, the international community’s response to Darfur is likely setting a new standard.
Barking without biting is the diplomatic equivalent of giving comfort to the enemy. In the case of Darfur, it may be even worse. Each time during the past three years that the Bush administration or the UN Security Council has threatened the Government of Sudan but failed to take action, the Khartoum regime has been emboldened to escalate its destruction and obstruction in Darfur. Its past practices make clear that the regime no longer takes these threats seriously, and will continue to flout international opinion until there are specific and escalating costs to its actions.
In these matters, it is best to rely on empirical evidence. And the preponderance of evidence shows that during the 18 years it has been in power, the regime in Khartoum has changed its behavior only when faced with concerted international and regional pressure. Three times the regime has reversed its position on a major policy issue, and each of those three times the change resulted from intensive diplomacy backed by serious pressure— two ingredients sadly and shockingly missing from the response to Darfur today. The three cases are the regime’s support for international terrorist organizations during the early to mid 1990s; its support for slave-raiding militias in southwestern Sudan throughout the 1990s; and its prosecution of a war in southern Sudan that took two million Sudanese lives. (See “The Answer to Darfur” on www.enoughproject.org for case histories.)
When the lessons of this regime’s behavior are taken into account, the answers become clear and obvious. Continuing to ignore these historical precedents may condemn hundreds of thousands of Darfurians to death.
The necessary ingredients for the stabilization of Darfur are:
§ a peace agreement that addresses the remaining issues of the non-signatory rebels and broader Darfurian society (see the new report on the peace process by the International Crisis Group at www.crisisgroup.org); and
§ an effective civilian protection force, the starting point for which is the “hybrid” AU-UN force mandated by the international community but rejected by Khartoum.
There is ongoing debate about how to secure those two critical peace and protection objectives, the first two “P’s” of what ENOUGH, a joint initiative of the International Crisis Group and the Center for American Progress to abolish genocide and mass atrocities, calls the “3Ps” of crisis response. The third P is punishment: imposing a cost for the commission of mass atrocities and building leverage through these measures for securing the peace and protection objectives.
Setting a firm deadline triggering meaningful and timely action is crucial. Last month, the U.S. accepted UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s appeal to delay U.S. and UN Security Council sanctions in order to give diplomacy more time, and the administration indicated that Khartoum would be given two to four weeks following the Secretary General’s April 2 request. A month has now passed, and, as demonstrated by recent attacks by helicopter gun ships and a build-up of Janjaweed forces in West Darfur, Khartoum continues to pursue a military solution.
Though further delay is abhorrent, there is a silver lining. The Bush administration’s current Plan B—the measures that President Bush was going to announce during his April 18 speech at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum but then delayed in order to give diplomacy more time—is inadequate. In delaying implementation, the administration has given itself time to prepare a real Plan B—a set of punitive measures with teeth. Further, it gives U.S. diplomats time to use the U.S.’ month-long chair
manship of the UN Security Council (May 2007) to move Darfur high on the Council’s agenda and coordinate Plan B efforts with the European Union (which has indicated that its own Plan B sanctions could go into effect as early as June) and other international actors willing to impose a cost on the regime for its actions.
On May 18, one month after the President’s initial speech, the White House should announce a revised set of Plan B measures and allocate sufficient resources to implement them swiftly and effectively. One month is a fair amount of time after President Bush’s speech to see whether the UN Secretary General’s diplomatic efforts will have had effect. If not, then the U.S. should impose Plan B on that date and work with allies to make Plan B as multilateral as possible.
An Inadequate Plan B—So Far
Most of the measures the administration was prepared to announce in April lack clear and decisive plans for implementation, are too unilateral in nature, and are too weak to have a major impact on the calculations of either regime officials in Khartoum or on intransigent rebel leaders. After 10 years of dealing with unilateral U.S. sanctions, the Sudanese government and its commercial partners have by now figured out how to circumvent any additional U.S. measures.
The U.S. has been blocking many Sudanese transactions since President Clinton imposed sanctions in 1997, and the Sudanese regime has had ten years to prepare for the next round. A new Sudanese oil industry has grown up around these sanctions, and the oil business is conducted without interference because this new sector is beyond the scope of existing U.S. sanctions. Though the oil industry has grown to dominate Sudan’s economy, the U.S. has little understanding of its operations, and has not committed the resources to collect such information. Perhaps most damning, because the administration has for five months leaked information to the press about Plan B, the regime has had ample time to develop a plan for working around new, additional sanctions.
The United States cannot realistically impose robust sanctions on Khartoum unless and until it has enough information about how Sudanese business is conducted to prevent Khartoum from hiding its transactions. The U.S. should therefore undertake an “intelligence surge” by the CIA to
gather detailed and comprehensive information on Sudanese companies with financial ties to the NCP and on individuals responsible for atrocities that have been or are being committed in Darfur. The U.S. should also undertake an “enforcement surge” and ensure that the Treasury Department devotes additional staff and resources to aggressively act on this new information. (As currently constituted, the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) cannot effectively enforce new sanctions against Khartoum without reducing its focus on other, critical sanctions regimes). Intelligence and enforcement surges could bring the U.S. up to speed on the critical facts and capacities that are needed to effectively implement any punitive measures. And without a clear strategy of rapidly escalating pressure through a variety of economic and legal measures, then the deadly status quo will no doubt prevail.
Both of these steps require political leadership and long-term vision. Since the fall of 2001, the U.S. has counted on the cooperation of Khartoum in global counter-terrorism efforts and the administration continues to welcome and work closely with many of the same Sudanese intelligence officials who are responsible for Khartoum’s policies and actions in Darfur. Members of Congress have begun to question seriously the extent of Sudan’s cooperation with the U.S. on counterterrorism matters, but stepping up the practical pressure on Khartoum may well generate opposition in the intelligence community. Similarly, the expansion of economic sanctions—particularly those that affect Sudan’s oil sector—may complicate an already complex relationship between the United States and China.
The point is not simply to punish for punishment’s sake, even though America’s signature on Genocide Convention does oblige us to punish the perpetrators of what the U.S. government has repeatedly labeled genocide. Punitive measures are necessary to gain Khartoum’s acceptance of a durable peace deal for Darfur and the deployment of an effective international force to protect civilians. Similar measures should be imposed against leading rebel commanders and political leaders if they are deemed to have committed atrocities or are obstructing real and balanced peace efforts, which so far do not exist.
As important as it is that the U.S. act to implement a Plan B with teeth, our ability to leverage action by Khartoum will be exponentially increased if we act multilaterally. The U.S. government already has unilateral sanctions in place against Sudan that bar U.S. companies from doing business in Sudan (though allowing U.S. businesses to work with the Government of South Sudan), and freeze assets in the U.S. or in the control of U.S. citizens of the Sudanese government and certain government-owned Sudanese companies. Enacted in 1997, these sanctions did affect the calculations of the regime in the past, but they have since run their course as the Sudanese regime circumvents U.S. institutions in its commercial dealings.
Even more important, however, the fact that existing sanctions are unilateral means that Khartoum has the practical advantage of accessing non-American financial systems and investors, and the political advantage of knowing that the international community is not acting in concert. Punitive measures applied by the international community acting as one will have a much greater impact on the pocketbooks of those responsible for crimes against humanity. Moreover, the Government of Sudan will have a much more difficult time scoring propaganda points when the U.S. is not acting alone. It is therefore critical that the U.S. works with its partners in the UN Security Council and other forums and shares both intelligence and responsibility for enforcement.
A Plan B with TeethFinancial and Legal Components
The following initiatives could be implemented immediately at little cost, but would require a strong diplomatic effort to rally multilateral support and increases in staffing and resources to ensure aggressive implementation.
§ Target Sudanese Officials Multilaterally: Impose targeted UN Security Council sanctions—including asset freezes and travel bans—against persons responsible for crimes against humanity in Darfur. Such sanctions have been authorized in previous UNSC resolutions, and called for in multiple reports from the UNSC Sanctions Committee Panel of Experts, but they have not actually been imposed on any official of import. The U.S. effort now underway would target only three individuals, one of whom is a rebel leader, in addition to four individuals designated in 2006, only one of whom is a regime official. The number must be much higher and be widened with each atrocity perpetrated, and reflect the reality of Khartoum’s complicity in genocide. Three senior Sudanese officials in particular must be singled out for sanctions: Assistant to the President Nafie Ali Nafie; Director of National Intelligence Salah Abdallah Abu Digin (AKA Salah Gosh); and Minster of Defense Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein. These three officials maintain a tight grip on Sudan’s labyrinthine security apparatus and continue to drive policy and military operations in Darfur.
§ Target Sudanese Companies Multilaterally: Impose UN Security Council sanctions against the Sudanese companies already targeted unilaterally by the U.S., and establish a UN Panel of Experts to further investigate which companies are conducting the business necessary to underwrite Sudan’s war machine. If, ultimately the U.S. imposes unilateral sanctions on 29 more companies, this would bring the total number of companies the U.S. has unilaterally sanctioned to 159. Unless these sanctions are multilateral they will largely be meaningless, so the U.S. should lead efforts in the UN Security Council to sanction multilaterally the full panoply of 159 companies.
§ Press International Banks to Stop Doing Business with Sudan: As is the case with Iran, U.S. officials should engage with a number of international banking institutions to strongly encourage them to stop supporting oil transactions with Sudan, with the implication being that if such business continues then all transactions by those banks with U.S. commercial entities (and those of other countries willing to work with us) would eventually be banned. All efforts should be made to shield the Government of Southern Sudan from negative impacts from such an initiative. This wouldn’t necessarily stop Sudan’s international exchange needs, as money would just be moved through other banking systems over which the U.S. has no access or jurisdiction, but would drive it underground and put another scarlet letter next to Sudan, furthering its isolation and pariah status.
§ Reinforce Divestment Efforts: President Bush should sign an Executive Order putting into law all of the legally possible elements of existing Congressional bills in support of divestment: the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (HR 180) and the Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007 (S.831). The executive branch should be supportive of efforts all over the U.S. to pressure university endowments, state and municipal pension funds, and private mutual funds to sell equity holdings in a targeted list of companies doing business with the Sudanese regime. The Sudan Divestment Taskforce (www.sudandivestment.org) maintains an updated list of these so-called “worst offender” companies.
§ Support the ICC Indictment Process: Provide information and declassified intelligence to the International Criminal Court to help accelerate the process of building indictments against senior officials in the regime for their role in orchestrating mass atrocities in Darfur. The U.S. has the most such intelligence and should come to agreement with the ICC about what information to share.
A Plan B with TeethMilitary Components
While the financial and legal aspects of Plan B can be implemented immediately, preparation is also required for the military elements of a Plan B with teeth. If prompt financial and legal measures succeed in altering the calculations of the regime in Khartoum, then there will be no need for these military measures. But as history makes clear, the credible threat of military action will alter the calculations of Khartoum officials. As well, and in the event the regime continues to defy its obligations to its own citizens and the will of the international community, these military actions could help to protect the people of Darfur.
Two coercive military measures require accelerated planning processes, which should commence within the NATO framework, but also seek UN Security Council approval. The aim of these military planning efforts would be to maximize the protection of Darfurian civilians and humanitarian operations if the situation continues to deteriorate.
§ No Fly Zone: Absent an enhanced ground component this option is questionable and fraught with potential negative side effects. However, it is important to press ahead with planning an enforcement mechanism for a no-fly zone (NFZ) as the Sudanese regime continues to use aerial bombing as a central component of its military strategy and its civilian displacement objectives. If the mandate of the existing AU force or the planned UN/AU hybrid force would be strengthened and more troops deployed to protect civilians, neutralizing the Sudanese regime’s one tactical advantage will be essential. However, the risk to humanitarian operations posed by an NFZ must be acknowledged and mitigated. It would be irresponsible to move forward with an NFZ in the absence of preparations to deploy ground forces to protect IDP camps and humanitarian operations. Khartoum will perceive an NFZ as an act of war, so planning for a No Fly Zone must also include contingency planning based on possible responses from the Sudanese regime. The consequences could be dire. Posturing without planning could blow up in the faces of the IDPs, refugees, and humanitarian workers bravely assisting them.
§ Non-Consensual Force Deployment: Although few nations are likely to support this and volunteer forces in the present context, if the situation dramatically deteriorates in Darfur (large-scale pullout of humanitarian agencies, increasing attacks on camps or AU forces, etc.), the debate could shift quickly and credible plans need to be in place to move troops into the theater of war quickly with a primary focus on protecting vulnerable civilian populations.
This planning is both a practical necessity, and a means to build and utilize leverage against the regime. It would be irresponsible to only pursue the implementation of a no-fly zone in the absence of any preparation for use of ground forces to protect displaced camps and humanitarian aid efforts that could be targeted as a result.
Conclusion
The U.S. must move away from its current policy of constructive engagement without leverage to a more muscular policy focused on walking softly and carrying—and using—a bigger stick. Unfulfilled threats and appeals should be replaced quickly with punitive measures backing a robust peace and protection initiative. We may not know the names of the victims in Darfur, but we know the names of the orchestrators of the policy that led to their deaths.
There is hope. The growing constituency in the U.S. focused on countering the atrocities in Darfur is expanding by the day. Elected officials who ignore this crescendo of activism—though not usually front page news—do so at their own peril. We will do a great service to all of history’s victims of mass atrocities if we make it politically costly for this administration, or any future one, to stand idly by while Darfur burns.

China acts on Darfur after Olympics threat

China acts on Darfur after Olympics threat
Posted by Alrabae Adam Ezaldeen Supervisor of foreign Affairs of SLM/A
Jane Macartney in Beijing
May 11, 2007

CHINA responded today to increasing international criticism of its close friendship with Sudan, appointing a special representative for African affairs whose first task will be to focus on the Darfur crisis.
It is the second time in a week that China has taken action in Sudan that marks a shift from Beijing’s policy of not interfering in the affairs of another nation.
Chinese leaders have been stung by criticism that Beijing’s failure to do more could jeopardise its prestige during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Liu Guijin, an Africa veteran and former ambassador to Zimbabwe and South Africa, has been appointed as special representative.
A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said: “Since the situation in Darfur has drawn significant international attention, (his) work will focus on the Darfur issue.”
The appointment comes a day after 108 members of the US House of Representatives wrote to Hu Jintao, the Chinese President, urging Beijing do more on Darfur or face a public relations disaster during the Olympics. The letter said: “It would be a disaster for China if the Games were to be marred by protests from concerned individuals and groups, who will undoubtedly link your Government to the continued atrocities in Darfur, if there is no significant improvement in the conditions.” It added that unless China acted, “history will judge your Government as having bank-rolled a genocide”. Earlier this week China agreed to send nearly 300 military engineers with a UN peacekeeping force to Sudan.

Opening Statement at Press Roundtable in Berlin

Opening Statement at Press Roundtable in Berlin

R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political AffairsAmerican EmbassyBerlin, GermanyMay 9, 2007
PRESS ATTACHÉ ROBERT WOOD: Mr. Secretary, welcome back to Berlin.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Good afternoon. Nice to see everyone. I saw I kept some of you waiting -- or all of you waiting. I was just on the phone with the President of Serbia; so I had to take that phone call first.
I am here in Berlin -- just arrived from Washington. We have meetings of the G-8 tomorrow to prepare for the G-8 summit in June in Heiligendamm; and so we will be together tomorrow to talk about all the political issues, to prepare for that summit. That will include Iran and Iraq and North Korea and the Middle East peace process and Sudan and Kosovo and all those major issues that I would be happy to discuss with you.
I am also here to meet on Iran specifically -- on the German leadership with the Russians and the Chinese by speaker phone (inaudible). We will be consulting on our latest offer to the Iranians to come to the negotiating table on the nuclear issue. This, of course, follows in the wake of Secretary Rice’s trip to Sharm el-Sheikh last week where she attempted to have some discussions with the Iranian leadership -- and where we did, of course, have some discussions on the Iraq issue. So it is a very active time in our diplomacy.
I just wanted to start – you won’t get a speech from me – but I just wanted to start very briefly to say, first and foremost, I think U.S.-German relations are excellent. I have been a long-time observer of them and participant in them. I was in NATO between 2001 and 2005, so I remember when they weren’t so excellent. They are now in excellent shape. We are very grateful for the working relationship we have with Chancellor Merkel, with Foreign Minister Steinmeier, certainly with Mr. Silverberg, Michael Schaefer on down. And on most issues that you can name, we are working very closely with Germany. I will just name two.
Our strongest partner on Kosovo has been Germany. The United States and Germany have been working together. In fact we are the ones who produced the framework of the current resolution that is going to be introduced in the next day or two, in New York at the Security Council. Germany and the United States have put the elements of that Resolution together; and Michael Schaefer and I gave those elements to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister in London last Thursday. So throughout the last two years, our closest partner has been Germany -- on the issue of Kosovo.
On Iran -- on Iran nuclear -- again Germany is one of our key partners. We are talking to the German government nearly every day. Tomorrow’s meeting will be the second meeting in a week that I have had with the German government, as well as the Russian, Chinese, French and British governments on this nuclear issue concerning the Iranian government. So our bilateral relationship is in excellent shape. We are grateful for that. We understand that Germany is the leading European country; that Germany has a degree of influence that is unmatched by any other European country. And so we obviously want to maintain this excellent working relationship and I think we shall.
On Kosovo. This is going to be the subject of a lot of discussions today and tomorrow here in Berlin. I just spoke with President Tadiæ, just very respectfully. We speak from time to time to let him know how we are proceeding. And I did say we would be proceeding, and I will call Prime Minister Koštunica tomorrow, and I will tell him the same. We will be proceeding in New York. We strongly support the Ahtisaari Plan. We think there is now majority support in the Security Council for that plan -- in fact very strong support for that plan. They had a first, the Ambassadors in New York had a first substantive meeting yesterday, a full discussion of the issues; I think there will be more in the next day or two. And we will work very closely with Britain and France and Germany and the other countries to put forward a Resolution in the coming days that will lead, we hope, to a vote this month and to the independence of Kosovo.
We think this process is inevitable. We also think that the best way forward is to make a firm and clear decision because that is the best way to assure the majority population -- the 95% of the population that are Kosovar Albanian -- that we recognize that they have made the necessary reforms over the last eight years, since the end of the war in June 1999, that would merit them becoming an independent state with an independent government. We know this is a difficult issue for Serbia. We want to maintain very good relations with Serbia. I think you will see us pressing for protections of the minority rights of Serbs in the Resolution; and making sure that the United Nations and the EU and NATO are all focused on the issue of Serb minority rights. It is very important that the future of Kosovo be one where Serbs can live freely, where their churches and historic sites and monasteries are protected from any kind of threat. So we will be pressing forward on that.
On the issue of Iran, we hope the Iranian government will understand that it has a choice now. That choice is to negotiate with the Perm-5 countries and Germany on the nuclear weapons issue. We made an offer 11 months ago in Vienna -- the Perm-5 and Germany. Iran said no to that offer. We now have put that offer back on to the table. Javier Solana has been asked by the six of us to represent us in talks with Ali Larijani and those talks will be continuing in the coming -- at some point in the next week or two. I don’t think they have been announced yet, the date and time and location. But we hope the Iranian government will reconsider. We hope they will agree to meet us halfway. We have agreed that we would suspend our sanctions in the Security Council for the life of any negotiations. We would ask Iran to suspend its enrichment programs (inaudible), but clearly negotiations are preferable to confrontation. We seek peaceful discourse, not confrontation. But Iran is rather isolated these days. When you have Germany, France, Britain, the United States, China and Russia all together on one proposal, wishing to negotiate; and when you have South Africa, Indonesia, India, Brazil, Egypt -- all having voted in the Security Council or the IAEA to urge Iran to seek these negotiations; Iran should listen, not just to the Perm-5 and Germany, but also to the leading non-aligned countries of the world, and they ought to come to the negotiating table. So we will be talking about that tomorrow here in Berlin under German leadership. We will be talking to them about that.
Hello stranger. You all know Assistant Secretary Dan Fried who has just come in on the trail from Bucharest, joining me here for talks in Berlin.
But this is a critical time for Iran. If you think about it, Iran is supported -- who supports Iran? Syria does. Venezuela does. Belarus and Cuba. That’s about it. Every other leading country in the world has said, “Please sit down with these six countries and negotiate.” And so we don’t want to give up on negotiations. We want Iran to sit down with us; Secretary Rice said this just Monday. She said if Iran would sit down at the negotiating table, suspend its enrichment program, sit down and negotiate, she would be there, and she would be available to talk about any issue with the Iranian government. So that surely is the right way forward. We don’t seek confrontation and we think it can and should be avoided. So Kosovo and Iran are big issues.
Darfur is a major issue -- for those of us in the Security Council. And we are asking the Sudanese government to allow our United Nations and African Union peacekeeping force to go into Darfur to protect the civilians. There were more attacks on civilians in Darfur over the weekend, more attacks on the women and children there. And so we think in our government it is time to act. We want to see this process go forward and want to see the Sudanese government be willing to work with the United Nations. We think Ban Ki-Moon has done an excellent job of leading the international community.
There are lots of issues. There are relations with Russia. There is missile defense. There is the future of the Serb government, which right now is under some question because of the return of the radicals. There are lots of issues to discuss and I just wanted to put them on the table and say that I would be happy to talk to you about them.
ANDREAS RINKE, HANDELSBLATT: May I come back to the issue of Kosovo? Is it correct that there is a timeline that will entail a decision on the Resolution in May, as some newspapers have reported? First, and second, is there any new element which could be part of this Resolution which has aired in the last discussions?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Yes and yes.
On the timeline issue, we have made a strategic judgment. We thought, we sat and thought about the future of Kosovo, and it’s clear to us that a prolonged delay in granting, or seeing the way forward towards independence in Kosovo is more likely to produce instability and violence than a clear decision this spring. And so the United States supports the Ahtisaari Plan; supports independence for Kosovo; supports a clear decision by the Security Council, we hope this month, the month of May, that will lead towards the independence of Kosovo. Now I want to choose my words carefully: “lead towards.” The Resolution that we are drafting with Germany, France, Britain and others is not going to proclaim that Kosovo is an independent state. We don’t believe the Security Council has that kind of legal power. It will though, however, do a couple of things. It will, and by necessity must, in effect, end the impact of Resolution 1244 from June 1999 and the institutions that that created, specifically UNMIK, the United Nations Mission in Kosovo. It will ask the European Union to become the lead agency to go in, as Judy wrote about in this morning’s newspaper (I read it in the plane).
JUDY DEMPSEY, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE: I didn’t ask you to say that.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, it’s free advertising (laughter). It will ask the European Union to play the lead civil role in implementing the necessary reforms that need to be carried out, specifically protection of minority rights. And it will encourage, of course, NATO to continue to provide security because there won’t be a national army in Kosovo; and NATO will continue, as it has for eight years, to provide the border security and the internal security and to provide for internal peace.
The passage of such a resolution would then allow Kosovo, the authorities in Pristina, the government there, President Sejdiu and Prime Minister Çeku -- and I will be seeing them on Friday in Croatia, in Zagreb -- it will allow them to then proclaim their independence. Those of us who support this will then recognize that bilaterally. That’s the legal way forward. I wanted to point that out.
But I think the process has a great deal of momentum. We already have strong majority support among the 15 members. We are trying to work with Russia. I met Deputy Minister Titov in London for a few hours last Thursday morning. Michael Schaefer and I and others met him together; and we urged him to work with us.
Now the second question you asked is well are there new elements of this I could talk about. Yes, there is. I think the Russians, the Russian government, have been very clear that they would like to see some kind of mechanism by which Serb refugees could be assisted because there are tremendous numbers of Serbs who have left Kosovo. And we agree, and I think we will agree to add an element to the Security Council Resolution that would ask for the creation of an independent envoy who would be charged with (inaudible). I shouldn’t say independent because I guess that person would work in the international mission, but an envoy who will be charged with trying to help encourage Serb refugees to stay or to come back or those Serbs who live in Kosovo to stay. So that was, I think, a very attractive idea put forward by Russia. We support it. We want to work with Russia. We are reaching out to the Russian government. I know Secretary Rice will be in Moscow with Dan Fried next week; and I know she looks forward to discussing this issue with the Russian leadership.
Can I just say one more thing? I think that Judy’s piece was excellent but she gave too little credit to NATO. She gave too little credit to the job that NATO has done for the last eight years. My only criticism. You have a right to reply.
JUDY DEMPSEY, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE: You know I love NATO.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I do (Laughter). This is a long story.
JOHANNES LEITHÄUSER, FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG: Are there any additional conditions or restrictions possible if in the way you describe, the Kosovo government is the one to [proclaim] its independence. It is not possible to apply conditions to this independent status Kosovo then will have?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, Martti Ahtisaari has called for a period of supervised independence. That means that the European Union will play a civil role and NATO will play a military role; and the Kosovar authorities have agreed to this. It does mean that we will expect the Kosovar authorities to continue the process of meeting the standards that all of us have been talking about for many, many years. Standards meaning how should minorities be treated, how should electoral reforms be carried out, administrative reforms, issues of governance, issues of corruption. That doesn’t stop. When Kosovo becomes an independent state, we will all expect, as friends of Kosovo, the governing authorities to meet those standards that the United Nations established many years ago. And then one of the key questions will be: When does the period of supervised independence conclude? And that’s a subject that the Security Council will likely comment on. But that is an evolution. So we will have to see where that goes in New York.
DIETRICH ALEXANDER, DIE WELT: Could you elaborate a little bit more on the ongoing radicalization among the Serbs, as we have now Tomislav Nikolic, who is quite a hyper-nationalist? Well, do you worry about riots as Kosovo goes on its way to independence?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, first, I want to say that I think it’s proper that we not involve ourselves in Serb politics. This is for the Serb people to decide; and the political leaders to decide. So I won’t comment specifically on Serb politics, or what may happen over the next few days because I know that they are in a process of trying to form a government over the next several days. And I will be calling Prime Minister Koštunica tomorrow just to talk about a variety of issues, including Kosovo.
But I think all of us -- I think we, in our government, are very disappointed at the re-emergence of the radicals. This is the party of Milosevic. This is the party that took Serbia backwards in the 1990s and into destruction and warfare – four wars. And as Olli Rehn said yesterday -- I think Olli put it very well and I would certainly associate myself with his remarks: Serbia has a choice. Serbia can go back to the failed policies, the disastrous policies of the 1990s that led to so much bloodshed and turmoil, or it can move forward. You know the EU and NATO have reached out to Serbia to say, “We want you to be aligned with us.” NATO took the decision just last autumn that we would bring Serbia into the Partnership for Peace. We in the United States have said very clearly that when a democratic Serbia is fully reformed, we would like them to become candidate members for NATO in the future. I know the European Union has said the same thing. But they have to meet the conditions and that is reform. And it seems to us that Serbia ought to want to be aligning itself with the European mainstream, which is democratic. Values concerning human rights. War criminals are not allowed to roam freely in the country but are sent to The Hague for prosecution, as normal countries have done – as Croatia has done by the way, a neighbor of Serbia. So we were disappointed to see the re-emergence of the radicals. These are people who brought Serbia great ruin and international discredit in the 1990s. We would hope that Serbia could face forward in a more democratic way in the future.
JUDY DEMPSEY, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE: Can I just go back to the timetable? So you are confiding that the U.S. will present a draft Security Council resolution this month?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I didn’t say the U.S. We, the United States and Europe, together.
JUDY DEMPSEY, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE: You will have to get Russia involved. What happens if Russia – if Russia abstains, that’s a different matter. Are you confident that you would get it through by the end of the month? And then you mentioned the key word – bilateral. Then countries can bilaterally recognize the independence. Bilateral.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I think it’s common, and understandable. There’s an assumption among a lot of people that somehow the UN Security Council is going to proclaim the independence. None of us believe the Security Council has that legal right. So when we undo June 1990 and the international structures that were set up, we prepare the way forward for the new international cooperation, and then each country takes the decision that it wants to take. And my country has already said we will recognize an independent Kosovo.
JUDY DEMPSEY, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE: Assume Russia vetoes it or abstains?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: You know I learned as spokesman ten years ago when I was spokesman for the State Department, Judy, never answer a hypothetical question. So what I would like to say because it is a serious question: Russia should be part of the process of building a peaceful Balkans. Russia should want to orient Kosovo along with Bosnia and Croatia and Macedonia and Albania and hopefully Serbia towards the EU, towards NATO. One of the points that the European countries have been making very effectively, and I think you have seen really strong European leadership on Kosovo over the last month or so, is, and we, we Americans, make it in conjunction with Europe. Who has been there for eight years? Who has been on the ground in Kosovo? It’s been Germany and Italy and France and Spain and Britain and Romania, all the countries, and us – our soldiers, our money, our political support. I find in my international conversations that a lot of countries outside of Europe on the Security Council are saying, “You know, this really is a European issue.” And if anyone should try to disrupt this process, well, which countries will have to assume the responsibility of a chaotic future? We will. You will. It’s Europe and the United States. We are the ones on the ground. And so we think we have a right to put forward a clear view. I think Europe has done that. The United States as well. And we ask Russia to work with us. And we have a very open mind. I told Deputy Foreign Minister Titov last week we are flexible. The elements that we have put forward are not set in stone. If you have some ideas, give them to us. And they gave us the idea of an envoy who would be dedicated to refugee affairs. We said that’s a good idea. So if the Russians have other good ideas, I think all of us would want to receive them. So this is very much a process that is going to have to evolve over the next two to three to four weeks. But we are open to Russian suggestions. We just would like the Russians to be with us in the end.
ANDREW PURVIS, TIME MAGAZINE: You have covered the ground pretty effectively. The question of Russia’s concerns over the Ahtisaari Plan. You are essentially saying that this idea of an envoy for the Serb minorities is not allaying their major concerns on Kosovo?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I can’t speak for the Russian government. No, I think Russia has other concerns, but all I’m saying is that the Russians contributed a very useful, productive idea. We are in favor of it. We have told the Russians that. And I would urge the Russians to come with similar, other ideas. And I hope that they will. Most of the action will be in New York, at the Council with the ambassadors. But we will continue our talks in capitals and Secretary Rice will want to, of course, address this issue in Moscow next week. But the Russians will have to make their own decision; but I see the momentum now, the momentum is towards independence. That’s very clear to me. And I think Europe has done an excellent job of leading this international debate.
HANS-JUERGEN MAURUS, GERMAN PUBLIC RADIO: Concerning North Korea, has there been any significant new developments after this financial issue was resolved with Banco Delta Asia, the 25 million at (inaudible) Chinatown? And then the last thing we heard about was that nobody touched it and that the work at the nuclear reactor -- nothing is happening yet either. But I am sure you know more about this.
And the second question is towards Iran. Your assessment is, to quote you, that “Iran is pretty much isolated.” You made a convincing argument there, but on the other hand of course you see that members of the European Union, or companies of members of the European Union -- an Austrian company has signed a deal, 3.5 billion with the Iranian government, and there are of course other deals in the pipeline with other countries. I wonder if there are not mixed signals being sent which might lead, in Tehran, to the assessment that they can lean back very comfortably as long as the dollars are rolling in or the Euros or whatever. What makes you so convinced that this is now a critical time that the Iranians even might be ready to move, or is that an expectation?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, on the first question; we are continuing to work on the North Korea issue. I know that there is continuing work by the Treasury Department of the United States and by Ambassador Chris Hill to finalize the financial arrangements concerning Banco Delta Asia and we are confident that that can happen. You know the February agreement in our view is a very good agreement. Its multilateral six-party-talks will lead to dismantlement of the North Korean Nuclear Program that is in everyone’s interest. We will continue to place a lot of priority and energy on pushing forward with China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea, and the North Koreans to complete this arrangement.
On Iran. I think Iran has miscalculated. The Iranians are beginning to see the pressure from the Security Council: we now have two Chapter 7 resolutions; we now have sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Command; we have sanctions on Bank Sepa, the fourth leading bank -- international UN sanctions on the fourth leading bank of Iran; sanctions on individuals in the nuclear and ballistic missile industry. We have European banks beginning to shut down lending to Iran. We have European governments diminishing the level of export credits, they tell us, the European governments; they are diminishing them -- that were as high as 22 billion dollars in total in the year 2005. So I think the momentum here is towards greater pressure and sanctions, economic pressure on Iran, should they not come to the negotiating table. And again, like Serbia, what we have very consciously done, we the Europeans, Americans, China and Russia, is say: you’ve got two paths, Iran.
We prefer the negotiation path. And if you agree with Solana, over the next few weeks, if Iran will agree to this dual suspension, the mutual suspension -- so, we give something up and Iran does. We will be at the negotiating table and we will have a way to discuss this problem. And from an American perspective: any issue. If Iran doesn’t say yes to negotiations and continues -- and they are now up to 13,000 centrifuges in the cascade that they have strung together -- they are going to find a third Security Council Resolution in the month of June, a third Chapter VII resolution. They will find, I think more importantly, I’ll bet in Japan and in Europe, further efforts to, as the EU has done, reduce economic and political contacts with the Iranian government.
On the question of the Austrian oil and gas investment, we think it’s ill-advised, we recommend against it. This is no time for business as usual with the government of the leading supporter of the four major Middle East terrorist groups that Iran is. And a government – Iran – that we think is trying to achieve a nuclear weapons capability; and there is no international disagreement that that is what they are trying to do. And so we think it would be ill-advised to proceed with such an investment.
I have met over the last six to seven weeks with several CEOs of major European and American oil companies and our advice to them is; don’t make long-term investments in Iran, it’s not a good credit risk. You will be beginning to see international banks constrict or end lending all together. You have UN Chapter VII resolutions -- of 192 in the UN, only 11 are under Chapter VII sanctions, Iran is one of them. And I think, finally, the U.S. Senate and House are considering legislation that would exact severe penalties on any company in the world that proceeds with major oil and gas deals. Now our administration has said that we don’t support this legislation in full but we don’t make the laws. Congress makes the laws. Congress is speaking very clearly that they want to send a clear signal that companies should not invest in the oil and gas sector. So, I think in all ways, this Austrian deal is extremely ill-advised and should be reconsidered.
RUTH CIESINGER, TAGESPIEGEL: Actually, I think you pretty much answered it but let me just clarify. So if there is not going to be any sign of Iran to come back to the negotiating table until the 25th of May, is there is definitely going to be another Security Council Resolution, a third one? Is this something that you have already agreed upon with the other five?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Yes, we agreed last week in London that should the Iranian government not agree to negotiations, then we will all push for a third Resolution -- and that is implicit, explicit in the 1747, the Resolution of March 21st. We will seek further measures – “measures” is a UN word for sanctions, should Iran not comply. Now I don’t think there is anything magical about May 24th. Sixty days runs out then. But if Solana needed a day, or two, or three more, we are not going to quibble. We support Solana. He is representing us. He is representing all of us – all six of us. And we want to make it possible for Solana to succeed, but I think we will know by the first part of June whether or not the Iranians are going to say yes. And Solana will know and he will report to us, and certainly by the G-8 Summit here in Germany, it will be abundantly clear whether Iran has said yes or no. If they have said no, then I think we are going to see – I know we will see – a major effort in New York towards a third sanctions resolution. By the way, that is not our preference. We don’t seek to be punitive, just to be punitive. We would rather have negotiations. Secretary Rice said this last week in Sharm el-Sheikh; she said it Monday at the State Department. We want negotiations.
Here is a way to think about this issue. It has been 28 years since the United States had any kind of discussions with the government of Iran – on any subject. And now you have the United States government reaching out in two respects. Last week at Sharm el-Sheikh, our Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, sat down with the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister and talked about Iraq – which we initiated. And there may be further discussions in that channel. Now we are also trying to create a second channel on the nuclear issue of negotiations – and Secretary Rice has said that she will personally be there. So I hope the Iranians understand this is the first time in 28 years that the United States has offered negotiations at such a high level. And we do believe that negotiations are a far better way to proceed internationally than military confrontation. And so, Iran we would think should find it in its interest – with Solana – to find a way forward. And Solana has been – he’s a very creative diplomat. And we have given him our full trust over the next several weeks to negotiate with Larijani; and we are all waiting for a response. And we are puzzled that the Iranians seem so ambivalent about this.
PRESS ATTACHÉ ROBERT WOOD: I’m sorry, we’re out of time. Thank you everyone for coming. Mr. Secretary, thank you.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you.

New York, 9 May 2007 - Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on Darfur - recent bombings by the Government

New York, 9 May 2007 - Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on Darfur - recent bombings by the Government

The Secretary-General is deeply concerned by reports of aerial bombardments in North Darfur which have taken place over the last three weeks. These attacks have brought more destruction and loss of life, including new displacement of civilians. In one instance, the school in the village of Um Rai was struck by rockets fired from a Government helicopter.
The Secretary General strongly urges the Government of Sudan to cease all attacks and to comply fully with the Darfur Peace Agreement, Security Council resolutions and international humanitarian law. He reiterates that only a political solution can bring peace and stability to Darfur and calls on the parties to renounce military action. He further calls on both the Government and all movements to immediately stop military hostilities and cooperate fully with the African Union and United Nations team which is leading efforts to mediate an end to this devastating conflict.

Alrabae Adam Ezaldeen Supervisor of foreign Affairs of SLM/A

US lawmakers urge China to act over Darfur

US lawmakers urge China to act over Darfur

May 9, 2007 (WASHINGTON) — More than 100 US lawmakers signed a robustly worded letter calling on China’s President Hu Jintao to take immediate action to stop bloodshed in Darfur, a senior lawmaker said Thursday.
Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressed grave concern at continuing atrocities in the region, and warned that as the largest foreign investor in Sudan, China had influence to wield.
"The international community is stepping up to its responsibilities, but unless China does its part to ensure that the government of Sudan accepts the best and most reasonable path to peace, history will judge your government as having bank-rolled a genocide," the letter to Hu read.
The letter also warned China’s image could be tarnished ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics if it failed to do more to curtail Khartoum.
"This appalling genocide has already destroyed untold numbers of families, due to displacement or death of a loved one," Lantos said.
"If China fails to do its part, it risks being forever known as the host of the ’Genocide Olympics.’"
The new letter mirrors a similar warning to China signed by nearly the entire US Senate earlier this month, which called on Hu to prod Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir to halt military operations throughout Darfur, withdraw troops from the area and follow through on Khartoum’s agreement to accept a joint UN and African Union peacekeeping force.
The Darfur conflict has caused 200,000 deaths and led to two million people being displaced, according to the United Nations. Sudan contests the figures, saying that only 9,000 have died.
China has been criticized for not using its clout as a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council and a top investor in Sudan to force Khartoum to end the violence in Darfur, where ethnic tensions erupted into a revolt in 2003.
China is also the leading customer for Sudanese oil and a key supplier of military arms and equipment to the huge African state.
Alrabae Adam EzaldeenSupervisor of foreign Affairs & General Secretary of Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM/A-A)In United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland’s Chapter

DARFUR: AMNESTY ACCUSES CHINA, RUSSIA OF SUPPLYING ARMS TO SUDAN

London, 8 May (AKI) - Human rights watchdog Amnesty International has accused China and Russia of violating a United Nations arms embargo by continuing to supply weapons to the Sudanese goverment for use in Darfur. In a report published Tuesday the London-based non-governmental organisation said Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Belarus have also been supplying weapons to the authorities in Khartoum. Amnesty's claim comes just over a week after widely leaked UN report said that the Sudanese government had painted its military planes in UN colours in an attempt to disguise the transport of weapons to Darfur.One of the authors of the Amnesty report, Brian Wood, has called on Russia and China to comply with the embargo to protect the civilians of Darfur. "We're talking about the worst humanitarian catastrophe on the planet," Wood said."Both the governments of the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation need to reign in all their arms supplies and munitions supplies to Sudan as part of a package of measures needed to help get the human rights of the people of Darfur back again."Amnesty International also accuses Sudan of continuing to target civilians in indiscriminate air attacks in Darfur and also of supporting the Arab Janjaweed militia's operations against the local African rebel groups.Sudan has rejected Amnesty's accusations.Its UN ambassador, Mahmoud Abdel-Haleem, dismissed Amnesty's photographic evidence of the use of military aircraft in Darfur. "Our reaction to Amnesty International's allegations is very easy," he was quoted as saying in a ABC report."It is total rejection as it is baseless and unfounded," he said. "These photos may be of a plane in the Central African Republic or maybe for one in south Sudan, but it is not in Darfur at all," he said.

A Day for Darfur in Brooklyn’

A Day for Darfur in Brooklyn’


PROSPECT PARK — As budding trees and cherry blossoms filled the air on Sunday afternoon, Brooklyn Parents for Peace presented a program to increase awareness of the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and to raise support for its local refugees.
Organizers said hundreds of people gathered and rallied in Prospect Park for the program “Drumming for Darfur.” It was one of 150 events planned nationwide from April 23 to 30 as part of the third “Global Days for Darfur,” according to the Brooklyn group.
The president of the Newark-based Darfur Rehabilitation Project, Abdelbagy Abushanab, reportedly advocated for Darfurians to unite to solve this crisis. Motasim Adam, president of the Darfur People’s Association of NY, described harsh realities for genocide victims.
State Assemblyman Jim Brennan, D-Brooklyn, spoke about pending state legislation that would authorize the state comptroller to refrain from investing public pension funds in companies doing business in Sudan and to divest from companies that are doing business in Sudan. The bill, A07814, is co-sponsored by Assemblyman Darryl Towns, D-Brooklyn, and is identical to Senate bill S 5287, sponsored by Senator Joseph Robach, D-Monroe County.
“Ongoing violence and lawlessness in Darfur region has resulted in estimated civilian deaths ranging from 50,000 to 200,000,” the bill states. “Hundreds of thousands of people have been injured or maimed, nearly 1.5 million people are displaced, and the population is afflicted with famine and malnutrition … the Sudanese government arms and collaborates with violent militia groups known as the Janjaweed for the purpose of conducting attacks against civilians.
“In July of 2004, both chambers of the United States Congress unanimously adopted a joint resolution condemning the continuing atrocities in the Darfur region of western Sudan as ‘genocide’ and called upon the international community to work to end what it termed as a humanitarian catastrophe. This legislation would be a major step in helping to end this terrible situation in the Darfur region,” the bill states.
Other speakers at Sunday’s rally included Reverend Podres Spencer of the Concord Baptist Church of Christ and Ciatta Z. Baysah, Esq., an attorney with Wanda M. Akin & Associates.
The event closed with a drumming performance by two middle school students, Stephan Litzsey and Quaran Jones, from Junior High School 258.
A committee from Brooklyn Parents for Peace has been working with Darfur People’s Association of New York, a group of refugees who fled genocide in Darfur, to collect clothing and school supplies and raise funds for refugee camps in Chad. They collected bags full of clothing and school supplies on Sunday.
Since early 2003, genocide has been raging in Darfur, where Sudanese government forces bomb villages and arm militias who carry out a campaign of rape, arson and murder throughout the region. To date, more than 400,000 people have been killed, and two million have fled their homes, including the 200,000 currently living in refugee camps in Chad.

Sudan Liberation Movement statement about the ICC decision

Sudan Liberation Movement statement about the ICC decisionIn the light of the principles of

Sudan Liberation Movement(SLM) for seeking justice in Sudan, Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) under the founder Chairman Mr. Abdul Wahid Alnour well come the decision of the judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for issued arrest warrants for two war suspects accused of war crimes in Sudan`s Darfur Region * Ahmed Haroun and Ali Mohamed Abdulrahman , also known Ali Kushayb*.Ahmed Haroun was state minister for Interior Affairs, apost below full ministerial and security supervision during the conflict and is currentlly state minister of Humanitarian Affairs responsible of communication and co- opreation between Sudan Government and United Nation Mission in Sudan beside other NGOs. Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) ready for full co- opreation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Hague regarding hand over war suspects in Darfur Region if there any member from ( SLM ) accused by ( ICC ) even high profile members ( SLM ) ready to hand over them to ( ICC ), because justice is one of the ( SLM ) Principles. According to arrest warrants decision by ( ICC ) judges , means that there were enough evidence to accused * Ahmed Haroun and Ali Kushayb* of war crimes in Darfur Region, and now the burden of hand over them to ( ICC) in Hague rely on Sudan Government to enforce the decision that taken by ( ICC ) judges, how ever the Darfur file referred to International Criminal Court by United Nation Security Council, Sudan Government one of the United Nation members, and should services the decision that taken by United Nation Security Council. The founder Chairman of Sudan Liberation Movement ( SLM ) Mr. Abdul Wahid Alnour call Sudanese Nation, decent political parties, and Sudanese civil socities to put heat pressure up on Sudan Government to hand over war crimes suspects * Ahmed Haroun and Ali Kushayb * to the International Criminal Court ( ICC ) in Hague in order to avoid Sudan potentioal consequences. Yahia ElbashirSpokesperson of Sudan Liberation MovementPhone : + 00 44 79 616 08 397Email : yhbashir@yahoo.co.uk Web : www.sudanslm.net

Statement from Sudan Liberation Movement/Army

Statement from Sudan Liberation Movement/Army
Regarding entering in to Liberated Areas

The Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) is highly concerned about the safety and security of all the stakeholders, NGO’s and the individual members working in Darfur to provide humanitarian assistance and relief or those seeking to get information from reliable sources about the situation on the ground, accordingly, we would like to kindly bring into attention issue and regulations of interning our liberated areas as follows:-

1. Any organization or member individual seeking to enter our liberated areas must first notify the political leadership of the Movement about the nature of his/her mission, to enable the Movement to fully facilitate it, through its appropriate channels.

2. The Movement will not be responsible about the safety of the member individuals or organizations entering the liberated areas without it’s pre-knowledge.
The Sudan Liberation Movement/Army appreciates the co-operation of the organizations and member individuals in adhering to the above regulation for the common good of all.

The office the Chairman of the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army
Contacts for any coordination: +8821655583149/+8821666601790

Email:kazansky95@gmail.com
Ahmed Ibrahim Yousif
The Office Manager

ICC Issues its first arrest warrants on Darfur crimes

ICC Issues its first arrest warrants on Darfur crimes

Statement from the military spokesman of Sudan Liberation Movement/Army

Statement from the military spokesman of Sudan Liberation Movement/Army



It has came to our attention that Sudan and Egypt Governments have signed an agreement, where by Egyptian troops will be send to Darfur, we in the Sudan Liberation Liberation Movement/Army and with due respect to the Egyptian Government would like however, to state the following:-


1. We strongly warn Sudan Government to stop playing politics, these Egyptian troops where have they all been this time while our people are dieing? And why in this specific time? And why from Egypt? Its Sudan Government’s policy of “drinking wine and preaching water” that let to these desperate states of affairs in Darfur.

2. We in the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army are full a ware of the bilateral agreement between Salah Gush, the head of Sudan Government’s security and Omar Suleiman the head of Egyption Intelligence , to change the scenario of spelling innocence blood in Darfur , and we strongly condemn and reject this. Unethical and untimely move.


3. It’s beats logic for the Egyption Government to think of sending troops to Darfur, while the Islamist still posing a great threat to the regime of President Mubarak and it will be good if these troops are kept to stabilize the internal situation in Egypt.

4. The Sudan Liberation Movement/Army highly welcome UN forces from western and neutral countries to protect civilian and urge the International community to show sense of and urgency in sending the troops “ more delay more death”

Nimir Mohammed Abdurrahman
Thuraya Phone: +8821655599734
Web site www.sudanslm.net
Military Spokesman of the Sudan Liberation Movement /Army
Liberated Areas (Darfur)
1st of May, 2007