New York City, May 9, 2005

May 9, at the UN is noted with speeches at the General Assembly, the
celebration of sixty years since the end of World War II, or as The
Republic
of Korea put on its document: “Statement at the Plenary Meeting of the
General Assembly on the declaration by the UN of 8 and 9 May as days of
remembrance and reconciliation: commemoration of the sixtieth
anniversary of
the end of the Second World War”. That is we celebrate the closing of
the
extermination camps and the hope expressed then that genocide will be
heard
of only in history books.

In this morning’s papers I found an article - “Waiting for Bolton” -
and in
it the following paragraph: “On the U.N. Security Council, China, which
has
oil interests in Sudan, has promised to shield Khartoum from any
significant
outside intervention. Arab and Muslim countries have joined in, as at
times
have France and Russia. Instead of supporting Washington, the
Europeans and
Mr. Annan put the Bush administration on the defensive by pushing ahead
one
topic - where Sudanese war criminals ought to be tried - that logically
should be the last stage of intervention in genocide. Not the first”.

The Financial Times notes that “for two years the world stood by while
Darfur (the size of France) burned. In place of action there was a
grotesque
debate over whether we should call it genocide”. A little over a month
ago
the UN Security Council finally agreed to refer Darfur to the
international
Criminal Court. “It will be at least a year, maybe two, before the ICC
even
issues its first indictments”. There is a desperate need - NOW - for
international peacekeepers to supplement the African Union force,
preferably
under overall African command, backed by a UN mandate. “Sudan could
resist;
China might veto a new resolution”.

This stroke me as one more example of my old adage - WHEN YOU
DISCOVERED
ONE MORE CASE OF NEW MISERY IN THE WORLD - YOU FOUND OIL.

Having been away for a week to Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, for Power
Future
2005 - a forum and fair for alternative energy sources in Brazil -
talking
about the financial implications of the Clean Development Mechanism of
the
Kyoto Protocol, I was thus away from the UN all last week. I was now
shocked
by this notion that the genocide in Sudan is disregarded by China for
reasons of oil and decided to go for the noon press conference and find
out
some more about Sudan. At the UN I learned that following the daily
noon
press conference, there will be a “Background Briefing by senior UN
officials from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the
Department of
Political Affairs, and the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - on
the
complexities and challenges facing Darfur (Sudan) and what the United
Nations is doing to address them”. I decided to go to that briefing
and ask
about the oil aspect of this problem.

The three high officials were indeed very frank about their description
of
the situation. The panel was indeed good - I can not mention them by
name
as this was a background briefing and not a press conference - really
they
could be penalized by the UN system if that frankness is attributed to
their
names. By now there are 200,000 dead and 2 million people left their
homes
and are in the relative safety of the camps for the displaced people.
Next
“mortality count will be taken only in June”. There are no recent
counts of
death and the fact that there are probably less murders and rapes going
on
now is “deceptive” because “people that are relatively safe by being
displaced are not safe if they were to return home”. Because of the
dry
summer months, the expected food crisis, and the relative safety of the
camps, it is expected that the number of displaced people will climb to
3
million. Is the final solution of “cleansing” the posting of foreign
troops
to guard these camps?

In February 2005, the SG asked the AU to send a mission to Darfur.
That
mission included the UN, EU, US, and others - its report provided the
present approach. The UN Secretary General released his report, based
on
the mission’s report, as document S/2005/285 on May 3, 2005. Also, On
May
1, 2005 a funding summary for the “2005 Work Plan for the Sudan”, that
shows
a total of over $617 million have been contributed or firmly pledged.
The
US part was 56.7% or $350 million. The second largest contribution
came
from the UK - close to $95 million (15.4%). The contribution of the
Arab
states was: Saudi Arabia gave $2,5 million (0.4%) and the U.A.E. 0.1%.
The UN officials estimate that for 2005 further $350 milion are needed
for
Darfur and that the amount needed for the total of Sudan is $900
million.

Darfur is just one region of Sudan that reached international
attention.
The Southern three provinces were a separate previous international
problem.
There we have now a temporary calm as the southerners have obtained a
certain amount of autonomy. They can now elect their own Governors -
no
more are these imposed on them from Khartoum. The main worry is that
the
fighting in Darfur will now unravel the new status quo in the south.
The
officials said clearly that there will be no peace-keeping without
political
agreement - “the approach about peace in Darfur must be in the context
of a
general peace agreement in Sudan - the AU is trying to help the rebels
to
come around the united negotiations”. The target is to help bring
about in
Darfur the same solution as in the south.

At Q&A time we were told that what created the problems in Sudan are
the
different cultures of nomadic tribalism of the Arab north and Arabized
Africans, who in search of pastures press against the African
agriculturalists. Now we know that the Arabs and Arabized Black
Africans
are Muslim and the main black Africans are Christian or animists. We
also
know that there are color and racial implications - in short - Sudan is
nothing less then a very complicated empire. The agriculturalists got
to
organize themselves in armed clans to resist the intrusion from the
north.
The Arab Sudanese government armed the nomadic Arab tribes - so we have
war
initiated from Khartoum and basically attempts at independence from the
indigenous population. This is really a war for resources and living
space
(the old Lebensraum) - as the Toronto Star writes clearly - a war
between
forces led by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s Arab-dominated regime
and
its Janjaweed militias, and the Christian and animist groups who are
demanding regional autonomy and control over resources.

Having listened to the 1.5 hour briefing, when towards the end I got to
ask
my question, I decided to leave behind the oil interest question and
ask
rather something that was begging to be asked: - Why on this day that
the
world celebrates VE Day over Nazism and the Holocaust, are we talking
about
Darfur and not Khartoum? After all, WWII created the move towards
decolonization, WWI saw the break-up of two empires - the Habsburg and
Ottoman empires, since the second World War we saw the brake-up of the
USSR
and Yugoslavia, why do we insist on keeping the Sudanese Empire intact?
The
people of the Sudanese regions want their freedom from Khartoum’s
foreign
occupation - is this not the case? The borders in Africa were drawn
by the
colonial powers and when the colonies were set free new regimes were
created
that took advantage of the unfairness of the colonial powers. The AU
can
not deal with the situation objectively because many other African
governments oppress their people the same way. Few countries have
evolved
in Africa because of nationalism and now the artificial borders are
used to
call for a nationalism content that simply isn’t there.

One journalist sitting behind me did not like my question and tried to
make
me stop “no speech please” he said - “what is your question?”. I had
to
remark that my question was right there in front - when do we start
talking
about breaking up the Sudanese Arab Empire? I did not get serious
attention
to my question, but must say that later, in private, I found that one
official sees the situation the way I saw it but his problem is - Where
do
we stop? Can we go towards larger entities were the problems get solved
or
we first create the smaller entities? My answer to this is why should
Africa be different from Europe - first you allow the smaller entities
to
emerge, then you aim to create a real African Union as a federation of
these
smaller states.

Back to VE Day - after 60 years, Europe realizes that the
Molotow-Ribbentrop
agreement and then the Yalta Conference, trampled over freedom in
Europe.
Both were wrong, the first led to genocide, the second to oppression.
Africa
is now stirring and we must make sure that they are helped out of their
misery. This will not be done by the likes of those searching for oil
because they are no different from those that came because of the
copper.

Interesting to see the Toronto Star of today, May 10, 2005 - “Deploying
to
Darfur” - “Simply by being posted in Khartoum or nearby Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, Canadian troops will help the UN keep Darfur’s agony on the
international radar screen at a time when attention is drifting
away”…”
That alone validates Prime Minister’s Paul Martin’s decision to send
between
100 and 150 advisers to the region to assist the AU peacekeepers.
Martin
also intends to increase Canada’s $200 million (Canadian) in aid to
Sudan
(I assume this to be a larger time period quote because the UN release
mentions for 2005 just over $US 11 million or 1.8% for Canada), and to
provide more military equipment”… “Canadian advisers can also help
them
organize better protection for 10,000 aid workers”. What this tells
me -
the need is to focus attention on the real problem by putting real
pressure
on the central government in Sudan - with or without the help of the UN
Security Council. If China can make the SC irrelevant because of its
oil
deal with the central government, then the UN needs not reform but
REFORMATION.

Genocide is genocide and we know that when we see one - if the SC is
turned
impotent the whole UN system was turned impotent. Genocide in Africa
are as
repugnant as genocide in Europe and we do not need an Elie Wiesel to
tell us
so.