October 20, 2006 AP news still said: “Sudan Willing to Discuss U.N. Support,” as per ALFRED de MONTESQUIOU from Khartoum.

The Sudanese government is willing to discuss United Nations support for the African Union’s struggling peacekeeping force in Darfur, a senior government official said Thursday.

The government in Khartoum staunchly opposes a U.N. Security Council resolution to replace the 7,000-strong AU force with some 20,000 U.N. peacekeepers, saying it would violate Sudan’s sovereignty.

The ill-equipped and underfunded AU force is struggling to bring peace to Darfur, a vast region of western Sudan where more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced in three years of fighting.

Instead of replacing the force with U.N. peacekeepers, the Sudanese government appears to be pushing for a stronger AU force to counter Western accusations it is letting the situation in Darfur deteriorate. Aid groups say the humanitarian crisis is edging toward an all-time low.

“We are not averse to the idea of discussing what kind of support the AU can receive in terms of troops, material and funding from the U.N.,” said senior adviser to the president Ghazi Saladdine after meeting with U.S. special envoy to Sudan Andrew Natsios.

“Ultimately, we want to have an effective force in Darfur,” said Saladdine, one of the hard-liners of the ruling National Congress Party.

Natsios, due to leave Khartoum on Friday, held talks with several high ranking officials during his one-week visit but did not meet with President Omar al-Bashir. He did not speak to the media.

Several Western officials, including Jan Pronk, the head of the U.N. mission to Sudan, view a reinforced AU mission as one way to overcome the diplomatic deadlock on how to solve the Darfur crisis.

Steps to improve the mission’s efficiency have already been taken, and about 150 U.N. military and logistical advisers are due in Darfur in the coming week to reinforce the African force, said Sam Ibok, the AU’s chief negotiator for Sudan.

The AU has also planned to send several thousand more troops to Darfur, but has been struggling for weeks to fund this move. Chronic lack of cash has left some soldiers without pay since August, while some patrols can not go out because of the lack of fuel.

Ibok said, however, that at least 1,200 new troops from Rwanda and Nigeria would arrive in Darfur by the end of October.

Ibok said the AU would soon solve the problem of its unpaid soldiers, and had received pledges from the Arab League and other international backers for more the $50 million.

“We currently have enough funds to continue the mission until the end of the year,” he said by telephone.

Initially due to finish in September, the AU mission has been prolonged until the end of the year, and many observers say it should continue beyond that date to avoid a dangerous security vacuum.

Ibok said a possible extension would be discussed during an African Union summit in November and would depend on international support.

The talks come amid increased fighting in northern Darfur, where 350,000 people are deprived of humanitarian support because the violence makes it too dangerous for aid workers to operate.

A United Nations assessment released Thursday found that adequate access to food for those living in displacement camps in Darfur declined from 36 percent last year to 14 percent in 2006.

A new coalition of rebels backed by forces from neighboring Chad recently inflicted severe losses on the Sudanese army, which is now massing troops and militia in what many fear could become major fighting after the Muslim holy month of Ramadan ends next week.

——————————-

Here another area that Ban Ki-moon will have to deal with in his first month in office at the UN, as its Secretary-General. Playing it up to the sovereignty of Sudan does not save lives, and watching genocide in action simply destroys the UN. Doing the right thing will put him at cross purpose with the Arab League, but not doing the right thing will cause the rage of the NGOs. What will he chose?

This was sent to the editor of the “New York Press” weekly that printed a review article written by Mr. Causwell of the Petrocollapse Conference, then the following week had several follow up letters.
Dear Editor, the New York Press, Dear Mr. Causwell
Regarding your Halloween issue cover reporting on the petrocollapse, and the following week’s “Soapboxing”, I would like to contribute notes regarding what Mr.Causwell missed (New York Press, October 26 - November 1, and November 2-8, 2005).
The Conference was not a monolith, while recognizing something that your reporter also recognized — fossil fuels are finite and that this dooms our suburban life-styles — there were differences in the views of speakers regarding further implications.
I am writing for www.SustainabiliTank.info and I have there three pieces relating to the October 5, 2005, Petrocollapse Conference:

• September 29, 2005 - I announced “The Petrocollapse Conference”
• October 4, 2005 - My own presentation at the Conference titled - “Sustainability Implies The Use Of Renewables”
• October 11, 2005 - My evaluation/reporting after the Conference - “Will Petrocollapse Incur Because of Peak-Oil?”

I approached the subject from its environmental side - something your reporter missed altogether (please see the October 4 piece). I argue that THE REAL COST OF FUEL IS CLIMATE CHANGE. I was speaking of the Katrita effect - our understanding that the Katrina and Rita Hurricanes tell us we must start decreasing CO2 emissions. My argument is thus that eventually we will understand that we must start using less oil even before we are forced to do so because of decreased supply. I spoke of changes of life-style and our learning to live less energy demanding existences. I mentioned my recent trip to Bhutan in order to learn what the King of Bhutan means by “Gross National Happiness”. I advocated that a major part of the reduced energy needs should come from renewable sources of energy.
My reporting from the meeting includes my disagreement of 25 years with Professor David Pimentel, who also spoke at this Conference. He does not believe in biofuels and in renewables while I, and most scientists who try to soften our addiction to oil, see in them the way to provide the residual energy needs after we have brought ourselves to our senses and reduced our needs for energy. There are no sound technological answers that will allow us to continue to waste energy - we are speaking about ways to keep us “happy” by answering for the reasonable needs. By doing the right things we can avoid the predicted effects of petrocollapse and the fate of being a Katritastan, but we can not avoid change.
Again, please look at www.SustainabiliTank.info and let us avoid empty exchanges in favor of practical positive new ways. The above web-site was established in order to provide for a media think tank on Sustainable Development - the concept that was officially placed on the international negotiation table in 1992 at the UN Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Jan Lundberg, after leaving the oil industry, also joined the advocates of Sustainable Development and was with me in Kyoto in 1997 - we even shared a room - present at the birth of the Kyoto Protocol. If his actions now may seem extreme to Causwell, this may simply be a result of the slowness of our leadership in grasping the seriousness of the problem. This is no laughing matter; I would say it deserves further serious analysis and coverage in the Press. People must understand that drilling for oil in Alaska is a fake answer, believing that this is not so will indeed bring us to petrocollapse.
Sincerely yours, Pincas Jawetz New York City www.SustainabiliTank.info