Voices of Hope Concert for Darfur - We will not fail

Who likes failure? Kids fail exams in school. Sports teams fail in their desire to win championship titles. But should the international community, specifically the United Nations, fail to put together an international peacekeeping force, more importantly, should the UN be allowed to fail in its ability to save the lives of the millions of men, women, and children of Darfur?

On Wednesday, November 14, 2007, the head of the UN peacekeeping department, Mr. Jean-Marie Guehenno, announced the UN-AU Hybrid Force to Darfur will fail, whenever it is deployed, because the force is still in the development stages, with no support from western nations and because there has been no offer of logistical support, primarily aerial logistical support from any country in West.

Now, as a peacekeeping mission, the UN-AU Hybrid Force needs six attack helicopters and eighteen transport helicopters. The Sudanese government has still not given its “approval” to the makeup of the force and most of those countries that it has approved, do not meet the standards for deployment with the UN.

A few questions arise in reference to these points and the first relates to the six attack helicopters. What on earth does a peacekeeping force require SIX attack helicopters for? I am not naïve, but SIX attack helicopters? It shows that the UN is concerned about sending troops to Darfur without the appropriate military hardware because it believes it is going to be very dangerous for any outside troops that are deployed there. If SIX attack helicopters are required, then one can only imagine what type of heavy ground equipment will be required. Tanks, surface to air missiles, air to ground missiles, mortars, Special Forces even. Is this the environment that the UN intends to send peacekeepers into? Is it any wonder that no western nation has volunteered troops for this mission because even the UN envisions it as a highly dangerous mission. The last time the UN got involved in such a mission was in Somalia in the early 90’s. That force had to be rescued by the US military and it turned out to be a disaster for the US. The second question pertains to the explanation that contributing countries may have to give to their citizens when large numbers of their sons and daughters in the military return home in body bags. Why did you (the government of the contributing country) send our troops to Darfur knowing very well that the situation was so volatile? But with all that said and done, the UN-AU Hybrid force is the only solution other than a full scale military assault on Darfur by NATO, the EU or worse, the US.

The last question that springs to mind is why is the UN waiting on the Sudanese government to give its approval to the make up of the hybrid force? Countless resolutions have been passed at the UN that enables it to send a peacekeeping force to Darfur without the Sudanese government’s approval. Is the UN afraid of insulting or worse, alienating the Sudanese government due to its lack of support or movement in reference to the hybrid force? For God’s sake, what the bloody hell are those guys in New York waiting for?

What needs to happen, and happen very quickly, is:

• The UN needs to inform Sudan that the deployment of the UN-AU Hybrid Force is imminent, with or without Sudan’s approval.
• The UN needs to give the force an extended mandate so that offensive action, as well as defensive can be taken to defend the lives of the innocent civilians and the members of the deployed force
• All militias and rebel groups need to be informed that any actions taken against the UN-AU Hybrid Force will be met by swift action against any side that perpetrate such actions.
• This may include:
• The arrest of all rebel and militia commanders
• The initiation of quick or special proceedings at the International Criminal Court in the Hague
• The freezing of all assets held outside the country
• An enforced blanket ban by all countries or businesses doing business with Sudan
• Retaliatory actions against the forces responsible for carrying out such actions

To move on to another issue. In Britain also on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, the Law Lords, the country’s highest court, overturned a court of appeal’s ruling that allowed three asylum seekers from Darfur to stay in Britain. What this new ruling means is that the three asylum seekers will now be returned to Sudan. Previously failed asylum seekers have been tortured and then murdered upon their return to Sudan. How in the name of God could the highest court in Britain return these three innocent victims to a certain death?

The three asylum seekers in question were due to be sent to a refugee camp in Darfur but they escaped Sudan and found their way to Britain, where they filed asylum applications. In Wednesday’s ruling, the Law Lords announced that sending refugees to camps in the Sudanese region of Darfur was not "unduly harsh" resettlement, therefore their applications for asylum were denied and now they will be repatriated to Sudan.

For those of you who read these emails, you will know that the situation in Darfur is very critical. Can you help? More importantly, do you want to help? If you do, shoot me an email and tell me how you want to help.

You will also know that the International Alliance For Human Rights, together with Hope for Humanity is staging a global concert event early in the New Year titled the “Voices of Hope Concert for Darfur.” This event will see the biggest names in music coming together to voice their support and hope for the innocent men, women and children of Darfur. The event will also see some of biggest stars in the fields of sports, movies, general entertainment coming together to voice their concern that we, as a global family, need to do more that talk, if the situation in Darfur is to be resolved. If we come together and put our voices together as one, WE WILL NOT FAIL!

Please forward this email to all your friends, families, and associates because it is important that we act NOW!

Voices of Hope Concert for Darfur - Join Our Efforts

Death is an important, but factual stage of life. It usually occurs when a person has reached an age where their grandchildren are running around, demanding to be brought for ice cream after dinner and where they get to reflect upon their life with a mixture of happiness and sadness but most of all contentment. Fond memories of a full life are to be stored in their minds – memories of family and friends, their births, their weddings, their funerals.

It is not uncommon for life to end before this envisioned conclusion. In the western world, cardiovascular diseases, cancers, and sudden death syndromes are the major culprits in ending life abruptly. We go to great lengths to prevent our early decline from these causes of early death. We exercise, we eat healthy foods and we have regular checkups with our family physicians. This enables us to prolong our lives.

But there are certain places in the world where lives are cut short by war and human rights abuses and where lives are scarred forever. One of those places is Darfur.

We should all be fairly familiar with what is happening in Darfur today. Close to 600,000 men, women and children have died as a result of mass human rights abuses that have been committed by the Sudanese government. 2.5m people have been displaced and 4m people are in dire need of food and medical aid.

The Darfur Peace Talks in Libya have resulted in nothing being resolved due to the fact that seven of the main rebel groups were not in attendance. Even though the Sudanese government announced a cessation of hostilities during the peace talks, it carried out a number of aerial bombing raids and ground attacks during which dozens of people were killed.

This past week, the Sudanese government expelled the head of the United Nations humanitarian operation in South Darfur, Mr. Wael al-Haj Ibrahim. The expulsion arose because of the government troop’s round up of thousands of refugees from Nyala refugee camp. Mr. Ibrahim urged the refugees not to return to their villages and former homes, which was the Sudanese government’s plan of action, because it was unsafe to do so. Mr. Ibrahim was accused of interfering in the internal mechanisms of Sudan and it was based on this that he was expelled.

Again, Sudan has shown total disregard for the operations of the United Nations and appears totally hostile to this global organization. So while we have peace talks, while the UN threatens sanctions, and while the emergency break has been applied to the deployment of the UN-AU hybrid force, come February, the conflict in Darfur will enter its sixth year. How will we answer our future generations’ condemnations of our inaction?

As the former US Ambassador to the UN recently stated, “There is a lot of rhetoric from the international community, but nobody has the stomach to do anything about Darfur.”

This past summer, former President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and others traveled to Darfur to highlight the urgent need for international action to save the millions of lives that are at risk in Darfur. They tried to help, but they failed. The Sudanese government patted them on their heads and told them to be on their way – thanks for stopping by.

There is a great phrase “strategic importance.” What does this mean? Since when should we ignore human cries for help based on their country not being of “strategic importance?” Sudan is part of the axis of evil that the world was told about after September 11th, 2001. We have since been informed that Sudan is part of the partnership to combat terrorism and has become a strong alley in that war on terrorism that seen over 3,000 thousand American lives lost in Iraq and countless injuries to young men and women whose lives have been changed forever.

In 1996 President Bill Clinton bombed Sudan because it was a major sponsor of fundamentalist Islamic terror groups but more specifically because it was giving refuge to Osama Bin Laden. Sudan, a Wahhabist Islamic state, is still a sponsor of terrorism. Part of that sponsorship program is directed towards its own people, those that do not conform to the Wahhabist beliefs of the country’s leaders.

There are countries and multinational companies that are supporting the Sudanese regime. Over the last four years, Sudanese infrastructure has experienced an investment of $10b. Investment and financial companies are investing in corporations that are making billions of dollars, not only in Sudan, but in other conflict areas in Africa. Unbeknown to a great number of the global population, their retirement funds are coming, in large part, from companies supporting the conflicts in Africa.

Now, we all understand that we all want to live a comfortable life. We all need money, for most, there is a need for cheap goods, and we all need financial security. But should we achieve all this through the blood of innocent men, women and children? Should we excuse those companies that are making blood money? If so, are these companies any worse than those that used slave laborers during the Holocaust? Would we have made money from the blood of Jewish children if we knew what was happening to them in the death camps of Europe?

So who can stop the tide of death in Darfur? You can! You can help stop what is happening in Darfur, because if we fail to stop what is happening in this place that is commonly referred to as “hell on earth,” it will quickly spread further than Darfur. The Central Africa Republic and Chad have already become embroiled in the situation in Darfur, with the Sudanese government’s sponsored militia, the Janjaweed, running missions into these countries to attack the Darfuri refugees and local tribal areas.

If things in Africa are to change, the attitudes of those in the developed world must change. The international community is concerned about global warming. But we are witnessing the initial effects of global warming today in Darfur. We have the opportunity to do something about it.

The International Alliance For Human Rights, together with Hope for Humanity will stage the biggest concert of its kind to help stop the horrors that we are witnessing in Darfur. The Voices of Hope Concert for Darfur will be staged in New York and will feature some of the biggest stars from the world of entertainment. For more information, please call me, David Nolan at 212.695.7022, ext. 315 or email me at dnolan@iafhr.org. To voice your concerns, please visit our blog at http://iafhr-darfur.blogspot.

Who Guards Innocent Civilians against UN troops

A phenomenon is taking place with the deployment of UN peace keeping forces – more and more peacekeepers are committing sexual assaults against women and young girls.

On Friday, November 2, the UN reported that 108 Sri Lankan troops were being repatriated to Sri Lanka after being found guilty of committing sexual assaults against young girls and women in Haiti.

We can now add Haiti to the list of other UN peacekeeping missions where allegations of sexual misconduct have been made against UN troops. Other missions include Sierra Leon, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Liberia, DR Congo, Ethiopia, Kosovo and East Timor. More than 800 UN troops were recently suspended amid claims of committing sex abuse in Ivory Coast.

The news coming from Haiti is very disturbing in that while these troops are repatriated for “inappropriate” sexual actions, they face court martial in their home countries only when the allegations have been substantiated. What this means is that most troops walk free from court and in most cases, they are discharged from their country’s armed forces.

This is not a good enough response to the allegations pertaining to the rape of women and minors. Facing prosecution in their home countries disqualifies due process, because those making the allegations are more likely to be absorbed into the general population of the mission area, never to be heard from again, thus enabling the accused to claim that their prosecutions are unfair due to the fact that their ability to cross examine the alleged victims is not possible.

The usual charge brought against the UN troops on their repatriation is the charge of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline; they are given a few days detention in a military brig and dismissed. This was the case in 2002 when an Irish solider, serving with the UN in Eritrea was found guilty of making a pornographic movie using underage local prostitutes. The solider, an NCO spent 16 days in military detention and was dismissed from the Irish defense forces.

More recently, UN troops have been accused of abusing young girls in Southern Sudan. A number of Bangladeshi soldiers serving with the UN in the region were sent home due to allegations made against them.

In a book by three UN field workers, titled "Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures: A True Story from Hell on Earth", chronicles the experiences of a doctor, a human-rights official and a secretary in U.N. operations in Cambodia, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia and Bosnia. In one controversial volume, it is alleged that some U.N. officials demanded that 15 percent of their local staff's salaries go directly to them instead; that Bulgaria sent freed criminals to serve as peacekeepers; and that incompetent U.N. security has cost lives.

This all leads to the question, “Can UN peacekeeping missions be trusted to provide the level of competency to protect innocent civilians from rouge elements within those missions?” I don’t think so and if the UN does not move to set up its own internal disciplinary code of conduct, in which it tries and convicts the rapists, child molesters and all those that are found to have committed serious crimes, from within its own missions, the trust placed in the “Blue Helmets” and the “Blue Flag” will quickly be lost.