My talk radio debut...

Tomorrow I will be a guest on The Tony Trupiano Show, a nationally-syndicated progressive talk radio show on Detroit's Real Talk 1310 WXDX. I'll be on from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern, where we'll be discussing, among other things, my recent article in The Gadflyer.

I'm told you can listen live online at www.mlive.com. (If you miss the live show, you can listen to the archived show here.) This is my first foray into talk radio, so be kind!

My disgust...

As a veteran of the September 11 attacks, I'm utterly disgusted that Republicans are using their convention to claim the mantle of that day as their own, as if the spirit of the American people on that day belongs to one party or the other. They apparently want us to believe that it's still October 2001, and that anyone who opposes the Bush administration's agenda of religious extremism, social Darwinism, and neo-monarchism is a handmaiden to terrorism.

Darfur update; Catholic Bishops call for intervention

The UN's World Food Program continues its airdrops of food into parts of Darfur made otherwise inaccessible by the rainy season. However, WFP depends on international contributions, and the UN's humanitarian relief coordinator, Denis McNamara, reports that the UN has received only $177 million of the $365 million needed in this year. He also noted today that the women of Darfur continue to face a "protection crisis." According to McNamara, "Cases of sexual violence and multiple rapes are incredibly high and women face even higher risks whenever they venture too far from their settlements to look for basics such as firewood."

Also of note today, the Catholic World News reports that the Bishops of Sudan are calling for immediate international intervention, stating that, "As bishops we cannot overlook the annihilation of any ethnic group, whatever their creed, nature, or clan." Bishop Macram Max Gassis of the El Obeid diocese, which includes Darfur, said today, "This is actual genocide."

The UN is broken, and it's time to fix it

Tomorrow is the UN's deadline for the government of Sudan to disarm and disband the Janjaweed, halt attacks on civilians, and fully open refugee camps to international humanitarian aid. The latest reports suggest that access to and safety within refugee camps have somewhat improved, but that the government of Sudan continues to both commit and permit genocidal attacks on Darfur's black civilian population. With all eyes on the UN tomorrow, observers generally agree that the UN Security Council is likely to do nothing more than offer another deadline and demand more improvement, realizing that this amounts to another reprieve for the engineers of genocide in Khartoum. How could this be, from an organization that claims the following as its reasons for being?:

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

If the UN is systemically unable to prevent or to stop the crime of all crimes against humanity -- the systematic attempt to wipe an entire people off the face of the Earth -- then I'm reluctantly forced to conclude that the UN is broken, unable to fulfill its core purpose. That's not to say that nations who care about stopping future Rwandas and Sudans ought to ignore or abandon the UN, but they ought to begin a concerted effort to amend the UN charter and to implement structural reforms that would turn the vision of the UN into functional reality.

Accountability in Darfur

If you're just now tuning in to the situation in Darfur, or if you're looking for a comprehensive update in under an hour, check out today's Your Call with Laura Flanders radio show on KALW 97.1 San Francisco. (To listen online through your Real player, click here.) I helped the show's producer with his research, and he asked me to call in with a question. The guests were: Paul Norton of the International Organization for Migration; Harvard's Samantha Power, whose brilliant article, "Dying in Darfur," is in the current New Yorker; and Kathy Ward of the International Crisis Group.

Successful activism in Washington, D.C.

I received this report from Marla Wilson, who organized the Dupont Circle rally for Sudan: Day of Conscience:

Thank you so much for publicizing my event. I gathered around 40 signatures for the petition I created, which I hope to send to the three parties it was directed toward: Secretary-General Annan, the Sudanese government (Pres. al-Bashir/Sudanese Ambassador), and Pres. Bush. I also got some e-mail signups for the Save Darfur Coalition’s listserv. After that, I proceeded to the rally at the Embassy and saw Danny Glover get arrested. I thought it was spectacular—even better than the one where Ben and Jerry got arrested. Apparently, the protests have reached such a fever pitch that they’ve closed the embassy indefinitely.

Sudan: Day of Conscience

The Save Darfur Coalition has identified today as Sudan: Day of Conscience. On Sunday, the UN Security Council will meet to review Sudan's progress -- or lack thereof -- in living up to its commitments to stop the genocide of the non-Arab population of Darfur. Sadly, the government of Sudan has focused more on creating the illusion of progress than on progress itself. Human Rights Watch continues to document evidence that the government of Sudan has been waging its campaign of genocide even during the UN's 30-day deadline period. We must do everything we can to urge the UN to endorse the plan put forth by the International Crisis Group, which includes a new UN Security Council resolution authorizing a force of up to 3,000 African Union peacekeepers, which the African Union has gladly offered. Only through the kind of robust combination of force, aid, and diplomacy outlined by the International Crisis Group will we be able to stop this genocide in progress.

Band of Brothers: How Kerry's veterans could send "Brother John" to the White House

by David L. Englin
The Gadflyer, Aug. 24, 2004

This year, more than in any other modern presidential election, both candidates are turning to America's military veterans to swing crucial votes in key states. Republicans have long considered veterans to be part of their base. However, thanks to the nomination of a genuine war hero on the Democratic side and bad policy and bad politics on the Republican side, veteran support for Sen. John Kerry is growing. In a CBS News poll taken shortly after the Democratic Convention, Kerry had eliminated the gap between him and President George W. Bush among veterans who are registered to vote. In reaction, Republican front groups like the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth stepped up feverish attacks on Kerry's war record, to which Kerry has responded strongly if belatedly. Despite the fact that independent media investigations found official military documents proving the attacks on Kerry to be false, Bush continues to tacitly support them, effectively acknowledging the potential for Kerry to win the veteran vote. If Kerry can hold on to substantial veteran support it could turn the election in his favor, not only because Kerry's veterans movement can reach out to other veterans in key battleground states (there were 26.4 million veterans as of the 2000 census, fully 13% of the adult American population), but also because veterans today are uniquely positioned to win support from non-veterans.

Bush will no doubt surround himself with veterans during the Republican convention, as Kerry did during the Democratic convention. But my own experience with Kerry's "Band of Brothers" suggests something powerful that Bush, for all his cowboy talk, will have a hard time emulating. In June, 29 years old and just a week out of the military, I found myself waiting in a room to meet Max Cleland with other veterans, mostly middle aged and older, but from all walks of life. As different as they were from me on the surface, even the bearded, leather-clad, tattoo-mottled Vietnam vets literally embraced me as their brother, imploring us all to help send "Brother John" Kerry to the White House.

John Hurley, the national director of Veterans for Kerry, notes a growing sense, especially among Vietnam veterans, that America needs a combat veteran in the White House, somebody who has commanded troops under fire. By now, we've all heard the stories of John Kerry's heroism as a Navy lieutenant swift boat commander in Vietnam, where he won the silver star, the bronze star, and three purple hearts. Hurley also argues that, "Veterans relate to the troops on active duty, and feel particular outrage that many were sent to Iraq without the proper body armor, that Bush tried to cut their combat pay, and that many of them are getting substandard medical care when they return." Hurley believes that veterans make the connection between Bush's treatment of American troops and the fact that he studiously avoided combat and has surrounded himself with people who found ways to avoid even putting on a uniform during Vietnam.

While this election may represent a political realignment among veterans, Vietnam veterans have always been important to Kerry's electoral success. Hurley served in Vietnam, first met Kerry in law school in 1970, and has been a key organizer of veterans for Kerry over the years. There has always been a core of veterans loyal to Kerry – the group in Massachusetts calling themselves the Doghunters – who have successfully watched Kerry's back during his Senate bids. But that circle has grown far beyond Kerry's Vietnam and post-war peace activist comrades. What makes this year different, according to Hurley, is the feeling among veterans that this election has become a movement to put one of their own in the White House. That's what brought veterans from 16 states to Iowa in January to turn out 10,000 Iowan veterans for Kerry on caucus day, reviving a campaign pundits had all but declared dead. A week later, veterans from 27 states descended on New Hampshire and helped put Kerry solidly on the road to the nomination. It's that same sense of a movement that Hurley hopes his nationwide Veterans for Kerry organization can harness to put Kerry into the White House.

Cleland, the former Georgia senator and combat veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, is the national chairman of Veterans for Kerry. He shares Hurley's view, noting that, "This is the first time in a generation that a wounded combat veteran is at the top of the ticket, somebody who has exhibited courage under fire, somebody veterans identify as one of their own."

Unlike some other movements in politics, veterans have a unique ability to grow their numbers across traditional lines of separation, and they are uniquely powerful advocates to voters who are not veterans, especially in an election so focused on national security.

Brother to brother

Borrowing from Shakespeare, Kerry calls this movement his "Band of Brothers," tapping into an important element of military culture; the sense of a common bond among people who have served. Cleland says that this "Band of Brothers" notion is what sets veterans apart from other political movements. "It's not that there isn't camaraderie among teachers and unions members and those kinds of groups, but it's different for veterans. These are people whose very lives have depended on each other."

The old movie cliché comes to mind: The Iowa farm boy, the Jewish kid from Brooklyn, the Alabama football star, the Asian kid from San Francisco, the college-educated officer, and so on, all thrown into combat together, depending on each other to survive. Maybe it's a tired cliché, but it's still a fairly accurate description of military service in America. Because of it, veterans who disagree with each other politically still share a common set of experiences and a proven willingness to lay down their lives for their country. With few exceptions, veterans don't challenge each other's patriotism. That's why Sen. John McCain can sit across the aisle from his friend John Kerry, actively campaign for Bush, and condemn attacks on Kerry's war record by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as "dishonest and dishonorable." Some have even linked the decline in comity across the aisles in Congress with the declining number of lawmakers who are veterans.

Because of this unique bond, veterans tend to treat each other with a kind of respect that seems lost in today's bitterly partisan atmosphere, allowing them at least to hear what each other has to say. Wade Sanders is a swift boat veteran who got to know Kerry in Vietnam and now volunteers on the Kerry campaign. He also was a deputy assistant secretary of the Navy during the Clinton administration. Sanders recalls working the telephones with fellow veterans during the Iowa caucuses. Through thousands of calls to Iowa veterans, not one of them ever slammed down the phone, and even the Bush supporters were willing to hear out a fellow veteran. Howard Dean's grassroots movement took root online, but it sent thousands of out-of-state volunteers to Iowa. Kerry's "Band of Brothers" also descended on Iowa from out of state. But where many Iowans felt put upon by Dean's vociferous interlopers in their signature orange caps, Kerry's veterans – also interlopers – grew their numbers by reaching out to fellow veterans, who, rather than feeling put upon, rallied to the cause of their former comrades at arms.

Aside from being positioned to win votes among other veterans in key states, veterans have found their social status elevated in post-September 11 America, so political candidates of all stripes are clamoring for their support. Hurley notes that this wasn't always the case, especially for Vietnam veterans, but the public now holds veterans in high regard. Ask people who served in uniform before and after September 11, 2001, and they will tell you that random people now stop them on the street to thank them for their service, which almost never happened before. With terrorism and the war in Iraq front and center in this election, the American people look to veterans to vouch for the martial leadership of any potential commander in chief. Veterans bear witness to the successes and failures of past commanders under whom they served, and they give voice through their own experience to people who currently serve, whose partisan activities are necessarily limited.

Bush rankles veterans

Ironically, as Sanders points out, a good portion of veteran support for Kerry is actually Bush's own fault, and has nothing to do with terrorism or Iraq. According to Sanders, Bush has driven away veterans by failing to fully fund the Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system – actually closing hospitals and eliminating certain veterans from healthcare eligibility – and by repealing the "concurrent receipt" rule that allowed disabled veterans to collect both disability and retirement. Rescinding the concurrent receipt rule has been especially controversial because civilian federal employees can still use it. Sanders also notes that Dr. David Chu, Bush's undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, dismissed concurrent receipt as an "entitlement," adding insult to injury for many veterans by implying that disabled veterans who retire are somehow grubbing for a handout.

On top of the Bush administration's clumsy handling of veterans' benefits, many veterans found the Republican treatment of Sen. Max Cleland during the 2002 election to be particularly distasteful. In Republican-funded campaign ads, Cleland, a combat veteran who left both legs and an arm in Vietnam - and who was running against Saxby Chambliss, whose bum knee excused him from serving - was likened to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden for refusing to support a version of the Homeland Security bill that would have stripped union rights from tens of thousands of federal employees. Cleland's treatment has since become a rallying cry among Democrats tired of Republicans questioning their patriotism. It also sent an ominous message to veterans that Republicans consider their patriotism to be fair game, no matter how much they've sacrificed for their country.

Against a backdrop of Bush policies and politics that have pushed veterans away, it's no wonder that Kerry's "Band of Brothers" is growing. Kerry's Iowa headquarters got a call three days before the caucuses from a man who said he was a Republican, but he wanted to help John Kerry win. "Why?" he was asked. "Because John Kerry saved my life." The call was from Jim Rassmann, the wounded Green Beret who Lt. Kerry pulled from the Mekong River. If Kerry wins in November, it will be in no small part because of men like Rassmann and thousands of veterans who call Kerry "brother."

More evidence that genocide continues, but a worthwhile plan emerges

As the UN-imposed Sunday deadline on Darfur approaches, Scotland's The Scotsman newspaper previews a Human Rights Watch report to be issued in the next couple of days in which they present evidence that the government of Sudan has continued its campaign of genocide virtually unencumbered, even while the UN clock has been ticking. They found evidence that, even since the UN imposed its 30-day deadline, government warplanes have bombed civilian villages and government soldiers have attacked villagers, transported Janjaweed on raids, and supplied Janjaweed with weapons and logistical support. HRW also notes that people know the locations of Janjaweed camps, but the government of Sudan has done nothing to shut them down.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the only way to resolve this crisis will be through some kind of military force. With the war in Iraq fresh on everyone's minds, it's no wonder that the West is reluctant to intervene, especially given that the Khartoum government has and will try to portray this as another imperialistic Judeo-Christian crusade against a Muslim government. However, the African Union is increasingly resolved to find an African solution to the crisis. Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the current AU chairman, has proposed sending in AU peacekeeping troops, including as many as 1,500 from Nigeria.

When the UN Security Council meets Sunday to review Sudan's progress, or lack thereof, in meeting the demands of Security Council Resolution 1556, countries like China and Pakistan, who abstained from supporting even this watered-down measure, will likely find enough "progress" to decline real action. However, the International Crisis Group has proposed a plan, which, if adopted, would preserve the legitimacy of the UN, advance the legitimacy of the AU, and might actually stop the genocide. Among other things, the plan calls for a UN resolution authorizing military intervention by as many as 3,000 AU troops. The plan is well worth a read, and is probably the best realistic hope for the people of Darfur. The United States government should endorse it and push for its full implementation.

Regime Change in Sudan

This, from an op-ed in today's Washington Post, which, I'm afraid, is probably right on:

"No reasonable world order can tolerate a serially genocidal regime that rules only by virtue of ruthless survivalism. Yet this is what the United Nations appears prepared to do. A July 30 U.N. Security Council resolution on Darfur was an exercise in temporizing. Veto-wielding China and Russia, as well as Pakistan and Algeria, resisted all meaningful action; both China and Pakistan abstained in the final vote, signaling that nothing further will be done when the Security Council takes up Darfur again on Sunday."

AU monitors confirm abuse by Sudanese military

A UN spokesman said today that "African Union monitors have confirmed that the Sudanese military last week harassed and brutally treated the internally displaced persons living at the Kalma camp in the strife-torn Darfur region, and then looted the camp." Not the Janjaweed, but the Sudanese military.

The Sudanese government signed an agreement today promising not to force refugees to return to their homes against their will. Some refugees had been forced out of camps and back to their homes (thus creating the illusion of action in the direction of reducing the number of refugees) only to find burned out villages, no access to food or water, and Janjaweed waiting for them. If the government of Sudan actually honors this promise, then this is a positive step.

The BBC has this update on UN airlift operations delivering aid to parts of Darfur that the rainy season -- now at its peak -- has rendered impassable by land.

Security Council asleep at the wheel?

The Associated Press reports that Britain's Foreign Office says a majority of U.N. Security Council members oppose immediate heavy sanctions on Sudan if it fails to meet Security Council's deadline for action.

Basic Training for Lawmakers?

In this article in today's Washington Post, former senator John Melcher (D-Mont.), a World War II Army veteran, links the decline of comity across the aisles in Congress to the decline in the number of lawmakers who are military veterans. This supports one of the central points I make in an article that will be published next week in The Gadflyer: That military veterans who support a particular political candidate are uniquely able to grow their numbers because veterans share a mutual respect that transcends partisanship, allowing them at least to hear what each other has to say.

Take Action! Sudan: Day of Conscience planned for Aug. 25

The Save Darfur Coalition has identified Wednesday, August 25, 2004 as Sudan: Day of Conscience. On that day, communities across North America are urged to engage in interfaith activities to raise public awareness about the horrific situation in Darfur and to demand that the international community take immediate and decisive action to stop the killing, the rape, and the destruction of villages, and to assure that humanitarian relief reaches all those in need.

Click here to find a Day of Conscience event in your area.

Here's one I recommend if you happen to be in the Washington, D.C., area:

Description: Rally, hopefully with a media presence, geared toward bringing awareness to the issue of genocide in Darfur. Speakers TBA, but there will be no more than 2. PLEASE show up and show your support! 12:00 Noon, August 25th
Directions: Dupont Circle, NW
Event type: Public
Contact name: Marla Wilson
Contact Info: 202.822.6070 or marla@afj.org

The Save Darfur Coalition also has a great list of ways you can take action to save the people of Darfur.

Teachers in Darfur singled out for attack

The Washington Post reports that teachers, schools, and educated people in Darfur have been particulary targeted by Sudanese forces and Janjaweed militia. This is clearly an effort to destroy the means by which villagers transmit their culture and history to future generations -- making the fact of genocide self-evident. Meanwhile, it is becoming blatantly obvious that Sudan is trying to slow roll the U.N. The Sudanese envoy to Britain said today that he's optimistic that the U.N. will give Sudan more to reign in the Janjaweed beyond the current Aug. 29 deadline.

Troop Movement: Bush's troop redeployment may make military sense. But it's a bad idea

by David L. Englin
The New Republic Online, Aug. 18, 2004

President Bush announced Monday that he wants to reduce our city-like bases overseas by 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members and civilians over the next ten years. The plan would lead to the near-elimination of our military bases in Western Europe, as well as their massive infrastructure of houses, schools, stores, and everything else required to support permanently based U.S. troops and their families. These bases would likely be replaced by new, leaner stations in Eastern Europe, where American forces would deploy directly from the homeland, with nary a family member in sight.

The plan makes intuitive military sense: During the cold war we needed massive numbers of American forces permanently based in Europe to hold back the Soviets, whom we expected to come flooding across the continent at any moment. Now that the cold war is over, Europe should be able to take care of itself. And, of course, U.S. troops are needed elsewhere, namely in the Middle East.

But though the plan seems like a good move on the surface, it is in fact a terrible idea. First and foremost, it would end probably the best thing America has had going in public diplomacy during the past 50 years--and at a time when public diplomacy is vital to U.S. security. Easily recognized by their jeans and baseball hats, military families have for decades been front-line ambassadors of American values and culture to the nations in which they have been stationed. Military personnel and their families come from every part of America; and they live, work, worship, and learn among citizens of the nations where they are stationed. Some live on base in military housing, while others live off base in whatever kinds of homes and neighborhoods the locals inhabit. But all spend time in the communities where they are stationed. Mandatory briefings, military public service announcements, and admonishments from commanders and teachers constantly remind them--even the children--that they are ambassadors of all things American. Locals and their American guests develop relationships and get to know each other as friends, neighbors, customers, tenants, and even congregants.

And the diplomacy works both ways. When those same military families return to the United States, they become, in effect, ambassadors to their fellow Americans of the countries in which they have lived. When international issues arise in classrooms or boardrooms or around the kitchen table, military personnel who have lived overseas have the benefit of firsthand experience with many of the nations and cultures involved. I was born and raised on U.S. bases overseas, and I spent much of this time in England. A commander's daughter was surprised to hear from me that English schools require students to recite the Lord's Prayer; and I, in turn, was surprised to hear from her that being a young woman in Turkey wasn't the oppressive experience I assumed it would be. The cultural understanding developed by military personnel who live overseas gets added to the mix of American life in ways that enrich us all--and military personnel in turn advertise the best of American life to those with whom they live. The cumulative effect has been a kind of two-way public diplomacy that sustains important international relationships despite foreign policy differences.

To be sure, sometimes things happen at U.S. military bases that damage, rather than help, America's world image. Our military personnel in Okinawa, where U.S. soldiers have assaulted Japanese civilians, are not well loved by their neighbors. (There are other, less dramatic examples: The base in England where I spent some of my childhood had a permanent camp of anti-nuclear protesters just outside the perimeter--despite otherwise warm relations with the surrounding population.) The incidents in Japan, of course, are much better known to the U.S. public than the overwhelmingly positive interactions between Americans and foreigners that occur every day at almost every base around the world. Even allowing for the black eyes that America has occasionally suffered in Japan and elsewhere, there can be little doubt that, on balance, the presence of U.S. personnel and their families overseas has been a good thing for our country's international image.

In addition, there is a further problem with Bush's plan. The announcement comes at a time when military families are growing increasingly anxious about the demands placed on them by repeated long-term deployments and an overstretched force. So Bush is justifying his move as being to the benefit of military families. "Our service members will have more time on the home front, and more predictability and fewer moves over a career," he said. "Our military spouses will have fewer job changes, greater stability, more time for their kids and to spend with their families at home." Maybe. But following through on these promises to military families will require significant changes at the Pentagon, which is not known for its rapid institutional dexterity. It's far more likely that military families will find themselves living at bases in the United States and spending even less time with their loved ones, who will spend more time deployed to new, family-free forward bases. What's more, it's far from clear that military families want to be relocated to the United States. Bush was famously untraveled before he became president, so maybe he assumes that military families don't like being overseas. But in fact many clamor for overseas assignments, and fight to extend them once they're there.

Finally, even on the grounds of military strategy--where Bush's move is most easily defensible--the plan is not without drawbacks. Al Qaeda and its affiliates remain active throughout Europe. Plus, Europe is closer than Kentucky to strategically critical locations in the Middle East and Central Asia, and therefore an easier base from which to deploy troops. So the strategic pros and cons of the move can be legitimately debated. But the damage that Bush's proposal could do to America's relations with its allies is beyond dispute. There is no easy public-relations substitute for 100,000 Americans living in the heart of Europe and serving as ambassadors to and from their host countries. If you think Americans and Europeans have trouble getting along now, just wait.

Help the victims of Hurricane Charlie

I just wanted to take a break from Sudan for a moment to let you know how you can help the victims of Hurricane Charlie, which devasted sections of Florida over the weekend:

Emergency management officials recommend that those wishing to assist hurricane victims give cash donations and resist going to affected areas. Some charitable organizations recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency:

• American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund, 800-HELP-NOW (800-435-7669) or 800-257-7575 (Spanish), www.redcross.org.

• Catholic Charities, USA, 800-919-9338, www.catholiccharitiesusa.org.

• Salvation Army, 800-SAL-ARMY (800-725-2769), www.salvationarmyusa.org.

• United Methodist Committee on Relief, 800-554-8583, www.gbgm-umc.org.

• For a complete list of charitable agencies recommended by FEMA, see www.fema.gov/rrr/help2.shtm.

Even easily placated U.N. envoy laments lack of progress in Darfur

As the U.N. deadline approaches, it looks increasingly like armed force will be necessary to halt the genocide in Darfur. Britain's Telegraph newspaper reports that :

"The prospect of international sanctions being imposed on Sudan drew closer yesterday when the United Nations envoy in Khartoum said no progress had been made on disarming the Janjaweed militia in Darfur."

"Hundreds more refugees arrived in neighbouring Chad saying that government forces, in league with the Janjaweed, had launched more attacks on their villages with helicopter gunships."

The Sudanese government has promised to create 11 safe zones that will be free of Janjaweed and government forces. They claim that plan will go into effect today. U.N. Special Envoy Jan Pronk has been somewhat easy for the Khartoum government to placate thus far, so if even he is now lamenting the lack of progress, Sudan will have to make great strides in the next 12 days.

A.P. reports that, "Sudanese authorities have restored aid deliveries to a camp for 90,000 displaced people in Darfur, United Nations officials said, three days after soldiers reportedly closed the camp following a mob killing of an alleged pro-government militiaman."

Sudanese soldiers block aid to 90,000 people as Rwandan troops arrive

Sudanese soldiers are apparently blocking aid from getting into a camp in South Darfur where 90,000 people have taken refuge, and U.N. Special Envoy Jan Pronk "expressed concern about the lack of progress so far on the ground and at the fact that the Janjaweed militia still constitute a threat around camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs)."

While Sudan is claiming progress by returning some refugees to their home villages, the U.N. reports that "it found approximately 2,700 returnees in Sani Deleiba ... that lived in fear due to heavy Janjaweed presence in the area."

The Rwandan half of the 300-person African Union force arrived in Darfur yesterday to protect A.U. ceasefire monitors; however, Rwandan President Paul Kagame said his troops would also use force to protect endangered civilians. The A.U. is still considering sending a peacekeeping force of 2,500 troops.

Time to change the U.N. charter?

"Today marks the halfway point in the UN security council's 30-day ultimatum," and this commentary in the Guardian newspaper by David Clark, former special adviser in Britain's Foreign Office, argues:

"Unfortunately, as Darfur illustrates, the UN system is singularly ill-suited to upholding its own stated values. Four of the countries that forced the threat of sanctions to be removed from the security council resolution - Russia, China, Pakistan and Algeria - have extremely poor human rights records. Two are permanent members with the power of veto, commercial ties to the Sudanese government and a strong interest in defending the inviolability of state sovereignty against the humanitarian imperative. Why do they enjoy this privilege? Because almost 60 years ago they happened to be on the winning side in a war.

He suggests changing the U.N. charter to allow sanctions or the use of force to be authorized by the U.N. member states as a whole, instead of by only the Security Council.

Malaria, hepatitis take hold, cholera feared, as first 150 A.U. troops deploy

As predicted, the Sudanese government's talent for stalling combined with the failure of the international community to come up with the resources requested by the U.N. have allowed disease to take hold in the Darfur refugee camps, speeding along the genocidal work of the Janjaweed. The International Committee of the Red Cross reports that malaria and hepatitis have broken out in several camps, and they fear deadly cholera will soon take hold.

The B.B.C. reports that the first 150 African Union troops -- contributed by Rwanda -- will arrive in Darfur this weekend. This is the first half of the 300-person force whose mission will be to protect A.U. ceasefire monitors. However, U.N. special envoy Jan Pronck says that a deployment of 2,500 A.U. peacekeepers is still being considered.

Meanwhile, the Sudanese government has called on tribal leaders to form their own security forces to disarm the Janjaweed. However, this appear to be another attempt to create the illusion of action. The Chicago Tribune reports that, "International human-rights groups warned that black villagers in Darfur, the victims of 18 months of attacks by the so-called Janjaweed, have little capacity for self-protection and that Arab tribes that are the source of the Janjaweed may have little incentive to try to disband them."

A disturbing day, as lies are exposed and murders continue...

Fresh from his trip to Chad and Darfur, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has a nice op-ed in today's Washington Post, including this interesting idea for a force to protect civilians in Darfur:

"The crisis in Darfur is a regional problem that demands an African remedy. It requires forces capable of providing security in a timely and credible manner. Such a remedy is available. Forces led by the African Union (AU) are already deploying to the region. They can be complemented by troops from Khartoum and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), which stands ready to provide thousands of well-trained soldiers to protect the people of Darfur.

The Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) is in a unique position to help. During one of the world's longest running civil wars, the SPLA fought Sudanese forces to a standstill. In June the Sudanese government and SPLM signed a historic peace accord that includes creating SPLA-GOS (government of Sudan) integrated units. Creating a security force for Darfur would merely accelerate this peace-building initiative."

However, Human Rights Watch today highlights the problem with this kind of solution with a disturbing report that the government of Sudan at this very moment is misleading the international community by claiming to be disarming and disbanding the Janjaweed, when in reality, they are simply giving them government uniforms and assigning them to guard the very people they have been attacking.

In another disturbing report, the government of Sudan today continued to use helicopter gunships to press attacks against black African villages. I wonder how many people they'll be able to kill before the end of this month when the U.N. meets again to consider (not necessarily implement) sanctions that soem have suggested would have little effect anyways.

Evidence of Sudanese government malfeasance piles on, while A.U. delays decision on troops

In an ominous development, Amnesty International reports that:

"Scores of people have been arrested since the end of June 2004 in various parts of Darfur for talking to foreign government leaders, including US Secretary of State Colin Powell and French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, members of the African Union (AU) Ceasefire Commission and independent journalists or for speaking out on the crisis in Darfur."

This ads to the piling on of evidence that Sudan cannot be trusted to resolve the crisis internally. As U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) noted yesterday, even the threat of sanctions probably won't do much, since, "The government of Sudan simply can operate without the impact of those sanctions being felt." Frist visited the region over the weekend and remains convinced that the European Union is wrong in declining to call the situation genocide. Interestingly, that puts the senior Republican in the Senate at odds with the White House, which continues to demur on the g-word. Frist also said, "The Janjaweed, based on my observations, are not just supported by the government, but appear to be a direct arm of the government."

Unfortunately, the African Union yesterday decided to delay a decision about whether to send in a force of 2,000 troops. As reported here, according to an A.U. spokesman, A.U. Commission Chairman Alpha Oumar Konare "is still working on the modalities and the mandate of the (planned) peacekeeping force in Darfur and once he finalises them he will formally present them to both parties for their comments and opinions."

Aid still moving too slowly...

The B.B.C. reports that the World Food Program has had some success getting aid through to Darfur, but that some trucks have been looted en route. Given the situation on the ground, somebody has to take responsibility for securing aid shipments, quickly.

Despite some specific success at getting aid through, overall, aid is still moving too slowly to prevent thousands from starving to death. A good friend who happens to be an experienced U.S. Air Force airlift pilot analyzed the World Food Program's claim that their Darfur airlift will exceed the Berlin Airlift, and he's skeptical. If the U.S. Air Force used every C-5 in its inventory, flying 24/7, and assuming zero maintenance delays (which is an outlandishly optimistic assumption), it would take 110 days to exceed the Berlin Airlift. Using the most conservative current estimate (440 people per day) nearly 50,000 people in Darfur could die of disease and starvation in 110 days.

E.U. says it's not "genocide"; Sudan agrees to military-free safe zones

The European Union's fact-finding mission to Darfur said today it found no evidence of genocide , despite the humanitarian catastrophe there. However, the E.U.'s spokesman on the issue told reporters that he doubts the Sudanese government's commitment to protect its civilian population. I'm reminded of reports that the international community studiously avoided calling Rwanda a genocide at the time so nations could better rationalize their failure to act.

Today's meeting of Arab League foreign ministers has so far resulted in a resolution calling on the government of Sudan to disarm the Janjaweed.

Voice of America reports that Sudan and the U.N. plan to sign an agreement today that will create safe zones in Darfur that will be free of both Janjaweed and Sudanese military forces. The agreement is to be implemented within 30 days and monitored by African Union observers. As I noted in the New Republic Online, safe zones are critical, but it could be costly and difficult to impose them by force. Therefore, this could be a welcome development, as long as it actually happens and it's not just another delaying tactic.

Sudan may accept A.U. troops, but not as peacekeepers

The Washington Post reports that the government of Sudan is willing to accept the 2,000 African Union troops going to Darfur, as long as their mission is to protect A.U. ceasefire observers and not to perform peacekeeping operations to protect refugees. We should look favorably upon anything that gets a significant outside force into Sudan quickly with the consent of the Sudanese government, since it avoids the cost in blood and treasure of an invasion, and their mere presence will likely have some positive deterrent effect, whatever their stated mission. However, what happens if 2,000 A.U. troops permitted into Sudan for ceasefire security shift their mission to peacekeeping? Does the government of Sudan tolerate the mission shift and look for ways to save face? Or does it try to forcibly eject the now-unwelcome A.U. peacekeepers? And if it does try to eject the A.U. forces, does the international community, which has a vested interest in seeing the A.U. succeed at this kind of self-policing muscular humanitarianism, come swiftly and forcefully to the aid of the A.U.?

With Arab League foreign ministers meeting tomorrow to discuss Darfur, the government of Sudan, which has already claimed international concern to be a de-facto U.S.-sponsored war on Islam, is now trying to play the Israel card. Meanwhile, Egypt's foreign minister told reporters today that Sudan may need up to 120 days to resolve the Darfur crisis. As I've noted several times before, and as the Washington Post editorial page emphasizes again today, this simply feeds into the government of Sudan's efforts to slow roll the international community while thousands of innocent people die.

This op-ed in today's Washington Post by Bob MacPherson, who is CARE's security director and a retired Marine colonel, paints a vivid picture of the human tragedy in Darfur, and argues for decisive action now.

Plan of Action: What would military intervention in Darfur look like? You might be surprised

by David L. Englin
The New Republic Online, Aug. 6, 2004

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution last Friday giving the government of Sudan 30 days to comply with its July 3 agreement to put a stop to violence against civilians in Darfur and to allow aid through to the 1.2 million people in refugee camps, or else. Or else what remains to be seen--the watered-down resolution doesn't specify--but the ghosts of Auschwitz and Rwanda are clearly haunting the concerned nations of the world, military intervention may be on the horizon. (Britain, for one, has already said it would back such an intervention if Sudan doesn't put an end to the violence in Darfur.) Sudan's military is openly bracing for that possibility, calling the U.N. resolution a "declaration of war on Sudan," and the Sudanese government's actions to date suggest they are more interested in creating the illusion of compliance so they can continue their campaign of genocide. As pressure builds for action, it's important to step back and consider what an international military intervention in Sudan might require: the results of this exercise might surprise you.

Military action in Sudan should be designed to halt further attacks on civilians, ensure the safety of people already in refugee camps, and make sure humanitarian aid gets through to the people who need it.

To prevent continued attacks on villages and fleeing refugees, an intervention force should immediately establish a no-fly zone over affected areas in western Sudan. Fleeing refugees have reported Sudanese government warplanes strafing and bombing black African villages as a prelude to attacks by horse-mounted Janjaweed Arab militias, who swoop in to murder, rape, and pillage. In addition to these coordinated attacks from the air, Janjaweed leaders have used Sudanese government helicopters for command and control of their fast-moving cavalrymen, and witnesses have reported government helicopters supplying militiamen with food, arms, and equipment. A no-fly zone would directly prevent attacks on villages by Sudanese warplanes and helicopter gunships, as well as disrupt command and control and logistical support for the Janjaweed.

While establishing a no-fly zone would be essential, it would be a mistake to underestimate Sudan's ability to defend the sovereignty of its airspace. Although its population remains horribly impoverished, Sudan has used its substantial oil revenues to more than double the size of its air force since 2000. Over the past four years, Sudan has purchased at least 34 new fighter jets from China, including a dozen Shenyang F-7 supersonic jets. Russia has already supplied Sudan with a large number of MiG-24 Hind helicopter gunships, and it recently sold Sudan a dozen fourth-generation MiG-29 fighter jets, which are considered to be on par with the most advanced U.S. fighters. Both China and Russia have supplied Sudan with modern radar stations for command and control. It is not clear who flies Sudan's more advanced warplanes, and some have suggested that Russian mercenary pilots may be involved. In any case, this is not an air force to be taken lightly. An intervention force would want to employ the kind of high-tech, "network-centric" warfare that has become standard U.S. strategy. This kind of aerospace warfare links together advanced combat jets, satellites, manned and unmanned surveillance, intelligence, and command and control aircraft, and operatives on the ground. French air bases west of Sudan in Chad and French and U.S. bases east of Sudan in Djibouti are well situated to support no-fly zone operations, as are American bases in Saudi Arabia, and aircraft carriers in the Red Sea. Using systems and techniques proven over Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, intervention force pilots could successfully keep Sudan's warplanes and helicopters out of Darfur--but they should be prepared to fight a modern enemy if Sudan chooses to defend its airspace.

While clearing the skies would go a long way toward preventing further attacks, an intervention force should also create Janjaweed-free safe havens on the ground. This would require conventional ground forces to establish checkpoints, conduct patrols, and forcibly disarm militiamen. This force would also be responsible for the physical security of the actual refugee camps. Over the past several weeks, a number of reports have described the Janjaweed preying on the women and girls who have been driven into these camps. The Sudanese government has used bureaucratic red-tape to keep food and aid from getting into the camps, and starvation and disease are finishing the work the Janjaweed started. With hundreds of people starving to death each day, refugees resort to foraging for straw, grass, and firewood beyond the camps' perimeters, but these peripheral areas are still controlled by the Janjaweed. Men and boys who venture from the camps face certain death, so women and girls go out, often before dawn, when they hope militiamen will still be asleep. Tragically, these women and girls--some as young as eight years old--are being systematically captured and raped by the Janjaweed. Cynically responding to international pressure to properly secure refugee camps, the government of Sudan in some cases has reinforced camp security with Janjaweed militiamen. The ground arm of an international intervention force ought to immediately take over responsibility for camp security and include camp peripheries in established safe zones.

The other security challenge for both ground and air forces is making sure humanitarian aid gets through as soon as possible. By some estimates, as many as 1,000 people are dying each day in refugee camps because of disease and starvation and less than half of the food and humanitarian aid needed is getting through. Part of the problem is that aid has not been forthcoming from wealthy donor nations. Only a handful of nations--notably the United States, Britain, Norway, and the Netherlands--have made significant financial contributions, and the United Nations is struggling to come up with the $350 million it needs in food, medicine, supplies, and equipment. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan recently issued direct appeals to several wealthy nations in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Not waiting for individual countries to commit military airlift resources, the U.N.'s World Food Program over the weekend began airlifting food and aid to parts of Darfur unreachable over land because of flooding now that Sudan's rainy season has arrived. Ramiro Lopes Da Silva, the World Food Program's Sudan country director, said this new effort would surpass the Berlin Airlift, during which American, British, and French military aircraft transported more than 2.3 million tons of humanitarian cargo between June 1948 and September 1949 to successfully break the Soviet blockade of Berlin. As long as Annan successfully raises the money necessary to fund the operation, this negates the need for a massive military airlift, which is welcome news for American military pilots, who are already being worked to bone. In addition to airlift efforts, if all of the money requested comes in, then other transportation requirements will also be met, since the U.N. aid request list includes things like helicopters, trucks, and associated support equipment.

However, in the past, even when the aid and the means to transport it have been there, the government of Sudan has used onerous visa and travel permit requirements to restrict shipments. If that kind of obstructionism continues, intervention ground forces might have to seize control of key transit points to open the appropriate borders. While a no-fly zone would help keep U.N. aircraft safe in flight, ground forces would also have to ensure safe locations on the ground for aid shipments to be dropped and then delivered into the hands of refugees. Once the aid is on its way to the camps, the extent to which shipments would need military escorts would depend on the security situation. If the combination of no-fly zones in the air and safe zones on the ground kept Janjaweed and government forces far enough from refugee camps and transit routes, that would lessen the need for aid convoys to be escorted by military forces. That might work sufficiently for aid coming into Sudan from Chad, which borders Darfur; however, aid still coming in over land from the east would have to cross right through the middle of Sudan, which would be a much more dangerous prospect.

All of which raises the question of just how many ground troops an intervention force might require? Reports coming out of the Rwandan genocide suggest that as few as 1,000 to 2,000 troops could have provided the security necessary to prevent the deaths of 800,000 people. The African Union announced plans Wednesday to send 2,000 troops to Darfur. Britain's top general has said he could muster 5,000 troops for Sudan and France has 1,000 troops already stationed in neighboring Chad, including many from the vaunted French Foreign Legion. (With the U.S. military already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has officially demurred on the issue of sending troops.) It is not clear, however, if military intervention on the ground in Sudan would look more like Rwanda or more like Somalia, where 26,000 American troops were sent into a hostile environment to secure and deliver humanitarian aid. Rwanda was about one ethnic group murdering another. In Somalia, warring clans fought over control of humanitarian aid, and military force was necessary to get aid to the people who needed it.

While an intervention force establishing no-fly zones in the air, safe zones on the ground, and secure transit routes for aid shipments might take care of the immediate problem, each of these alone constitutes a serious violation of Sudanese sovereignty, and together they amount to a full-on invasion of western Sudan. Hopefully, the government of Sudan, faced with this prospect, would act quickly itself to disarm and demobilize the Janjaweed, stop government forces from participating in any more violence, and let aid through. As things stand right now, however, Sudan's leaders have said that any attempt to use force to intervene will be met with force. Therefore, the international community needs to be fully prepared to engage and defeat the Sudanese military. Establishing a no-fly zone against an advanced, hostile Sudanese air force would almost certainly require offensive attacks on Sudan's airfields, aircraft, and command and control system. Pushing into Darfur to force open border crossings, drive out or disarm resistant Janjaweed, and establish safe zones around refugee camps would require a significant commitment of ground troops, probably many more than the 7,000 or so British, French, African Union, and Australian troops already being considered. And if concerned nations are serious about military intervention, they had better make sure they have the stomach to endure casualties in what could turn out to be a bloody fight. If not, then they had better make sure they have the stomach to stand by while, once again, hundreds of thousands of Africans are brutally extinguished by their own government.

Sudanese minister says African Union troops not welcome

As if timed to drive home the point about Sudanese sovereignty I make in an article scheduled to published by the New Republic Online later today, Reuters reports that Sudanese Interior Minister Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein told a London-based Arabic newspaper that, "We will not agree to the presence of any foreign forces, whatever their nationality," in reference to the African Union's plan to send 2,000 troops to Darfur. However, the same Reuters report notes that the minister used "a word for foreign that would not necessarily include Arabs or Africans." Maybe the minister's choice of words is a preemptive face-saving measure, since the African Union is rightly brimming with both moral authority and the desire to prove its credibility through muscular humanitarianism.

Is international pressure working?

Is international pressure on the government of Sudan working? Jan Pronk, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's special representative on Darfur, told the B.B.C. Wednesday that the Sudanese government has deployed many more police to Darfur and has stopped its own military operations against villagers. Pronk also says that Sudan has "lifted all restrictions on humanitarian assistance." The police chief of North Darfur says that they plan to start disarming the Janjaweed in Darfur next week. On the face of it, this is all good news. However, the Sudanese government has made commitments, moved police, and allowed in aid before, and has a strong history of showing progress without actually making much progress. Therefore, now, more than ever, we need to keep up the pressure.

And speaking of pressure, it looks like the 2,000 troops the African Union plans to send to Darfur will come from Rwanda and Nigeria, although another report mentions a statement by an Arab League official that Arab states are prepared to contribute to the A.U. force. Since the Arab government of Sudan has claimed that criticism and intervention amount to a war on Islam, the presence of Arab Muslim troops as part of the A.U. force would send an important signal, especially since the populations of Rwanda and Nigeria primarily consist of non-Arab, African ethnic groups (and Rwanda is actually a predominantly Christian nation.)

The Sudanese "slow roll" while the African Union prepares to send 2,000 troops

According to the U.N., "Sudan is indicating it wants to comply with the Security Council's demand that it show progress in meeting its dual pledges to disarm the armed militias that have conducted deadly attacks in the troubled Darfur region and to restore security for the estimated 1.2 million internally displaced persons." I'm reminded of the first time I learned the term "slow roll." Rather than refuse to comply with a decision he opposed, my boss asked everyone in the office at least to make sure we could "show progress." The Sudanese government is showing progress by deploying thousands more police to Darfur, ostensibly to protect the refugee camps. However, in the past, Sudan has recruited additional police forces from the ranks of the Janjaweed -- the very people terrorizing the refugees. Also, this report suggests that at least some Sudanese police forces are actually expelling refugees from camps and forcing them to return to their villages, where the Janjaweed await.

Perhaps sensing that Sudan is trying to slow roll the U.N., the African Union is preparing to send 2,000 troops to Darfur, and Britain is adding two more planes to the airlift effort.

Meanwhile, the Sudanese government apparently orchestrated a mass protest in Khartoum against the U.N. Or perhaps their chants of, "Annan, Annan, shame, shame," were merely the sounds of progress.

Sudan calls U.N. resolution "declaration of war"; Humanitarian airlift begins

It looks like we have an answer to the conflicting reports about the reaction of the Sudanese government to the U.N.'s resolution. The Associated Press reports that, "Sudan's army has branded a United Nations Security Council resolution on the crisis in Darfur 'a declaration of war' and warned it will fight any foreign troops sent into the region."

Meanwhile, the first Western troops have arrived in the region. France deployed 200 troops along the border between Darfur and Chad, where France has about 1,000 troops stationed to train Chadian forces. They are there at the request of Chad's government to help distribute aid to refugees along the border and to secure the border from the Janjaweed.

In separate efforts, Egypt and the U.N.'s World Food Program began air dropping food and aid supplies into Darfur Sunday. The World Food Program has said that it expects its humanitarian airlift effort to exceed the Berlin Airlift. This is great news, since the rainy season is progressing and air drops are the best way to get aid to where it is needed. With the World Food Program taking the lead in terms of airlift operations, this gives nations who are reluctant to contribute people and aircraft to the effort a chance to step up by contributing financially. The World Food Program's country director in Sudan says they have only received $78.5 million of the $195 million they need to fund the operation.

The case against inaction...

The Washington Post editorial page today analyzes some of the reasons the international community has been relatively numb to the genocide in Darfur. The editorial makes a strong case that sovereignty, national interest, and concern about a Muslim backlash are illegitimate excuses for inaction when hundreds of thousands of people are likely to die.

Reuters reports today that Sudan has rejected the 30 day deadline imposed by the U.N. Security Council resolution, but reiterated its intention to live up to its July 3 agreement with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to reign in the Janjaweed and allow in aid. However, the Chinese Xinhuanet news agency reports that the government of Sudan has reluctantly agreed to the resolution. Hopefully there will be more clarification on this tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the African Union is asserting itself as the most appropriate institution to take the lead on handling the situation in Darfur. Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, who also currently holds the rotating chairmanship of the A.U., said the A.U. knows the way to an "objective solution" and hopes the international community will stand behind it.