top
International
International
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

U.N.: Darfur Needs Strong Protection Force

by Human Rights Watch (reposted)
(New York, April 21, 2006) – The U.N. Security Council must authorize the proposed United Nations mission in Darfur to use force as necessary to protect civilians, Human Rights Watch said in a briefing paper released today. On April 26, the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) is scheduled to brief the Security Council on options for a U.N. mission in Darfur.
In the face of Sudanese government hostility to a U.N. operation and continuing attacks against the civilian population in Darfur, political support from the Security Council will be critical for an effective mission to protect civilians. The Sudanese government continues to resist a U.N. mission and recently denied visas to a U.N. planning team due to travel to Darfur. Human Rights Watch called on Security Council members to act to secure Khartoum’s consent to a robust U.N. force under a Chapter VII mandate.

“A U.N. mission could help to stop the atrocious attacks on civilians in Darfur, but only if it’s given the means to act aggressively,” said Peter Takirambudde, Africa director for Human Rights Watch. “It needs a tough mandate, real resources and political support. The Security Council must authorize it to use ‘all necessary means’ to protect civilians.”

A mission under Chapter VII, with the authorization to use “all necessary means,” would enable the U.N. force to use a range of measures, including aggressive preventative actions, to react to or deter attacks on civilians, including humanitarian aid workers and convoys as well as the local population.

Fighting between the Sudanese government and Darfur rebel movements has escalated in the past six months, displacing tens of thousands of people, many of whom had already fled attacks in 2003-2005. Civilians continue to be targeted for killings, rape, displacement and looting, mainly by government-backed Janjaweed militias in Darfur. Rebel groups are also responsible for abuses, and were singled out by U.N. relief officials as being most guilty of looting humanitarian aid convoys in March. Bandits, encouraged by the government’s refusal to prosecute its militia allies for robbery, rape, arson and murder, attack and threaten convoys throughout Darfur.

The 6,898-member African Union mission in Darfur (AMIS), including 4,760 armed personnel, has had limited success in stabilizing the region and preventing attacks on civilians, and has itself come under armed attack. Insufficient numbers, equipment and logistics contributed to AMIS’ inability to respond to attacks throughout Darfur, an area the size of France.

“The U.N. mission must be much larger, more mobile and better-equipped than the AMIS force,” said Takirambudde. “The Security Council should approve at least 20,000 troops to deter unlawful attacks, backed by a substantial international civilian police force and support personnel.”

The Security Council will consider the options presented by DPKO on April 26 before proceeding with a resolution authorizing the U.N. mission. Today, the Security Council will vote on whether to impose targeted sanctions on four Sudanese individuals designated by its sanctions committee for penalties. The four, including a Janjaweed militia leader, a Sudanese military commander and two rebel commanders, are accused of violating international human rights and humanitarian law, as well as a U.N. arms embargo, or of impeding the peace process for Darfur.

The sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, were due to be imposed on Monday, April 17, but Russia, China and Qatar – all members of the Security Council – objected. They conveyed concern that the sanctions could undermine attempts to reach a peace agreement in Darfur by the April 30 deadline imposed by the African Union. Several Security Council resolutions on Darfur have been delayed or weakened by the lack of agreement or consensus among Security Council members.

“The appalling situation in Darfur is a reflection of the Security Council’s failure to act to protect civilians or to take on the Sudanese government,” said Takirambudde. “Imposing sanctions and sending in a strong U.N. force could help stop the slaughter and turn this crisis around.”

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/20/sudan13237.htm
§The plight of displaced persons in Sudan
by Amnesty International (reposted)
They entered the house and told us to hurry and pack all our things into a waiting lorry. They were rushing and threw my beds into the lorry breaking 4 of them. They then burned the 4 mattresses left behind saying “there is too much to do today ‘Junubi’ (southerner) we want to move on, no time for these things”
Abu Sin Thok, 48 yrs. Old, Born in Gogrial, Bar al Ghazal State


Sudan has the largest population of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in the world. An estimated two million IDPs, live in the official IDPs camps and unofficial “squatter areas” in and around Khartoum. Many of the IDPs have fled the conflict in south Sudan and more recently, the conflict in Darfur in Western Sudan. Many of these face forced evection from their residence as the Government pushes ahead with its project to’re-plan' all IDP and squatter settlements in and around Khartoum. The majority of those who do not manage to secure a place on the newly re-planned land, are dumped in a far flung area called Al Fateh III.

55 kilometres from Khartoum, Al Fateh III is at the very end of the tarmac road leading into the desert. It has next to no essential services. Water, sanitation, and healthcare-almost all are provided by NGOs and the UN. Transport to Khartoum is costly beyond the means of the impoverished residents who cannot find any other work in Al Fateh III. Many who have been left here still do not have security of tenure-they do not own the land they have been moved to and could be forcibly evicted again.

Amnesty International interviewed a large number of people who gave very similar accounts of the manner in which the forced eviction and relocation was carried out.

According to these interviews, forced evictions generally occurred in the early morning with no prior announcement. Security forces arrive with lorries to collect the people and their possessions while bulldozers are brought in to clear the old settlements for re-planning. If residents resisted the demolition they were usually beaten or intimidated.

In the wake of violence during the attempted mass forced eviction at Soba Aradi in May 2005, an agreement was made between the Governor of Khartoum and a Consultative Committee on Re-Planning Affecting IDPs (the Consultative Committee) composed of foreign missions, Donor representatives, UN representatives, and the Governor’s office.

Under the terms of this agreement the Governor promised to place a moratorium on all relocations until these could be better planned, assuring relocation would be voluntary, not forced, and that new areas of residence would meet international standards for provision of basic services.

Contrary to his word the Governor undertook another forced evection and relocation in August in Shikan camp (near Khartoum). As in past forced evections it was surrounded by security forces in the early morning, demolished, and the majority of its resident’s transported to Al Fateh III.

K, 28 yrs old, with family of 6, and has been displaced since 1989 said:

“When the police came that morning we loaded our things on to the lorry as we were told to do. Some resisted but we saw they were beaten and so we cooperated. We were given a plot card by the engineer, and we got in the lorry with no idea where we would be taken.
Later that morning when we arrived in Al Fateh III no one assigned us a plot for 4 days. We built a ‘Rakuba’ (lbasic shelter) from the materials we had brought with us. We stayed for 2 months and the NGOs gave us some things, but the rain and wind were intense, its far, and there is nothing there. In the end I brought my family back here to Shikan. Even if it is illegal its better than Al Fateh III.
(Testimony taken from Shikan resident relocated in August)

Forced evictions by the authorities and the forced displacement of people to areas which lack even minimum essential levels of food, water, health care and shelter represent violations of a range of human rights including rights to adequate housing, freedom of movement and choice of residence. These rights are guaranteed in international human rights law -- including both International Covenants on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights to which Sudan is a State party.

The relocation also violates the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which are a set of widely endorsed non-binding principles drawn from international human rights law

AI expressed concern on The Sudanese Government’s current re-planning exercise which violate international human rights law as well as create urgent humanitarian needs.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/sdn-190406-editorial-eng
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$230.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network