MiaFarrow.org |
Humanitarian and Advocacy Information |
Archives
| July 31, 2009 |
Dr Ahmed Abdallah testifies
Human Rights Award Laureate Dr. Mohammed Ahmed Abdallah Eisa testified in front of a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing about U.S.-Sudan relations. As the only voice from Darfur testifying, Dr. Abdallah Eisa provided the much-needed perspective of someone who has not only witnessed the ongoing violence but is actively working to improve the deplorable conditions on the ground.Dr. Abdallah spoke out about what is needed for sustainable peace in Darfur. He recommended vital steps that the United States and the international community must take to achieve peace, including:- Allow aid groups expelled by the Sudanese government to return.
- Make certain that civil society groups, including representatives of women, internally displaced persons, and refugees are involved in peace negotiations.
- Ensure that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between North and South Darfur is implemented.
- Strengthen the joint UN/African Union peacekeeping force, UNAMID.
- Demand that the Sudanese government disarm the janjaweed militia.
| July 29, 2009 |
"It is an insignificant act relative to the magnitude of the tragedy unfolding there," said Moore, who asked constituents to join her in fasting for Sudan’s battle-scarred region. The Milwaukee Democrat says she is drinking only water during her day of fasting.
"I join thousands in this simple act in hopes that a critical mass will prick our global conscience and keep us focused on the hundreds of thousands who have lost their lives," said Moore, who gave a short speech on the House floor about her efforts
Toward a Comprehensive Strategy for Sudan
Tomorrow July 30 at 3:30 the Senate Committee on Foreign relations is holding a hearing entitled "Toward a Comprehensive Strategy for Sudan".The Khartoum regime claims that labeling the atrocities committed upon the people of Darfur as genocide is 'unhelpful' in its all out effort to normalize relations between Sudan and the US, specifically in lifting economic sanctions and removing Sudan from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism.
In light of the fact that Scott Gration, the US Special Envoy to Sudan, and Sen. John Kerry have intimated that the US is open to accommodating Khartoum's wishes, and since the people of Darfur are unable to attend the hearing, we now must step up for them .
Please call Sen. Kerry's office at 202 224 2742. My eleven visits into the region and the countless hours I have spent listening to the people leave me without any doubt about what they want. Darfur's people do NOT want the United States to normalize relations with Khartoum. They DO want Darfur's civil society to be represented in the August (Doha) peace talks. And without question they want the international community to stand strong for justice, in the form of the International Criminal Court indictment of President Omar al-Bashir.
Questions for Sen. Kerry: Ask Scott Gration what sanctions or other measures the US is prepared to take if the Khartoum regime continues to defy the ICC ruling as well as multiple UN resolutions.
What is the US doing to enlist the support of our European allies in the currently unilateral US Treasure sanctions? What oil sanctions are we prepared to implement? What are you doing to restore full humanitarian aid?
Many are saying the Obama government has been 'conciliatory' in our relations with the genocidal Khartoum regime. Clearly Mr Gration is nowhere near as knowledgeable or clear minded as Roger Winter, the Former Special representative on Sudan. In a hearing before the house Committee on foreign relations today Mr Winter stated; the government of Sudan "has a 100% perfect record. It NEVER ever keeps the agreements it signs with i's opponents." And he referred to the "revolving door of U.S. diplomats and special envoys who think that Khartoum can be appealed to to 'do the right thing' on behalf of the marginalized people of Sudan. It's just not so. Khartoum reads us very well.'
Some 3 million Sudanese people have died as a result of the policies and practices of the current regime, since it came to power by coup as the National Islamic Front. For two decades the NIF has been at war with the Sudanese people in the East, South, North and West. It is incomprehensible and morally unacceptable to take any sort of conciliatory position with this corrupt, genocidal cabal. They should be sidelined as much as possible by the international community to enable moderate, representational voices to position themselves for responsible leadership in Sudan.
| July 28, 2009 |
Lord's Resistance Army supplies children for Khartoum's slave markets
The Lord's Resistance Army has wreaked havoc on the people in the Northeast and North Central areas of the DRC. We have no way of knowing how many hundreds of thousands have been displaced by the LRA raids upon villages. Countless children have been abducted.My sources on the ground told me that covert flights carrying weapons are landing in a 'secret' airstrip near the DRC border with Sudan. These flights come in from Khartoum and they are loaded with weapons. After unloading the arms, the LRA then fills the plane with children, abducted from villages they raided in Congo. On average, about 200 children per flight are sent to northern Sudan where they are sold in the slave market for upwards of $800 each.
Due to LRA activity, displacement and fear of death, captivity and mutilations, villagers are no longer able to farm and harvest their fields and gardens. This is now causing a serious financial hardship to the populations, as well as severe food shortages.
| July 26, 2009 |
Invisible children. Don't miss this cool video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?Darfuris could be excluded from next year's election,
At the United Nations yesterday Alain Le Roy, Head of UN Peacekeeping, said millions of people in Darfur who have been displaced by the violence may not get to vote. Last month Sudan said its nationwide elections would be delayed for two months until April 2010. This is the second time the date has been postponed. Officials in South Sudan dispute the validity of the new census results.Le Roy said: "The contested census, large-scale displacement and volatility - particularly in the area bordering Chad - create enormous risks that the people of Darfur will not be in a position to participate in the electoral process. " The election results will have an "enormous impact" on the distribution of political power in Darfur. Survivors of the government attacks upon civilian villages have been languishing in wretched camps across Darfur and eastern Chad since 2003-2004.
| July 24, 2009 |
There has never been a more critical time in Sudan's history than the present. “
“There has never been a more critical time in Sudan's history than the present. This summer, Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir is celebrating two decades of dictatorship, having come to power in a coup in 1989. During Bashir's tenure, Africa's largest country has steadily declined into a model failed state. Home to the 21st century's first genocide, Sudan now boasts more displaced persons than any country on Earth.
“According to the current issue of Foreign Policy, it is among the three countries in the world most at risk of total collapse. Bashir himself is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, rape, and attacks against civilian populations. Even so, he looks set to win a national election next year. The following year, 2011, will bring a national referendum on the secession of Southern Sudan, which most experts expect to pass. This will split the country in two and render obsolete existing peace agreements, including the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that was intended to end the country's 12-year civil war and set out the parameters for peace.
All of this means the international community now faces an 18-month window in which to fix the whole mess. -
Enough is enough. If there is agreement on anything within the Darfur movement, it is that Obama must start living up to his promises of leading a bolder path forward in Sudan. Both Bashir's recent expulsion of humanitarian aid groups upon which millions depend for basic survival and the actions of his government to prevent the Mandate Darfur conference scheduled for last month, which was to bring together Sudanese civil society groups as part of the peace process, are unacceptable behaviors by any standard. Yet the United States and other countries remained nearly silent.
It's time to start speaking up. The White House must begin shaping a new international road map that provides a framework for sustainable peace in Sudan. The road map should be grounded in existing commitments, including the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the various existing Darfur commitments. It must also set measurable milestones and hold accountable Khartoum for its decisions and actions. The way forward must include Sudan's key geopolitical partners, principally China and Russia. Both can offer enticing carrots to Khartoum and apply immediate pressure in the face of noncooperation. Peace and stability in Sudan is in these states' interests, either for economic or political reasons. There is room for cooperation -- if the U.S. government signals that this discussion is a priority.
Exercising the political will necessary to craft a road map for lasting peace in Sudan will not come easily, nor will success. And that is precisely why the Darfur movement is needed now more than ever. Will it help apply immediate and meaningful pressure to those in power, at home and abroad, and ensure meaningful action to bring peace to the people of Sudan at this critical juncture? Ultimately, history may judge the Darfur movement not on the last five years, but on the next 18 months. With deadlines in Sudan looming -- and both the north and south rearming themselves for civil war -- it seems likely that the epitaph of the Darfur movement is far from written.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/20/save_darfur_must_save_itself?page=0%2C0
| July 23, 2009 |
The decision regarding Abyei
It was a sad day for south Sudan.The Abyei region, with its oil fields and grazing lands, has been used by nomadic herders from the north and south. Abyei itself was attacked and burned to the ground in May 2008 by the northern (Khartoum's) army.
Both the northern government and semiautonomous south asked the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration to set the region's permanent borders after the 2008 battle in which 50,000 Abyei residents were forced to flee.
Yesterday, the five-member panel affirmed, in a four-one decision, the northern boundary as set by a 2005 commission, but drew new lines in the east and west that placed the Heglig oil fields and the Nile oil pipeline under control of the Khartoum government. The Heglig field was first developed in 1996 and is operated by the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, with shares owned by companies from China, Malaysia and India.
Of course Khartoum celebrated the victory. Dirdeiry Mohamed Ahmed, the head of the northern government delegation, said,
"We welcome the fact that the oil fields are now excluded from the Abyei area, particularly the Heglig oil field", he said.
In a scathing dissenting opinion, Jordanian judge Awn Al-Khasawneh chastened the methods of his tribunal colleagues for trying too hard to reach a compromise, putting the deal on legally shaky ground. The award should be left "to the sand on which it has been built". He expressed concern that the decision could lead to future conflict because, among other things, it deprived an important tribe, the Misseriya, of critical water sources.
The 2005 peace deal created a unity government and gave the south a semiautonomous status, but left Abyei's borders and future status unresolved. It called for the southern Sudanese to hold a referendum in 2011 on whether to secede from the north or remain united. Abyei residents will hold a separate referendum that year to decide whether to join the north or south. The South gave up the oil field in the hope of buying peace.
| July 22, 2009 |
What we can do for Darfur today
Today the Darfur advocacy group led by Mohammed Yahya is holding a Washington DC rally to ask the US Government to lead the movement toward peace and justice for all of Sudan. The rally will take place from 1-4 in Lafayette Square behind the White House.For those of us who cannot attend, here is what we can do today;
Contact the White House at 202 456 1111
Ask President Obama to help the people of Darfur by supporting the ICC arrest warrant against President Omar Al-Bashir and by ensuring the full deployment of UNAMID peace forces, with an emphasis on their mandate to actively protect the civilian populations and providing UNAMID with all essential logistical support including helicopters.
If you have a twitter account post: White House should support Bashir's arrest warrant, trade sanctions on Sudanese oil and the safe return of the displaced.
1. International cooperation with International Criminal Court and its indictments of Omar
al-Bashir and other suspects for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity;
2. The immediate deployment of the 26,000 UNAMID Peace Forces to Darfur with a full
Chapter VII mandate(to actively protect civilians), and all necessary support and supplies;
3. Pressure on the Government of Sudan to allow all expelled humanitarian organizations
back into Darfur without any delays and with unrestricted access to the populations;
4. The end of Sudanese military attacks on refugee Camps in Chad and Darfur and the return of all
confiscated land to its rightful owners;
5. Strict trade sanctions against Chinese oil companies, and all other companies investing
in Sudanese oil or exporting weapons to Sudan and otherwise conducting business with
the genocidal regime.
The leadership of the United States, the active engagement of the CPA mediators and the commitment of the
international community are pivotal to a sustainable peace process.
| July 21, 2009 |
In March TIAA-CREF announced an escalated effort to oppose genocide in Darfur and made a public commitment to divest by year-end unless target companies cease their relations with Sudan or “attempt to end genocide and ease suffering in Darfur.” This announcement by TIAA-CREF was a clear victory for genocide-free investing.
1) Vanguard, the largest mutual fund company, Vanguard actively opposed the proposal and made a misleading statement of opposition, claiming that the proposal called for procedures that "duplicate" existing practices and are "substantially identical" to existing procedures. However, a careful reading of Vanguard's statement of opposition reveals that Vanguard, made no commitments to act and its holdings showed it took no steps to avoid investments in companies that help to fund genocide. Nonetheless, genocide-free investing received between 7% and 17% of the vote, notably high numbers for proxy votes on social concerns, and reflecting support from millions of shareholders.
2) For the second year in a row, Fidelity shareholders had an opportunity to vote on genocide-free investing. Fidelity again chose to actively oppose our proposal and insisted on retaining its flexibility to invest in genocide, disregarding the 20% to 31% who voted against them last year, and alienating many more customers this year. Despite Fidelity’s active opposition, affirmative votes were recorded for four funds, ranging between 18% and 25%. Nine additional funds did not reach quorum and were adjourned to meet again August 14, 2009, allowing more time to vote for the nine funds.
3) American funds shareholders will have an opportunity to vote this fall. Virtually all of American Fund customers will get materials on our proposal and some 50 million shareholders of record will have an opportunity to vote.
Our focus now is on the major funds that have not yet been forced to confront their complicity in the Darfur genocide. Franklin Templeton and Barclays (iShares) remain heavily invested in companies funding the genocide.
------------------------------------------
Investors Against Genocide is a non-profit organization dedicated to ending investment in genocide. The organization works with individuals, companies, organizations, financial institutions, the press, and government agencies to build awareness and to create financial, public relations, and regulatory pressure for investment firms and companies to change. The ultimate goals are that the Government of Sudan ends its deadly genocide in Darfur and that investment firms avoid investing in genocide. For more information, visit www.investorsagainstgenocide.org.
| July 18, 2009 |
Sudanese senior military officials said there were no casualties but that the Sudanese army was on "standby" and waiting for "the green light for retaliation".
In May, Chadian rebels coming from Sudan launched an offensive against Ndjamena in the latest of several attempts to oust President Idriss Deby, but Chad's army forced them back into Sudan where they are based and where they train.
| July 17, 2009 |
As the violence in Darfur continues to fester, Sudan has openly supported Chadian rebels seeking to oust President Idriss Deby. Khartoum has charged Ndjamena with backing Darfur’s rebels.
| July 15, 2009 |
While stationed in Sudan, he was outspoken in his condemnation of the human rights abuses being committed in the western region of Darfur. His activism began after a Darfuri woman came to his office to tell him how she, her daughter and 200 other women in the village of Tawilla had been gang-raped and mostly murdered by government soldiers and paramilitaries. His reports about the Darfur conflict were at the time dismissed by the Government of Sudan as a "a heap of lies", though they succeeded in bringing Darfur to the attention of the world's media for the first time. Kapila was subsequently transferred out of Sudan in April 2004, only 13 months into a 24 month assignment. Commenting in 2006 on this period, Kapila stated:
“There is debate about whether we had genocide in Darfur or not, but certainly in my mind, and the mind of many, many people, I think there is very little doubt that what went on in Darfur in 2003 and the early part of 2004 was certainly genocide. We can argue the words, but that would be no consolation to those people who are affected.
So I subsequently went on to speak about it publicly, having tried the various diplomatic routes and avenues, and I soon found myself hauled onto a plane out of Khartoum. And as I reflected back on it, I thought to myself that there I was presiding over the first genocide of the 21st century – it is a place in history you don’t wish to have.”
The Seven Excuses of Inaction for Darfur
The following is based on remarks delivered by Dr. Mukesh Kapila, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, at a June 16, 2009 panel on “Women in Conflict and the Human Rights Situation in Sudan. ” It was Dr.Kapila who first sounded the alarm that genocide was occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan.
The Seven Excuses of Inaction for Darfur
Dr. Mukesh Kapila
I was wondering what I should speak about in such a gathering where you must know so much. It is pointless to rehearse the continuing agony of Sudan, and of Darfur in particular, and catalogue yet again the endless human rights tragedies that are taking place all over Sudan and in Darfur. So I will discuss a couple of themes.
One that worries me a great deal is the progressive revisionism in Darfuri history. We are beginning to see now, several years into the latest phase of conflict in Darfur, we notice from many commentators that are gaining prominence a sense of trying to “balance the history,” as they call it. And this revisionist view of what has happened in Darfur, and what continues to happen in Darfur, is something that organizations like yours need to be vigilant of.
The Seven Excuses
And I don’t know why this is the case. But what I do know from my own experience as the former UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in 2003 to 2004, when the whole Darfur thing exploded in the consciousness for the first time, in recent times at least, I would say that from the constraints and difficulties that I had, I identified what I call seven excuses why people don’t listen to the writing on the wall.
1. Cynicism
The first one is cynicism-a general feeling that, sure, Sudan has got many troubles, it’s a country in conflict, a country that has always been in conflict, a conflict of many decades, and what do you expect in a place like that? Terrible things are done by people in the heat of conflict, so don’t be surprised if rapes take place, if violence against women takes place, and many other forms of horrible abuses take place. So the first excuse people give is to be cynical, or the first reaction is cynical.
2. Denial
The second reaction is denial. “Surely the situation is not as bad as you make it out to be,” they argue. “You’re exaggerating to gain attention.” And so they try and say, “Prove it.” Numbers and statistics and all that. And ultimately the whole ethos of the apologists is to try and reduce the impact of the message, and even to deny-just as we had the Holocaust deniers of the Second World War and still do, many of them-that what is happening in Darfur is a form of crimes against humanity or genocide, whatever you want to call it. There is that denial school.
3. Prevarication
The third reaction, or excuse people have to do nothing, is prevarication. An argument goes, and I had this given to me many times when I was the head of the UN in Sudan, “You have to be patient, it takes time, these are complicated matters, and in any case it’s best if the people of Sudan, the people of Darfur find their own solution to their own problems.” That’s an awful reaction, a sort of prevarication. “Takes time, be patient, these are complicated matters.”
4. Caution
The fourth excuse that people give is caution. “You know that these are very complicated and difficult issues,” they say. “Sudan is not a small country, it’s got a very complex past, a very complicated political and social dynamic. If we intervene it will only make matters worse; let us think carefully and long before we actually do anything.” So, caution.
5. Distraction
The fifth excuse is distraction: You know, we have many other things to do. There is the Middle East, there is Iraq, there in North Korea, there is Iran, there is Myanmar, there is climate change, there is HIV and AIDS, there are Millenium Development Goals, there are cyclones, there is a financial crisis, all sorts of things. We have many other things to do. Let’s solve the other bigger problems in the world first, solve the other problems which are equally important, and then we’ll get around to you on this particular problem.
6. Buck Passing
The sixth excuse is buck-passing. “Why does it always have to be us?” they say. So you go to London, you go to Washington, you go to the Security Council, you go to Brussels, you go wherever you like, and they say, “But you know, why is it that we always have to deal with these sort of issues? All these other countries, groups-the African Union, the Arab League, this, that, and the other-they should all be doing their part in this. So let them take on the leadership on this and then we will join in.” And that’s the sort of buck-passing that is used.
7. Evasion of Responsibility
And finally there is an evasion of responsibility excuse. “Oh, we have brought this to the attention of the Security Council, the President, the Prime Minister, the Pope, the Commission, the Council, the Committee, the whatever-you-like. And everyone is now kind of exercised by this issue. It’s being discussed at a very high level. So let’s see what they decide.”
So, ladies and gentlemen, my message to you, to UN Watch, to Human Rights Watch, to any other Watches that there are, is that watching is not enough. That actually unless you have some practical ways to address these seven reasons-cynicism, denial, prevarication, caution, distraction, buck-passing and evasion of responsibility-then I’m afraid we will continue to be a side event, we will continue to be tolerated in the margins.
If we don’t find practical means to address these kinds of obstacles, then I’m afraid that one group will remain at the margins, and one will remain as kind of a pressure group, and it isn’t going to be enough. That’s my first set of observations. So the challenge to you is: What more can we do?
My second set of remarks is about two current events which are not new ones, and are well familiar to you. The first is the debate between human rights and humanitarianism, and the second is the trade-off between peace and justice. They are different debates, but they are also related debates.
False Dichotomy 1: Human Rights vs. Humanitarianism
Let’s go to the human rights and humanitarianism debate. You heard in the last few weeks, months, after the International Criminal Court indictments, a whole army of humanitarians suddenly rose up and started protesting that the process of the International Criminal Court [indicting Sudanese President Al Bashir for genocide] was going to interfere with the provision of humanitarian aid, suffering is going to get worse, and that this whole judicial process is highly controversial and so on-political as some would argue-that it’s all very well, but it’s really anti-humanity, because it’s actually going to stop the humanitarian organizations. That people are suffering, and now the President of Sudan is going to go sulk in the corner and get very nasty, and throw the NGOs out, and people are suffering more, and what have you achieved?
The humanitarians-including some of the leading humanitarian organizations and leaders of the world-are basically castigating those who were going down the route of due judicial process.
Allow me to just reflect on the true nature of humanitarianism, and the linkages between human rights and humanitarianism, and whether or not there must always be a trade-off, and where the line is.
My own take on this is from my own experiences in Darfur and Sudan, and also dealing with these excuses that you heard me mention. Maybe before we in the international community pass judgment on which has higher precedence-humanitarian access or bringing about actions that will indeed protect and promote human rights-why don’t we actually ask the people of Sudan, and especially the people of Darfur, what they would like?
Now, from my vantage, and I don’t know whether we’ve done any surveys or not, but if we haven’t, then organizations, including Darfuri organizations, should do this, and this is to find out exactly what the people of Darfur are willing to sacrifice-and make more sacrifices if it means a solution to the ultimate problems that they face. I’m willing to bet that many of the people in Darfur will say, and they say this to me in the context I have, they’ll say, “You know, we’ve already suffered a great deal. The desert is colored in blood. Millions of our people have suffered and they’re still suffering. Displaced and refugees and so on, traumatized, and the trauma transmits from generation to generation. Are you saying to us that we can simply forget all this simply in the cause of bringing more food aid, a little bit of water, a little bit of that, we can put aside the sacrifices that have been made?”
And I would say to you that probably the people of Darfur are more resilient than those of us who lead soft humanitarian-conscious lives here. And I would suggest that people are prepared to fight for their liberty. Mandela was prepared to be incarcerated for decades in a labor camp in a prison-for what? For the dignity of freedom, for human dignity. Then I suspect that those humanitarians who kind of dilute the global commitment to bringing about a resolution of the underlying causes of the conflict in Darfur, I think they really should ask themselves whether they’re doing a favor or a disfavor to the world.
I ask those humanitarians: What is a true humanitarian? Is a humanitarian simply one who, when someone is suffering, hands out a piece of bread, as an act of charity, or is a true humanitarian one who asks the question, why are the people suffering?
If you go back to the original roots of humanitarianism, the issue of dignity far overrides the issue of charity. And if that’s the case, then it is true that people who want to achieve their rights have to fight for them. I’m not here to make any political statement about fighting in the armed conflict sense of the term, but I do mean fighting for the rights of people all over the world, for their economic and social and cultural rights.
So you see where I stand. I would say that if there’s a debate between the humanitarians or the human-rightists, then it must be the human-rightists that must prevail. Otherwise, the suffering of Darfur will simply go on, and in any case none of the humanitarian organizations-even if you double the access, quadruple the resources, and had a government of Sudan which suddenly turned itself into a humanitarian-minded government-would be able to solve the humanitarian issues of Sudan.
False Dichotomy 2: Justice vs. Peace
My third and final point is on the debate between peace and justice. It’s extraordinary that there are still people in the world-I can’t understand how ignorant-who don’t appear to have learned any lessons from three to four decades of conflict- management around the world. Wherever we go in the world-go back to the wars of Latin America during the seventies, go back to the struggles in Africa or in other parts of the world-we know that peace agreements, if they’re not founded on a foundation of justice, always unravel.
I myself, at the time when I was head of the Humanitarian Conflict Department in the British Government, in the Department for International Development, had a direct involvement in the negotiations and proceedings that went on in Liberia and particularly in Sierra Leone. I don’t know how many peace agreements there were in Sierra Leone-some 16 or 17-and all of them failed, until one could address the issues of accountability and justice.
This does not mean that people have to be locked up in prison, or to be hung or whatever, but rather a process of saying: “I’m sorry, I did wrong, it was my fault, and let us learn lessons, let us make up, let us offer some compensation.” Compensation in the sense that anyone can offer-it’s not money that is the matter here, it is simply the acknowledgement of ill-doing, and the desire to correct that ill-doing and to move on. If we don’t do that, then there is no peace in Sudan, in Darfur, or any other region like that in the world.
This we know from history, from all the examples of every single peace agreement that we can be conscious of over the last years. Not a single peace agreement has ever succeeded unless there has been a foundation addressing the issue of accountability. So I would say to watchers generally that one has to bring these issues together: the human rights issue, the humanitarian issue, the justice issue, and systematically address the obstacles and excuses people give. And to do that in a forensic and decisive manner. Only by doing that in a very targeted manner will we actually make progress against the vast forces and the resources that are aligned together against the cause of peace, justice and human rights in Darfur.
(Transcribed by Abigail Chernick and edited for publication by Hillel Neuer.)
Fidelity has repeatedly urged shareholders to vote against the proposal.
In a statement on its Web site, Fidelity says it is "sensitive to the ongoing tragedy" in Darfur and "repulsed by genocide," but it has rationalized “ that when it is appropriate to remain actively invested in a company, we will do so, thus retaining the ability to oppose company practices that we do not condone," the company said. "This, in the long term, may have the greatest chance of ending those practices."
I withdrew my own nest egg from Fidelity for obvious reasons.
| July 13, 2009 |
Nations who possess helicopters claim they have none to contribute because they are deployed in other conflict zone such as Afghanistan. The international community has supported the peacekeepers with troops, training and plenty of words but will not donate a single one of the 24 copters so desperately needed.
Only Ethiopia has agreed to supply 5 helicopters, to be delivered in October.
| July 10, 2009 |
On March 4, 2009 the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Within hours, in retaliation al-Bashir expelled 13 key international aid agencies. The Sudanese regime and UN jointly committed themselves to a series of emergency measures to fill the aid gaps, but unsurprisingly, the regime has not fulfilled its pledges and crucial assistance is not reaching the refugees.
| July 9, 2009 |
Please don't fax
I have been notified today that someone has been faxing the contents of this site to members of the House of Commons in England. I hope whoever is doing this will cease as this sort of harassment is counterproductive to all we are hoping to accomplish for the people of Darfur.July 8, 2009
| July 8, 2009 |