TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Save Darfur
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

thanks man!

Link to a list of local MPs

There's no point in contacting the CPC, the Canadian government, or any other Western government. Almost every single Western government is on side.

The real problem is Red China. You people should be protesting the P.R. China consulate day and night.

http://toronto.china-consulate.org/eng/


You might also want to protest at the Russian consulate, as they too are holding up action in Darfur.

http://www.toronto.mid.ru/

Yes, but we can contact the Canadian government to put pressure on China!

May 1, 2006
Deadline Passes Without Darfur Accord
By LYDIA POLGREEN and JOEL BRINKLEY
KHARTOUM, Sudan, Monday, May 1 � Sudan's government offered Sunday to accept a potentially historic Darfur peace agreement, but two of Darfur's three main rebel groups raised last-minute objections that left the negotiations mired in confusion as a midnight deadline passed. Mediators agreed to extend the talks for 48 hours at the request of the United States.

It was unclear early Monday whether the extension in the feverish negotiations, supervised by the African Union at talks in Abuja, Nigeria, made it more or less likely that a deal could be reached. The talks are the most intensive yet in an effort to end the strife in Darfur, the vast region of western Sudan that is the site of what the United Nations has called the world's worst refugee crisis and what the Bush administration calls genocide.

The uncertain outcome of the negotiations came as thousands of people rallied in Washington, calling on the Bush administration to do more to help end the Darfur conflict. [Page A17.]

By early Monday morning, the mediation group at the talks agreed to extend them until midnight Tuesday at the request of Cameron Hume, the charg� d'affaires at the United States Embassy in Khartoum, who said that significant progress had been made and that more time might allow an agreement to emerge, according to Noureddine Mezni, a spokesman for the African Union negotiators.

"He asked if we can give 48 hours to the parties to allow them to bridge the gap on some issues, regarding especially the reintegration and the disarmament, plus some other issues on wealth sharing and power sharing," Mr. Mezni said. "His request was approved."

Progress in the talks was thrown into doubt late Sunday when Seif Haroun, a spokesman for one of the rebel groups, the Sudanese Liberation Army, told reporters in Abuja, "If the proposal does not include all our demands, we will not sign."

At least 200,000 people have been killed and 2 million driven from their homes since 2003 in the chaotic ethnic and political conflict in Darfur, which has pitted a rebel insurgency against the Arab-dominated central government in Khartoum and its proxy tribal militias known as the janjaweed, who are fearsome marauders considered responsible for much of the killing. The strife has spilled into neighboring Chad and threatened to escalate the crisis further.

The United States has placed nearly all of its hopes for a resolution of the crisis on the Abuja peace talks, and a failure there would leave the Bush administration without a viable option to end the violence in the foreseeable future.

In Washington, Robert B. Zoellick, the deputy secretary of state and the Bush administration's point man on Sudan policy, said in an interview that the parties had narrowed the number of issues still under debate.

"I am encouraged, but it is not done yet," he said. African Union officials had said they expected at least a partial breakthrough, which could allow further talks.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking Sunday morning on ABC News, noted that "the United States has been one of the most active states" in working to resolve the crisis.

"Let me just say," she added, "the president has passion about this issue."

Mr. Zoellick, who spent much of Sunday evening conferring by telephone with American diplomats and negotiators in Abuja, said he was not terribly concerned that some of the smaller rebel factions had rejected the proposed agreement, saying these groups would have to come along if the largest faction of the Sudanese Liberation Movement, led by Minni Arcua Minnawi, did eventually agree.

Mr. Minnawi "is trying to be serious about this," Mr. Zoellick said, "with the understanding that there are still some serious difficulties, serious issues, to work through."

The largest area of disagreement, he said, centered on "the demobilization of both sides." The rebels and the government are quite wary of each other. But Mr. Zoellick said Mr. Minnawi and his aides had spent four hours on Sunday evening discussing demobilization with Mr. Hume, the charg� d'affaires in Khartoum.

Sudanese government officials here said Sunday they would accept the peace plan, but their agreement came only after it became apparent that at least some of the rebels would balk.

The proposed agreement would allow for some power and wealth sharing with political groups aligned with the rebel movements that have fought in the insurgency since 2003.

"We have some reservations to the initial draft, but we have submitted our acceptance to the African Union," said Jamal Ibrahim, a government spokesman in Khartoum.

Some rebel leaders say the proposed deal fell short of their demands. The agreement does not give the Darfur groups the vice presidency they demanded, and does not create a single state out of the three states in Darfur, something Darfur political and militant groups say would help reduce the region's powerlessness and marginalization.

The Darfur groups and the Sudanese government have been under enormous pressure to reach an agreement, to end the squabbling that has dominated previous negotiations. The African Union presented both parties with a draft agreement on Tuesday.

Should the talks fail, it is unclear what the next step might be. Ms. Rice and other officials have talked about stationing as many as 20,000 United Nations peacekeeping troops in Darfur, to replace the African Union force of 7,000 that has tried unsuccessfully to keep the peace in Darfur over the past year.

But Sudan has refused to allow any U.N. force in without a signed peace agreement, and few countries have volunteered to provide troops for the mission, even if permission were granted. The Bush administration seems unwilling to proceed with this venture without permission from Sudan.

Recognizing that, perhaps, Ms. Rice urged other countries to get involved.

"We need more help from the international community," she said on CNN. "We need more help, frankly, from China and Russia, which I think have to look at what is going on there and ask what more they can do." Both Russia and China have significant business interests in Sudan and have often been defenders of Sudan at the United Nations and elsewhere.

Even if all the parties do finally reach agreement, senior officials and diplomats said they had serious doubts about the likelihood that it would quickly end the violence. The proposed treaty calls on the Sudanese government to disarm the janjaweed militias. But the United States and other nations have been urging the Sudanese government to disarm the militias for almost three years, to no effect.

Mr. Zoellick said: "If they reach an accord, it is in the Sudanese government's interest to respect it. I think the janjaweed have become a political liability for them now."

What is more, almost everyone involved acknowledges that a cease-fire would have to be enforced. But the African Union forces in Darfur have been unable to prevent violations of numerous cease-fires that have been declared over the previous months.

Some United Nations officials urged the African Union mediators to delay the start of any new cease-fire until after the African Union's force could be strengthened and its armaments and intelligence gathering capabilities improved. But the African Union did not accept that idea, and Mr. Zoellick said he did not favor it.

Still, he added, acknowledging the problem, "if they do reach a peace accord, it will have to be complemented by actions on the ground."

The rebel movements have portrayed themselves as fighters for minority rights against a powerful central government that discriminates against non-Arab tribes, but as the conflict has dragged on and the movements have split into rival factions that now battle among themselves for territory, they have also been criticized for their tactics.

source

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf There's no point in contacting the CPC, the Canadian government, or any other Western government. Almost every single Western government is on side. The real problem is Red China. You people should be protesting the P.R. China consulate day and night. http://toronto.china-consulate.org/eng/ You might also want to protest at the Russian consulate, as they too are holding up action in Darfur. http://www.toronto.mid.ru/

The reality is that the U.S. is in no position to do anything about Darfur as it stands, The Chinese want to maintain their energy deals with Sudan and will block action on them at every chance, Russia, who knows what they stand for in the international community when it comes to justice and a firm stance on dealing with these kind of conflicts.

Every time i think of that part of Africa I remember Mogadishu in that hell hole of Somalia where U.S. troops were dragged through the streets, why would Sudan be any different in the end. The world would catch an hissy fit if the U.S. dared to have troops intent on moving into Sudan, we would hear claims of its for the oil, they are attacking Muslims there, etc. So everyone sits around and debates about genocide or not while people are killed. The idealist in me once believed in justice and humanity on a global scale, but the pragmaitst realized the world is too fractured for that to come to fruition. I hope Darfur finds peace in the end.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan The reality is that the U.S. is in no position to do anything about Darfur as it stands, The Chinese want to maintain their energy deals with Sudan and will block action on them at every chance, Russia, who knows what they stand for in the international community when it comes to justice and a firm stance on dealing with these kind of conflicts. Every time i think of that part of Africa I remember Mogadishu in that hell hole of Somalia where U.S. troops were dragged through the streets, why would Sudan be any different in the end. The world would catch an hissy fit if the U.S. dared to have troops intent on moving into Sudan, we would hear claims of its for the oil, they are attacking Muslims there, etc. So everyone sits around and debates about genocide or not while people are killed. The idealist in me once believed in justice and humanity on a global scale, but the pragmaitst realized the world is too fractured for that to come to fruition. I hope Darfur finds peace in the end.

I hear what you are saying.

But there is one thing that scares me. The World Food Program has to cut rations in half because donor countries have failed to meet the requested $746 millions. They only have $238 million. It'd be great if we can contact our local MPs or the PM's office to at least Canada gives relief money so that they don't starve, because that's what it's come down to.

I know that China gets at least 40% of their oil from Sudan. In order for something to move we have to hold China accountable. I don't know how likely that is.

They've extended the peace talks for the next 48 hours. It's looking really dismal, according to a yahoo article I read this morning.

quote:

Originally posted by Allegory I hear what you are saying. But there is one thing that scares me. The World Food Program has to cut rations in half because donor countries have failed to meet the requested $746 millions. They only have $238 million. It'd be great if we can contact our local MPs or the PM's office to at least Canada gives relief money so that they don't starve, because that's what it's come down to. I know that China gets at least 40% of their oil from Sudan. In order for something to move we have to hold China accountable. I don't know how likely that is. They've extended the peace talks for the next 48 hours. It's looking really dismal, according to a yahoo article I read this morning.

Yeah I recently saw a report about that on BBC World about the cut in food aid, more misery heaped upon the already destitute if a peace deal isn't signed.

People have been very slow for some reason to see the real China on such issues that deal with human rights and their positions on it in the international arena. If China is an autocracy at home will they be any different on the global stage, so far not by any means. For obvious reasons China will never be held to account and by proxy neither will those nations whom they support and deal with, ie North Korea, Iran, Sudan (each with their own issues to boot). If this is the kind of leadership we will see from the next global superpower as China has been delegated then the direction has already been a negative one.

Russia has always historically taken the path of being an opposition when questions of sanctions arise at the U.N. If these nations are unwilling to stand up for strong steps to deal with global issues and bring about a positive result what is their role on the U.N Security Council worth to international peace and security that the U.N. stands for allegedely.

If the deal in Khartoum currently on offer is not accepted by the rebel groups in Darfur I don't know what the future holds for the people caught up there in the conflict, because the international community doesn't offer much hope as it stands right now in proposing tangible steps to tackle the issue, as the African Union forces in Darfur can attest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...1768015,00.html

They've reached a peace deal:

Sudan government, rebel faction sign Darfur peace deal

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Every time i think of that part of Africa I remember Mogadishu in that hell hole of Somalia where U.S. troops were dragged through the streets, why would Sudan be any different in the end.

Let's also keep in mind that yes, US and other UN peacekeepers were killed, but they also kicked Aidid's militia's asses, inflicting one of the most lopsided victory in history.

When UN was there, food was gradually being delivered to Somali people. Did the problem go away overnight? No. But the progress was being made, which was cut off when politics decided to abandon Somalia and to this date, there is no law and order in Somalia.

Another failure of humanity.

quote:

Originally posted by Allegory They've reached a peace deal: Sudan government, rebel faction sign Darfur peace deal

yes but they have signed similar deals in the past just to get gov't's off thier backs. I wouldn't be surprised if things look better for the next month and then go back to the way they were.

I really do hope for the best, but history has shown these guys only care what outside world thinks enough to get them to leave them alone.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.