RIA Novosti
7 May 2010
Kyrgyzstan's prosecutor general formally asked Belarus on Friday to extradite ousted Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, a deputy prime minister in the interim government said.
Bakiyev took refuge in Belarus after fleeing Kyrgyzstan last month. The interim authorities, who took power amid violent unrest in early April, accuse the ousted president of involvement in the shooting of civilians during the riots in Bishkek.
"On May 6, the Kyrgyz Prosecutor General's Office sent a request for the extradition of Bakiyev to the prosecutor general of Belarus," Kyrgyz Deputy Prime Minister Azimbek Nazarov told journalists.
More than 80 people died in clashes between opposition protesters and security forces in Bishkek on April 7 and 8, while 1,500 were injured.
The interim government says the shooting of civilians took place with the knowledge and consent of Bakiyev. A Cabinet decree issued on Tuesday stated that security forces under the control of the then-president, including snipers, fired at members of the public.
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who invited Bakiyev to take refuge in Minsk and criticized his ouster, said a few days ago that he did not intend to hand the former president over to the new authorities in Kyrgyzstan.
07 May, 2010
Kabarebe likely to testify in Nkunda’s case.
256 News
7 May 2010
This Wednesday, Defense Minister James Kabarebe is expected to be the key witness in a petition by Laurent Nkunda challenging his detention of over a year.
According to Nkunda’s lawyer, Stéphane Bourgon, who sent an email to 256 News on late Tuesday it states that General James Kabarebe expected to be in the witness stand.
According to the petition, the Nkunda wants General Kabarebe to tell the court why he has been detained since January of last year without charge. It is not clear if General Kabarebe will be in the court personally, but Mr. Bourgon says the Supreme Court has notified him “regularly.
In a related development, a 256 News source that usually provides good information from within the Rwanda military and intelligence apparatus, told us that Uwase Nkunda was finally allowed to see her husband. Before this, she claimed that she was not allowed access to him. His lawyer also claims to have never been able to see his client.
At some point, Mr. Bourgon and Nkunda’s wife petitioned President Paul Kagame, asking him to use his executive powers to release Nkunda. The Kinshasa government also wants him extradited – an issue that is no longer talked about - following a historic encounter between President Kagame and his Congolese counterpart Joseph Kabila
Last month, Supreme Court officials including the Chief Justice Aloysie Cyanzayire met Nkunda’s Canadian lawyer Mr. Stéphane Bourgon, and the court ruled to hear the case after several other lower courts had refused. The date was set for January 13.
7 May 2010
This Wednesday, Defense Minister James Kabarebe is expected to be the key witness in a petition by Laurent Nkunda challenging his detention of over a year.
According to Nkunda’s lawyer, Stéphane Bourgon, who sent an email to 256 News on late Tuesday it states that General James Kabarebe expected to be in the witness stand.
According to the petition, the Nkunda wants General Kabarebe to tell the court why he has been detained since January of last year without charge. It is not clear if General Kabarebe will be in the court personally, but Mr. Bourgon says the Supreme Court has notified him “regularly.
In a related development, a 256 News source that usually provides good information from within the Rwanda military and intelligence apparatus, told us that Uwase Nkunda was finally allowed to see her husband. Before this, she claimed that she was not allowed access to him. His lawyer also claims to have never been able to see his client.
At some point, Mr. Bourgon and Nkunda’s wife petitioned President Paul Kagame, asking him to use his executive powers to release Nkunda. The Kinshasa government also wants him extradited – an issue that is no longer talked about - following a historic encounter between President Kagame and his Congolese counterpart Joseph Kabila
Last month, Supreme Court officials including the Chief Justice Aloysie Cyanzayire met Nkunda’s Canadian lawyer Mr. Stéphane Bourgon, and the court ruled to hear the case after several other lower courts had refused. The date was set for January 13.
Germany's New African Concept.
German Foreign Policy
4 May 2010
Preparations for the German government's new "Africa Concept" are being met with heavy criticism. Governmental authorities dealing with Africa are supposed to decide on the concept next summer. The drafts that so far have become known, point to a "fundamental change in policy", a shift from the so-called development policy to open "business development", according to VENRO, the Association of German Development NGOs. VENRO is calling instead for an Africa policy oriented on the basic needs of the populations on that poverty stricken continent. The new Africa Concept however aims to coordinate the work of all ministries concerned to enhance German influence. The government's strategy is therefore aimed at aiding German business expansion with the focus particularly on West African energy resources. Since taking office, the minister for development has been emphasizing that his ministry should serve German business more than in the past. The new Africa concept is designed accordingly.
Enhance Influence
In their coalition agreement, the CDU/CSU and the FDP have already announced their plans for a new Africa Concept. The concept is to implicate all ministries dealing with Africa, because in the past particularly the Foreign and the so called Development Ministry had not always coordinated their activities in Africa and at times even worked in open rivalry to one another. The new strategy involving all the concerned ministries is aimed at coordinating German policy on the African continent to enhance its influence. The Foreign Ministry is in charge of drafting the concept, which, according to the Minister of Development, Dirk Niebel (FDP), is to be agreed upon by all the concerned ministries before summer recess.[1]
Business Promotion
The Association of German Development NGOs (VENRO) is strongly criticizing the first drafts of this new Africa concept. VENRO represents approx. 120 NGOs, including important partner organisations in German development policy, which are engaged also in Africa. The association was therefore invited to official "consultations" on the concept at the end of March.[2] VENRO reported that even though its member organizations had only received a "rough outline", the main features of the concept have already become clear: "a Euro-centrist approach" that reduces "cooperation with Africa to a paternalism, believed to have long since been overcome." One also notices a "fundamental change of policy," elevating "business promotion" to development policy's primary maxim. VENRO is demanding that Africa policy in the future be focused on the basic needs of African populations, particularly in medical care as well as sufficient food production.[3]
Development Policy: A Means to an End
As a matter of fact, the new Africa concept is based on plans promoted particularly by Development Minister Niebel. These plans include more than merely closer cooperation between the foreign and development ministries. Before he took office, Niebel had called for the elimination of the development ministry and is now promoting a close linkage between his ministry and the foreign ministry ("foreign and development policy forming an integrated whole") with the aim of using development structures for business expansion. Soon after taking office, Niebel emphasized before the German-African Business Association, that the ministry must be seen not "as an international welfare office," but should rather be oriented on its proper name - "Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development". "Development is needed to permit economic cooperation."[4] According to Niebel, his plans are being facilitated by the fact that not only the foreign and development ministries are headed by FDP ministers, but the ministry of the economy, as well. "Once we have agreed upon the central points - where development cooperation ends and foreign economic promotion policy begins - we can then also quickly pass the baton."
Business Breakfast Africa
The coordination between the various ministries as well as between the government and businesses has been making headway. Just last week, the foreign ministry held a "Business Breakfast Africa", attended by not only representatives of the FDP headed foreign, development and economy ministries, but, according to the director of the "Africa and Latin America" section of the FDP affiliated Friedrich Naumann Foundation, who reported that she had also attended the "Business Breakfast", company representatives had been particularly invited since "German development cooperation" should be "stronger oriented towards business cooperation" and "incorporate, to a greater extent, German private companies". The occasion provided business representatives with an opportunity to complain "about serious investment problems in Africa" to Ghanaian parliamentarians, who had been invited by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation to visit Germany.[5] Otherwise the discussion focused on "the objectives of and expectations in the German government's new Africa Concept".
Energy Issues
Business interests were also focused on Africa's raw materials. "Bilateral strategic business partnerships should be elaborated" within the framework of the new Africa Concept and "the cooperation with the energy sector enhanced", explained Hans-Joachim Otto (FDP), Parliamentary State Secretary in the Ministry of Economics, recently at the "5th German-African Energy Forum." Due to its high dependency on access to energy resources, Berlin will "cooperate even closer on energy issues" with African countries.[6] Energy supply is "a particularly important political element of the strategic partnership with Africa."[7] The Eon Corp. (in Essen) succeeded, with considerable political support, in gaining a foothold in the West African energy sector (particularly in Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea, german-foreign-policy.com reported [8]). Following the "German-African Energy Dialogue" during the Hannover Messe, the German-African Business Association announced an "Energy Congress Ghana" for yesterday, May 3, at which Ghana's Minister of Energy and various other experts were to be on hand to report on their country's newest oil and gas discoveries off the coast and for business talks. In the future, this sort of event will receive stronger government support - within the framework of the new common Africa Concept of the ministries of economy, foreign affairs and development.
Further information on the stronger orientation of "development policy" on the economic interests can be found here: Ministry to Accompany Expansion and Poverty Business (I).
[1] "Haupttransportmittel sind die Füße"; www.rp-online.de 22.04.2010
[2], [3] VENRO: Stellungnahme zum ressortübergreifenden Afrika-Konzept der Bundesregierung, Bonn, 16. April 2010
[4] "Weg vom Weltsozialamt"; www.afrikaverein.de
[5] "Business-Breakfast Afrika" im Auswärtigen Amt; www.freiheit.org
[6] Parlamentarischer Staatssekretär Otto eröffnet 5. Deutsch-Afrikanisches Energieforum ; www.bmwi.de 16.04.2010
[7] Das Forum, das vom Afrika-Verein der deutschen Wirtschaft unter der Schirmherrschaft des Bundeswirtschaftsministeriums organisiert wurde, musste wegen des Flugverbots aufgrund der Vulkanaschewolke verschoben werden.
[8] See also Zentraler Zukunftsmarkt, Zugriff, Corruption Fighter and Nicht China überlassen.
4 May 2010
Preparations for the German government's new "Africa Concept" are being met with heavy criticism. Governmental authorities dealing with Africa are supposed to decide on the concept next summer. The drafts that so far have become known, point to a "fundamental change in policy", a shift from the so-called development policy to open "business development", according to VENRO, the Association of German Development NGOs. VENRO is calling instead for an Africa policy oriented on the basic needs of the populations on that poverty stricken continent. The new Africa Concept however aims to coordinate the work of all ministries concerned to enhance German influence. The government's strategy is therefore aimed at aiding German business expansion with the focus particularly on West African energy resources. Since taking office, the minister for development has been emphasizing that his ministry should serve German business more than in the past. The new Africa concept is designed accordingly.
Enhance Influence
In their coalition agreement, the CDU/CSU and the FDP have already announced their plans for a new Africa Concept. The concept is to implicate all ministries dealing with Africa, because in the past particularly the Foreign and the so called Development Ministry had not always coordinated their activities in Africa and at times even worked in open rivalry to one another. The new strategy involving all the concerned ministries is aimed at coordinating German policy on the African continent to enhance its influence. The Foreign Ministry is in charge of drafting the concept, which, according to the Minister of Development, Dirk Niebel (FDP), is to be agreed upon by all the concerned ministries before summer recess.[1]
Business Promotion
The Association of German Development NGOs (VENRO) is strongly criticizing the first drafts of this new Africa concept. VENRO represents approx. 120 NGOs, including important partner organisations in German development policy, which are engaged also in Africa. The association was therefore invited to official "consultations" on the concept at the end of March.[2] VENRO reported that even though its member organizations had only received a "rough outline", the main features of the concept have already become clear: "a Euro-centrist approach" that reduces "cooperation with Africa to a paternalism, believed to have long since been overcome." One also notices a "fundamental change of policy," elevating "business promotion" to development policy's primary maxim. VENRO is demanding that Africa policy in the future be focused on the basic needs of African populations, particularly in medical care as well as sufficient food production.[3]
Development Policy: A Means to an End
As a matter of fact, the new Africa concept is based on plans promoted particularly by Development Minister Niebel. These plans include more than merely closer cooperation between the foreign and development ministries. Before he took office, Niebel had called for the elimination of the development ministry and is now promoting a close linkage between his ministry and the foreign ministry ("foreign and development policy forming an integrated whole") with the aim of using development structures for business expansion. Soon after taking office, Niebel emphasized before the German-African Business Association, that the ministry must be seen not "as an international welfare office," but should rather be oriented on its proper name - "Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development". "Development is needed to permit economic cooperation."[4] According to Niebel, his plans are being facilitated by the fact that not only the foreign and development ministries are headed by FDP ministers, but the ministry of the economy, as well. "Once we have agreed upon the central points - where development cooperation ends and foreign economic promotion policy begins - we can then also quickly pass the baton."
Business Breakfast Africa
The coordination between the various ministries as well as between the government and businesses has been making headway. Just last week, the foreign ministry held a "Business Breakfast Africa", attended by not only representatives of the FDP headed foreign, development and economy ministries, but, according to the director of the "Africa and Latin America" section of the FDP affiliated Friedrich Naumann Foundation, who reported that she had also attended the "Business Breakfast", company representatives had been particularly invited since "German development cooperation" should be "stronger oriented towards business cooperation" and "incorporate, to a greater extent, German private companies". The occasion provided business representatives with an opportunity to complain "about serious investment problems in Africa" to Ghanaian parliamentarians, who had been invited by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation to visit Germany.[5] Otherwise the discussion focused on "the objectives of and expectations in the German government's new Africa Concept".
Energy Issues
Business interests were also focused on Africa's raw materials. "Bilateral strategic business partnerships should be elaborated" within the framework of the new Africa Concept and "the cooperation with the energy sector enhanced", explained Hans-Joachim Otto (FDP), Parliamentary State Secretary in the Ministry of Economics, recently at the "5th German-African Energy Forum." Due to its high dependency on access to energy resources, Berlin will "cooperate even closer on energy issues" with African countries.[6] Energy supply is "a particularly important political element of the strategic partnership with Africa."[7] The Eon Corp. (in Essen) succeeded, with considerable political support, in gaining a foothold in the West African energy sector (particularly in Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea, german-foreign-policy.com reported [8]). Following the "German-African Energy Dialogue" during the Hannover Messe, the German-African Business Association announced an "Energy Congress Ghana" for yesterday, May 3, at which Ghana's Minister of Energy and various other experts were to be on hand to report on their country's newest oil and gas discoveries off the coast and for business talks. In the future, this sort of event will receive stronger government support - within the framework of the new common Africa Concept of the ministries of economy, foreign affairs and development.
Further information on the stronger orientation of "development policy" on the economic interests can be found here: Ministry to Accompany Expansion and Poverty Business (I).
[1] "Haupttransportmittel sind die Füße"; www.rp-online.de 22.04.2010
[2], [3] VENRO: Stellungnahme zum ressortübergreifenden Afrika-Konzept der Bundesregierung, Bonn, 16. April 2010
[4] "Weg vom Weltsozialamt"; www.afrikaverein.de
[5] "Business-Breakfast Afrika" im Auswärtigen Amt; www.freiheit.org
[6] Parlamentarischer Staatssekretär Otto eröffnet 5. Deutsch-Afrikanisches Energieforum ; www.bmwi.de 16.04.2010
[7] Das Forum, das vom Afrika-Verein der deutschen Wirtschaft unter der Schirmherrschaft des Bundeswirtschaftsministeriums organisiert wurde, musste wegen des Flugverbots aufgrund der Vulkanaschewolke verschoben werden.
[8] See also Zentraler Zukunftsmarkt, Zugriff, Corruption Fighter and Nicht China überlassen.
David Cameron makes offer to Lib Dems on coalition government.
BBC News
7 May 2010
David Cameron has reached out to the Liberal Democrats in an effort to form a government - after the UK general election resulted in a hung parliament.
The Tory leader, whose party won most seats but was short of a majority, said he wanted to make a "big open and comprehensive offer" to the Lib Dems.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said it could include Lib Dems in cabinet.
Labour leader Gordon Brown has already stressed his party's "common ground" with the third biggest party.
The Tories are expected to get 305 seats, just short of the 326 needed for an outright majority. Labour are expected to end with 255 MPs and the Lib Dems 61.
Past practice under Britain's unwritten constitution sees the sitting prime minister in a hung parliament having the right to make the first attempt at forming a ruling coalition.
'Measure of agreement'
But Mr Cameron said Mr Brown had "lost his mandate to govern" after the Conservatives won the most votes and the most seats and Nick Clegg, leader of the third biggest party the Lib Dems, said he believed the result gave the Tories the right to seek to govern first.
He referred to the "outgoing Labour government" in his speech. But Mr Brown said he was making his statement "as prime minister with a constitutional duty to seek to resolve the situation for the good of the country".
The Conservative leader said: "We need a government that reassures the international markets. We need policies that will bring economic recovery. And we need a government that understands that great change is needed in order to restore faith in our political system."
Brown 'proud of Labour's record' Labour loses mandate - Cameron 'Disappointing night' for Lib Dems Lembit Opik loses seat First Minister Robinson loses seat Jacqui Smith loses her seat Caroline Lucas is first Green MP BNP increases votes but no seats Labour retake Blaenau Gwent
He said talks would begin with other parties. He said one option was to offer them reassurances about certain policy areas - then try to govern as a minority Conservative government.
But he said he was prepared to consider alternatives and it might be possible "to have stronger, more stable, more collaborative government than that".
"I want to make a big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal Democrats. I want us to work together in tackling our country's big and urgent problems - the debt crisis, our deep social problems and our broken political system," he said.
While there were policy disagreements between the Tories and Lib Dems - including on the European Union and defence - there were also "many areas of common ground".
The Conservatives agreed with the Lib Dem on ideas such as a "pupil premium" in schools, a low-carbon economy, tax reform and shared opposition to Labour's ID cards scheme.
'Common ground'
But he did not pledge a referendum on changing the voting system - a key concern of the Lib Dems - instead offering an "all party committee of inquiry on political and electoral reform".
"I think we have a strong basis for a strong government. Inevitably the negotiations we're about to start will involve compromise. That is what working together in the national interest means," Mr Cameron said.
Downing St. sources say the basis for a deal with the Lib Dems exists, with electoral reform and the economic recovery at its core. They intend to take their "first shout" at forming a government. They have not spoken yet to Mr Clegg and are aware he might rule out any deal but believe the Lib Dems are "shell shocked". They will not speak to Mr Clegg until all the results are in, as their combined seats would have to add up to more than the Tory total to have any legitimacy. They say it's a testament to the campaign that they can seriously discuss forming a government. Mr Brown hasn't discussed his own future with advisers.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Cameron had not ruled out a coalition, with places for Liberal Democrats in a Conservative-led government.
But he said while he doubted the Lib Dems would take them up on the offer, they might be prepared to let Mr Cameron govern by not voting down the Queen's Speech or budget - which would allow them not to be tainted by decisions they did not like.
However former Conservative prime minister John Major told the BBC offering Lib Dems cabinet seats was a "price worth paying" for the formation of a stable government able to manage the current economic crisis.
Lib Dem sources told the BBC Mr Cameron's offer was a "significant step" and they would consider all the proposals and respond in due course.
'Common ground'
Earlier, outside No 10, Mr Brown said he would be "willing to see any of the party leaders" adding: "I understand and completely respect the position of Mr Clegg in stating that he wishes first to make contact with the leader of the Conservative Party."
But he added "should the discussions between Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg come to nothing... I would be prepared to discuss with Mr Clegg the areas where there may be some measure of agreement between our two parties".
He said there were areas of "substantial common ground" - including reforming the voting system and plans to ensure economic stability, he said.
He also said he did not expect a swift conclusion to the uncertainty surrounding the election result, stating that negotiations between the parties could be "prolonged".
"I understand as I know my fellow party leaders do that people do not like the uncertainty or want it to be prolonged. We live, however, in a parliamentary democracy, the outcome has been delivered by the electorate. It is our responsibility now to make it work for the national good."
BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said Mr Brown's message was directed at Lib Dem supporters - spelling out what a Labour government would offer them in the hope of getting them to put pressure on Mr Clegg not to do a deal with the Conservatives.
'National interest'
The BBC projection suggests David Cameron's Conservatives will have 305 seats. There are currently eight Unionists elected in Northern Ireland with one seat left to declare - if they backed Mr Cameron, he could command 313 seats - probably still slightly too few for him to be sure of winning a Queen's Speech.
Labour and the Lib Dems together are expected to have 316 MPs, which even with three SDLP MPs would still leave them at 319 - again a few votes short of a majority.
Mr Clegg - whose party has done worse than in 2005 despite favourable opinion polls - said that he believed the Tories had gained the "first right" to attempt to form a government in the "national interest".
Speaking outside Lib Dem headquarters in London, he said: "It is vital that all parties, all political leaders, act in the national interest and not out of narrow party political advantage."
He also admitted it had been a "disappointing night" for the Lib Dems.
Labour sources told the BBC they believed Mr Clegg had left the door open to a deal with them - as he had also reiterated his belief that the current first-past-the-post voting system was "broken".
Downing Street has authorised the civil service to support other parties in hung parliament negotiations - essentially giving the go-ahead for talks to begin.
In other election night news:
•Northern Ireland's first minister and DUP leader Peter Robinson has been defeated in East Belfast by the Alliance party
•The Greens gained their first MP at Westminster - party leader Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavillion •Education secretary Ed Balls hung on in Morley and Outwood by just over 1,000 votes but former Home Secretary Charles Clarke narrowly lost to the Lib Dem candidate in Norwich South •Jacqui Smith, who stood down as home secretary over her expenses, lost her Redditch seat to the Conservatives but Hazel Blears retained her seat in Salford
•Labour's Margaret Hodge beat the BNP's Nick Griffin in Barking and Dagenham, with a 5% increase in her vote
•Esther Rantzen came fourth in Luton South, which went to the Labour candidate
•Lib Dem frontbencher Lembit Opik has lost his Montgomeryshire seat after suffering a 13.2% swing to the Conservatives
•There were angry scenes and calls for an inquiry after people were turned away from polling stations as long queues formed ahead of the 2200 BST voting deadline.
The Conservatives are predicted to take 297 seats in England, with Labour on 192 and the Lib Dems on 43. The Tories have also made significant gains in Wales - where Labour also regained their former stronghold Blaenau Gwent - but the Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru failed to gain target seats.
But in Scotland the Tories failed to make a significant breakthrough, while the Labour vote held up, with the party re-taking two seats it lost in by-elections - Glasgow East and Dunfermline and West Fife. The SNP and Lib Dems fell short of their targets.
Northern Ireland's First Minister, DUP leader Peter Robinson lost his seat in the first shock result of the night. The other main unionist leader - Sir Reg Empey - was also defeated in South Antrim.
With 17 of 18 Westminster seats declared - the DUP have eight, Sinn Fein have four, the SDLP have three, the Alliance Party has one and one has gone to an independent.
7 May 2010
David Cameron has reached out to the Liberal Democrats in an effort to form a government - after the UK general election resulted in a hung parliament.
The Tory leader, whose party won most seats but was short of a majority, said he wanted to make a "big open and comprehensive offer" to the Lib Dems.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said it could include Lib Dems in cabinet.
Labour leader Gordon Brown has already stressed his party's "common ground" with the third biggest party.
The Tories are expected to get 305 seats, just short of the 326 needed for an outright majority. Labour are expected to end with 255 MPs and the Lib Dems 61.
Past practice under Britain's unwritten constitution sees the sitting prime minister in a hung parliament having the right to make the first attempt at forming a ruling coalition.
'Measure of agreement'
But Mr Cameron said Mr Brown had "lost his mandate to govern" after the Conservatives won the most votes and the most seats and Nick Clegg, leader of the third biggest party the Lib Dems, said he believed the result gave the Tories the right to seek to govern first.
He referred to the "outgoing Labour government" in his speech. But Mr Brown said he was making his statement "as prime minister with a constitutional duty to seek to resolve the situation for the good of the country".
The Conservative leader said: "We need a government that reassures the international markets. We need policies that will bring economic recovery. And we need a government that understands that great change is needed in order to restore faith in our political system."
Brown 'proud of Labour's record' Labour loses mandate - Cameron 'Disappointing night' for Lib Dems Lembit Opik loses seat First Minister Robinson loses seat Jacqui Smith loses her seat Caroline Lucas is first Green MP BNP increases votes but no seats Labour retake Blaenau Gwent
He said talks would begin with other parties. He said one option was to offer them reassurances about certain policy areas - then try to govern as a minority Conservative government.
But he said he was prepared to consider alternatives and it might be possible "to have stronger, more stable, more collaborative government than that".
"I want to make a big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal Democrats. I want us to work together in tackling our country's big and urgent problems - the debt crisis, our deep social problems and our broken political system," he said.
While there were policy disagreements between the Tories and Lib Dems - including on the European Union and defence - there were also "many areas of common ground".
The Conservatives agreed with the Lib Dem on ideas such as a "pupil premium" in schools, a low-carbon economy, tax reform and shared opposition to Labour's ID cards scheme.
'Common ground'
But he did not pledge a referendum on changing the voting system - a key concern of the Lib Dems - instead offering an "all party committee of inquiry on political and electoral reform".
"I think we have a strong basis for a strong government. Inevitably the negotiations we're about to start will involve compromise. That is what working together in the national interest means," Mr Cameron said.
Downing St. sources say the basis for a deal with the Lib Dems exists, with electoral reform and the economic recovery at its core. They intend to take their "first shout" at forming a government. They have not spoken yet to Mr Clegg and are aware he might rule out any deal but believe the Lib Dems are "shell shocked". They will not speak to Mr Clegg until all the results are in, as their combined seats would have to add up to more than the Tory total to have any legitimacy. They say it's a testament to the campaign that they can seriously discuss forming a government. Mr Brown hasn't discussed his own future with advisers.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Cameron had not ruled out a coalition, with places for Liberal Democrats in a Conservative-led government.
But he said while he doubted the Lib Dems would take them up on the offer, they might be prepared to let Mr Cameron govern by not voting down the Queen's Speech or budget - which would allow them not to be tainted by decisions they did not like.
However former Conservative prime minister John Major told the BBC offering Lib Dems cabinet seats was a "price worth paying" for the formation of a stable government able to manage the current economic crisis.
Lib Dem sources told the BBC Mr Cameron's offer was a "significant step" and they would consider all the proposals and respond in due course.
'Common ground'
Earlier, outside No 10, Mr Brown said he would be "willing to see any of the party leaders" adding: "I understand and completely respect the position of Mr Clegg in stating that he wishes first to make contact with the leader of the Conservative Party."
But he added "should the discussions between Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg come to nothing... I would be prepared to discuss with Mr Clegg the areas where there may be some measure of agreement between our two parties".
He said there were areas of "substantial common ground" - including reforming the voting system and plans to ensure economic stability, he said.
He also said he did not expect a swift conclusion to the uncertainty surrounding the election result, stating that negotiations between the parties could be "prolonged".
"I understand as I know my fellow party leaders do that people do not like the uncertainty or want it to be prolonged. We live, however, in a parliamentary democracy, the outcome has been delivered by the electorate. It is our responsibility now to make it work for the national good."
BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said Mr Brown's message was directed at Lib Dem supporters - spelling out what a Labour government would offer them in the hope of getting them to put pressure on Mr Clegg not to do a deal with the Conservatives.
'National interest'
The BBC projection suggests David Cameron's Conservatives will have 305 seats. There are currently eight Unionists elected in Northern Ireland with one seat left to declare - if they backed Mr Cameron, he could command 313 seats - probably still slightly too few for him to be sure of winning a Queen's Speech.
Labour and the Lib Dems together are expected to have 316 MPs, which even with three SDLP MPs would still leave them at 319 - again a few votes short of a majority.
Mr Clegg - whose party has done worse than in 2005 despite favourable opinion polls - said that he believed the Tories had gained the "first right" to attempt to form a government in the "national interest".
Speaking outside Lib Dem headquarters in London, he said: "It is vital that all parties, all political leaders, act in the national interest and not out of narrow party political advantage."
He also admitted it had been a "disappointing night" for the Lib Dems.
Labour sources told the BBC they believed Mr Clegg had left the door open to a deal with them - as he had also reiterated his belief that the current first-past-the-post voting system was "broken".
Downing Street has authorised the civil service to support other parties in hung parliament negotiations - essentially giving the go-ahead for talks to begin.
In other election night news:
•Northern Ireland's first minister and DUP leader Peter Robinson has been defeated in East Belfast by the Alliance party
•The Greens gained their first MP at Westminster - party leader Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavillion •Education secretary Ed Balls hung on in Morley and Outwood by just over 1,000 votes but former Home Secretary Charles Clarke narrowly lost to the Lib Dem candidate in Norwich South •Jacqui Smith, who stood down as home secretary over her expenses, lost her Redditch seat to the Conservatives but Hazel Blears retained her seat in Salford
•Labour's Margaret Hodge beat the BNP's Nick Griffin in Barking and Dagenham, with a 5% increase in her vote
•Esther Rantzen came fourth in Luton South, which went to the Labour candidate
•Lib Dem frontbencher Lembit Opik has lost his Montgomeryshire seat after suffering a 13.2% swing to the Conservatives
•There were angry scenes and calls for an inquiry after people were turned away from polling stations as long queues formed ahead of the 2200 BST voting deadline.
The Conservatives are predicted to take 297 seats in England, with Labour on 192 and the Lib Dems on 43. The Tories have also made significant gains in Wales - where Labour also regained their former stronghold Blaenau Gwent - but the Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru failed to gain target seats.
But in Scotland the Tories failed to make a significant breakthrough, while the Labour vote held up, with the party re-taking two seats it lost in by-elections - Glasgow East and Dunfermline and West Fife. The SNP and Lib Dems fell short of their targets.
Northern Ireland's First Minister, DUP leader Peter Robinson lost his seat in the first shock result of the night. The other main unionist leader - Sir Reg Empey - was also defeated in South Antrim.
With 17 of 18 Westminster seats declared - the DUP have eight, Sinn Fein have four, the SDLP have three, the Alliance Party has one and one has gone to an independent.
Africa Center for Strategic Studies to Host Counterterrorism Capacity-Building Workshop in Uganda.
ACSS
Press Release
7 May 2010
The Africa Center for Strategic Studies (http://africacenter.org/) will host a counterterrorism capacity-building workshop focused on “Combating Terrorist Financing in Eastern and Southern Africa” on May 9-14, 2010, in Kampala, Uganda.
The workshop will endeavor to build African capacities, as well as regional and international cooperation, to regulate, monitor, investigate, and arrest financial transfers that support terrorist groups and their operations.
Approximately 50 African civilian and military officials from Eastern and Southern Africa are expected to attend: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. Participants will include counterterrorism focal points from the national, regional, and African Union levels, as well as national counterterrorism officials with responsibilities directly related to combating terrorist financing.
The news media are invited to attend the opening ceremony and keynote address. Plenary sessions and discussions groups will be closed to press coverage. Please RSVP to Frances.Hardin.ctr@ndu.edu no later than noon, Friday, May 7.
What: Opening ceremony and keynote address
Where: Kampala Serena Hotel, Kintu Road, Kampala, Uganda
When: Monday, May 10, 8:30 a.m. (local); news media are to arrive no later than 8 a.m.
Who: Brigadier General James Mugira, Uganda Chief of Military Intelligence
Press Release
7 May 2010
The Africa Center for Strategic Studies (http://africacenter.org/) will host a counterterrorism capacity-building workshop focused on “Combating Terrorist Financing in Eastern and Southern Africa” on May 9-14, 2010, in Kampala, Uganda.
The workshop will endeavor to build African capacities, as well as regional and international cooperation, to regulate, monitor, investigate, and arrest financial transfers that support terrorist groups and their operations.
Approximately 50 African civilian and military officials from Eastern and Southern Africa are expected to attend: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. Participants will include counterterrorism focal points from the national, regional, and African Union levels, as well as national counterterrorism officials with responsibilities directly related to combating terrorist financing.
The news media are invited to attend the opening ceremony and keynote address. Plenary sessions and discussions groups will be closed to press coverage. Please RSVP to Frances.Hardin.ctr@ndu.edu no later than noon, Friday, May 7.
What: Opening ceremony and keynote address
Where: Kampala Serena Hotel, Kintu Road, Kampala, Uganda
When: Monday, May 10, 8:30 a.m. (local); news media are to arrive no later than 8 a.m.
Who: Brigadier General James Mugira, Uganda Chief of Military Intelligence
U.S. will help Guinea to reform its army.
African Press Agency
7 May 2010
The Deputy Commander of AFRICOM, Anthony Holmes, said Friday in Conakry, the United States will spare no effort to support the electoral process in Guinea and reform army and security forces.
"In terms of AFRICOM, we follow the policy of the White House and State Department, and our task will be to support restructuring in the army, police and judiciary," said Anthony Holmes during a press briefing.
He welcomed the willingness and commitment of the Guinean authorities and politicians at all levels to hold presidential elections on June 27.
Mr. Holmes recalled having spoken with the Guinean government on the need to implement the recommendations contained in the investigative report on armed forces, presented by General Lamine Cisse, an international expert commissioned by the United Nations last May 4.
The reform of the Guinean armed forces relate to the removal of the army from politics, to equip them with the necessary means to protect human rights, the organization of the General Meeting on justice, as well as the re-integration of military officers and troops.
The Deputy Commander of AFRICOM has concluded that he hopes voters will vote on election day freely without any constraints and the results are accepted by all.
7 May 2010
The Deputy Commander of AFRICOM, Anthony Holmes, said Friday in Conakry, the United States will spare no effort to support the electoral process in Guinea and reform army and security forces.
"In terms of AFRICOM, we follow the policy of the White House and State Department, and our task will be to support restructuring in the army, police and judiciary," said Anthony Holmes during a press briefing.
He welcomed the willingness and commitment of the Guinean authorities and politicians at all levels to hold presidential elections on June 27.
Mr. Holmes recalled having spoken with the Guinean government on the need to implement the recommendations contained in the investigative report on armed forces, presented by General Lamine Cisse, an international expert commissioned by the United Nations last May 4.
The reform of the Guinean armed forces relate to the removal of the army from politics, to equip them with the necessary means to protect human rights, the organization of the General Meeting on justice, as well as the re-integration of military officers and troops.
The Deputy Commander of AFRICOM has concluded that he hopes voters will vote on election day freely without any constraints and the results are accepted by all.
Democratic Green Party Writes Letter to Rwandan Ministry of Local Government.
7th May 2010
Kigali, Rwanda
To: The Hon. Minister of Local Government, Mr. James Musoni
Re: Informing you of our new strategy for Registering the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
Dear Sir,
The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is pleased to inform you of our new strategy, a strategy that will help us legally register peacefully without holding a party congress.
Honorable Minister Musoni, as you are aware, the party wrote to you on 19th February 2010, requesting your intervention in our situation concerning the District of Gasabo and the police headquarters with regards to the assurance that we would hold a peaceful meeting.
Considering that we met with officials from your ministry on 24th March 2010, and that three other meetings were cancelled due to several emergencies on the ministy's side, we were unable to meet again and agree upon a common solution to hold a peaceful congress.
We examined Organic Law, No. 16/2003 of 27/06/2003, which governs political organizations and politicians, and Organic Law No. 19/2007 of 04/05/2007, which modifies and completes Law No. 16/2003. We found out that in order for a party to get registered, it does not need to hold a party congress. Instead, a party can have its founding documents certified by a public notary.
We therefore plan to bring in very few people to the notary's office and on separate occasions as required by the law. This way, we will also be able to avoid big crowds and be ensure we do no t get any intruders who may present a security threat.
The law normally requires at least 5 people from each district. Therefore, we plan to bring in small groups of people province by province. It would require at least 5working days to complete this process successfully and peacefully since we have 4 provinces and the city of Kigali. This proposal of cooperation is beneficial for both the party and your ministy. Once the signing of the party documents is complete, we will officially submit our complete dossier to your ministry as required.
We also re-organised the party's leadership after some of our members defected. We have no internally problems and we are attaching to this letter of our two recent press releases. One is our official response to the party's defectors and the second one is regarding our new Executive Committee and party strategies.
Thank you very much for all the support you have already provided. We look forward to a mutually beneficial and peaceful collaboration with your ministry.
Yours Faithfully,
Frank HABINEZA
Founding President,
Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WNJ Editor's Note: Sources from Rwanda have told WNJ that Minister Musoni has rejected the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda's cooperative proposal as stated in the above letter this evening Kigali time. Minister Musoni is said to have claimed he has legal evidence against Mr. Habineza. To WNJ's knowledge as of this writing, no such evidence has yet been presented by MINALOC.
Kigali, Rwanda
To: The Hon. Minister of Local Government, Mr. James Musoni
Re: Informing you of our new strategy for Registering the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
Dear Sir,
The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is pleased to inform you of our new strategy, a strategy that will help us legally register peacefully without holding a party congress.
Honorable Minister Musoni, as you are aware, the party wrote to you on 19th February 2010, requesting your intervention in our situation concerning the District of Gasabo and the police headquarters with regards to the assurance that we would hold a peaceful meeting.
Considering that we met with officials from your ministry on 24th March 2010, and that three other meetings were cancelled due to several emergencies on the ministy's side, we were unable to meet again and agree upon a common solution to hold a peaceful congress.
We examined Organic Law, No. 16/2003 of 27/06/2003, which governs political organizations and politicians, and Organic Law No. 19/2007 of 04/05/2007, which modifies and completes Law No. 16/2003. We found out that in order for a party to get registered, it does not need to hold a party congress. Instead, a party can have its founding documents certified by a public notary.
We therefore plan to bring in very few people to the notary's office and on separate occasions as required by the law. This way, we will also be able to avoid big crowds and be ensure we do no t get any intruders who may present a security threat.
The law normally requires at least 5 people from each district. Therefore, we plan to bring in small groups of people province by province. It would require at least 5working days to complete this process successfully and peacefully since we have 4 provinces and the city of Kigali. This proposal of cooperation is beneficial for both the party and your ministy. Once the signing of the party documents is complete, we will officially submit our complete dossier to your ministry as required.
We also re-organised the party's leadership after some of our members defected. We have no internally problems and we are attaching to this letter of our two recent press releases. One is our official response to the party's defectors and the second one is regarding our new Executive Committee and party strategies.
Thank you very much for all the support you have already provided. We look forward to a mutually beneficial and peaceful collaboration with your ministry.
Yours Faithfully,
Frank HABINEZA
Founding President,
Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WNJ Editor's Note: Sources from Rwanda have told WNJ that Minister Musoni has rejected the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda's cooperative proposal as stated in the above letter this evening Kigali time. Minister Musoni is said to have claimed he has legal evidence against Mr. Habineza. To WNJ's knowledge as of this writing, no such evidence has yet been presented by MINALOC.
Democratic Green Party Letter to Rwandan Justice Minister.
7th May, 2010
Kigali, Rwanda
To: Hon. Minister of Justice Tharcisse Karugarama,
Re: Requesting to Sign Founding Party Documents in Public Notary s Office.
The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda humbly requests you to allow us to have the founding documents of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda signed by the Ministry of Justice's Public Notary office.
Honorable Minister Karugarama, as you may be aware, our party's founding congress was first planned to be held on 30 October 2009. The congress, which the Ministry of Justice's Public Notary came to witness, was cancelled, allegedly due to security reasons. Ever since, we have tried to hold another party congress in Gasabo District. We have been unsuccessful in our efforts to recieve permission since the District was not sure the meeting would be peaceful. We examined Organic Law No. 16/2003of 27/06/2003, which governs political organizations and politicians, and Organic Law No. 19/2007 of 04/05/2007, which modifies and completes Law No. 16/2003. We discovered that in order for a political party to get registered, it does not need to hold a party congress. A party can have its founding documents certified by a public notary. It is in light of this legal provision that we now write to you and ask you to allow us to come and sign the party's founding documents in the Ministry of Justice's public notary office.
We plan to bring along very few people as required by the law. We will bring small groups on separate occasions in order to avoid big crowds and ensure that we do not get any intruders who may present a security threat. The law normally requires at least 5 people from each district. If allowed, we would come province by province, and this would require at least 5 working days since we have 4 provinces and the city of Kigali.
We would be happy to present our signatures in the presence of the Public Notary from 17th-21st May. We understand the Public Notary has many other important duties, but we believe that since we will be bringing in very small numbers from each of the provinces, this activity should not take more than two hours each day. We are also privileged to note that it's the same Public Notary that also did the proof-reading and editing of our Party Constitution. Therefore, we believe that this proposal will occur very smoothly and peacefully.
We are looking forward to recieving your kind consideration.
Yours Faithfully,
Frank HABINEZA
Founding President,
Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
Kigali, Rwanda
To: Hon. Minister of Justice Tharcisse Karugarama,
Re: Requesting to Sign Founding Party Documents in Public Notary s Office.
The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda humbly requests you to allow us to have the founding documents of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda signed by the Ministry of Justice's Public Notary office.
Honorable Minister Karugarama, as you may be aware, our party's founding congress was first planned to be held on 30 October 2009. The congress, which the Ministry of Justice's Public Notary came to witness, was cancelled, allegedly due to security reasons. Ever since, we have tried to hold another party congress in Gasabo District. We have been unsuccessful in our efforts to recieve permission since the District was not sure the meeting would be peaceful. We examined Organic Law No. 16/2003of 27/06/2003, which governs political organizations and politicians, and Organic Law No. 19/2007 of 04/05/2007, which modifies and completes Law No. 16/2003. We discovered that in order for a political party to get registered, it does not need to hold a party congress. A party can have its founding documents certified by a public notary. It is in light of this legal provision that we now write to you and ask you to allow us to come and sign the party's founding documents in the Ministry of Justice's public notary office.
We plan to bring along very few people as required by the law. We will bring small groups on separate occasions in order to avoid big crowds and ensure that we do not get any intruders who may present a security threat. The law normally requires at least 5 people from each district. If allowed, we would come province by province, and this would require at least 5 working days since we have 4 provinces and the city of Kigali.
We would be happy to present our signatures in the presence of the Public Notary from 17th-21st May. We understand the Public Notary has many other important duties, but we believe that since we will be bringing in very small numbers from each of the provinces, this activity should not take more than two hours each day. We are also privileged to note that it's the same Public Notary that also did the proof-reading and editing of our Party Constitution. Therefore, we believe that this proposal will occur very smoothly and peacefully.
We are looking forward to recieving your kind consideration.
Yours Faithfully,
Frank HABINEZA
Founding President,
Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
Top PSD party official defects to Rwandan Green Party.
Rwanda News Agency
May 6, 2010
Editor's Note: Infiltrator or a new ally?
The sister to the founder member of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) now headed by Senate President Dr. Vincent Biruta is the new Secretary General in the yet-to-be registered Green Party, its officials said.
Ms. Didacienne Kangeyo, herself a former National Permanent Secretary of PSD defected to the trouble-ridden Green Party as it sets up new structures following recent defections.
Three senior executives including the Secretary-General Mr. Charles Kabanda left the Green Party last month accusing party leader Mr. Frank Habineza of misrepresenting the views of the party at a conference in Uganda. Mr. Habineza denied the allegations.
The new SG Ms. Kangeyo is a sister to deceased Ngango Felician – the ex-vice president of PSD who was assassinated during the 1994 Tutsi Genocide. He is currently among the heroes buried at the Heroes Tomb along with ex-RPF chief Maj. Gen. Fred Gisa Rwigema.
Senate President Dr. Vincent Biruta has been at the helm of the PSD for years. In the 2003 presidential polls, he rallied behind President Kagame but the party fielded separate parliamentary candidates for 2008 polls.
The other new members of the 9-member Green Party executive team are: First Vice President, Mr. Andre Rwisereka Kagwa; Second Vice President, Ms. Jeanine Uwineza; and Treasurer General, Mr. Alexis Mugisha.
Meanwhile, party sources tell RNA that the Green Party has abandoned plans to hold a delegates congress which they had planned to use to prepare a registration dossier. The Law for Political Parties does not require a party to have a congress in order to get registered, but requires the signatures of party members to be certified by a public notary. This is the path the group has chosen to take – accusing the Gasabo District of deliberately failing to allow the conference to be held.
“We shall therefore take our members, on different occasions to a Government Notary to certify our documents and then take the dossier to the Ministry of Local Government for registration. This way, we hope that our security will be guaranteed, since we shall be taking very small numbers, required by the Law to the Public Notary,” the group said Thursday.
May 6, 2010
Editor's Note: Infiltrator or a new ally?
The sister to the founder member of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) now headed by Senate President Dr. Vincent Biruta is the new Secretary General in the yet-to-be registered Green Party, its officials said.
Ms. Didacienne Kangeyo, herself a former National Permanent Secretary of PSD defected to the trouble-ridden Green Party as it sets up new structures following recent defections.
Three senior executives including the Secretary-General Mr. Charles Kabanda left the Green Party last month accusing party leader Mr. Frank Habineza of misrepresenting the views of the party at a conference in Uganda. Mr. Habineza denied the allegations.
The new SG Ms. Kangeyo is a sister to deceased Ngango Felician – the ex-vice president of PSD who was assassinated during the 1994 Tutsi Genocide. He is currently among the heroes buried at the Heroes Tomb along with ex-RPF chief Maj. Gen. Fred Gisa Rwigema.
Senate President Dr. Vincent Biruta has been at the helm of the PSD for years. In the 2003 presidential polls, he rallied behind President Kagame but the party fielded separate parliamentary candidates for 2008 polls.
The other new members of the 9-member Green Party executive team are: First Vice President, Mr. Andre Rwisereka Kagwa; Second Vice President, Ms. Jeanine Uwineza; and Treasurer General, Mr. Alexis Mugisha.
Meanwhile, party sources tell RNA that the Green Party has abandoned plans to hold a delegates congress which they had planned to use to prepare a registration dossier. The Law for Political Parties does not require a party to have a congress in order to get registered, but requires the signatures of party members to be certified by a public notary. This is the path the group has chosen to take – accusing the Gasabo District of deliberately failing to allow the conference to be held.
“We shall therefore take our members, on different occasions to a Government Notary to certify our documents and then take the dossier to the Ministry of Local Government for registration. This way, we hope that our security will be guaranteed, since we shall be taking very small numbers, required by the Law to the Public Notary,” the group said Thursday.
Al-Maliki to lose job in new agreement.
The Independent
6 May 2010
Iraq moved towards forming a new government under a new prime minister yesterday as the two Shia religious political blocs reached an agreement on sharing power.
It is likely that the prime minister Nouri al-Maliki will lose his job as the price of the deal between his State of Law coalition and the Iraqi National Alliance, a powerful group dominated by the followers of the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
The understanding confirms that Iraq's majority Shia community will continue to dominate the government in alliance with the Kurds who enjoy autonomy close to independence in the north of the country. The new Shia grouping will have 163 seats in the 325-seat parliament, four short of a majority, but the Kurds have a further 43seats.
Shut out from power are the mostly Sunni Arab followers of Iyad Allawi's al-Iraqiya group, who flocked to the polls in the 7 March general election to win 91 seats.
Mr. Allawi has had difficulty allying himself with the Kurds because the Sunni in northern Iraq are in a dispute with the Kurds over territory. A new government will try to incorporate part at least of Mr. Allawi's Sunni-dominated bloc so the Sunni do not feel wholly excluded from power. But with a limited number of government posts available to be distributed, Mr. Allawi's supporters will inevitably feel disappointed.
6 May 2010
Iraq moved towards forming a new government under a new prime minister yesterday as the two Shia religious political blocs reached an agreement on sharing power.
It is likely that the prime minister Nouri al-Maliki will lose his job as the price of the deal between his State of Law coalition and the Iraqi National Alliance, a powerful group dominated by the followers of the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
The understanding confirms that Iraq's majority Shia community will continue to dominate the government in alliance with the Kurds who enjoy autonomy close to independence in the north of the country. The new Shia grouping will have 163 seats in the 325-seat parliament, four short of a majority, but the Kurds have a further 43seats.
Shut out from power are the mostly Sunni Arab followers of Iyad Allawi's al-Iraqiya group, who flocked to the polls in the 7 March general election to win 91 seats.
Mr. Allawi has had difficulty allying himself with the Kurds because the Sunni in northern Iraq are in a dispute with the Kurds over territory. A new government will try to incorporate part at least of Mr. Allawi's Sunni-dominated bloc so the Sunni do not feel wholly excluded from power. But with a limited number of government posts available to be distributed, Mr. Allawi's supporters will inevitably feel disappointed.
Governor of Kigali City rejects UDF-Inkingi appeal.
UDF/FDU-Inkingi
Press Release
On April 28th, the UDF-Inkingi introduced its application to hold its Constitutional Congress for the fourth time. This was an appeal to the Governor of Kigali City to reconsider our case because we believe the Mayor of Nyarugenge District refused to allow our congress on baseless grounds.
Today, things are getting clearer and clearer. As a matter of fact, the reasons put forward by both authorities are far too simplistic to account for refusing to allow the UDF-Inkingi's Constitutional Congress. Mrs. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza has been harassed with endless police interrogations and is now under house arrest because the dictatorial regime of the RPF arbitrarily decided to do so, not because she or her organization have been found guilty of anything. Such manoeuvres are meant to damage her personal image as well as that of the UDF-Inkingi. It serves not only to disqualify her as a presidential candidate but also to hinder the establishment of her political organization as a genuine opposition party inside Rwanda.
The UDF-Inkingi understands that the current regime in Rwanda has decided to thoroughly lock-up all political space and does not intend to allow us to exercise our political rights. Today, we again introduced our appeal directed to the Minister of Local Government. If he too rejects our application to hold our Constitutional Congress, it will be obvious that our endeavours to register our organization are but a dream.
We call upon the Rwandan people and the international community to witness the unjust suffering of the UDF-Inkingi party and its Chairperson and presidential candidate, Mrs. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. They have endured this suffering in their peaceful efforts to respect and follow all legal procedures for the sake of the party's registration.
Done in Kigali, 6th May, 2010
Sylvain Sibomana
Interim Secretary General
Press Release
On April 28th, the UDF-Inkingi introduced its application to hold its Constitutional Congress for the fourth time. This was an appeal to the Governor of Kigali City to reconsider our case because we believe the Mayor of Nyarugenge District refused to allow our congress on baseless grounds.
Today, things are getting clearer and clearer. As a matter of fact, the reasons put forward by both authorities are far too simplistic to account for refusing to allow the UDF-Inkingi's Constitutional Congress. Mrs. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza has been harassed with endless police interrogations and is now under house arrest because the dictatorial regime of the RPF arbitrarily decided to do so, not because she or her organization have been found guilty of anything. Such manoeuvres are meant to damage her personal image as well as that of the UDF-Inkingi. It serves not only to disqualify her as a presidential candidate but also to hinder the establishment of her political organization as a genuine opposition party inside Rwanda.
The UDF-Inkingi understands that the current regime in Rwanda has decided to thoroughly lock-up all political space and does not intend to allow us to exercise our political rights. Today, we again introduced our appeal directed to the Minister of Local Government. If he too rejects our application to hold our Constitutional Congress, it will be obvious that our endeavours to register our organization are but a dream.
We call upon the Rwandan people and the international community to witness the unjust suffering of the UDF-Inkingi party and its Chairperson and presidential candidate, Mrs. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. They have endured this suffering in their peaceful efforts to respect and follow all legal procedures for the sake of the party's registration.
Done in Kigali, 6th May, 2010
Sylvain Sibomana
Interim Secretary General
06 May, 2010
Election exit poll: Tories (Conservatives) to be 19 short of majority.
BBC News
6 May 2010
David Cameron will fall 19 seats short of a Commons majority, according to a joint BBC/Sky/ITV exit poll.
The Conservatives would have 307 MPs, up 97 on 2005, Labour would have 255, down 94, and the Lib Dems 59, down 3. Nationalists and others would have 29.
That means Labour and the Lib Dems together could not have a majority.
There are reports of long queues of people still waiting to vote in some parts of the country after the most closely fought election in decades.
Polls closed across the country at 2200 BST but in Sutton Coldfield a BBC reporter says there are plans to lock voters inside the Mere Green Polling Station because the queues are currently so long. There are also reports of long queues in Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and other cities.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has been to a polling station in his Sheffield Hallam constituency, where many are queuing outside, to offer his apologies to voters.
NOP and Mori surveyed 17,607 voters at 130 polling stations across the UK for the BBC/ ITV/Sky exit poll.
Prime minister
All exit polls have a small margin of error which could be significant in a tight election such as this one, in which the three main Westminster parties have been so close in the opinion polls.
There could also be different voting patterns around the country.
Nevertheless, Conservative leader David Cameron might find that winning one or two seats in Northern Ireland and forming a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party might be enough to give him a majority, making him Britain's next prime minister.
The exit poll anticipates that the Labour Party has been more successful at holding on to its vote in seats in Scotland and Wales in seats where there is a large ethnic minority population and where there is an incumbent Labour MP standing again.
The poll also anticipates the Lib Dems will perform better in England than in either Scotland or Wales, but a fall in number of MPs would still come as a blow to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who has been neck-and-neck in the polls with the other two main parties for much of the campaign.
It remains to be seen whether the poll proves to be accurate in its estimate of the Lib Dem performance - deputy leader Vince Cable told BBC News the outcome of the exit poll was "very strange" and insisted they had been "horribly wrong" in the past.
He said his party expected to have gained a lot from postal votes, as they were ahead in some polls when those votes were cast.
Hung Parliament
Labour's election supremo Lord Mandelson described the election as a "cliff hanger" and refused to rule out trying to strike a deal with the Lib Dems, in the event of a hung Parliament, pointing that according to the rules Labour would have the first attempt at forming a new government.
"It is not the party which has the largest number of seats which has the first go, it is the sitting government," he told BBC News.
He also said that on the basis of the exit poll Britain's first-past-the-post voting system was "on its last legs".
Electoral reform is one of the Liberal Democrats's key demands.
Shadow schools secretary Michael Gove told BBC News "exit polls can show rogue results," adding: "We need to see the real results."
Local elections
The vast majority of constituencies will conduct their counts overnight, with about 20 not due to begin the process until after 0900 GMT on Friday.
Most seats will declare in the early hours of Friday, but a handful of key marginals are expected to declare shortly after midnight, which could give an early indication of how the national result is going.
More than 44 million people are registered to vote in 649 Parliamentary constituencies. Elections are also under way for 164 English councils.
Polling in one constituency - Thirsk and Malton - has been delayed until 27 May because of the death of one of the candidates during the campaign. The exit poll assumes the Conservatives will win here.
Among the council elections taking place, voters will choose representatives in 32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan authorities and 20 unitary authorities.
In these elections, a total of 15,785 candidates are contesting 4,222 seats.
Plane crash
Voting will also take place to choose mayors in Hackney, Newham, Lewisham and Watford.
In a separate development, Nigel Farage, a UK Independence Party Euro-MP, said he was "lucky to be alive", after being involved in a light plane crash near Brackley, Northamptonshire.
He is standing in the general election in Buckingham. He suffered non-life-threatening injuries when the aircraft came down just after 0800 BST.
He was initially taken to hospital in Banbury, Oxfordshire, before being moved to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. The pilot is currently being treated at University Hospital in Coventry.
Mr Farage's agent, Chris Adams, told the BBC he had to be moved for more checks.
"I believe it's just precautionary, obviously, for chest pains and we've just got to do all the tests... and the required X-rays, and hopefully he'll be on the mend. The pilot, unfortunately, is in a more severe condition," he said.
A spokeswoman for the John Radcliffe Hospital said Mr Farage would be kept in overnight and "will be with us for a few days".
The crash is being investigated by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and Northamptonshire Police. The aircraft was towing a banner when it crashed shortly after take-off.
6 May 2010
David Cameron will fall 19 seats short of a Commons majority, according to a joint BBC/Sky/ITV exit poll.
The Conservatives would have 307 MPs, up 97 on 2005, Labour would have 255, down 94, and the Lib Dems 59, down 3. Nationalists and others would have 29.
That means Labour and the Lib Dems together could not have a majority.
There are reports of long queues of people still waiting to vote in some parts of the country after the most closely fought election in decades.
Polls closed across the country at 2200 BST but in Sutton Coldfield a BBC reporter says there are plans to lock voters inside the Mere Green Polling Station because the queues are currently so long. There are also reports of long queues in Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and other cities.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has been to a polling station in his Sheffield Hallam constituency, where many are queuing outside, to offer his apologies to voters.
NOP and Mori surveyed 17,607 voters at 130 polling stations across the UK for the BBC/ ITV/Sky exit poll.
Prime minister
All exit polls have a small margin of error which could be significant in a tight election such as this one, in which the three main Westminster parties have been so close in the opinion polls.
There could also be different voting patterns around the country.
Nevertheless, Conservative leader David Cameron might find that winning one or two seats in Northern Ireland and forming a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party might be enough to give him a majority, making him Britain's next prime minister.
The exit poll anticipates that the Labour Party has been more successful at holding on to its vote in seats in Scotland and Wales in seats where there is a large ethnic minority population and where there is an incumbent Labour MP standing again.
The poll also anticipates the Lib Dems will perform better in England than in either Scotland or Wales, but a fall in number of MPs would still come as a blow to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who has been neck-and-neck in the polls with the other two main parties for much of the campaign.
It remains to be seen whether the poll proves to be accurate in its estimate of the Lib Dem performance - deputy leader Vince Cable told BBC News the outcome of the exit poll was "very strange" and insisted they had been "horribly wrong" in the past.
He said his party expected to have gained a lot from postal votes, as they were ahead in some polls when those votes were cast.
Hung Parliament
Labour's election supremo Lord Mandelson described the election as a "cliff hanger" and refused to rule out trying to strike a deal with the Lib Dems, in the event of a hung Parliament, pointing that according to the rules Labour would have the first attempt at forming a new government.
"It is not the party which has the largest number of seats which has the first go, it is the sitting government," he told BBC News.
He also said that on the basis of the exit poll Britain's first-past-the-post voting system was "on its last legs".
Electoral reform is one of the Liberal Democrats's key demands.
Shadow schools secretary Michael Gove told BBC News "exit polls can show rogue results," adding: "We need to see the real results."
Local elections
The vast majority of constituencies will conduct their counts overnight, with about 20 not due to begin the process until after 0900 GMT on Friday.
Most seats will declare in the early hours of Friday, but a handful of key marginals are expected to declare shortly after midnight, which could give an early indication of how the national result is going.
More than 44 million people are registered to vote in 649 Parliamentary constituencies. Elections are also under way for 164 English councils.
Polling in one constituency - Thirsk and Malton - has been delayed until 27 May because of the death of one of the candidates during the campaign. The exit poll assumes the Conservatives will win here.
Among the council elections taking place, voters will choose representatives in 32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan authorities and 20 unitary authorities.
In these elections, a total of 15,785 candidates are contesting 4,222 seats.
Plane crash
Voting will also take place to choose mayors in Hackney, Newham, Lewisham and Watford.
In a separate development, Nigel Farage, a UK Independence Party Euro-MP, said he was "lucky to be alive", after being involved in a light plane crash near Brackley, Northamptonshire.
He is standing in the general election in Buckingham. He suffered non-life-threatening injuries when the aircraft came down just after 0800 BST.
He was initially taken to hospital in Banbury, Oxfordshire, before being moved to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. The pilot is currently being treated at University Hospital in Coventry.
Mr Farage's agent, Chris Adams, told the BBC he had to be moved for more checks.
"I believe it's just precautionary, obviously, for chest pains and we've just got to do all the tests... and the required X-rays, and hopefully he'll be on the mend. The pilot, unfortunately, is in a more severe condition," he said.
A spokeswoman for the John Radcliffe Hospital said Mr Farage would be kept in overnight and "will be with us for a few days".
The crash is being investigated by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and Northamptonshire Police. The aircraft was towing a banner when it crashed shortly after take-off.
Democratic Green Party of Rwanda Forms New Executive Committee.
DEMOCRATIC GREEN PARTY OF RWANDA
PARTI DEMOCRATIQUE VERT DE LA RWANDA
B.P. 6334 KIGALI-RWANDA
Tel : + 250 788 563 039
E-mail : info@rwandagreendemocrats.org
Website : www.rwandagreendemocrats.org
The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is pleased to inform its members, the Rwandan people, and the international community about its new Executive Committee and party strategies.
The new Executive Committee is composed of:
President: Mr. Frank HABINEZA
First Vice President: Mr. Andre RWISEREKA KAGWA
Second Vice President: Ms. Jeanine UWINEZA
Secretary-General: Ms. Didacienne KANGEYO
Deputy Secretary General: Mr. Jean Claude NTEZIMANA
Treasurer General: Mr. Alexis MUGISHA
Deputy Treasurer General: Ms. Carine MAOMBE
Organising Secretary: Mr. Martin NSENGIYUNVA
Communication Secretary: Ms. Diane MUYISENGE
The new Secretary-General, Ms. Didacienne KANGEYO, is a former member of the Social Democratic Party (PSD). She worked at the party's headquarters as a National Permanent Secretary for 6 years from 2002-2008.
Her brother, Felician NGANGO, was a founding member and former First Vice President of the PSD. He was assassinated in 1994 during the Genocide of the Tutsi. She joined the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda in October 2009. She is a mother of three and social scientist by profession.
Other new entrants are:
Ms. Diane MUYISENGE (Communication Secretary)
Mr. Martin NSENGIYUNVA (Organising Secretary)
Ms. Carine MAOMBE (Deputy Treasurer General)
NEW PARTY STRATEGIES
We resolved not to hold a party congress in order to get registered. This comes two months after we petitioned the Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC) to intervene, after meeting with them in person once, and after three planned appointments were cancelled due to some alleged emergencies on MINALOC's side. We have not been able to find a solution and hold a peaceful congress as we requested from the Gasabo District.
The Law for Political Parties does not require a party to hold a congress in order to get registered, but it requires the signatures of party members to be certified by a public notary. The Party Congress only helps bring many people together to sign the documents at the same time. Therefore, we shall take our members on different occasions to a government notary to certify our documents and then take the completed dossier to the Ministry of Local Government for registration. This way, we hope that our security will be guaranteed because we will be bringing in small numbers as required by the Law to the Public Notary.
PARTY STRATEGIES
The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda had no chance to present its political program to the Rwandan population due to different problems it faced during its quest for registration. We are now going to focus on the party principles, which are:
Participatory Democracy,
Ecological Wisdom,
Social Justice,
Non-Violence,
Respect for Diversity,
Sustainable Development.
We never had any intention to engage in confrontational politics and this will remain our policy. We constantly strive for consultative politics in Rwanda.
The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is a peaceful opposition party and calls for more political space, freedom of expression, media freedom, civil liberties, and respect for human rights in the Republic of Rwanda. This does not make us enemies of the state. We simply have different constructive ideas.
Issued in Kigali,
6 May 2010
Signed by:
Frank HABINEZA
Founder and President,
Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
PARTI DEMOCRATIQUE VERT DE LA RWANDA
B.P. 6334 KIGALI-RWANDA
Tel : + 250 788 563 039
E-mail : info@rwandagreendemocrats.org
Website : www.rwandagreendemocrats.org
The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is pleased to inform its members, the Rwandan people, and the international community about its new Executive Committee and party strategies.
The new Executive Committee is composed of:
President: Mr. Frank HABINEZA
First Vice President: Mr. Andre RWISEREKA KAGWA
Second Vice President: Ms. Jeanine UWINEZA
Secretary-General: Ms. Didacienne KANGEYO
Deputy Secretary General: Mr. Jean Claude NTEZIMANA
Treasurer General: Mr. Alexis MUGISHA
Deputy Treasurer General: Ms. Carine MAOMBE
Organising Secretary: Mr. Martin NSENGIYUNVA
Communication Secretary: Ms. Diane MUYISENGE
The new Secretary-General, Ms. Didacienne KANGEYO, is a former member of the Social Democratic Party (PSD). She worked at the party's headquarters as a National Permanent Secretary for 6 years from 2002-2008.
Her brother, Felician NGANGO, was a founding member and former First Vice President of the PSD. He was assassinated in 1994 during the Genocide of the Tutsi. She joined the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda in October 2009. She is a mother of three and social scientist by profession.
Other new entrants are:
Ms. Diane MUYISENGE (Communication Secretary)
Mr. Martin NSENGIYUNVA (Organising Secretary)
Ms. Carine MAOMBE (Deputy Treasurer General)
NEW PARTY STRATEGIES
We resolved not to hold a party congress in order to get registered. This comes two months after we petitioned the Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC) to intervene, after meeting with them in person once, and after three planned appointments were cancelled due to some alleged emergencies on MINALOC's side. We have not been able to find a solution and hold a peaceful congress as we requested from the Gasabo District.
The Law for Political Parties does not require a party to hold a congress in order to get registered, but it requires the signatures of party members to be certified by a public notary. The Party Congress only helps bring many people together to sign the documents at the same time. Therefore, we shall take our members on different occasions to a government notary to certify our documents and then take the completed dossier to the Ministry of Local Government for registration. This way, we hope that our security will be guaranteed because we will be bringing in small numbers as required by the Law to the Public Notary.
PARTY STRATEGIES
The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda had no chance to present its political program to the Rwandan population due to different problems it faced during its quest for registration. We are now going to focus on the party principles, which are:
Participatory Democracy,
Ecological Wisdom,
Social Justice,
Non-Violence,
Respect for Diversity,
Sustainable Development.
We never had any intention to engage in confrontational politics and this will remain our policy. We constantly strive for consultative politics in Rwanda.
The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda is a peaceful opposition party and calls for more political space, freedom of expression, media freedom, civil liberties, and respect for human rights in the Republic of Rwanda. This does not make us enemies of the state. We simply have different constructive ideas.
Issued in Kigali,
6 May 2010
Signed by:
Frank HABINEZA
Founder and President,
Democratic Green Party of Rwanda
Human Rights Watch Letter to President Kagame.
To: His Excellency President Paul Kagame
Office of the President
Kigali, Rwanda
Your Excellency,
I am writing to express my concern about the future of Human Rights Watch's work in Rwanda and the status of our Kigali-based Senior Researcher, Carina Tertsakian. I am also requesting your assistance to maintain Human Rights Watch's programme of work in Rwanda and our collaboration with the Rwandan government.
Human Rights Watch has worked on Rwanda for many years, before, during and after the genocide in 1994. Our staff have carried out in-depth research on a range of human rights issues, often in difficult conditions. We continue to remain engaged in Rwanda, as in many countries around the world, to help improve the human rights situation. In addition to monitoring ongoing human rights developments, Human Rights Watch has worked tirelessly to see justice delivered for victims of the 1994 genocide. The late Alison Des Forges, Human Rights Watch's Senior Adviser on the Great Lakes region, provided expert testimony in 11 genocide trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and testified in genocide trials in national courts in several countries. Her account of the genocide, "Leave None to Tell the Story", stands as one of the most detailed works documenting the terrible events of 1994.
Human Rights Watch's reports and statements on Rwanda, while critical of specific incidents of human rights violations, all contain recommendations aimed at improving respect for human rights, strengthening the justice system, and encouraging reforms. We have publicly welcomed government initiatives to improve human rights and positive reforms whenever they have occurred. We have always strived to maintain an open dialogue with the Rwandan government.
Last month, Rwandan immigration officials cancelled the work visa of our Senior Researcher on Rwanda, Carina Tertsakian. She submitted a second application on 16 March but, to date, has received no response.
Carina Tertsakian, a British national, arrived in Kigali on 25 January 2010. She immediately applied for a work visa, which was granted without issue. On 3 March, immigration officials summoned her and questioned her on the paperwork relating to her visa application, pointing to a mistaken date and alleging differences in her colleagues' signatures on the documents. They confiscated her passport. The following day, they summoned her again with a new set of questions, relating, once again, to dates and signatures. They had also retrieved her predecessor's contract and compared the signatures with those on Ms Tertsakian's contract, alleging that there were discrepancies in the signatures. Ms Tertsakian truthfully answered all the questions posed by the immigration officials.
On 8 March, Ms Tertsakian received a formal summons from the police Criminal Investigations Department (CID) to appear the following day for questioning. She complied with the summons and went to the CID on 9 March with a lawyer. She was told that she was suspected of using forged documents. She was questioned on the same points as those raised by the immigration officials, relating primarily to perceived differences in her colleagues' signatures. She gave the same answers as she had given to the immigration officials. She also submitted to the immigration officials and to the police two letters from Human Rights Watch headquarters, one of which was signed by a notary, confirming that all her documents were authentic. However, the officials did not appear to take these letters into account. It was also apparent that they had not made any attempt to contact Human Rights Watch's headquarters, or the individuals whose signatures they had queried, to verify the authenticity of these documents.
On 10 March, following an intervention by the British embassy, Ms Tertsakian was given her passport back, but her work visa had been cancelled. The immigration officials refused to give her a written explanation for this cancellation. They told her verbally that it was because of the "anomalies" described above and said she could submit a second visa application.
On 16 March, Ms Tertsakian submitted a second application, with a notarised affidavit from Human Rights Watch's Legal Director in New York attesting to the veracity and authenticity of both the original and resubmitted documents.
On 19 March, the CID called Ms Tertsakian again and asked her to return there on 24 March. When she went there, the CID did not question her. They told her that investigations were continuing, without giving further details.
To date, there have been no further developments. We have made numerous attempts to contact immigration officials, including the Director General of Immigration, to enquire about the progress of the second application. Those officials we managed to reach would not divulge any information about the status of the application; nor did they indicate when we might expect a response.
I am extremely concerned about the lack of progress on this issue, as more than a month has passed since Ms Tertsakian submitted her second visa application (I understand that the usual turnaround is approximately three days).
As a British national, Ms Tertsakian can only remain in Rwanda for three months without a visa. Her date of arrival being 25 January, the three months are due to expire on 25 April.
Human Rights Watch has fully respected Rwandan immigration and administrative processes and has submitted all the documents required for Ms Tertsakian's work visa application. We have answered all the questions posed in relation to the application and, as indicated above, have submitted additional letters confirming that all the documentation is correct and valid. We are concerned at the long delay in processing the second application.
Unless the matter is resolved before 25 April, when Ms Tertsakian's three month period in Rwanda is due to expire, we will be forced to conclude that the Rwandan government is trying to impede her work as the Human Rights Watch representative in Rwanda and our organization's attempts to document and report on the human rights situation.
National and international human rights organizations have an important role to play in monitoring and reporting on the human rights situation in the pre-election period, not only in Rwanda but in other countries around the world. By enabling human rights organizations to operate without hindrance, Rwanda would demonstrate its commitment to international principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law to which it has adhered, most recently when it joined the Commonwealth.
I am therefore urging you to ensure that Carina Tertsakian is granted a work visa before 25 April 2010, to enable us to continue our human rights work in Rwanda.
Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch
CC:
Minister of Justice
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Director General of Immigration
Done on April 20, 2010
Office of the President
Kigali, Rwanda
Your Excellency,
I am writing to express my concern about the future of Human Rights Watch's work in Rwanda and the status of our Kigali-based Senior Researcher, Carina Tertsakian. I am also requesting your assistance to maintain Human Rights Watch's programme of work in Rwanda and our collaboration with the Rwandan government.
Human Rights Watch has worked on Rwanda for many years, before, during and after the genocide in 1994. Our staff have carried out in-depth research on a range of human rights issues, often in difficult conditions. We continue to remain engaged in Rwanda, as in many countries around the world, to help improve the human rights situation. In addition to monitoring ongoing human rights developments, Human Rights Watch has worked tirelessly to see justice delivered for victims of the 1994 genocide. The late Alison Des Forges, Human Rights Watch's Senior Adviser on the Great Lakes region, provided expert testimony in 11 genocide trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and testified in genocide trials in national courts in several countries. Her account of the genocide, "Leave None to Tell the Story", stands as one of the most detailed works documenting the terrible events of 1994.
Human Rights Watch's reports and statements on Rwanda, while critical of specific incidents of human rights violations, all contain recommendations aimed at improving respect for human rights, strengthening the justice system, and encouraging reforms. We have publicly welcomed government initiatives to improve human rights and positive reforms whenever they have occurred. We have always strived to maintain an open dialogue with the Rwandan government.
Last month, Rwandan immigration officials cancelled the work visa of our Senior Researcher on Rwanda, Carina Tertsakian. She submitted a second application on 16 March but, to date, has received no response.
Carina Tertsakian, a British national, arrived in Kigali on 25 January 2010. She immediately applied for a work visa, which was granted without issue. On 3 March, immigration officials summoned her and questioned her on the paperwork relating to her visa application, pointing to a mistaken date and alleging differences in her colleagues' signatures on the documents. They confiscated her passport. The following day, they summoned her again with a new set of questions, relating, once again, to dates and signatures. They had also retrieved her predecessor's contract and compared the signatures with those on Ms Tertsakian's contract, alleging that there were discrepancies in the signatures. Ms Tertsakian truthfully answered all the questions posed by the immigration officials.
On 8 March, Ms Tertsakian received a formal summons from the police Criminal Investigations Department (CID) to appear the following day for questioning. She complied with the summons and went to the CID on 9 March with a lawyer. She was told that she was suspected of using forged documents. She was questioned on the same points as those raised by the immigration officials, relating primarily to perceived differences in her colleagues' signatures. She gave the same answers as she had given to the immigration officials. She also submitted to the immigration officials and to the police two letters from Human Rights Watch headquarters, one of which was signed by a notary, confirming that all her documents were authentic. However, the officials did not appear to take these letters into account. It was also apparent that they had not made any attempt to contact Human Rights Watch's headquarters, or the individuals whose signatures they had queried, to verify the authenticity of these documents.
On 10 March, following an intervention by the British embassy, Ms Tertsakian was given her passport back, but her work visa had been cancelled. The immigration officials refused to give her a written explanation for this cancellation. They told her verbally that it was because of the "anomalies" described above and said she could submit a second visa application.
On 16 March, Ms Tertsakian submitted a second application, with a notarised affidavit from Human Rights Watch's Legal Director in New York attesting to the veracity and authenticity of both the original and resubmitted documents.
On 19 March, the CID called Ms Tertsakian again and asked her to return there on 24 March. When she went there, the CID did not question her. They told her that investigations were continuing, without giving further details.
To date, there have been no further developments. We have made numerous attempts to contact immigration officials, including the Director General of Immigration, to enquire about the progress of the second application. Those officials we managed to reach would not divulge any information about the status of the application; nor did they indicate when we might expect a response.
I am extremely concerned about the lack of progress on this issue, as more than a month has passed since Ms Tertsakian submitted her second visa application (I understand that the usual turnaround is approximately three days).
As a British national, Ms Tertsakian can only remain in Rwanda for three months without a visa. Her date of arrival being 25 January, the three months are due to expire on 25 April.
Human Rights Watch has fully respected Rwandan immigration and administrative processes and has submitted all the documents required for Ms Tertsakian's work visa application. We have answered all the questions posed in relation to the application and, as indicated above, have submitted additional letters confirming that all the documentation is correct and valid. We are concerned at the long delay in processing the second application.
Unless the matter is resolved before 25 April, when Ms Tertsakian's three month period in Rwanda is due to expire, we will be forced to conclude that the Rwandan government is trying to impede her work as the Human Rights Watch representative in Rwanda and our organization's attempts to document and report on the human rights situation.
National and international human rights organizations have an important role to play in monitoring and reporting on the human rights situation in the pre-election period, not only in Rwanda but in other countries around the world. By enabling human rights organizations to operate without hindrance, Rwanda would demonstrate its commitment to international principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law to which it has adhered, most recently when it joined the Commonwealth.
I am therefore urging you to ensure that Carina Tertsakian is granted a work visa before 25 April 2010, to enable us to continue our human rights work in Rwanda.
Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch
CC:
Minister of Justice
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Director General of Immigration
Done on April 20, 2010
Grand Ayatollah Sistani Meets with Iraq Deptuy Prime Minister.
Aswat al-Iraq
6 May 2010
Deputy Prime Minister Roz Nouri Shawis held a meeting on Thursday with top Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani, according to an official source.
“Al-Sistani received on Thursday morning (May 6) Deputy Prime Minister Roz Nouri Shawis and Najaf Governor Adnan al-Zerfi,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.
“A press conference will be held after the meeting,” he added.
6 May 2010
Deputy Prime Minister Roz Nouri Shawis held a meeting on Thursday with top Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani, according to an official source.
“Al-Sistani received on Thursday morning (May 6) Deputy Prime Minister Roz Nouri Shawis and Najaf Governor Adnan al-Zerfi,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.
“A press conference will be held after the meeting,” he added.
Yar'Adua's oil reforms run into troubled waters.
AFP
6 May 2010
The death of Nigeria's president Umaru Yar'Adua jeopardises long-awaited reforms of the nation's decrepit and corruption-ridden oil sector, analysts say.
Yar'Adua, who died late on Wednesday after a protracted illness, had been keen to turn around the fortunes of the 50-year-old industry with a swift passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB).
In 2009 he presented Parliament with the draft law proposing sweeping changes to the way Africa's top crude exporter ran its affairs, in a bid to turn the country's cash-earner into a world class performer.
Nigeria's oil sector is notorious for being "grossly inefficient and corrupt", Lagos economist Dimeji Odumesi said.
"Yar'Adua really wanted to change the situation but his illness and slow passage of the enabling law is killing that dream," he said.
Under the proposed law, state oil firm Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) was to run as a profitable commercial entity, competing with multinationals such as Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil.
A year on however, the proposed law was still the subject of intense debate following fierce opposition to some of its clauses from the oil giants.
NNPC new boss Shehu Ladan described the Bill as the "most comprehensively reviewed" in Nigeria’s legislative history.
Although Yar'Adua's successor, Goodluck Jonathan last month appointed new ministers to handle the country's petroleum resources and the oil region of the Niger Delta and a head at the state oil firm.
CONTINUES BELOW
But some analysts doubt oil reforms are his immediate concern.
"Jonathan has just one year to go to the end of Yar'Adua's tenure," said Odumesi.
His main preoccupation now is to have a firm grip on power rather than implement long-term reforms of the energy sector."
But for Jonas Horner of the New York-based think tank Eurasia group, the new president had consolidated his control of the industry by shaking up the state oil top management.
"Jonathan will now push for oil sector reform through passage of the petroleum industry Bill ... and by reinvigorating the amnesty process in the Niger Delta," said Horner.
International oil firms have been most opposed to the proposed oil law. The government has said it has made 56 changes concessions to meet their concerns, but there are still issues to be resolved.
"The simple, passionately stated priorities of government have been completely lost in a cumbersome document that lacks insight into the very basics of our industry," Shell's former vice-president for Africa Ann Pickard said recently.
If passed in its current form, she warned, the mistakes would take years to fix and over the next decade Nigeria could lose $50-billion in planned investment.
Local rights activists and political leaders are also unhappy.
Bariara Kpalap, spokesperson for the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (Mosop), lauded the proposed law.
But "it requires strong political will to see it through" and that issues of compensation to oil communities should be clear, the campaigner warned.
Solomon Banigo, special adviser to the governor of southern oil-rich Bayelsa, Jonathan's home state, said the new law should allow for "100% control of our God-given resources for it to be meaningful".
6 May 2010
The death of Nigeria's president Umaru Yar'Adua jeopardises long-awaited reforms of the nation's decrepit and corruption-ridden oil sector, analysts say.
Yar'Adua, who died late on Wednesday after a protracted illness, had been keen to turn around the fortunes of the 50-year-old industry with a swift passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB).
In 2009 he presented Parliament with the draft law proposing sweeping changes to the way Africa's top crude exporter ran its affairs, in a bid to turn the country's cash-earner into a world class performer.
Nigeria's oil sector is notorious for being "grossly inefficient and corrupt", Lagos economist Dimeji Odumesi said.
"Yar'Adua really wanted to change the situation but his illness and slow passage of the enabling law is killing that dream," he said.
Under the proposed law, state oil firm Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) was to run as a profitable commercial entity, competing with multinationals such as Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil.
A year on however, the proposed law was still the subject of intense debate following fierce opposition to some of its clauses from the oil giants.
NNPC new boss Shehu Ladan described the Bill as the "most comprehensively reviewed" in Nigeria’s legislative history.
Although Yar'Adua's successor, Goodluck Jonathan last month appointed new ministers to handle the country's petroleum resources and the oil region of the Niger Delta and a head at the state oil firm.
CONTINUES BELOW
But some analysts doubt oil reforms are his immediate concern.
"Jonathan has just one year to go to the end of Yar'Adua's tenure," said Odumesi.
His main preoccupation now is to have a firm grip on power rather than implement long-term reforms of the energy sector."
But for Jonas Horner of the New York-based think tank Eurasia group, the new president had consolidated his control of the industry by shaking up the state oil top management.
"Jonathan will now push for oil sector reform through passage of the petroleum industry Bill ... and by reinvigorating the amnesty process in the Niger Delta," said Horner.
International oil firms have been most opposed to the proposed oil law. The government has said it has made 56 changes concessions to meet their concerns, but there are still issues to be resolved.
"The simple, passionately stated priorities of government have been completely lost in a cumbersome document that lacks insight into the very basics of our industry," Shell's former vice-president for Africa Ann Pickard said recently.
If passed in its current form, she warned, the mistakes would take years to fix and over the next decade Nigeria could lose $50-billion in planned investment.
Local rights activists and political leaders are also unhappy.
Bariara Kpalap, spokesperson for the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (Mosop), lauded the proposed law.
But "it requires strong political will to see it through" and that issues of compensation to oil communities should be clear, the campaigner warned.
Solomon Banigo, special adviser to the governor of southern oil-rich Bayelsa, Jonathan's home state, said the new law should allow for "100% control of our God-given resources for it to be meaningful".
President Yar'Adua Dies Following Lengthy Illness and Constitutional Uncertainty.
All-Africa
5 May 2010
President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua died Wednesday night at age 58 in the presidential villa in the capital, Abuja. His death was confirmed by presidential spokesman Olusegun Adeniyi, according to the Associated Press.
The death, which occurred at 9 pm local time (2000 GMT) according to Adenyini, follows a long illness that was surrounded by secrecy and intrigue.
"He has been battling acute pericaditis, an inflammation of the membrane around the heart, since November last year for which he received treatment at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia," ThisDay newspaper is reporting in a home page news crawler.
The funeral is expected to take place on Thursday, in accordance with the Muslim practice of burial within 24 hours.
Goodluck Jonathan, who served as Yar'Adua's vice president and became acting president in January after a court conferred on him the authority to carry out affairs of state, will now be able to claim greater legitimacy in the presidential post.
The next test for Nigeria's democracy will be selection of a vice president, who also could become the ruling party's presidential candidate in the next election, scheduled to take place a year from now. Under an informal arrangement, the presidency has alternated between the country's northern and southern regions. If the arrangement endures, Jonathan as a southerner would serve only the remaining 11 months of Yar'Adua's term.
"It's a shame that the drama surrounding President Yar'Adua's illness has eclipsed the important contributions he made to Nigeria during his months in office," said Jean Herskovits, research professor of history at the State University of New York at Purchase, who has been visiting Nigeria for four decades, most recently in March.
"Notably he started the process of electoral reform and supported reform in the banking sector," she said of the late president. "Now the political maneuvering will shift to who will fill the vacant vice-presidency, with implications for the fast approaching 2011 elections."
5 May 2010
President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua died Wednesday night at age 58 in the presidential villa in the capital, Abuja. His death was confirmed by presidential spokesman Olusegun Adeniyi, according to the Associated Press.
The death, which occurred at 9 pm local time (2000 GMT) according to Adenyini, follows a long illness that was surrounded by secrecy and intrigue.
"He has been battling acute pericaditis, an inflammation of the membrane around the heart, since November last year for which he received treatment at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia," ThisDay newspaper is reporting in a home page news crawler.
The funeral is expected to take place on Thursday, in accordance with the Muslim practice of burial within 24 hours.
Goodluck Jonathan, who served as Yar'Adua's vice president and became acting president in January after a court conferred on him the authority to carry out affairs of state, will now be able to claim greater legitimacy in the presidential post.
The next test for Nigeria's democracy will be selection of a vice president, who also could become the ruling party's presidential candidate in the next election, scheduled to take place a year from now. Under an informal arrangement, the presidency has alternated between the country's northern and southern regions. If the arrangement endures, Jonathan as a southerner would serve only the remaining 11 months of Yar'Adua's term.
"It's a shame that the drama surrounding President Yar'Adua's illness has eclipsed the important contributions he made to Nigeria during his months in office," said Jean Herskovits, research professor of history at the State University of New York at Purchase, who has been visiting Nigeria for four decades, most recently in March.
"Notably he started the process of electoral reform and supported reform in the banking sector," she said of the late president. "Now the political maneuvering will shift to who will fill the vacant vice-presidency, with implications for the fast approaching 2011 elections."
President Yar'Adua has Died.
Vanguard
By Daniel Idonor
5 May 2010
After five months of a deadly encounter with pericarditis which took him away from public life, President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua last night gave up the ghost.
The late President died after a protracted illness which created a political tension in the country for the period the terminal illness lasted.
Vanguard gathered that Yar'Adua who became the first democratically elected president to die while in office, passed on earlier in the night between 9.30 and 10pm.
However, as at filing this report, at about 12:00 am, there was no official confirmation from both the family and the presidency.
Yar'Adua who has been battling acute pericaditis, an inflammation of the membrane around the heart, since November 23 last year for which he received treatment at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
He was brought back to the country under the cover of darkness in February and since then had been held incommunicado.
Although there was no official statement, sources close to the family said the late President may be flown into Katsina State, his native home where he will be buried today, according Islamic rights.
The former president served as governor of Katsina State from 29 May 1999 to 28 May 2007, before he was drafted into the presidential race by then President Olusegun Obasanjo.He was declared the winner of the controversial election held on 21 April 2007, and was sworn in on 29 May 2007.
Jonathan expresses shock, sadness ...
Meanwhile, the Acting President, Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, received news of the passage of President Yar'adua with great shock and sadness.
According to statement by the Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity to the Acting President, Mr Ima Niboro, Jonathan said , "Nigeria has lost the jewel on its crown, and even the heavens mourn with our nation tonight"
Dr. Jonathan described the death of the president as sad, unfortunate and regrettable. "As individuals and as a nation we prayed for the recovery of Mr. President. But we take solace in the fact that the Almighty is the giver and taker of all life".
Dr. Jonathan offered heartfelt condolences to President Yar'adua's widow, Hajiya Turai Yar'adua, the entire Yar'adua family, the people of Katsina State, and Nigerians both at home and the world over.
As a mark of respect for our departed leader, the Acting President has cancelled all official engagements. He has also declared a national mourning for seven days. During this period, the Nigerian flag will fly at half mast.
The remains of the President would be laid to rest in Katsina on Thursday, 6th May, 2010.
By Daniel Idonor
5 May 2010
After five months of a deadly encounter with pericarditis which took him away from public life, President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua last night gave up the ghost.
The late President died after a protracted illness which created a political tension in the country for the period the terminal illness lasted.
Vanguard gathered that Yar'Adua who became the first democratically elected president to die while in office, passed on earlier in the night between 9.30 and 10pm.
However, as at filing this report, at about 12:00 am, there was no official confirmation from both the family and the presidency.
Yar'Adua who has been battling acute pericaditis, an inflammation of the membrane around the heart, since November 23 last year for which he received treatment at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
He was brought back to the country under the cover of darkness in February and since then had been held incommunicado.
Although there was no official statement, sources close to the family said the late President may be flown into Katsina State, his native home where he will be buried today, according Islamic rights.
The former president served as governor of Katsina State from 29 May 1999 to 28 May 2007, before he was drafted into the presidential race by then President Olusegun Obasanjo.He was declared the winner of the controversial election held on 21 April 2007, and was sworn in on 29 May 2007.
Jonathan expresses shock, sadness ...
Meanwhile, the Acting President, Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, received news of the passage of President Yar'adua with great shock and sadness.
According to statement by the Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity to the Acting President, Mr Ima Niboro, Jonathan said , "Nigeria has lost the jewel on its crown, and even the heavens mourn with our nation tonight"
Dr. Jonathan described the death of the president as sad, unfortunate and regrettable. "As individuals and as a nation we prayed for the recovery of Mr. President. But we take solace in the fact that the Almighty is the giver and taker of all life".
Dr. Jonathan offered heartfelt condolences to President Yar'adua's widow, Hajiya Turai Yar'adua, the entire Yar'adua family, the people of Katsina State, and Nigerians both at home and the world over.
As a mark of respect for our departed leader, the Acting President has cancelled all official engagements. He has also declared a national mourning for seven days. During this period, the Nigerian flag will fly at half mast.
The remains of the President would be laid to rest in Katsina on Thursday, 6th May, 2010.
Nigerian president Umaru Yar'Adua dead.
Daily Telegraph
6 May 2010
Olusegun Adeniyi said that Mr Yar'Adua, who had a history of kidney problems, died Wednesday night at the Aso Rock presidential villa.
Mr Yar'Adua, a former chemistry teacher elected in May 2007, had not been seen in public since last November since he flew to Saudi Arabia to be treated for heart trouble. He was diagnosed with acute pericarditis, an inflammation of the membrane around the heart.
Nigerian oil rebels attack LagosIn January, reports surfaced that he was "seriously brain-damaged" following medical treatment. Earlier this month, senior Nigerian clerics claimed they met the ailing president, saying he had difficulty speaking.
In his absence, vice-president Goodluck Jonathan became acting leader in February. Under the terms of the constitution, he will now be sworn in as head of state. He will then appoint a new vice president and the pair would complete the rest of the presidential term, which expires in May next year.
6 May 2010
Olusegun Adeniyi said that Mr Yar'Adua, who had a history of kidney problems, died Wednesday night at the Aso Rock presidential villa.
Mr Yar'Adua, a former chemistry teacher elected in May 2007, had not been seen in public since last November since he flew to Saudi Arabia to be treated for heart trouble. He was diagnosed with acute pericarditis, an inflammation of the membrane around the heart.
Nigerian oil rebels attack LagosIn January, reports surfaced that he was "seriously brain-damaged" following medical treatment. Earlier this month, senior Nigerian clerics claimed they met the ailing president, saying he had difficulty speaking.
In his absence, vice-president Goodluck Jonathan became acting leader in February. Under the terms of the constitution, he will now be sworn in as head of state. He will then appoint a new vice president and the pair would complete the rest of the presidential term, which expires in May next year.
Nigerian president Umaru Yar'Adua dies after months of illness.
Daily Telegraph
6 May 2010
Nigeria's Acting President Goodluck Jonathan, who will be sworn in as the new president of the most populous African nation, declared seven days of mourning.
Mr Jonathan received the news with "shock and sadness" his spokesman Ima Niboro said.
Yar'Adua will be buried in his northern Katsina State later today, which had been declared a work-free day for the whole country.
In neighbouring Benin, President Boni Yayi paid tribute to Mr Yar'Adua.
"With the loss of this great statesman... Benin, my country, loses a great friend and I am very upset," he said.
Mr Yar'Adua flew to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia last November for treatment for a heart condition and after three months, amid growing concern at the power vacuum, parliament finally handed power to his deputy Goodluck Jonathan.
Since his return to Nigeria in February, Mr Yar'Adua, 58, had not been seen in public, nor was any information released as to the state of his health.
Christian and Muslim leaders who visited the ailing president in April would give no details of his condition.
But there was constant tension between his supporters and those of the acting president.
On March 17, Mr Jonathan sacked the entire Yar'Adua-formed cabinet, and last month swore in his own team with less than half of its members drawn from the old government.
With Mr Yar'Adua's death, Mr Jonathan automatically becomes the substantive head-of-state of one of the world's leading oil producers, and as such can complete the late Mr Yar'Adua's term of office, which expires in May 2011.
The acting president has already promised to ensure free and fair elections but has not said much about his own political plans.
Mr Yar'Adua's death comes at a difficult time for Africa's most populous nation.
Muslim-Christian violence erupted in central Nigeria earlier this year in which hundreds of people were killed, and there has been renewed unrest in the oil-rich Niger Delta.
Nigeria's third elected civilian president was recognised for his honesty in this corruption-ridden west African country.
Mr Yar'Adua was the fourth Nigerian leader but the first elected president to die in office.
6 May 2010
Nigeria's Acting President Goodluck Jonathan, who will be sworn in as the new president of the most populous African nation, declared seven days of mourning.
Mr Jonathan received the news with "shock and sadness" his spokesman Ima Niboro said.
Yar'Adua will be buried in his northern Katsina State later today, which had been declared a work-free day for the whole country.
In neighbouring Benin, President Boni Yayi paid tribute to Mr Yar'Adua.
"With the loss of this great statesman... Benin, my country, loses a great friend and I am very upset," he said.
Mr Yar'Adua flew to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia last November for treatment for a heart condition and after three months, amid growing concern at the power vacuum, parliament finally handed power to his deputy Goodluck Jonathan.
Since his return to Nigeria in February, Mr Yar'Adua, 58, had not been seen in public, nor was any information released as to the state of his health.
Christian and Muslim leaders who visited the ailing president in April would give no details of his condition.
But there was constant tension between his supporters and those of the acting president.
On March 17, Mr Jonathan sacked the entire Yar'Adua-formed cabinet, and last month swore in his own team with less than half of its members drawn from the old government.
With Mr Yar'Adua's death, Mr Jonathan automatically becomes the substantive head-of-state of one of the world's leading oil producers, and as such can complete the late Mr Yar'Adua's term of office, which expires in May 2011.
The acting president has already promised to ensure free and fair elections but has not said much about his own political plans.
Mr Yar'Adua's death comes at a difficult time for Africa's most populous nation.
Muslim-Christian violence erupted in central Nigeria earlier this year in which hundreds of people were killed, and there has been renewed unrest in the oil-rich Niger Delta.
Nigeria's third elected civilian president was recognised for his honesty in this corruption-ridden west African country.
Mr Yar'Adua was the fourth Nigerian leader but the first elected president to die in office.
Junta sets deadline for Niger power transfer.
Reuters
6 May 2010
Niger will complete its transition from military to civilian rule by February 2011, the junta that rules the West African uranium-exporting country said on Wednesday.
Last month, a coalition of political and business representatives said the military-led transitional government should hand over power to civilians within that time frame.
"The CSRD (junta), after seriously analysing the situation in the country, has decided to accept the proposition made by the consultative council and fix the duration of the transition at 12 months from February 18, 2010," a junta spokesperson said on national television, without naming a date for elections.
The CSRD ousted President Mamadou Tandja on February 18, later promising to clean up politics before scheduling a vote.
6 May 2010
Niger will complete its transition from military to civilian rule by February 2011, the junta that rules the West African uranium-exporting country said on Wednesday.
Last month, a coalition of political and business representatives said the military-led transitional government should hand over power to civilians within that time frame.
"The CSRD (junta), after seriously analysing the situation in the country, has decided to accept the proposition made by the consultative council and fix the duration of the transition at 12 months from February 18, 2010," a junta spokesperson said on national television, without naming a date for elections.
The CSRD ousted President Mamadou Tandja on February 18, later promising to clean up politics before scheduling a vote.
President's Office confirms death of Yar'Adua.
AFP
5 May 2010
Nigerian leader Umaru Yar'Adua has died, an official at his office confirmed late on Wednesday.
"It is true that the president is dead," an official at the office said.
Yar'Adua died between 9.30pm and 10.30pm on Wednesday night, according to a report on the website of the Nigerian newspaper This Day.
The president, whose failing health had forced him to relinquish power to his deputy, Goodluck Jonathan, in February, spent three months being treated in a hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for an acute heart condition.
Since his return to Nigeria in February, Adua, 58, had not been seen in public, but there was constant tension between his supporters and those of Acting President Jonathan.
5 May 2010
Nigerian leader Umaru Yar'Adua has died, an official at his office confirmed late on Wednesday.
"It is true that the president is dead," an official at the office said.
Yar'Adua died between 9.30pm and 10.30pm on Wednesday night, according to a report on the website of the Nigerian newspaper This Day.
The president, whose failing health had forced him to relinquish power to his deputy, Goodluck Jonathan, in February, spent three months being treated in a hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for an acute heart condition.
Since his return to Nigeria in February, Adua, 58, had not been seen in public, but there was constant tension between his supporters and those of Acting President Jonathan.
Prominent Iraqi cleric assassinated, three others killed in attack.
Deutsche Presse Agentur
5 May 2010
The Vice President of Iraq's Council for Religious Scholars was killed by militants in the capital of Baghdad on Wednesday morning, al-Yaqen news agency reported.
Abdelgaleel al-Fahdawi was killed by a gunmen in a drive-by- shooting as he was leaving his home in the district of al-Ameriya. Two of his companions and one of his family members were also killed in the attack.
Al-Fahdawi was also the preacher at the al-Ikhwa al-Saliheen mosque, which is next to his home.
The Council for Religious Scholars was established after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 with the aim of working towards a peaceful co-existence of Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
5 May 2010
The Vice President of Iraq's Council for Religious Scholars was killed by militants in the capital of Baghdad on Wednesday morning, al-Yaqen news agency reported.
Abdelgaleel al-Fahdawi was killed by a gunmen in a drive-by- shooting as he was leaving his home in the district of al-Ameriya. Two of his companions and one of his family members were also killed in the attack.
Al-Fahdawi was also the preacher at the al-Ikhwa al-Saliheen mosque, which is next to his home.
The Council for Religious Scholars was established after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 with the aim of working towards a peaceful co-existence of Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
Nigerian President Yar'Adua is dead, says state TV.
BBC News
5 May 2010
Fifty-eight-year-old Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua died at his presidential villa on Wednesday, state TV has said.
A presidential aide and the information minister confirmed his death. Mr Yar'Adua, who became president in 2007, had been ill for some time.
The government announced seven days of national mourning and said the president would be buried on Thursday.
Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan - who became acting president in February - will be sworn in later, reports say.
The Nigerian Television Authority interrupted its normal programming to announce the news, in a brief statement early on Thursday.
Heart condition
The announcer said: "The president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, died a few hours ago at the presidential villa.
"Security aides notified the national security adviser, General Anou Bissou, who immediately called the acting president. The late president has been ill for some time."
Mr Yar'Adua, a Muslim, will be laid to rest later on Thursday in his home state of Katsina, in the north of the country.
Reports from Nigeria said Mr Yar'Adua died between 2100 (2000 GMT) and 2200 (2100 GMT) on Wednesday in the capital, Abuja.
In November, Mr Yar'Adua went to a hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for several months, during which time he was not heard from, apart from a BBC interview.
He told the BBC by telephone in January that he was recovering and hoped with "tremendous progress" to resume his duties.
A presidential spokesman said at the time that he was being treated for acute pericarditis, an inflammation of the lining around the heart.
His long absence and the lack of detailed information about his health led to a political limbo in Nigeria that was only filled when Mr Jonathan was named acting president.
Mr Yar'Adua returned to Nigeria later in February, but Mr Jonathan remained as acting president.
There had been tension between the two men's supporters and in March Mr Jonathan dissolved the cabinet and later put his own team in place.
Elections were scheduled for next year.
Mr Yar'Adua's election in 2007 marked the first transfer of power from one civilian president to another since Nigeria's independence in 1960.
He came to power promising a long list of reforms, including tackling corruption and reforming the inadequate power sector and the flawed electoral system.
Yar'Adua dead: Your comments
But the area in which analysts say he made the most progress was in tackling the unrest in the oil-rich Niger Delta, by offering an amnesty to rebels.
Mr Yar'Adua was seen as a straight man, a quiet, religious person who was a good administrator, says the BBC's Africa analyst Martin Plaut.
But his continuous illness hampered his efforts at reform, our analyst says.
5 May 2010
Fifty-eight-year-old Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua died at his presidential villa on Wednesday, state TV has said.
A presidential aide and the information minister confirmed his death. Mr Yar'Adua, who became president in 2007, had been ill for some time.
The government announced seven days of national mourning and said the president would be buried on Thursday.
Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan - who became acting president in February - will be sworn in later, reports say.
The Nigerian Television Authority interrupted its normal programming to announce the news, in a brief statement early on Thursday.
Heart condition
The announcer said: "The president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, died a few hours ago at the presidential villa.
"Security aides notified the national security adviser, General Anou Bissou, who immediately called the acting president. The late president has been ill for some time."
Mr Yar'Adua, a Muslim, will be laid to rest later on Thursday in his home state of Katsina, in the north of the country.
Reports from Nigeria said Mr Yar'Adua died between 2100 (2000 GMT) and 2200 (2100 GMT) on Wednesday in the capital, Abuja.
In November, Mr Yar'Adua went to a hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for several months, during which time he was not heard from, apart from a BBC interview.
He told the BBC by telephone in January that he was recovering and hoped with "tremendous progress" to resume his duties.
A presidential spokesman said at the time that he was being treated for acute pericarditis, an inflammation of the lining around the heart.
His long absence and the lack of detailed information about his health led to a political limbo in Nigeria that was only filled when Mr Jonathan was named acting president.
Mr Yar'Adua returned to Nigeria later in February, but Mr Jonathan remained as acting president.
There had been tension between the two men's supporters and in March Mr Jonathan dissolved the cabinet and later put his own team in place.
Elections were scheduled for next year.
Mr Yar'Adua's election in 2007 marked the first transfer of power from one civilian president to another since Nigeria's independence in 1960.
He came to power promising a long list of reforms, including tackling corruption and reforming the inadequate power sector and the flawed electoral system.
Yar'Adua dead: Your comments
But the area in which analysts say he made the most progress was in tackling the unrest in the oil-rich Niger Delta, by offering an amnesty to rebels.
Mr Yar'Adua was seen as a straight man, a quiet, religious person who was a good administrator, says the BBC's Africa analyst Martin Plaut.
But his continuous illness hampered his efforts at reform, our analyst says.
Nigerian President Yar'Adua is dead, says an aide.
BBC News
5 May 2010
Fifty-eight-year-old Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua is dead, a presidential aide has told the BBC.
A spokesman, who did not want to be named, said Mr Yar'Adua died on Wednesday, although there has been no official announcement yet.
Mr Yar'Adua, who became president in 2007, had been ill for some time, and had not been seen in public for months.
After much wrangling, Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan was accepted as acting president in February.
The acting president has been informed of the death and the government will make a statement shortly, state television reported on Thursday, according to Reuters news agency.
Reports from Nigeria said Mr Yar'Adua died between 2100 (2000 GMT) and 2200 (2100 GMT) on Wednesday at his presidential residence in the capital, Abuja.
In November, Mr Yar'Adua went to a hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for several months, during which time he was not heard from, apart from a BBC interview.
He told the BBC by telephone in January that he was recovering and hoped with "tremendous progress" to resume his duties.
A presidential spokesman said at the time that he was being treated for acute pericarditis, an inflammation of the lining around the heart.
His long absence and the lack of detailed information about his health led to a political limbo in Nigeria that was only filled when Mr Jonathan was named acting president.
Mr Yar'Adua returned to Nigeria later in February, but Mr Jonathan remained as acting president.
He will now be sworn in as president, reports say.
5 May 2010
Fifty-eight-year-old Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua is dead, a presidential aide has told the BBC.
A spokesman, who did not want to be named, said Mr Yar'Adua died on Wednesday, although there has been no official announcement yet.
Mr Yar'Adua, who became president in 2007, had been ill for some time, and had not been seen in public for months.
After much wrangling, Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan was accepted as acting president in February.
The acting president has been informed of the death and the government will make a statement shortly, state television reported on Thursday, according to Reuters news agency.
Reports from Nigeria said Mr Yar'Adua died between 2100 (2000 GMT) and 2200 (2100 GMT) on Wednesday at his presidential residence in the capital, Abuja.
In November, Mr Yar'Adua went to a hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for several months, during which time he was not heard from, apart from a BBC interview.
He told the BBC by telephone in January that he was recovering and hoped with "tremendous progress" to resume his duties.
A presidential spokesman said at the time that he was being treated for acute pericarditis, an inflammation of the lining around the heart.
His long absence and the lack of detailed information about his health led to a political limbo in Nigeria that was only filled when Mr Jonathan was named acting president.
Mr Yar'Adua returned to Nigeria later in February, but Mr Jonathan remained as acting president.
He will now be sworn in as president, reports say.
05 May, 2010
Breaking Rwandan News: Media Oppression Escalated as Newspapers Permenently Closed.
Rwandan sources have confirmed that Rwanda's High Media Council has permanently closed the newspapers UMUSESO and UMUVUGIZI, which are highly critical of the current Rwandan government. This was disclosed tonight on BBC Great Lakes news at 20:30 hrs by its Executive Secretary, Mr. Patrice Mulama.
Is Kagame’s case justiciable in the US?
By David O'Brien
2 May 2010
Rwandan President Paul Kagame's immunity may guarantee that he may not be arrested as long as he is the standing president unless the US State Department revokes his immunity. As president of an internationally recognized government, he is immune from civil and criminal prosecution. The reason he cannot be arrested is that the US has signed "a treaty" regarding the protection of diplomats and reciprocity. The treaty known as "The Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations” of 1961 defines a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries. It provides for the privileges and favors given to official diplomatic missions that enable diplomats to perform their state's function without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country. This forms the legal basis for diplomatic immunity. This treaty protects both President Kagame and any other Rwandan on an official state diplomatic mission in the US as well as their families, especially in Articles 27, 29, and 37. However, within the framework of the treaty, the US Government may declare President Paul Kagame and his Cabinet persona non grata, and they may face arrest and prosecution upon entering the US.
Now, the most interesting part: It is also because the US has signed a treaty that the case of Mrs. Habyarimana and Mrs. Ntaryamira v. President Paul Kagame is receivable by US Courts and prosecutable. The treaty known as "The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" requires all signatory nations to take necessary measures, including prosecution, arrest, and detention, to prevent torture around the world. The Convention also requires signatory states and nations to take effective measures to prevent torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to their home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured. It is with that treaty that Paul Kagame and his lieutenants can and should be prosecuted in the US. This has happened to former heads of states and should therefore apply to him as well.
In fact, the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, also called ATS, or the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is specific to such cases and clarifies the statutes of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment treaty that was ratified by the US. The ATS provides that: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Using the ATS, US courts have successfully prosecuted foreign leaders.
Several examples can be given here. The most talked about is Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, decided by the US Court of Appeals in 1980. This landmark case facilitated many more cases that were decided based on ATS. With this case, the US Supreme Court even said that experts (such as Professor Peter Erlinder) would help guide this type of cases, by concluding: “[W]here there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators who by years of labor, research, and experience have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat.”
A defining moment came with the 2004 case of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, in which the Court affirmed that actions committed abroad that violate contemporary customary international law (including applicable treaties) fall under ATS. The Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain case is really an interesting one and may be the precedent applicable to Mrs. Habyarimana and Mrs. Ntaryamira vs. President Paul Kagame et al. In fact, in that case and regarding the Alien Tort Statute claim, the Court unanimously ruled that the ATS did not create a separate ground of suit for violations of the law of nations, but was intended only to give courts jurisdiction over traditional law of nations cases - those involving ambassadors, for example, or piracy.
Hence, the ATS, because it clarifies the “law of the nations” and “a treaty” ratified by the United States, is applicable in this case. In Xuncax v. Gramajo the Federal District Court held that the ATS grants plaintiffs both subject matter jurisdiction and a private right of action for tortious violations of international law or a treaty of the United States and that ATS does not even require international agreement, but an international norm: "[F]or a court to determine whether a plaintiff has a claim [under the ATS] for a tort committed in violation of international law, it must [first] decide whether there is an applicable norm of international law ... and [then] whether it was violated in the particular case.” That is it! This means, it is better if there is a law of nations or a treaty; but a norm is good enough.
However, as I said, the case against Paul Kagame et al may be hurt or facilitated by what is known as “prudential considerations”, because the US State Department and US Department of Justice may render the case nonjusticiable by invoking prudential consideration such as national security, separation of powers, political questions, public policy, reticence of domestic courts to command foreign relations, and judicial restraint in legislating new common law.
Finally, African leaders and officials have been prosecuted in the US for crimes committed in foreign countries against non-US residents or citizens:
1)Hirute ABEBE-JIRA; Edgegayehu Taye; Elizabeth Demissie, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kelbessa NEGEWO a/k/a Kelbessa Negaw, a/k/a Kellbessa, Defendant-Appellant.
Neither the accusers nor the accused were US residents or US Citizens when the crimes were committed in Ethiopia. They only met in the US 20 years later
2)Plaintifs represented by the World Organization for Human Rights USA and Florida International University v Chuckie Taylor: Although he is a US Citizen, he committed crimes while working with his father in Liberian territory. The plaintiffs were not US residents or citizens when the crimes were committed.
2 May 2010
Rwandan President Paul Kagame's immunity may guarantee that he may not be arrested as long as he is the standing president unless the US State Department revokes his immunity. As president of an internationally recognized government, he is immune from civil and criminal prosecution. The reason he cannot be arrested is that the US has signed "a treaty" regarding the protection of diplomats and reciprocity. The treaty known as "The Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations” of 1961 defines a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries. It provides for the privileges and favors given to official diplomatic missions that enable diplomats to perform their state's function without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country. This forms the legal basis for diplomatic immunity. This treaty protects both President Kagame and any other Rwandan on an official state diplomatic mission in the US as well as their families, especially in Articles 27, 29, and 37. However, within the framework of the treaty, the US Government may declare President Paul Kagame and his Cabinet persona non grata, and they may face arrest and prosecution upon entering the US.
Now, the most interesting part: It is also because the US has signed a treaty that the case of Mrs. Habyarimana and Mrs. Ntaryamira v. President Paul Kagame is receivable by US Courts and prosecutable. The treaty known as "The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" requires all signatory nations to take necessary measures, including prosecution, arrest, and detention, to prevent torture around the world. The Convention also requires signatory states and nations to take effective measures to prevent torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to their home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured. It is with that treaty that Paul Kagame and his lieutenants can and should be prosecuted in the US. This has happened to former heads of states and should therefore apply to him as well.
In fact, the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, also called ATS, or the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is specific to such cases and clarifies the statutes of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment treaty that was ratified by the US. The ATS provides that: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Using the ATS, US courts have successfully prosecuted foreign leaders.
Several examples can be given here. The most talked about is Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, decided by the US Court of Appeals in 1980. This landmark case facilitated many more cases that were decided based on ATS. With this case, the US Supreme Court even said that experts (such as Professor Peter Erlinder) would help guide this type of cases, by concluding: “[W]here there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators who by years of labor, research, and experience have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat.”
A defining moment came with the 2004 case of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, in which the Court affirmed that actions committed abroad that violate contemporary customary international law (including applicable treaties) fall under ATS. The Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain case is really an interesting one and may be the precedent applicable to Mrs. Habyarimana and Mrs. Ntaryamira vs. President Paul Kagame et al. In fact, in that case and regarding the Alien Tort Statute claim, the Court unanimously ruled that the ATS did not create a separate ground of suit for violations of the law of nations, but was intended only to give courts jurisdiction over traditional law of nations cases - those involving ambassadors, for example, or piracy.
Hence, the ATS, because it clarifies the “law of the nations” and “a treaty” ratified by the United States, is applicable in this case. In Xuncax v. Gramajo the Federal District Court held that the ATS grants plaintiffs both subject matter jurisdiction and a private right of action for tortious violations of international law or a treaty of the United States and that ATS does not even require international agreement, but an international norm: "[F]or a court to determine whether a plaintiff has a claim [under the ATS] for a tort committed in violation of international law, it must [first] decide whether there is an applicable norm of international law ... and [then] whether it was violated in the particular case.” That is it! This means, it is better if there is a law of nations or a treaty; but a norm is good enough.
However, as I said, the case against Paul Kagame et al may be hurt or facilitated by what is known as “prudential considerations”, because the US State Department and US Department of Justice may render the case nonjusticiable by invoking prudential consideration such as national security, separation of powers, political questions, public policy, reticence of domestic courts to command foreign relations, and judicial restraint in legislating new common law.
Finally, African leaders and officials have been prosecuted in the US for crimes committed in foreign countries against non-US residents or citizens:
1)Hirute ABEBE-JIRA; Edgegayehu Taye; Elizabeth Demissie, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kelbessa NEGEWO a/k/a Kelbessa Negaw, a/k/a Kellbessa, Defendant-Appellant.
Neither the accusers nor the accused were US residents or US Citizens when the crimes were committed in Ethiopia. They only met in the US 20 years later
2)Plaintifs represented by the World Organization for Human Rights USA and Florida International University v Chuckie Taylor: Although he is a US Citizen, he committed crimes while working with his father in Liberian territory. The plaintiffs were not US residents or citizens when the crimes were committed.
Rwandan Alien Tort Act Precident for Case Against President Kagame in Oklahoma.
Editor's Note: Current Rwandan Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo was a member of the Rwandan Diaspora in the United States during the 1994 Genocide of the Tutsi. During the Genocide, 3 of her relatives, including her mother and an aunt, were murdered. In the Alien Tort Act lawsuit below, she filed the civil law suit against Jean Bosco BARAYAGWIZA, a founding member of the Coalition for the Defense of the Republic Party (CDR) and Chairman of the Executive Committee of Radio Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). The CDR was considered (the party is banned in Rwanda) to be the most polarized against power-sharing with the RPF and many scholars have written that they were the most "anti-Tutsi" political party. The CDR's youth wing, which later served as a militia (Impuzamugambi), had a number of members who took part in the killings after President Habyarimana's plane was shot down. She filed this lawsuit against him in 1996 and won the case, recieving damage payouts as a result. Other Rwandans who lost family members in the Genocide filed suit along with her and also recieved damage payments. In legal principle, this is the same type of lawsuit filed against President Kagame in Oklahoma. Similar to President Kagame's situation, Mr. Barayagwiza did not have residence in the US at the time of the crime, the crimes were not committed on US territory, nor did he hold US citizenship at the time or present day.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Louise MUSHIKIWABO, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
Jean Bosco BARAYAGWIZA, Defendant.
No. 94 CIV. 3627 (JSM).
April 9, 1996.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MARTIN, District Judge:
*1 Presently before the Court is a motion for a default judgment in which the plaintiffs have overwhelmingly established that the defendant has engaged in conduct so inhuman that it is difficult to conceive of any civil remedy which can begin to compensate the plaintiffs for their loss or adequately express society's outrage at the defendant's actions.
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs establishes that the defendant, Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, was one of the political leaders in Rwanda who played an instrumental role in the torture and massacre of thousands of Rwanda's Tutsi minority, as well as moderate members of the Hutu majority. Each of the plaintiffs is related to individuals who died in that massacre.
Although not himself a government official, Barayagwiza was a leader of the Rwandan Hutu political party known as the Coalition pour la Defense de la Republique (the "CDR"). The CDR had its own militia which operated in conjunction with Rwandan government forces in carrying out a plan aimed at the extermination of Rwanda's Tutsi population. Barayagwiza was also the owner and a Board member of radio station RTLM, which encouraged the violence against the Tutsi by broadcasting messages of hate stating that the Tutsi were "the enemy", "traitors," and "deserved to die."
The Court will not detail here all of the acts of torture and murder that were carried out according to the plan of the defendant and his coconspirators, which have been extensively documented in the affidavits submitted in support of this motion. It is enough to note that a United Nations Commission of Independent Experts concluded that "[since] 6 April 1994 an estimated 500,000 unarmed civilians have been murdered in Rwanda. That estimate may indeed err on the conservative side for ... some reliable estimates put the number of dead at close to 1 Million."
Each of the plaintiffs has submitted a declaration documenting the massacre of a number of relatives that resulted from the campaign of genocide orchestrated by the defendant and his coconspirators. For example, plaintiff Faustin Semuhungu describes how CDR militia shot down the door of his parents home, hacked his parents to death with machetes and shot two of his brothers to death. Two other brothers were summarily executed, one along with his wife and three children ages four years, two years, and two months. Plaintiff Semuhungu lost a total of thirty-eight relatives in the massacres.
The Court credits each of the plaintiff's declarations and finds that the facts set forth therein occurred as a result of the actions of the defendant and his coconspirators. Therefore, each of the plaintiffs has established a factual basis for the claims asserted against the defendant. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages under the Alien Tort Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, Mushikiwabo v. Barayagwiza, 1996 WL 164496 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) 1
Pub.L.No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992), codified at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1350 note, and the Rwandan Civil Code.
*2 In light of the recent opinion of the Second Circuit in Kadic v. Karadzic 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995), there can be no doubt that this Court has jurisdiction to hear these claims and that defendant is legally liable for the damages that the plaintiffs have suffered as a result of the massacre that he orchestrated. In Kadic, the Second Circuit held that acts of genocide, similar to those documented here, are actionable under the Alien Tort Act (the "ATA"), whether or not committed by a state. 70 F.3d at 241-42. Although the court in Kadic held that "torture and summary execution -- when not perpetrated in the course of genocide or war crimes -- are proscribed by international law only when committed by state officials or under color of law," id. at 243, the affidavits submitted here clearly establish that the defendant's actions were part of a coordinated, genocidal effort with officials of the Rwandan government and thus defendant both acted in pursuit of genocide and under color of law. See id. at 245 (under § 1983 standards applicable to state action requirement of Alien Tort Act, "[a] private individual acts under color of law within the meaning of section § 1983 when he acts together with state officials or with significant state aid"). Since defendant and his coconspirators acted under color of law, their conduct is also actionable under the Torture Victim Protection Act (the "TVPA") Id. at 245 ("By its plain language, the [TVPA] renders liable those individuals who have committed torture or extrajudicial killing 'under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation"'). [FN1] Plaintiffs have fulfilled the exhaustion requirement of the TVPA by demonstrating that the Rwandan judicial system is virtually inoperative and will be unable to deal with civil claims in the near future. See TVPA § 2(b) (plaintiff must "exhaust[] adequate and available remedies in the place in which the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred"); see also Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 178 (D.Mass. 1995). Plaintiffs have also submitted expert testimony establishing that they have claims against the defendant under the laws of Rwanda. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these municipal tort claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Although the defendant has not officially appeared in this action, he did send a letter claiming that he is immune from suit because he was served with the summons and complaint while in this country to attend a session of the United Nations. A similar argument was rejected by the Second Circuit in Kadic. 70 F.3d at 246-48. In any event, the current Government of Rwanda, in a diplomatic note dated March 17, 1995, officially waived any claim of immunity that the defendant might assert. Therefore, the defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
Having found that the Court has jurisdiction over the defendant and that plaintiffs have established the causes of action alleged in the complaint, the issue remaining is the amount of damages to be awarded. This Judge has seen no other case in which monetary damages were so inadequate to compensate the plaintiffs for the injuries caused by a defendant. One can not place a dollar value on the lives lost as the result of the defendant's actions and the suffering inflicted on the innocent victims of his cruel campaign. Unfortunately, however, a monetary judgment is all the Court can award these plaintiffs.
*3 Plaintiffs' able counsel have carefully documented the lost earnings and pain and suffering damages of each of the plaintiffs' relatives and the emotional damages of each of the plaintiffs, and the Court is prepared to adopt those calculations in all but the following respects. Plaintiffs seek pain and suffering damages in the amount of $1.5 million dollars for each relative. Since in almost all cases the actual killing took place in a brief period of time, the amount sought appears to be excessive under our traditional principles for an award of pain and suffering damages. Therefore, the award for pain and suffering damages will be calculated at $500,000 per relative. However, each plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages which the Court concludes should include an amount of $1,000,000 per relative victim, in addition to the $5,000,000 for each plaintiff that has been requested. Thus, although the basis for the award is not as requested, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to enter judgment against the defendant on behalf of each plaintiff in the amounts requested.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are awarded judgment in the following amounts:
Louise Mushikiwabo $35,204,577
Louis Rutare $10,736,227
Rangira Beatrice Gallimore $16,746,291
Julie Mukandinda Mugemanshuro $20,215,869
Faustin Semuhungu $22,364,970
SO ORDERED.
FN1. Plaintiffs Louis Rutare and Rangira Beatrice Gallimore, who are citizens of the United States and thus cannot base their claims on the ATA, state claims under the TVPA. Although the TVPA does not itself confer jurisdiction, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the TVPA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question jurisdiction statute. See Kadic at 246 (citing Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 178 (D.Mass. 1995)).
1996 WL 164496, 1996 WL 164496 (S.D.N.Y.)
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Louise MUSHIKIWABO, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
Jean Bosco BARAYAGWIZA, Defendant.
No. 94 CIV. 3627 (JSM).
April 9, 1996.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MARTIN, District Judge:
*1 Presently before the Court is a motion for a default judgment in which the plaintiffs have overwhelmingly established that the defendant has engaged in conduct so inhuman that it is difficult to conceive of any civil remedy which can begin to compensate the plaintiffs for their loss or adequately express society's outrage at the defendant's actions.
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs establishes that the defendant, Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, was one of the political leaders in Rwanda who played an instrumental role in the torture and massacre of thousands of Rwanda's Tutsi minority, as well as moderate members of the Hutu majority. Each of the plaintiffs is related to individuals who died in that massacre.
Although not himself a government official, Barayagwiza was a leader of the Rwandan Hutu political party known as the Coalition pour la Defense de la Republique (the "CDR"). The CDR had its own militia which operated in conjunction with Rwandan government forces in carrying out a plan aimed at the extermination of Rwanda's Tutsi population. Barayagwiza was also the owner and a Board member of radio station RTLM, which encouraged the violence against the Tutsi by broadcasting messages of hate stating that the Tutsi were "the enemy", "traitors," and "deserved to die."
The Court will not detail here all of the acts of torture and murder that were carried out according to the plan of the defendant and his coconspirators, which have been extensively documented in the affidavits submitted in support of this motion. It is enough to note that a United Nations Commission of Independent Experts concluded that "[since] 6 April 1994 an estimated 500,000 unarmed civilians have been murdered in Rwanda. That estimate may indeed err on the conservative side for ... some reliable estimates put the number of dead at close to 1 Million."
Each of the plaintiffs has submitted a declaration documenting the massacre of a number of relatives that resulted from the campaign of genocide orchestrated by the defendant and his coconspirators. For example, plaintiff Faustin Semuhungu describes how CDR militia shot down the door of his parents home, hacked his parents to death with machetes and shot two of his brothers to death. Two other brothers were summarily executed, one along with his wife and three children ages four years, two years, and two months. Plaintiff Semuhungu lost a total of thirty-eight relatives in the massacres.
The Court credits each of the plaintiff's declarations and finds that the facts set forth therein occurred as a result of the actions of the defendant and his coconspirators. Therefore, each of the plaintiffs has established a factual basis for the claims asserted against the defendant. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages under the Alien Tort Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, Mushikiwabo v. Barayagwiza, 1996 WL 164496 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) 1
Pub.L.No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992), codified at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1350 note, and the Rwandan Civil Code.
*2 In light of the recent opinion of the Second Circuit in Kadic v. Karadzic 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995), there can be no doubt that this Court has jurisdiction to hear these claims and that defendant is legally liable for the damages that the plaintiffs have suffered as a result of the massacre that he orchestrated. In Kadic, the Second Circuit held that acts of genocide, similar to those documented here, are actionable under the Alien Tort Act (the "ATA"), whether or not committed by a state. 70 F.3d at 241-42. Although the court in Kadic held that "torture and summary execution -- when not perpetrated in the course of genocide or war crimes -- are proscribed by international law only when committed by state officials or under color of law," id. at 243, the affidavits submitted here clearly establish that the defendant's actions were part of a coordinated, genocidal effort with officials of the Rwandan government and thus defendant both acted in pursuit of genocide and under color of law. See id. at 245 (under § 1983 standards applicable to state action requirement of Alien Tort Act, "[a] private individual acts under color of law within the meaning of section § 1983 when he acts together with state officials or with significant state aid"). Since defendant and his coconspirators acted under color of law, their conduct is also actionable under the Torture Victim Protection Act (the "TVPA") Id. at 245 ("By its plain language, the [TVPA] renders liable those individuals who have committed torture or extrajudicial killing 'under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation"'). [FN1] Plaintiffs have fulfilled the exhaustion requirement of the TVPA by demonstrating that the Rwandan judicial system is virtually inoperative and will be unable to deal with civil claims in the near future. See TVPA § 2(b) (plaintiff must "exhaust[] adequate and available remedies in the place in which the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred"); see also Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 178 (D.Mass. 1995). Plaintiffs have also submitted expert testimony establishing that they have claims against the defendant under the laws of Rwanda. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these municipal tort claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Although the defendant has not officially appeared in this action, he did send a letter claiming that he is immune from suit because he was served with the summons and complaint while in this country to attend a session of the United Nations. A similar argument was rejected by the Second Circuit in Kadic. 70 F.3d at 246-48. In any event, the current Government of Rwanda, in a diplomatic note dated March 17, 1995, officially waived any claim of immunity that the defendant might assert. Therefore, the defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
Having found that the Court has jurisdiction over the defendant and that plaintiffs have established the causes of action alleged in the complaint, the issue remaining is the amount of damages to be awarded. This Judge has seen no other case in which monetary damages were so inadequate to compensate the plaintiffs for the injuries caused by a defendant. One can not place a dollar value on the lives lost as the result of the defendant's actions and the suffering inflicted on the innocent victims of his cruel campaign. Unfortunately, however, a monetary judgment is all the Court can award these plaintiffs.
*3 Plaintiffs' able counsel have carefully documented the lost earnings and pain and suffering damages of each of the plaintiffs' relatives and the emotional damages of each of the plaintiffs, and the Court is prepared to adopt those calculations in all but the following respects. Plaintiffs seek pain and suffering damages in the amount of $1.5 million dollars for each relative. Since in almost all cases the actual killing took place in a brief period of time, the amount sought appears to be excessive under our traditional principles for an award of pain and suffering damages. Therefore, the award for pain and suffering damages will be calculated at $500,000 per relative. However, each plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages which the Court concludes should include an amount of $1,000,000 per relative victim, in addition to the $5,000,000 for each plaintiff that has been requested. Thus, although the basis for the award is not as requested, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to enter judgment against the defendant on behalf of each plaintiff in the amounts requested.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are awarded judgment in the following amounts:
Louise Mushikiwabo $35,204,577
Louis Rutare $10,736,227
Rangira Beatrice Gallimore $16,746,291
Julie Mukandinda Mugemanshuro $20,215,869
Faustin Semuhungu $22,364,970
SO ORDERED.
FN1. Plaintiffs Louis Rutare and Rangira Beatrice Gallimore, who are citizens of the United States and thus cannot base their claims on the ATA, state claims under the TVPA. Although the TVPA does not itself confer jurisdiction, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the TVPA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question jurisdiction statute. See Kadic at 246 (citing Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 178 (D.Mass. 1995)).
1996 WL 164496, 1996 WL 164496 (S.D.N.Y.)
Africa mining: Will mineral-rich countries start a cartel like OPEC?
Christian Science Monitor
4 May 2010
By Drew Hinshaw
African leaders are pushing for tougher terms on mining concessions after 25 years of structural adjustment – when countries cut red tape and offered generous tax holidays to foreign prospectors. The new dynamic was on display at a recent mining conference in Senegal. The chief executive officer of a multinational Africa mining firm was speaking, but Senegal's president didn't appear to be listening.
Across the hall from President Abdoulaye Wade sat 500 delegates from foreign mining firms. They had come in March to see which new holes were worth digging in this continent whose riches are in demand from booming economies like China's.
When the CEO's presentation ended, Mr. Wade treated his visitors to a rhyme: "I never said, enrichissez-vous." [Enrich yourselves]. "I said enrichissons-nous." (Let's enrich one another.)
A cheer rose up from the African delegates.
"I think we're at a turning point," says Bonnie Campbell, political science professor at the University of Quebec in Montreal and author of "Mining in Africa." "There's been a quarter-century where a certain investment-friendly road has been taken. [Now] there is a recognition that there needs to be another focus."
A cartel modeled after OPEC?
The capstone of that push, at least for Wade, would be an international alliance of Africa's mineral-rich nations, modeled after OPEC – a pan-African body that could influence the price of metals like the cobalt in Chinese-made laptop and cellphone batteries, 90 percent of which comes from Africa, according to the business watchdog SwedWatch.
"It's an ambitious but feasible idea," says Mazou Yessouph Faudy, geological director for Niger's Mining Ministry. "Our economy is falling. As a producer of uranium, it would be good to involve ourselves in a union of producers that could set the price."
Already, according to estimates by gold mining company Randgold Resources, the continent produces 30 percent of the minerals required by the US and China.
"[Africa is] going to become a very important player in the commodity and minerals market," says Roger Dixon, chairman for South Africa's SRK mining consultancy, citing China's 11.9 percent growth in its gross domestic product, the total of goods and services produced, in the first quarter of 2010. "With that kind of demand, I think it's a great opportunity for Africa to move to the forefront of things."
Africa should call mining companies' bluff
The question is how. For African negotiators, seizing the moment may mean demanding that companies hire more locals, adhere to stricter environmental rules, or build more roads and schools for local communities.
Those are all accommodations that mining companies find reasonable, says Mr. Dixon.
But an OPEC-like cartel? That's "crazy," says Honorary Prof. Phillip Crowson at Scotland's Center for Mineral Law and Policy.
"There were attempts to do this with phosphates, iron ore, bauxite, copper – none of them worked," he says, because too many nations opted out. "Mining companies don't have to invest, and if the terms aren't attractive, they won't."
Professor Campbell thinks African arbitrators should call their bluff.
"The idea that global companies will go elsewhere, we've always heard that," she says. "We have to be careful about this discourse that says if you raise a finger, investment will flee."
4 May 2010
By Drew Hinshaw
African leaders are pushing for tougher terms on mining concessions after 25 years of structural adjustment – when countries cut red tape and offered generous tax holidays to foreign prospectors. The new dynamic was on display at a recent mining conference in Senegal. The chief executive officer of a multinational Africa mining firm was speaking, but Senegal's president didn't appear to be listening.
Across the hall from President Abdoulaye Wade sat 500 delegates from foreign mining firms. They had come in March to see which new holes were worth digging in this continent whose riches are in demand from booming economies like China's.
When the CEO's presentation ended, Mr. Wade treated his visitors to a rhyme: "I never said, enrichissez-vous." [Enrich yourselves]. "I said enrichissons-nous." (Let's enrich one another.)
A cheer rose up from the African delegates.
"I think we're at a turning point," says Bonnie Campbell, political science professor at the University of Quebec in Montreal and author of "Mining in Africa." "There's been a quarter-century where a certain investment-friendly road has been taken. [Now] there is a recognition that there needs to be another focus."
A cartel modeled after OPEC?
The capstone of that push, at least for Wade, would be an international alliance of Africa's mineral-rich nations, modeled after OPEC – a pan-African body that could influence the price of metals like the cobalt in Chinese-made laptop and cellphone batteries, 90 percent of which comes from Africa, according to the business watchdog SwedWatch.
"It's an ambitious but feasible idea," says Mazou Yessouph Faudy, geological director for Niger's Mining Ministry. "Our economy is falling. As a producer of uranium, it would be good to involve ourselves in a union of producers that could set the price."
Already, according to estimates by gold mining company Randgold Resources, the continent produces 30 percent of the minerals required by the US and China.
"[Africa is] going to become a very important player in the commodity and minerals market," says Roger Dixon, chairman for South Africa's SRK mining consultancy, citing China's 11.9 percent growth in its gross domestic product, the total of goods and services produced, in the first quarter of 2010. "With that kind of demand, I think it's a great opportunity for Africa to move to the forefront of things."
Africa should call mining companies' bluff
The question is how. For African negotiators, seizing the moment may mean demanding that companies hire more locals, adhere to stricter environmental rules, or build more roads and schools for local communities.
Those are all accommodations that mining companies find reasonable, says Mr. Dixon.
But an OPEC-like cartel? That's "crazy," says Honorary Prof. Phillip Crowson at Scotland's Center for Mineral Law and Policy.
"There were attempts to do this with phosphates, iron ore, bauxite, copper – none of them worked," he says, because too many nations opted out. "Mining companies don't have to invest, and if the terms aren't attractive, they won't."
Professor Campbell thinks African arbitrators should call their bluff.
"The idea that global companies will go elsewhere, we've always heard that," she says. "We have to be careful about this discourse that says if you raise a finger, investment will flee."
Sudan looking to drop currency peg to the US dollar: official.
Sudan Tribune
5 May 2010
The governor of Sudan’s central bank Saber Mohamed Al-Hassan today disclosed that his country is seeking to drop the pound’s peg to the US dollar and replace it with a basket of international currencies particularly from countries that have large trade volumes with Sudan.
Sudan Central Bank Al-Hassan told Reuters in an interview today that the basket could include the Euro, British Sterling Pound and the Chinese Yuan saying this move could help curb inflationary pressure and bring it back to single digits levels along with utilization of tighter monetary policy.
When asked about the timing of the change he said: "Towards the end of the year, the last quarter more probably."
Sudan runs a so-called managed float system where the central bank calculates an indicative rate based on previous day transactions and intervenes on the market if quotes break away from a plus/minus 3 percent corridor around that rate
"Our economy is in a stage of development, we have a lot of rigidities so we do not really target a very low level of inflation," Al-Hassan said in Bahrain, where he was attending a finance conference. "Unfortunately, it is a bit higher than what we want to see now."
He further said that the bank wanted to bring annual inflation to 7-9 percent, from around 12 percent in April.
"We work on all fronts, we are tightening monetary policy," he said. "Besides monetary policy we are also trying to make sure that the fiscal policy is also supportive. Government access to bank financing should be minimal if not zero."
Prices rose due to a mix of imported inflation, fuelled by a weaker currency, and expansionary monetary policy to counter the effects of the global downturn and credit crisis, he said. Last year the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released a report saying that Sudan had a sharp drop in foreign exchange reserves across the years from $2 billion in mid-2008 to $300 million in March 2009, which covers only 2 weeks of imports for the East African nation.
The IMF said this was caused by the fall in oil prices, which is Sudan’s main export, and the “heavy” intervention by the central bank to sustain the exchange rate.
The fast depletion in foreign reserves has prompted Sudan’s central bank last month to impose a cap on the amount of hard currency available to individuals travelling abroad.
Sudan refuses to disclose its foreign currency exchange reserves. The country’s financial system is largely based on Islamic law, which makes the central bank use a range of tools such as proxies for interest rates, Islamic bonds, open market operations and deposits in commercial banks to conduct its monetary policy.
Hassan also said both north and south would have to keep the pound for some time if the referendum, planned for early next year, results in secession of the oil-producing southern part.
"The necessary logistics require a minimum period of six months to one year because it is not easy to issue a new currency," Hassan said.
Sudan’s referendum is following a 2005 peace deal that ended two decades of north-south civil war, which badly damaged its economy. The deal brought in foreign investors and powered the economy to growth rates averaging 9 percent a year.
Analysts have warned conflict could flare up again if preparations for the plebiscite falter.
The governor also said the country should aim to resolve its $34 billion foreign debt ahead of the vote to smooth the possible separation.
The IMF report last year said that Sudan’s debt to have increased by a stunning $15 billion in 2000 to about $34 billion due to a “further buildup of arrears to Paris Club and non-Paris Club creditors….and new drawings from Arab multilateral and bilateral creditors, as well as from China and India”.
Sudan informed the IMF that it in light of Sudan’s difficult foreign exchange position their debt repayments to the fund will be at $10 million for 2009 compared to a total of $50 million in 2007 & 2008.
The tense relations between Sudan and the West have prevented the former from receiving debt forgiveness and cancellation offers.
5 May 2010
The governor of Sudan’s central bank Saber Mohamed Al-Hassan today disclosed that his country is seeking to drop the pound’s peg to the US dollar and replace it with a basket of international currencies particularly from countries that have large trade volumes with Sudan.
Sudan Central Bank Al-Hassan told Reuters in an interview today that the basket could include the Euro, British Sterling Pound and the Chinese Yuan saying this move could help curb inflationary pressure and bring it back to single digits levels along with utilization of tighter monetary policy.
When asked about the timing of the change he said: "Towards the end of the year, the last quarter more probably."
Sudan runs a so-called managed float system where the central bank calculates an indicative rate based on previous day transactions and intervenes on the market if quotes break away from a plus/minus 3 percent corridor around that rate
"Our economy is in a stage of development, we have a lot of rigidities so we do not really target a very low level of inflation," Al-Hassan said in Bahrain, where he was attending a finance conference. "Unfortunately, it is a bit higher than what we want to see now."
He further said that the bank wanted to bring annual inflation to 7-9 percent, from around 12 percent in April.
"We work on all fronts, we are tightening monetary policy," he said. "Besides monetary policy we are also trying to make sure that the fiscal policy is also supportive. Government access to bank financing should be minimal if not zero."
Prices rose due to a mix of imported inflation, fuelled by a weaker currency, and expansionary monetary policy to counter the effects of the global downturn and credit crisis, he said. Last year the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released a report saying that Sudan had a sharp drop in foreign exchange reserves across the years from $2 billion in mid-2008 to $300 million in March 2009, which covers only 2 weeks of imports for the East African nation.
The IMF said this was caused by the fall in oil prices, which is Sudan’s main export, and the “heavy” intervention by the central bank to sustain the exchange rate.
The fast depletion in foreign reserves has prompted Sudan’s central bank last month to impose a cap on the amount of hard currency available to individuals travelling abroad.
Sudan refuses to disclose its foreign currency exchange reserves. The country’s financial system is largely based on Islamic law, which makes the central bank use a range of tools such as proxies for interest rates, Islamic bonds, open market operations and deposits in commercial banks to conduct its monetary policy.
Hassan also said both north and south would have to keep the pound for some time if the referendum, planned for early next year, results in secession of the oil-producing southern part.
"The necessary logistics require a minimum period of six months to one year because it is not easy to issue a new currency," Hassan said.
Sudan’s referendum is following a 2005 peace deal that ended two decades of north-south civil war, which badly damaged its economy. The deal brought in foreign investors and powered the economy to growth rates averaging 9 percent a year.
Analysts have warned conflict could flare up again if preparations for the plebiscite falter.
The governor also said the country should aim to resolve its $34 billion foreign debt ahead of the vote to smooth the possible separation.
The IMF report last year said that Sudan’s debt to have increased by a stunning $15 billion in 2000 to about $34 billion due to a “further buildup of arrears to Paris Club and non-Paris Club creditors….and new drawings from Arab multilateral and bilateral creditors, as well as from China and India”.
Sudan informed the IMF that it in light of Sudan’s difficult foreign exchange position their debt repayments to the fund will be at $10 million for 2009 compared to a total of $50 million in 2007 & 2008.
The tense relations between Sudan and the West have prevented the former from receiving debt forgiveness and cancellation offers.
Lam Akol favorite to become Sudan’s foreign minister in upcoming gov’t: report.
Sudan Tribune
5 May 2010
The ruling National Congress Party (NCP) is leaning towards picking the chairman of SPLM-Democratic Change Lam Akol as the new foreign minister to replace Deng Alor from the mainstream Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) dominant in the semi-autonomous Southern region, according to a newspaper report.
Chairman of SPLM-Democratic Change Lam AkolThe NCP achieved a landslide victory in the elections concluded last month giving it a comfortable majority allowing it to form the new government without requiring a coalition with another party.
Akol was Sudan’s foreign minister starting in the year 2005 when he was still a member of the SPLM until the latter demanded that the NCP replace him with Alor.
The 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) provided for the formation of a national unity government consisting mainly of the NCP (52%) and SPLM (28%) and other smaller parties.
However, the coalition was marked by tension between the former foes and dominance by the NCP in the decision making process within the government.
Since the signing of the peace agreement, the foreign ministry post was allocated to the SPLM in agreement with the NCP.
Akol was seen as too close to the NCP and thus spelled out positions during his tenure that differed from those of the SPLM. He has been a staunch opponent of the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictment of president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir.
The independent Al-Tayar newspaper said that presidential adviser Ghazi Salah Al-Deen Al-Attabani has agreed to allowing Akol to NCP’s choice after he was originally nominated for this post.
Such a choice will likely infuriate the SPLM which has been at odds with Akol since his establishment of a breakaway party with the same name.
Akol ran against SPLM chairman Salva Kiir for South Sudan presidency as a lone challenger.
Kiir won the presidential race in the south with 93% majority promoting Akol to challenge the elections in court saying they have been rigged.
5 May 2010
The ruling National Congress Party (NCP) is leaning towards picking the chairman of SPLM-Democratic Change Lam Akol as the new foreign minister to replace Deng Alor from the mainstream Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) dominant in the semi-autonomous Southern region, according to a newspaper report.
Chairman of SPLM-Democratic Change Lam AkolThe NCP achieved a landslide victory in the elections concluded last month giving it a comfortable majority allowing it to form the new government without requiring a coalition with another party.
Akol was Sudan’s foreign minister starting in the year 2005 when he was still a member of the SPLM until the latter demanded that the NCP replace him with Alor.
The 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) provided for the formation of a national unity government consisting mainly of the NCP (52%) and SPLM (28%) and other smaller parties.
However, the coalition was marked by tension between the former foes and dominance by the NCP in the decision making process within the government.
Since the signing of the peace agreement, the foreign ministry post was allocated to the SPLM in agreement with the NCP.
Akol was seen as too close to the NCP and thus spelled out positions during his tenure that differed from those of the SPLM. He has been a staunch opponent of the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictment of president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir.
The independent Al-Tayar newspaper said that presidential adviser Ghazi Salah Al-Deen Al-Attabani has agreed to allowing Akol to NCP’s choice after he was originally nominated for this post.
Such a choice will likely infuriate the SPLM which has been at odds with Akol since his establishment of a breakaway party with the same name.
Akol ran against SPLM chairman Salva Kiir for South Sudan presidency as a lone challenger.
Kiir won the presidential race in the south with 93% majority promoting Akol to challenge the elections in court saying they have been rigged.
U.S. Policy in Sudan May Be Coming Into Focus.
SSRC Blogs
4 May 2010
by Oscar H. Blayton
http://blogs.ssrc.org/sudan/2010/04/29/u-s-policy-may-be-coming-into-focus/
A narrative in the U.S. media seems to be coming into focus. A narrative which I believe is intended to justify an “American Intervention” into the oil rich Southern Sudan in not too many years distant.
The U.S. unflinchingly urged that the elections take place in April despite a multitude of signals that the process would contain numerous discrepancies. And just as surely as there would be discrepancies in the election process, it was a certainty that President Bashir would win handedly.
It seemed curious that in the weeks prior to the election mainstream media in the U.S. began to concede Bashir’s probable win and to publicly state that the win would be legitimate “de-facto” if not “de-jure.” The prevalent argument was: “Bashir will most certainly cheat in the election, but he would probably win without cheating.” This argument establishes Bashir as a “bad leader” while at the same time acknowledging that he is the people’s choice and nothing should be done in order to try to improve the fairness of the elections.
Now that Bashir has won, the New York Times and other leaders among the Western media are announcing that his win has paved the way for a North / South split in Sudan. The argument has been spun in such a way as to declare: “Who can blame the Southern Sudanese for wanting their own country, the April elections were not fair.” A simple Google of the words “Bashir” and “split” will bring up several articles written in this tone.
It is nothing new that U.S. foreign policy favors an independent South Sudan, despite its objections to the contrary. South Sudan will vote to separate from the North while the issue of resource (oil revenue) sharing remains unresolved.
The Northern remnant of Sudan will articulate its right to a share of the oil revenues derived from the resources in the South; and that will be characterized as a “hostile act” by the North and even as a threat of aggression. The stage will be set for the United States to step in to “protect” the newly independent nation of South Sudan and its oil riches.
But there is another whisper of a breeze rustling through the leaves of the American news papers. Very quietly it is being said while President Bashir made sure that the national elections were not fair, Salva Kiir did the same in the South to win 93% of the vote there.
The New York Times is saying: “Analysts are already sketching the outlines of the two post-referendum Sudans, where democracy will probably be the loser and uncompetitive, predictable election results the norm. The net result, they argue, could essentially be two one-party states with even less democratic space than under the flawed coalition government that rules today.”
It is not at all unlikely that the U.S. will step in to protect South Sudan and its oil from the North. And it is not at all unlikely that the U.S. will then step in to protect South Sudan and its oil from Mr. Kiir and the leaders of South Sudan.
COMMENTS as of May 5, 2010.
Dan Morrison:
April 29th, 2010 at 9:49 am
* South Sudan is not going to secede because of a Western media narrative.
Southerners will vote to leave Sudan because they want to, and because their history has shown Khartoum incapable of viewing them as equals. (And then there’s the 2 million dead people. And the century of slavery. And the forced Islamization. Etc.)
* I cannot think of a place that would make a less attractive target for military intervention than Sudan. The author’s prediction that we may one day see Marines on the ground in Bentiu or Paloich is inconceivable.
* The oil fields currently in operation are in the hands of companies like Total, ONGC and of course the Chinese and Malaysians. And there is no reason to think American companies will be favored in future development.
Muawia Abdel Karim:
April 29th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
The votes (real and fraudulent) show that al-Bashir won more than 80% in the north, but only 10% in the south and if there had been no boycott he would have probably not reached the 50% plus 1 needed to win on the first round! So the plan to divide Sudan is taking the country diametrically away from democracy and leaving the Sudanese in the hands of a dictator like Saddam Hussein or Hafiz Assad.
Abd al-Wahab Abdalla:
April 29th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
One of the peculiar syndromes that arises from prolonged alienation from power is an inability to calibrate the material interests of others. Among our colleagues on the left it is often highly pronounced and, unable to ascertain objectively the forces driving events, they are quick to infer that the course of events is determined by American conspiracy. In reality, U.S. material interests in Sudan are marginal, certainly so in comparison to several of its neighbours including Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, Kenya and DRC. Between the 1998 terrorist strikes in Kenya and Tanzania and the invasion of Iraq, with the September 11 terrorist strike on the U.S. mainland falling inbetween, there were clear U.S. national interests in Sudan, manifest in fears of state sponsorship of terrorism. Were there to be a major U.S. oil company in Sudan there might be economic interests too but this is not the case. What has happened is that that those objective interests generated a subjective interest in Sudan among diverse domestic groups such as Christian fundamentalists and liberal internationalists. Even after the U.S. material interest in Sudan faded these subjective interests, and interest groups, maintained an afterlife of their own, driving U.S. policy, increasingly at cross-purposes with the actual objective U.S. policy, which is disengagement and disinterest. General Gration is the messenger of this new policy which is that the Sudanese need to resolve their own national problems because the U.S. has no intention of doing it on their behalf. This is an unwelcome message to the opposition and to the SPLM which are therefore doing their best to undermine him, rather than assessing the implications of U.S. strategic disinterest.
Jamaledin:
April 29th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Dear Oscar Blayton,
You are most accurate in your assessment. US interests, however marginal, are not truly in support of any democratic transformation for any nation (one or two Sudans).
In response to the following quote:
“It is not at all unlikely that the U.S. will step in to protect South Sudan and its oil from the North. And it is not at all unlikely that the U.S. will then step in to protect South Sudan and its oil from Mr. Kiir and the leaders of South Sudan.”
I agree with the former statement. In the later statement, I would have to disagree. If we neglect the likelihood for a minute, I don’t believe an intervention by the US to protect southern Sudan from Kiir or Southern leaders would be necessary. Kiir and his cronies are all for the US. They know very well their political platform stems from US independent Christian group support. Kiir would probably escalate confrontation with Khartoum and beckon for US support for full control of oil extraction. Everybody wins except Southern Sudan.
I think the amnesia-afflicted media are focusing their myopic lenses on the issue at hand: Khartoum, while giving a near-free pass to Juba. I observed a seemingly objective CNN journalist ask Salva Kiir about the SPLM/A’s withdrawal from the national presidential elections and if that act may be considered irresponsible. It was probably the most unconventional tone I have ever seen from CNN’s part on the subject of Sudan. At any rate, the question was met with a caught off-guard, bleeding-edge, squinty-eyed Kiir who curtly replied “Call it what you want.” Needless to say, the journalist yielded.
The SPLM’s display of authoritarianism in the elections has been muddied by journalistic equivocations that the SPLM is trying to correct the security deficiencies and overabundance of weapons in the South (allegedly smuggled from the North). And, even on this forum, we have seen Non-Sudanese observers suggest that the excitement and optimistic political atmosphere of Southern Sudan is suggestive of a bright future for Southern Sudan. If Southern Sudanese are not careful, its people will be cast out and left to dry by the very people who support their cause right now.
All observers who envisage a bright future for Southern Sudan are either blind or mad.
Sincerely,
Jamaledin
Dan Morrison:
April 29th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
“Even after the U.S. material interest in Sudan faded these subjective interests, and interest groups, maintained an afterlife of their own, driving U.S. policy, increasingly at cross-purposes with the actual objective U.S. policy, which is disengagement and disinterest. General Gration is the messenger of this new policy which is that the Sudanese need to resolve their own national problems because the U.S. has no intention of doing it on their behalf. This is an unwelcome message to the opposition and to the SPLM which are therefore doing their best to undermine him, rather than assessing the implications of U.S. strategic disinterest.”
Well said, Abd al-Wahab Abdalla.
Hafiz Mohamed:
April 30th, 2010 at 1:24 am
I don’t think US media or administration should be blamed for pushing southern Sudanese to vote for separation. The issue of western conspiracy to divide Sudan as that will serve their interest is being circulated in Khartoum those days and linked to a deal between the NCP and the Americans , for the Americans to accept any election which gives NCP the mandate and legitimacy they are looking for and the NCP allow the secession to go smoothly. That deal includes, it is supposed, recognising the result of the referendum , and also the others controversial issues like , border demarcation and oil. All Sudanese opposition politicians from the right, left and the centre believe that, while many of them recognise that there are other factors contributing to that.
But what I believe the case here is that our brothers and sisters in the south just had enough. They will not waste this golden opportunity to go their own way , and I think they are right. This is not because I believe in separation because I am strong believer of unity. I have been campaigning for that since 1985, but I don’t think we have strong case to to south Sudanese to convince them that unity is their best option. How long do we want them to wait for the elites in north recognise them as equal and have the same rights? Do they have to wait for another 54 years or more? The way Sudanese politics is moving now will not bring any hope but only drive some other Sudanese region to go the way our brothers and sisters in the south will choose in January 2011. It is sad we are watching our country disintegrating and we will not be able to do anything to stop that. The whole episode of election rigging, intimidation and mal-practices, only contributes into driving many of moderate democrats to the extreme and makes them believe, that the only way to bring changes is through military means and not peaceful democratic struggle and that is step backward when most of western diplomats are saying the election is step forward.
My suggestion is to start a debate on this blog putting the cases for Unity/ Separation; I think that will might bring something positive.
Justice Africa and Inter Africa Group are starting their Unity / Secession Programme this month that also can create a platform for such discussion.
Abd al-Wahab Abdalla:
April 30th, 2010 at 7:55 am
I omitted to add the economic dimension to American material interest in Sudanese oil which does not seem to be well understood by many of my colleagues. There are both general and specific interests, and material and ideological ones, which are often in contradiction.
The United States has a general interest in any oil anywhere in the world coming to the market, even if it is extracted by countries such as Iran, Venezuela or Sudan, because that will help meet global demand for oil in an integrated world market. Even if not one drop of Sudanese oil reaches the American market that oil is satisfying global demand and keeping prices down. This is a general U.S. interest in a global petroleum market that keeps prices low. If American oil companies were involved then there would be a specific economic interest also, as profits would be repatriated to the United States as well, but it does not give the U.S. “access” to Sudanese oil as it might have done in mercantilist days.
If there were a U.S. oil major in Sudan, (for example if Chevron had not sold its stake in the 1980s) then that corporation with its private interests would shape American policy to be favourable to its business. It would also be subject to U.S. regulations on commercial practices and the environment as well and I am sure the activists in Washington would scrutinize its labour relations, payment of compensation to local people, and its financial transactions especially with the government. In objective terms this would give America more leverage, but it would also constrain the range of options that the activists consider. For example, blockading Port Sudan or imposing financial sanctions on Sudan would be impossible. In this context it is evident that the policy of commercial isolation of Sudan serves an ideological or rhetorical interest of the activists (reflecting the isolationist impulse of the years when U.S. policy towards Sudan was determined by counter-terrorism) and not the wider interest of promoting peace, wellbeing of the Sudanese or national unity.
In fact the policy of economic and commercial isolation serves the ideological interest of being seen to punish a rogue regime in preference to the material interest of achieving democracy and peace.
In the interim the financial sanctions policy has the entirely predictable effect of criminalizing the Sudanese economy and creating incentives for all kinds of shady and illicit activities at all levels. If western corporations and financial systems can not access the Sudanese economy then the Sudan government will find other mechanisms and will extract immense policy rent from its ability to regulate necessarily illicit financial transactions. In my analysis this is directly linked to what Hafiz Mohammed calls the dollarization of patronage and the corruption of the country’s entire political life. These phenomena can be traced back to the 1970s but are sustained by these misguided U.S. policies.
The objective outcome is that the ideological agenda is served at the expense of the progressive forces in Sudan, which are forced to participate at a disadvantage in a criminalized political economy. Another casualty is U.S. leverage. The final outcome is likely to be the reduction of U.S. engagement in Sudan to rhetoric and humanitarian action. Consequently the scenario that Mr Blayton envisages is improbable indeed.
Yong Deng:
April 30th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Jamaledin,
“All observers who envisage a bright future for Southern Sudan are either blind or mad.”
I would like to tell the prophets of doom like Jamaledin that it does not matter at all what the outside observers envisage about the future of South Sudan.People of South Sudan will do their best to make their future better as they have been doing sign 1955.
Despite what the analysts who come from their heaven-like cities says about the remote villages of South Sudan,the people of South Sudan are seeing their villages connected to towns by roads for the first time since the world was created. They see their children going to schools. They see modern clinics replacing herbal medicine. All these may not be enough to our people’s expecting after many decades of oppression.
It may be true there is American interest in South Sudan, but if that interest does not undermine the very interest of the South Sudanese,then the people of South Sudan do not have anything to worry about.So far the position of the current American Administration is positive. Gen Gration has said in many occassions that he does not see a shared future between the North and South Sudan. That is a very realistic conclusion that is shared by Southern majority.
What I expect people who are interested in the future of the whole Sudan to discuss is how the North and the South will live in peace as separate states.
Oscar H. Blayton:
April 30th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Dear Dan, I agree with your comment that South Sudan is not going to secede because of a Western media narrative. The Western media narrative is directed at a Western audience for the purpose of laying the foundations of an argument for why the U.S. military (or its proxies) should interfer with Sudan.
I also agree with Dan’s assessment that Sudan is not an easy target [Dan used the word “attractive”] but U.S. policy makers have shown that they do not always make the most accurate military assessments prior to engagement. It is my belief that the U.S. policy makers envision a scenario where they will be welcomed by the people of South Sudan, just as they deluded themselves into believing that Americans would be welcomed by the people of Iraq in 2003. But I believe that this is the scenario that they will attempt to sell to the American public in order to get support for military action.
Regarding access to the oil fields of Sudan, it is my belief that U.S. policy makers believe that they can somehow acquire access to Sudanese oil if they create an “American presence” in South Sudan.
Dear Abd al-Wahab Abdalla your comments are very insightful, and I believe they should be given a great deal of weight. I may be too quick to see a potential conspiracy by U. S. interests to intervene in the affairs of Sudan. And it may be that U.S. material interests in Sudan are marginal, but they were also marginal in Vietnam and the DRC in the 1960s. And while there is no longer a cold war element in today’s global politics I believe that the major players continue to seek to enhance their power. I believe that your statement about the afterlife of the interests of groups such as the Christian fundamentalists is “spot on.” But I believe that those interests may be revived and “pumped up” by the U. S. Government and used as “one” justification for military intervention in Sudan because I am not convinced that there is a genuine “U.S. strategic disinterest” at this time. But I could be wrong.
Dear Jamaledin, I agree with almost all of what you say. But just because Mr. Kiir and others currently in power in Southern Sudan are “all for the U.S.” it may not be the case that the U.S. sees Mr. Kiir as its most attractive potential “partner” in the South. I believe that the current characterization of Mr. Kiir in the U.S. press as a corrupt leader is a method of hedging bets on him in case he proves to be less useful than the U.S. would like. And I truly apologize for sounding like a conspiracy theorist; but 20th Century history has shown that the U.S. can be a faithless friend when it comes to geo-politics.
Dear Hafiz Mohamed, I agree with you that it is not the US media or administration that is pushing the southern Sudanese to vote for separation, and I did not mean to give that impression. The people of Southern Sudan will vote for separation or unity for their own well informed reasons. What I was trying to say is that the U.S. is seeking to take advantage of this situation by giving the impression to the leadership in the South that the U.S. will be supportive of an independent South, therefore making those leaders feel more secure about their decision.
Abd al-Wahab Abdalla makes a brilliant case for why it is improbable that the U.S. will intervene in the affairs of Sudan out of a desire for oil. But while it is true that a greater supply of oil will keep prices down, maintaining a low price for oil in the global market is not necessarily the aim of U.S. commercial interests. A brief review of the recent stock prices of major American oil companies will illustrate that when the price of oil goes up the value of the shares of American oil companies increases as well, thereby increasing the wealth of the investors. Also, we should keep in mind that there is value in being able to CONTROL THE FLOW of oil to global markets [or to significantly impact upon that flow] – the Saudi Arabia vs. Aranco case illustrates that. But I believe that because the U.S. does not want its engagement in Sudan reduced to “rhetoric and humanitarian action” it is seeking ways to have a stronger influence there. Having an oil rich partner such as Southern Sudan may be seen by certain U.S. foreign policy decision makers as a way to gain that influence.
Matthew Sinn:
May 1st, 2010 at 1:07 am
Oscar,
If indeed U.S. media is building a narrative designed to persuade the American public of the wisdom of intervention on behalf of Southern Sudan, then the overall conspiracy is so slow-moving and precarious as to beggar belief.
The number of Americans aware of the problems of Sudan is very small. It is covered only rarely in American newspapers; even less frequently in news magazines and on television. The majority of reporting appears in the New York Times. It is irregular. The attention paid by policy-makers is negligible. Darfur captured the attention of several key personalities in the Obama Administration: NSC staffer Samantha Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and Vice President Joe Biden. Nonetheless, the congressional hearings were few and far between. The Christian Right, that segment of the American population most aware of, and most interested in, the fate of South Sudan, is unlikely to make common cause with as liberal a Democrat as Barack Obama. If there is a plan to shape public opinion so as to favor intervention, where are its outlines? Why is more not being made of the ICC warrant? Why is almost nothing said about Salva Kiir in the United States?
There is also the question of what happens if the dog that barks does not also bite. What if al-Bashir chooses to pursue an incremental strategy of attrition against South Sudan, or none at all? In the absence of imminent military threat, what incentive — indeed, what leverage — will Kiir have to invite American peacekeepers (and peacekeepers they would have to be)? What argument could Obama put before Congress to validate a proposed deployment of American fighting men and women to Sudan when the nation tires of much less abstract commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It is true that American interests were marginal in IndoChina and sub-Saharan Africa during the Cold War, but that conclusion is only evident in retrospect. In the two decades that followed the Second World War, the United States still held the view that Europe’s colonies were essential to its economic recovery — hence its extensive material aid to the French Union. In Zaire and later Angola, American policymakers believed that they were required to check the expansion of Communism in the global south in order to make more credible the overall structure of European deterrence. Close examination of Kissinger’s recorded thought on Angola reveals an obsession with reputation.
I am troubled by the simplicity of an argument that presumes the United States today expects to remake South Sudan at a whim by somehow seizing it from the SPLM on the basis of particularistic thinking about opportunities for nation-building in Iraq. The United States Congress and public accepted that the war in Iraq was necessary on grounds that Saddam Hussein was concealing weapons of mass destruction. This perception, while flawed, was shared by key allies in Europe and elsewhere. They differed on the advisability of military action versus containment. It is also worth recognizing that Iraq was an established adversary, well known to Americans, whereas Sudan, and indeed nearly all of Africa, remains sadly under-acknowledged.
If the United States did indeed intend to control the flow of oil — and you have not proved that they intend to do so in Sudan, or that the Obama Administration sees the world as you allege that the Bush Administration did — why could they not accomplish this objective in large part by working the levers of economic and military assistance, rather than through de facto occupation? Remember, the benefit of influence is constrained by cost.
Best,
Matthew
Oscar H. Blayton:
May 1st, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Dear Matthew,
I think that I understand your incredulity based upon what you perceive to be a slow-moving and precarious effort to gain support among U.S. citizens for a military involvement in Sudan. But to help put things into perspective I would like to point out that the first U.S. military forces were sent into Vietnam in 1950 when President Harry Truman authorized U.S. military advisors and $15 million aid to help the French. This was eleven years before President Kennedy sent in the Green Beret advisors and 15 years before Lyndon Johnson landed the 3,500 hundred combat Marines in 1965 to protect the American air base at Da Nang and the 23,000 American advisors that were already in Vietnam. For 15 years the U.S. had been exerting military influence in Vietnam with very little awareness of the American people.
I disagree with your statement that the attention being paid to Sudan by U.S. policy makers is negligible. There may not be a great deal of public comment about Sudan by policy makers, but that does not mean that it is not on the radar screen.
I think that the Christian Right now believes (as the CIA World Factbook states) that the percentage of Christians in Sudan does not exceed 5% and even in the South it is estimated to approximate 15%. [But I am certainly willing to be corrected on these figures by anyone with reliable data.] I believe this has curbed their enthusiasm for now and that the Christian Right will have less influence on the direction of U.S. policy towards Sudan than U.S. commercial interests. And in my initial post on this thread you will find what I believe to be the “outline” of the plan to shape public opinion.
An attempted U.S. military intervention (by proxy or otherwise) in Sudan is not out of the question. There have previously been calls from within the U.S. for military intervention in Sudan. Some people called for the establishment of a “No Fly Zone” over Darfur, to be enforced by the U.S.; others have even called for U.S. boots on the ground. Still others have called for the use of mercenaries such as Blackwater. All this was in the face of strong disapproval of such tactics by members of the UN, the EU and the AU. And abstractions have rarely constrained U.S. military adventurism. Most U.S. citizens are hard pressed to explain the actual reasoning for the invasions of Haiti, Santa Domingo, Panama and Grenada by U.S. military forces. But money was to be made on each of those excursions. And it could well be that the military intervention by the U.S. in Sudan may well be in the form of military assistance through weaponry and training.
It is true that the Cold War is over, but this Islamophobic driven crusade against terrorism by the U.S. is just as intense. And just as U.S. foreign policy was guided by the perceived threats of the Cold War in decades past, so too will it continue to be driven by misguided perceptions of threats of terrorism from the Muslim world.
Just as the American public was sold on the existence of weapons of mass destruction, they can be sold on some other particular threat from Sudan. As you may recall, there was barely a peep of protest in the U.S. media when the harmless Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory was obliterated by a missile fired from a U.S. naval vessel in what was supposed to have been a justified response to the bombing of two U.S. embassies in other countries. And by the way, if Iraq was such an “established adversary” as you contend, why did we provide them with some of the chemical weapons that they used against the Iranians in the 1980s?
Matthew, you are absolutely correct in your statement that I have not proved that the U.S. has a strong desire to control the flow of oil. But I will point to the oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan being proposed by the U.S. oil company Unocal and the hugely expensive oil pipeline being proposed across Kazakhstan by the Chinese to illustrate why I believe controlling the flow of oil is deemed to be important in geo-politics.
Best regards,
Oscar
David Barsoum:
May 1st, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Dear Mathew
I think Oscar is right about American designs for the Sudan.
First the involvement of the Christian Right and indeed Christian Missionaries in the South dates back to the pre-independence era. Christian missioanries or rather some of them, see it as a barrier to check the spread of Islam and the Arabic language south-wards into Africa. The British Colonial Authorities went to the extent of banning the Maronite Church and the Egptian Orthodox Church of Alexandria from operating in the South, though they are Christians because they use Arabic Language, this is recorded history.
Indeed I think I drew attention, in this blog,to recent writings in the New York Times, about Sudan and Nigeria, as battle lines between Christianity and Islam in Africa.
Just a look at the BBC website will show you that the war in the South, is invariably described as the war between the Arab Moslem North and the Christian South.
I am in no position to deny or confirm the figures Oscar cites about the percentage of Christians in the South Sudan, but can certainly confirm that there Moslems, Christians and Animists in the South.
I myself was surprised when i visited Juba, that the lingua-franca in the town is what is known as Juba-Arabic, and even the Dr.John garang used to address his troops in arabic, not to mention VP Salavatore Kiir, in his campaign.
For those who seems to always play the tune of Arab and African, I have on several occasions,referred them to the Old Testament, Genesis,hoping that they could know the truth of the relation between Arab and African,at the risk of repeating myself and may be bore you i quote:
“So Hagar bore Abram a son,and Abram named his son whom Hagar bore, Ishmael.”
Genesis:16:15
Hagar is the Nubian slave woman of Sarah, wife of Abram,and second wife of Abram (Hajir in Arabic and Abram is Ibrahim in Arabic).
Ishmael or Ismail in Arabic is the ancestor of the Arabs.
As for America’s interest in Sudan,the obvious is that the US as the Super Power of the world has interests all over the world,Africa not an exception, and raw materials in general, not only oil, is the main factor behind such interests. And it was this search for raw materials that led to the intervention in the Congo in the sixties, Angola in the seventies. With the emergence of new powers like China and India and their need for oil and other raw materials one expects this competition to grow fiercer over potential areas of raw materials,recent reports about the illegal mining and exploitation of natural rescources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are a case in point.
In the Sudan, it is no seceret that major American Oil Companies have interests, remember Chevron was there first, before the Chinese companies, and an independent South Sudan, which is indebted to the West, notably US support may change the situation and favour Western Companies,which are so far banned from doing business with the Sudan, in consonance with the US imposed Sanctions.
As to whether that may entail a military intervention or not, the future will tell,but one cannot ignore that the US is already funding the American Command in Africa, and that Scot Gration, President Obama’s Special Envoy to Sudan, is an Ex-Airforce General, and he was quoted as saying, “the elections imperfect as they are, are the prelude to the Independence of South Sudan”, South Sudan is not a colony as far as I know and i really hope that the General was misqouted. The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who i think is hawkish about secesion of the South, was Assistant Secreatary of State for African Affairs during the Clinton Adminstration, and Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who was the First Secretary of State to openly meet with the Late Dr.John Garang and deal with him openly, amidst a declared US Policy seeking regime change in the Sudan.
I by no means seek to exonerate the Sudanes parties and politics, from their responsibilities, but i call attention to the dangers of others exploiting this situation to serve their own interests, and if any thing, the latest American Policy towards the Sudan, starting with the elections (which we are told are not up to international standards yet acceptable), raise many doubts.
You would remember how Zimbabwe and President Mugabe were treated,following the elections,which were not( up to international standards,according to the US,UK and the EU). President Mugabe was condemned from all corners of the civilized world, Zimbabawe was dragged to the Security Councli for sanctions,had it not been for Russia and China.
I wish I could really believe that President Obama can withstand the pressures of both, the extreme Christian Right and the Oil Industry.
To my brothers and sisters in the South who favour secession, I wish to say that the story of the small bird that Oscar told, is full of wisdom.
You are free to vote and you will vote, come January, but don’t vote to simply condemn the past.
Matthew Sinn:
May 2nd, 2010 at 12:40 am
Oscar,
The Vietnam War is a good example of “conflict creep.” Consider, however, the alternative case of Angola, in which the United States launched a costly covert intervention that, because the nation was weary of blood sacrifice and boogeymen, was struck down by Congress. This, despite the prior investments of South Africa and Zaire, both of which were considered valuable bulwarks of anti-Communism in sub-Saharan Africa, and the reputed private urging of leaders in both Zambia and Tanzania that something be done to neutralize the MPLA. Henry Kissinger and the Congressional hawks got no traction. You refer to a number of interventions in the Caribbean and Central America to bolster an argument that the United States intervenes on a whim, ignoring the unique relationship between the United States and its immediate neighbors. In Haiti, for example, our intervention was almost certainly in response to the large numbers of immigrants produced by the upheaval on that island. In invading Grenada, the United States perceived that it was preventing entrenchment of a proto-Cuban regime within its presumed sphere-of-influence. Earlier interventions in the Caribbean, as during the early decades of the twentieth century, occurred under a vastly different strategic paradigm than is at work today.)
Could I ask you to validate your position that Sudan is “on the radar screen” of top U.S. politicians? You mention summons to military intervention, but those are now years old, and were often incredible, or even irresponsible. While many came from individuals who are now freshly-minted Obama appointees, those same leaders have been overwhelmingly quiet on the subject since arriving in office. Absent the Christian Right, who else is there to make a case for intervention in South Sudan? One doesn’t hear the oil companies raising a fuss. That leaves activists within the administration. Americans have had little stomach for intervention on the African continent. The Middle East, as a clear source of “problems” and oil both, is at least understood as an epicenter — somewhere that important things are happening. If commercial interests are really so powerful, why did we let Mobutu wither and die on the vine?
I don’t doubt that, in the event of saber-rattling in 2011, the government in Juba will lobby for, and receive, military assistance in the form of weaponry and training. I do, however, strongly doubt that the United States will send either large numbers of non-combat advisors or combat troops to South Sudan. I find it interesting that you cite calls for intervention in Darfur as evidence that something might be done in South Sudan when none of those calls was heeded. Indeed, Samantha Power has built a reputation as a voice in the wilderness, hounding administrations that are callously indifferent to slaughter in “unimportant” Africa.
Once again, if the American public is about to witness a sudden surge of troops in South Sudan in less than a year, the public relations groundwork is strangely absent. All of the key players and interests are yet obscure. The country is exhausted by commitments elsewhere in the world, and deeply cynical. Obama has a mandate to bring troops home, not commit them to new imbroglios in what has long been a strategic backwater. As for my comments on Iraq, I was referring to the post-1991 situation: Hussein had been a clear adversary for more than a decade by 2003, and had fired at American and British aircraft enforcing the No-Fly Zone. There had been numerous flare-ups during the Clinton administration. The situation was understood to be festering.
Proving that American oil companies are interested in taking advantage of business opportunities in Afghanistan is merely validation of the theory of capitalism. It does not suggest that we invaded that country in order to reshape it economically.
Jamaledin:
May 2nd, 2010 at 1:17 am
Dear Yong Deng,
The South has much right to be aggrieved with the North, and Southern Sudanese have fought very hard to achieve some semblance of political dignity and economic independence. While I still believe Southern Sudan’s longterm success would be better tied to the greater Sudan, I cannot accept an environment of bitterness and animosity towards the North. Especially unfair and misdirected animosity. Having said that, we must honor the Southern Sudanese people’s grievances, sufferings, decisions, and aspirations. Additionally, as a measure of safeguarding both states’ futures, I am absolutely interested in two states, living side-by-side, in peace, with no shared future as one political entity. While I hate to say this, I believe that the North has much to gain from a separate South, and needless to say, the South does too. There is an opportunity on the horizon for such a context.
Mr. Blayton has brought up his observations on the media’s stance on political developments in Sudan and I am pointing out the lack of critical observations on the South’s political developments. Not much attention has been devoted to the intimidation tactics of the SPLM or the 93% voting figures that Salva Kiir acquired, whether through freedom and fairness or not. I personally believe that Southern Sudan is preparing itself for a one-party state and I fear it shall suffer the same consequences as the NCP’s Sudan did. The lack of media focus on this makes it all too easy for the SPLM. Everyone seems to be so fixated on a separation-ensured referendum that they’re dropping their eyes from the ball.
Also, I’d have to disagree with you on the matter of U.S self-interest not being mutually exclusive to the South’s well-being. This remains to be seen. In the mean time, excuse me while I defer to the side of skepticism.
You are very well entitled to your interests. And so am I. What I am interested in is the counter-views and counter-arguments that are sorely lacking, on this forum, or in the media. We need a healthy discussion that reflect the realities on the ground for Southern Sudan’s political future. I am pointing out that all observers have to be wary of a false sense of optimism and should not substitute the marginal progress and substantial popular hope for absolute and resolute achievement. Despite the tremendous gains that Southern Sudanese are now enjoying, Souther Sudan has a long way to go and we should all remain vigilant with respect to this objective in order to keep the momentum going. I apologize if it sounds negative, but I believe things are highly precarious in Southern Sudan and no one seems to be acknowledging it. It is in the interest of the North to ensure that Southern Sudanese do not suffer in any capacity under a different political arrangement. Very soon Southern Sudan’s problems will be classified as an internal problem from the North’s perspective and South Sudan shall not enjoy any checks from the NCP or any future Sudanese government, however little these checks may currently be.
Whether we have a shared future or not, Southern Sudan’s well-being is connected to the North’s well-being. The sun’s not going to come out on the count of a referendum and its certainly not going to work out only if we “discuss…how the North and the South will live in peace as separate states”.
Jamaledin
Abd al-Wahab Abdalla:
May 2nd, 2010 at 10:08 am
Dear Oscar and colleagues,
Many thanks for this stimulating debate. In considering the interventions of imperialists and neo-imperialists we should not overlook the fact that invasion by the forces of the metropolitian powers themselves is the exception rather than the rule. Most of the military expeditions of the “British” army in Africa and Asia were in reality conducted by Egyptian, Indian and other troops including African auxillaries commanded by British officers. The French used “Senegalese” to conquer large areas of Sahelian and Equatorial Africa. In modern times the Americans, British and French have preferred to use local proxies and/or mercenaries and have only committed their own forces as a last resort. The question we should be asking ourselves for South Sudan is, which proxies and which mercenaries should we be on the look out for?
Oscar H. Blayton:
May 2nd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Dear Matthew,
My reference to the long history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam prior to widespread American awareness was in response to you your statement regarding “slow-moving” events speaking against a significant level of interest in the U.S. I fail to see how your reference to U.S. involvement in Angola is relevant to that issue. If you are saying that the U.S. becomes more invested in some countries than in others, I will grant you that, but that still does not negate the fact that the U.S. does become invested in some countries.
I may have confused you with my reference of the U.S. invasion of Haiti. I was referring to the 1915 invasion that led to a 19 year occupation of that nation. That invasion was prompted by U.S. commercial interests, particularly the Hatian American Sugar Company (HASC). (See: Weinstein, Brian and Aaron Segal (in ENGLISH). Haiti; Political Failures. Cultural Successes (February 15, 1984 ed.). Praeger Publishers. pp. 175. ISBN 0275912914.
As regards Grenada, an island the size of Martha’s Vineyard [a very small resort island off the coast of Massachusetts] and with a population that “could barely fill the Rose Bowl” [a football stadium in Los Angeles County, California] the official reason for the invasion given by the U.S. was to protect the lives of U.S. medical students at St. George’s University on Grenada [90% of whom when polled said that the did not want to be evacuated] and a non existent Cuban military threat. The invasion of Grenada was a pretext to display U.S. military might. As early as 1981, the U.S. military had staged a mock invasion of Grenada at Viequas Island a U.S. territory near Puerto Rico. [See: Ronald H. Cole, 1997, Operation Urgent Fury: The Planning and Execution of Joint Operations in Grenada 12 October - 2 November 1983 Joint History Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Washington, DC.] The same paradigm fits all of the instances of invasion that I cited, as they were all designed to serve U.S. economic interests.
With the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post [just to name a few media outlets] giving significant coverage to the recent elections in Sudan I feel fairly confident that Sudan is on the radar screen. By comparison, do we hear as much about the upcoming Rwanda elections? One will not hear the U.S. oil companies raise a fuss about Sudan, but that does not mean that they are not at work promoting their own interests. Hamid Karzai was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan prior to the invasion. These types of efforts are kept as quiet as possible. U.S. commercial interests helped to keep Mobutu in power for a very long time, but eventually his image was beyond redemption.
Even though you doubt that the U.S. will engage in South Sudan, the fact that Africom is in existence, makes it clear that it is not infeasible that one of its possible future missions could be to engage in some intervention designed to allegedly “help” South Sudan.
Finally, as I stated earlier, we may not necessarily witness a “surge of troops in South Sudan.” We may instead witness the shipment of military arms and the insertion of military or mercenary advisors. But if Americans are so exhausted of military commitments why does the U.S. have combat troops [receiving combat pay] in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, part of the Arabian Sea Gulf of Aden, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Best Regards
Vagn Sparre-Ulrich:
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:01 am
The South is receiving help from the US at the moment. USAID is cofinancing comprehensive infrastructure projects (roads tec.) in the South linking towns and markets in the South with a Southern outlets, i.e. orientation toward Uganda and Kenya. There are plans for an oil pipeline through Kenya. The North has only implemented the restructuring of the railroad to Wau, which was inaugurated recently. But at the same time considerable all weather roads are connecting the North and the Southern oil fields. So, US present investments in the development of the South has a “southern” pull towards black African states and towards independence.
If one looks at the history of foreign support for a Southern military power (the Anyanya and the SPLA) one sees Israel as the possible proxy for US involvement in the South although other actors are possible. There has been some mentioning of Kenyan support.
My conclusion is that the struggle for an independent South has started long time ago and is ongoing.
The main strategic interest for the US could be American control of the main oil riches of the present Sudan which is now mainly under Chinese control and placed in the South. An independent South could help tilt the strategic competition between the US and China over the African oil resources in favour of US interests.
4 May 2010
by Oscar H. Blayton
http://blogs.ssrc.org/sudan/2010/04/29/u-s-policy-may-be-coming-into-focus/
A narrative in the U.S. media seems to be coming into focus. A narrative which I believe is intended to justify an “American Intervention” into the oil rich Southern Sudan in not too many years distant.
The U.S. unflinchingly urged that the elections take place in April despite a multitude of signals that the process would contain numerous discrepancies. And just as surely as there would be discrepancies in the election process, it was a certainty that President Bashir would win handedly.
It seemed curious that in the weeks prior to the election mainstream media in the U.S. began to concede Bashir’s probable win and to publicly state that the win would be legitimate “de-facto” if not “de-jure.” The prevalent argument was: “Bashir will most certainly cheat in the election, but he would probably win without cheating.” This argument establishes Bashir as a “bad leader” while at the same time acknowledging that he is the people’s choice and nothing should be done in order to try to improve the fairness of the elections.
Now that Bashir has won, the New York Times and other leaders among the Western media are announcing that his win has paved the way for a North / South split in Sudan. The argument has been spun in such a way as to declare: “Who can blame the Southern Sudanese for wanting their own country, the April elections were not fair.” A simple Google of the words “Bashir” and “split” will bring up several articles written in this tone.
It is nothing new that U.S. foreign policy favors an independent South Sudan, despite its objections to the contrary. South Sudan will vote to separate from the North while the issue of resource (oil revenue) sharing remains unresolved.
The Northern remnant of Sudan will articulate its right to a share of the oil revenues derived from the resources in the South; and that will be characterized as a “hostile act” by the North and even as a threat of aggression. The stage will be set for the United States to step in to “protect” the newly independent nation of South Sudan and its oil riches.
But there is another whisper of a breeze rustling through the leaves of the American news papers. Very quietly it is being said while President Bashir made sure that the national elections were not fair, Salva Kiir did the same in the South to win 93% of the vote there.
The New York Times is saying: “Analysts are already sketching the outlines of the two post-referendum Sudans, where democracy will probably be the loser and uncompetitive, predictable election results the norm. The net result, they argue, could essentially be two one-party states with even less democratic space than under the flawed coalition government that rules today.”
It is not at all unlikely that the U.S. will step in to protect South Sudan and its oil from the North. And it is not at all unlikely that the U.S. will then step in to protect South Sudan and its oil from Mr. Kiir and the leaders of South Sudan.
COMMENTS as of May 5, 2010.
Dan Morrison:
April 29th, 2010 at 9:49 am
* South Sudan is not going to secede because of a Western media narrative.
Southerners will vote to leave Sudan because they want to, and because their history has shown Khartoum incapable of viewing them as equals. (And then there’s the 2 million dead people. And the century of slavery. And the forced Islamization. Etc.)
* I cannot think of a place that would make a less attractive target for military intervention than Sudan. The author’s prediction that we may one day see Marines on the ground in Bentiu or Paloich is inconceivable.
* The oil fields currently in operation are in the hands of companies like Total, ONGC and of course the Chinese and Malaysians. And there is no reason to think American companies will be favored in future development.
Muawia Abdel Karim:
April 29th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
The votes (real and fraudulent) show that al-Bashir won more than 80% in the north, but only 10% in the south and if there had been no boycott he would have probably not reached the 50% plus 1 needed to win on the first round! So the plan to divide Sudan is taking the country diametrically away from democracy and leaving the Sudanese in the hands of a dictator like Saddam Hussein or Hafiz Assad.
Abd al-Wahab Abdalla:
April 29th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
One of the peculiar syndromes that arises from prolonged alienation from power is an inability to calibrate the material interests of others. Among our colleagues on the left it is often highly pronounced and, unable to ascertain objectively the forces driving events, they are quick to infer that the course of events is determined by American conspiracy. In reality, U.S. material interests in Sudan are marginal, certainly so in comparison to several of its neighbours including Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, Kenya and DRC. Between the 1998 terrorist strikes in Kenya and Tanzania and the invasion of Iraq, with the September 11 terrorist strike on the U.S. mainland falling inbetween, there were clear U.S. national interests in Sudan, manifest in fears of state sponsorship of terrorism. Were there to be a major U.S. oil company in Sudan there might be economic interests too but this is not the case. What has happened is that that those objective interests generated a subjective interest in Sudan among diverse domestic groups such as Christian fundamentalists and liberal internationalists. Even after the U.S. material interest in Sudan faded these subjective interests, and interest groups, maintained an afterlife of their own, driving U.S. policy, increasingly at cross-purposes with the actual objective U.S. policy, which is disengagement and disinterest. General Gration is the messenger of this new policy which is that the Sudanese need to resolve their own national problems because the U.S. has no intention of doing it on their behalf. This is an unwelcome message to the opposition and to the SPLM which are therefore doing their best to undermine him, rather than assessing the implications of U.S. strategic disinterest.
Jamaledin:
April 29th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Dear Oscar Blayton,
You are most accurate in your assessment. US interests, however marginal, are not truly in support of any democratic transformation for any nation (one or two Sudans).
In response to the following quote:
“It is not at all unlikely that the U.S. will step in to protect South Sudan and its oil from the North. And it is not at all unlikely that the U.S. will then step in to protect South Sudan and its oil from Mr. Kiir and the leaders of South Sudan.”
I agree with the former statement. In the later statement, I would have to disagree. If we neglect the likelihood for a minute, I don’t believe an intervention by the US to protect southern Sudan from Kiir or Southern leaders would be necessary. Kiir and his cronies are all for the US. They know very well their political platform stems from US independent Christian group support. Kiir would probably escalate confrontation with Khartoum and beckon for US support for full control of oil extraction. Everybody wins except Southern Sudan.
I think the amnesia-afflicted media are focusing their myopic lenses on the issue at hand: Khartoum, while giving a near-free pass to Juba. I observed a seemingly objective CNN journalist ask Salva Kiir about the SPLM/A’s withdrawal from the national presidential elections and if that act may be considered irresponsible. It was probably the most unconventional tone I have ever seen from CNN’s part on the subject of Sudan. At any rate, the question was met with a caught off-guard, bleeding-edge, squinty-eyed Kiir who curtly replied “Call it what you want.” Needless to say, the journalist yielded.
The SPLM’s display of authoritarianism in the elections has been muddied by journalistic equivocations that the SPLM is trying to correct the security deficiencies and overabundance of weapons in the South (allegedly smuggled from the North). And, even on this forum, we have seen Non-Sudanese observers suggest that the excitement and optimistic political atmosphere of Southern Sudan is suggestive of a bright future for Southern Sudan. If Southern Sudanese are not careful, its people will be cast out and left to dry by the very people who support their cause right now.
All observers who envisage a bright future for Southern Sudan are either blind or mad.
Sincerely,
Jamaledin
Dan Morrison:
April 29th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
“Even after the U.S. material interest in Sudan faded these subjective interests, and interest groups, maintained an afterlife of their own, driving U.S. policy, increasingly at cross-purposes with the actual objective U.S. policy, which is disengagement and disinterest. General Gration is the messenger of this new policy which is that the Sudanese need to resolve their own national problems because the U.S. has no intention of doing it on their behalf. This is an unwelcome message to the opposition and to the SPLM which are therefore doing their best to undermine him, rather than assessing the implications of U.S. strategic disinterest.”
Well said, Abd al-Wahab Abdalla.
Hafiz Mohamed:
April 30th, 2010 at 1:24 am
I don’t think US media or administration should be blamed for pushing southern Sudanese to vote for separation. The issue of western conspiracy to divide Sudan as that will serve their interest is being circulated in Khartoum those days and linked to a deal between the NCP and the Americans , for the Americans to accept any election which gives NCP the mandate and legitimacy they are looking for and the NCP allow the secession to go smoothly. That deal includes, it is supposed, recognising the result of the referendum , and also the others controversial issues like , border demarcation and oil. All Sudanese opposition politicians from the right, left and the centre believe that, while many of them recognise that there are other factors contributing to that.
But what I believe the case here is that our brothers and sisters in the south just had enough. They will not waste this golden opportunity to go their own way , and I think they are right. This is not because I believe in separation because I am strong believer of unity. I have been campaigning for that since 1985, but I don’t think we have strong case to to south Sudanese to convince them that unity is their best option. How long do we want them to wait for the elites in north recognise them as equal and have the same rights? Do they have to wait for another 54 years or more? The way Sudanese politics is moving now will not bring any hope but only drive some other Sudanese region to go the way our brothers and sisters in the south will choose in January 2011. It is sad we are watching our country disintegrating and we will not be able to do anything to stop that. The whole episode of election rigging, intimidation and mal-practices, only contributes into driving many of moderate democrats to the extreme and makes them believe, that the only way to bring changes is through military means and not peaceful democratic struggle and that is step backward when most of western diplomats are saying the election is step forward.
My suggestion is to start a debate on this blog putting the cases for Unity/ Separation; I think that will might bring something positive.
Justice Africa and Inter Africa Group are starting their Unity / Secession Programme this month that also can create a platform for such discussion.
Abd al-Wahab Abdalla:
April 30th, 2010 at 7:55 am
I omitted to add the economic dimension to American material interest in Sudanese oil which does not seem to be well understood by many of my colleagues. There are both general and specific interests, and material and ideological ones, which are often in contradiction.
The United States has a general interest in any oil anywhere in the world coming to the market, even if it is extracted by countries such as Iran, Venezuela or Sudan, because that will help meet global demand for oil in an integrated world market. Even if not one drop of Sudanese oil reaches the American market that oil is satisfying global demand and keeping prices down. This is a general U.S. interest in a global petroleum market that keeps prices low. If American oil companies were involved then there would be a specific economic interest also, as profits would be repatriated to the United States as well, but it does not give the U.S. “access” to Sudanese oil as it might have done in mercantilist days.
If there were a U.S. oil major in Sudan, (for example if Chevron had not sold its stake in the 1980s) then that corporation with its private interests would shape American policy to be favourable to its business. It would also be subject to U.S. regulations on commercial practices and the environment as well and I am sure the activists in Washington would scrutinize its labour relations, payment of compensation to local people, and its financial transactions especially with the government. In objective terms this would give America more leverage, but it would also constrain the range of options that the activists consider. For example, blockading Port Sudan or imposing financial sanctions on Sudan would be impossible. In this context it is evident that the policy of commercial isolation of Sudan serves an ideological or rhetorical interest of the activists (reflecting the isolationist impulse of the years when U.S. policy towards Sudan was determined by counter-terrorism) and not the wider interest of promoting peace, wellbeing of the Sudanese or national unity.
In fact the policy of economic and commercial isolation serves the ideological interest of being seen to punish a rogue regime in preference to the material interest of achieving democracy and peace.
In the interim the financial sanctions policy has the entirely predictable effect of criminalizing the Sudanese economy and creating incentives for all kinds of shady and illicit activities at all levels. If western corporations and financial systems can not access the Sudanese economy then the Sudan government will find other mechanisms and will extract immense policy rent from its ability to regulate necessarily illicit financial transactions. In my analysis this is directly linked to what Hafiz Mohammed calls the dollarization of patronage and the corruption of the country’s entire political life. These phenomena can be traced back to the 1970s but are sustained by these misguided U.S. policies.
The objective outcome is that the ideological agenda is served at the expense of the progressive forces in Sudan, which are forced to participate at a disadvantage in a criminalized political economy. Another casualty is U.S. leverage. The final outcome is likely to be the reduction of U.S. engagement in Sudan to rhetoric and humanitarian action. Consequently the scenario that Mr Blayton envisages is improbable indeed.
Yong Deng:
April 30th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Jamaledin,
“All observers who envisage a bright future for Southern Sudan are either blind or mad.”
I would like to tell the prophets of doom like Jamaledin that it does not matter at all what the outside observers envisage about the future of South Sudan.People of South Sudan will do their best to make their future better as they have been doing sign 1955.
Despite what the analysts who come from their heaven-like cities says about the remote villages of South Sudan,the people of South Sudan are seeing their villages connected to towns by roads for the first time since the world was created. They see their children going to schools. They see modern clinics replacing herbal medicine. All these may not be enough to our people’s expecting after many decades of oppression.
It may be true there is American interest in South Sudan, but if that interest does not undermine the very interest of the South Sudanese,then the people of South Sudan do not have anything to worry about.So far the position of the current American Administration is positive. Gen Gration has said in many occassions that he does not see a shared future between the North and South Sudan. That is a very realistic conclusion that is shared by Southern majority.
What I expect people who are interested in the future of the whole Sudan to discuss is how the North and the South will live in peace as separate states.
Oscar H. Blayton:
April 30th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Dear Dan, I agree with your comment that South Sudan is not going to secede because of a Western media narrative. The Western media narrative is directed at a Western audience for the purpose of laying the foundations of an argument for why the U.S. military (or its proxies) should interfer with Sudan.
I also agree with Dan’s assessment that Sudan is not an easy target [Dan used the word “attractive”] but U.S. policy makers have shown that they do not always make the most accurate military assessments prior to engagement. It is my belief that the U.S. policy makers envision a scenario where they will be welcomed by the people of South Sudan, just as they deluded themselves into believing that Americans would be welcomed by the people of Iraq in 2003. But I believe that this is the scenario that they will attempt to sell to the American public in order to get support for military action.
Regarding access to the oil fields of Sudan, it is my belief that U.S. policy makers believe that they can somehow acquire access to Sudanese oil if they create an “American presence” in South Sudan.
Dear Abd al-Wahab Abdalla your comments are very insightful, and I believe they should be given a great deal of weight. I may be too quick to see a potential conspiracy by U. S. interests to intervene in the affairs of Sudan. And it may be that U.S. material interests in Sudan are marginal, but they were also marginal in Vietnam and the DRC in the 1960s. And while there is no longer a cold war element in today’s global politics I believe that the major players continue to seek to enhance their power. I believe that your statement about the afterlife of the interests of groups such as the Christian fundamentalists is “spot on.” But I believe that those interests may be revived and “pumped up” by the U. S. Government and used as “one” justification for military intervention in Sudan because I am not convinced that there is a genuine “U.S. strategic disinterest” at this time. But I could be wrong.
Dear Jamaledin, I agree with almost all of what you say. But just because Mr. Kiir and others currently in power in Southern Sudan are “all for the U.S.” it may not be the case that the U.S. sees Mr. Kiir as its most attractive potential “partner” in the South. I believe that the current characterization of Mr. Kiir in the U.S. press as a corrupt leader is a method of hedging bets on him in case he proves to be less useful than the U.S. would like. And I truly apologize for sounding like a conspiracy theorist; but 20th Century history has shown that the U.S. can be a faithless friend when it comes to geo-politics.
Dear Hafiz Mohamed, I agree with you that it is not the US media or administration that is pushing the southern Sudanese to vote for separation, and I did not mean to give that impression. The people of Southern Sudan will vote for separation or unity for their own well informed reasons. What I was trying to say is that the U.S. is seeking to take advantage of this situation by giving the impression to the leadership in the South that the U.S. will be supportive of an independent South, therefore making those leaders feel more secure about their decision.
Abd al-Wahab Abdalla makes a brilliant case for why it is improbable that the U.S. will intervene in the affairs of Sudan out of a desire for oil. But while it is true that a greater supply of oil will keep prices down, maintaining a low price for oil in the global market is not necessarily the aim of U.S. commercial interests. A brief review of the recent stock prices of major American oil companies will illustrate that when the price of oil goes up the value of the shares of American oil companies increases as well, thereby increasing the wealth of the investors. Also, we should keep in mind that there is value in being able to CONTROL THE FLOW of oil to global markets [or to significantly impact upon that flow] – the Saudi Arabia vs. Aranco case illustrates that. But I believe that because the U.S. does not want its engagement in Sudan reduced to “rhetoric and humanitarian action” it is seeking ways to have a stronger influence there. Having an oil rich partner such as Southern Sudan may be seen by certain U.S. foreign policy decision makers as a way to gain that influence.
Matthew Sinn:
May 1st, 2010 at 1:07 am
Oscar,
If indeed U.S. media is building a narrative designed to persuade the American public of the wisdom of intervention on behalf of Southern Sudan, then the overall conspiracy is so slow-moving and precarious as to beggar belief.
The number of Americans aware of the problems of Sudan is very small. It is covered only rarely in American newspapers; even less frequently in news magazines and on television. The majority of reporting appears in the New York Times. It is irregular. The attention paid by policy-makers is negligible. Darfur captured the attention of several key personalities in the Obama Administration: NSC staffer Samantha Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and Vice President Joe Biden. Nonetheless, the congressional hearings were few and far between. The Christian Right, that segment of the American population most aware of, and most interested in, the fate of South Sudan, is unlikely to make common cause with as liberal a Democrat as Barack Obama. If there is a plan to shape public opinion so as to favor intervention, where are its outlines? Why is more not being made of the ICC warrant? Why is almost nothing said about Salva Kiir in the United States?
There is also the question of what happens if the dog that barks does not also bite. What if al-Bashir chooses to pursue an incremental strategy of attrition against South Sudan, or none at all? In the absence of imminent military threat, what incentive — indeed, what leverage — will Kiir have to invite American peacekeepers (and peacekeepers they would have to be)? What argument could Obama put before Congress to validate a proposed deployment of American fighting men and women to Sudan when the nation tires of much less abstract commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It is true that American interests were marginal in IndoChina and sub-Saharan Africa during the Cold War, but that conclusion is only evident in retrospect. In the two decades that followed the Second World War, the United States still held the view that Europe’s colonies were essential to its economic recovery — hence its extensive material aid to the French Union. In Zaire and later Angola, American policymakers believed that they were required to check the expansion of Communism in the global south in order to make more credible the overall structure of European deterrence. Close examination of Kissinger’s recorded thought on Angola reveals an obsession with reputation.
I am troubled by the simplicity of an argument that presumes the United States today expects to remake South Sudan at a whim by somehow seizing it from the SPLM on the basis of particularistic thinking about opportunities for nation-building in Iraq. The United States Congress and public accepted that the war in Iraq was necessary on grounds that Saddam Hussein was concealing weapons of mass destruction. This perception, while flawed, was shared by key allies in Europe and elsewhere. They differed on the advisability of military action versus containment. It is also worth recognizing that Iraq was an established adversary, well known to Americans, whereas Sudan, and indeed nearly all of Africa, remains sadly under-acknowledged.
If the United States did indeed intend to control the flow of oil — and you have not proved that they intend to do so in Sudan, or that the Obama Administration sees the world as you allege that the Bush Administration did — why could they not accomplish this objective in large part by working the levers of economic and military assistance, rather than through de facto occupation? Remember, the benefit of influence is constrained by cost.
Best,
Matthew
Oscar H. Blayton:
May 1st, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Dear Matthew,
I think that I understand your incredulity based upon what you perceive to be a slow-moving and precarious effort to gain support among U.S. citizens for a military involvement in Sudan. But to help put things into perspective I would like to point out that the first U.S. military forces were sent into Vietnam in 1950 when President Harry Truman authorized U.S. military advisors and $15 million aid to help the French. This was eleven years before President Kennedy sent in the Green Beret advisors and 15 years before Lyndon Johnson landed the 3,500 hundred combat Marines in 1965 to protect the American air base at Da Nang and the 23,000 American advisors that were already in Vietnam. For 15 years the U.S. had been exerting military influence in Vietnam with very little awareness of the American people.
I disagree with your statement that the attention being paid to Sudan by U.S. policy makers is negligible. There may not be a great deal of public comment about Sudan by policy makers, but that does not mean that it is not on the radar screen.
I think that the Christian Right now believes (as the CIA World Factbook states) that the percentage of Christians in Sudan does not exceed 5% and even in the South it is estimated to approximate 15%. [But I am certainly willing to be corrected on these figures by anyone with reliable data.] I believe this has curbed their enthusiasm for now and that the Christian Right will have less influence on the direction of U.S. policy towards Sudan than U.S. commercial interests. And in my initial post on this thread you will find what I believe to be the “outline” of the plan to shape public opinion.
An attempted U.S. military intervention (by proxy or otherwise) in Sudan is not out of the question. There have previously been calls from within the U.S. for military intervention in Sudan. Some people called for the establishment of a “No Fly Zone” over Darfur, to be enforced by the U.S.; others have even called for U.S. boots on the ground. Still others have called for the use of mercenaries such as Blackwater. All this was in the face of strong disapproval of such tactics by members of the UN, the EU and the AU. And abstractions have rarely constrained U.S. military adventurism. Most U.S. citizens are hard pressed to explain the actual reasoning for the invasions of Haiti, Santa Domingo, Panama and Grenada by U.S. military forces. But money was to be made on each of those excursions. And it could well be that the military intervention by the U.S. in Sudan may well be in the form of military assistance through weaponry and training.
It is true that the Cold War is over, but this Islamophobic driven crusade against terrorism by the U.S. is just as intense. And just as U.S. foreign policy was guided by the perceived threats of the Cold War in decades past, so too will it continue to be driven by misguided perceptions of threats of terrorism from the Muslim world.
Just as the American public was sold on the existence of weapons of mass destruction, they can be sold on some other particular threat from Sudan. As you may recall, there was barely a peep of protest in the U.S. media when the harmless Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory was obliterated by a missile fired from a U.S. naval vessel in what was supposed to have been a justified response to the bombing of two U.S. embassies in other countries. And by the way, if Iraq was such an “established adversary” as you contend, why did we provide them with some of the chemical weapons that they used against the Iranians in the 1980s?
Matthew, you are absolutely correct in your statement that I have not proved that the U.S. has a strong desire to control the flow of oil. But I will point to the oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan being proposed by the U.S. oil company Unocal and the hugely expensive oil pipeline being proposed across Kazakhstan by the Chinese to illustrate why I believe controlling the flow of oil is deemed to be important in geo-politics.
Best regards,
Oscar
David Barsoum:
May 1st, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Dear Mathew
I think Oscar is right about American designs for the Sudan.
First the involvement of the Christian Right and indeed Christian Missionaries in the South dates back to the pre-independence era. Christian missioanries or rather some of them, see it as a barrier to check the spread of Islam and the Arabic language south-wards into Africa. The British Colonial Authorities went to the extent of banning the Maronite Church and the Egptian Orthodox Church of Alexandria from operating in the South, though they are Christians because they use Arabic Language, this is recorded history.
Indeed I think I drew attention, in this blog,to recent writings in the New York Times, about Sudan and Nigeria, as battle lines between Christianity and Islam in Africa.
Just a look at the BBC website will show you that the war in the South, is invariably described as the war between the Arab Moslem North and the Christian South.
I am in no position to deny or confirm the figures Oscar cites about the percentage of Christians in the South Sudan, but can certainly confirm that there Moslems, Christians and Animists in the South.
I myself was surprised when i visited Juba, that the lingua-franca in the town is what is known as Juba-Arabic, and even the Dr.John garang used to address his troops in arabic, not to mention VP Salavatore Kiir, in his campaign.
For those who seems to always play the tune of Arab and African, I have on several occasions,referred them to the Old Testament, Genesis,hoping that they could know the truth of the relation between Arab and African,at the risk of repeating myself and may be bore you i quote:
“So Hagar bore Abram a son,and Abram named his son whom Hagar bore, Ishmael.”
Genesis:16:15
Hagar is the Nubian slave woman of Sarah, wife of Abram,and second wife of Abram (Hajir in Arabic and Abram is Ibrahim in Arabic).
Ishmael or Ismail in Arabic is the ancestor of the Arabs.
As for America’s interest in Sudan,the obvious is that the US as the Super Power of the world has interests all over the world,Africa not an exception, and raw materials in general, not only oil, is the main factor behind such interests. And it was this search for raw materials that led to the intervention in the Congo in the sixties, Angola in the seventies. With the emergence of new powers like China and India and their need for oil and other raw materials one expects this competition to grow fiercer over potential areas of raw materials,recent reports about the illegal mining and exploitation of natural rescources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are a case in point.
In the Sudan, it is no seceret that major American Oil Companies have interests, remember Chevron was there first, before the Chinese companies, and an independent South Sudan, which is indebted to the West, notably US support may change the situation and favour Western Companies,which are so far banned from doing business with the Sudan, in consonance with the US imposed Sanctions.
As to whether that may entail a military intervention or not, the future will tell,but one cannot ignore that the US is already funding the American Command in Africa, and that Scot Gration, President Obama’s Special Envoy to Sudan, is an Ex-Airforce General, and he was quoted as saying, “the elections imperfect as they are, are the prelude to the Independence of South Sudan”, South Sudan is not a colony as far as I know and i really hope that the General was misqouted. The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who i think is hawkish about secesion of the South, was Assistant Secreatary of State for African Affairs during the Clinton Adminstration, and Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who was the First Secretary of State to openly meet with the Late Dr.John Garang and deal with him openly, amidst a declared US Policy seeking regime change in the Sudan.
I by no means seek to exonerate the Sudanes parties and politics, from their responsibilities, but i call attention to the dangers of others exploiting this situation to serve their own interests, and if any thing, the latest American Policy towards the Sudan, starting with the elections (which we are told are not up to international standards yet acceptable), raise many doubts.
You would remember how Zimbabwe and President Mugabe were treated,following the elections,which were not( up to international standards,according to the US,UK and the EU). President Mugabe was condemned from all corners of the civilized world, Zimbabawe was dragged to the Security Councli for sanctions,had it not been for Russia and China.
I wish I could really believe that President Obama can withstand the pressures of both, the extreme Christian Right and the Oil Industry.
To my brothers and sisters in the South who favour secession, I wish to say that the story of the small bird that Oscar told, is full of wisdom.
You are free to vote and you will vote, come January, but don’t vote to simply condemn the past.
Matthew Sinn:
May 2nd, 2010 at 12:40 am
Oscar,
The Vietnam War is a good example of “conflict creep.” Consider, however, the alternative case of Angola, in which the United States launched a costly covert intervention that, because the nation was weary of blood sacrifice and boogeymen, was struck down by Congress. This, despite the prior investments of South Africa and Zaire, both of which were considered valuable bulwarks of anti-Communism in sub-Saharan Africa, and the reputed private urging of leaders in both Zambia and Tanzania that something be done to neutralize the MPLA. Henry Kissinger and the Congressional hawks got no traction. You refer to a number of interventions in the Caribbean and Central America to bolster an argument that the United States intervenes on a whim, ignoring the unique relationship between the United States and its immediate neighbors. In Haiti, for example, our intervention was almost certainly in response to the large numbers of immigrants produced by the upheaval on that island. In invading Grenada, the United States perceived that it was preventing entrenchment of a proto-Cuban regime within its presumed sphere-of-influence. Earlier interventions in the Caribbean, as during the early decades of the twentieth century, occurred under a vastly different strategic paradigm than is at work today.)
Could I ask you to validate your position that Sudan is “on the radar screen” of top U.S. politicians? You mention summons to military intervention, but those are now years old, and were often incredible, or even irresponsible. While many came from individuals who are now freshly-minted Obama appointees, those same leaders have been overwhelmingly quiet on the subject since arriving in office. Absent the Christian Right, who else is there to make a case for intervention in South Sudan? One doesn’t hear the oil companies raising a fuss. That leaves activists within the administration. Americans have had little stomach for intervention on the African continent. The Middle East, as a clear source of “problems” and oil both, is at least understood as an epicenter — somewhere that important things are happening. If commercial interests are really so powerful, why did we let Mobutu wither and die on the vine?
I don’t doubt that, in the event of saber-rattling in 2011, the government in Juba will lobby for, and receive, military assistance in the form of weaponry and training. I do, however, strongly doubt that the United States will send either large numbers of non-combat advisors or combat troops to South Sudan. I find it interesting that you cite calls for intervention in Darfur as evidence that something might be done in South Sudan when none of those calls was heeded. Indeed, Samantha Power has built a reputation as a voice in the wilderness, hounding administrations that are callously indifferent to slaughter in “unimportant” Africa.
Once again, if the American public is about to witness a sudden surge of troops in South Sudan in less than a year, the public relations groundwork is strangely absent. All of the key players and interests are yet obscure. The country is exhausted by commitments elsewhere in the world, and deeply cynical. Obama has a mandate to bring troops home, not commit them to new imbroglios in what has long been a strategic backwater. As for my comments on Iraq, I was referring to the post-1991 situation: Hussein had been a clear adversary for more than a decade by 2003, and had fired at American and British aircraft enforcing the No-Fly Zone. There had been numerous flare-ups during the Clinton administration. The situation was understood to be festering.
Proving that American oil companies are interested in taking advantage of business opportunities in Afghanistan is merely validation of the theory of capitalism. It does not suggest that we invaded that country in order to reshape it economically.
Jamaledin:
May 2nd, 2010 at 1:17 am
Dear Yong Deng,
The South has much right to be aggrieved with the North, and Southern Sudanese have fought very hard to achieve some semblance of political dignity and economic independence. While I still believe Southern Sudan’s longterm success would be better tied to the greater Sudan, I cannot accept an environment of bitterness and animosity towards the North. Especially unfair and misdirected animosity. Having said that, we must honor the Southern Sudanese people’s grievances, sufferings, decisions, and aspirations. Additionally, as a measure of safeguarding both states’ futures, I am absolutely interested in two states, living side-by-side, in peace, with no shared future as one political entity. While I hate to say this, I believe that the North has much to gain from a separate South, and needless to say, the South does too. There is an opportunity on the horizon for such a context.
Mr. Blayton has brought up his observations on the media’s stance on political developments in Sudan and I am pointing out the lack of critical observations on the South’s political developments. Not much attention has been devoted to the intimidation tactics of the SPLM or the 93% voting figures that Salva Kiir acquired, whether through freedom and fairness or not. I personally believe that Southern Sudan is preparing itself for a one-party state and I fear it shall suffer the same consequences as the NCP’s Sudan did. The lack of media focus on this makes it all too easy for the SPLM. Everyone seems to be so fixated on a separation-ensured referendum that they’re dropping their eyes from the ball.
Also, I’d have to disagree with you on the matter of U.S self-interest not being mutually exclusive to the South’s well-being. This remains to be seen. In the mean time, excuse me while I defer to the side of skepticism.
You are very well entitled to your interests. And so am I. What I am interested in is the counter-views and counter-arguments that are sorely lacking, on this forum, or in the media. We need a healthy discussion that reflect the realities on the ground for Southern Sudan’s political future. I am pointing out that all observers have to be wary of a false sense of optimism and should not substitute the marginal progress and substantial popular hope for absolute and resolute achievement. Despite the tremendous gains that Southern Sudanese are now enjoying, Souther Sudan has a long way to go and we should all remain vigilant with respect to this objective in order to keep the momentum going. I apologize if it sounds negative, but I believe things are highly precarious in Southern Sudan and no one seems to be acknowledging it. It is in the interest of the North to ensure that Southern Sudanese do not suffer in any capacity under a different political arrangement. Very soon Southern Sudan’s problems will be classified as an internal problem from the North’s perspective and South Sudan shall not enjoy any checks from the NCP or any future Sudanese government, however little these checks may currently be.
Whether we have a shared future or not, Southern Sudan’s well-being is connected to the North’s well-being. The sun’s not going to come out on the count of a referendum and its certainly not going to work out only if we “discuss…how the North and the South will live in peace as separate states”.
Jamaledin
Abd al-Wahab Abdalla:
May 2nd, 2010 at 10:08 am
Dear Oscar and colleagues,
Many thanks for this stimulating debate. In considering the interventions of imperialists and neo-imperialists we should not overlook the fact that invasion by the forces of the metropolitian powers themselves is the exception rather than the rule. Most of the military expeditions of the “British” army in Africa and Asia were in reality conducted by Egyptian, Indian and other troops including African auxillaries commanded by British officers. The French used “Senegalese” to conquer large areas of Sahelian and Equatorial Africa. In modern times the Americans, British and French have preferred to use local proxies and/or mercenaries and have only committed their own forces as a last resort. The question we should be asking ourselves for South Sudan is, which proxies and which mercenaries should we be on the look out for?
Oscar H. Blayton:
May 2nd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Dear Matthew,
My reference to the long history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam prior to widespread American awareness was in response to you your statement regarding “slow-moving” events speaking against a significant level of interest in the U.S. I fail to see how your reference to U.S. involvement in Angola is relevant to that issue. If you are saying that the U.S. becomes more invested in some countries than in others, I will grant you that, but that still does not negate the fact that the U.S. does become invested in some countries.
I may have confused you with my reference of the U.S. invasion of Haiti. I was referring to the 1915 invasion that led to a 19 year occupation of that nation. That invasion was prompted by U.S. commercial interests, particularly the Hatian American Sugar Company (HASC). (See: Weinstein, Brian and Aaron Segal (in ENGLISH). Haiti; Political Failures. Cultural Successes (February 15, 1984 ed.). Praeger Publishers. pp. 175. ISBN 0275912914.
As regards Grenada, an island the size of Martha’s Vineyard [a very small resort island off the coast of Massachusetts] and with a population that “could barely fill the Rose Bowl” [a football stadium in Los Angeles County, California] the official reason for the invasion given by the U.S. was to protect the lives of U.S. medical students at St. George’s University on Grenada [90% of whom when polled said that the did not want to be evacuated] and a non existent Cuban military threat. The invasion of Grenada was a pretext to display U.S. military might. As early as 1981, the U.S. military had staged a mock invasion of Grenada at Viequas Island a U.S. territory near Puerto Rico. [See: Ronald H. Cole, 1997, Operation Urgent Fury: The Planning and Execution of Joint Operations in Grenada 12 October - 2 November 1983 Joint History Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Washington, DC.] The same paradigm fits all of the instances of invasion that I cited, as they were all designed to serve U.S. economic interests.
With the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post [just to name a few media outlets] giving significant coverage to the recent elections in Sudan I feel fairly confident that Sudan is on the radar screen. By comparison, do we hear as much about the upcoming Rwanda elections? One will not hear the U.S. oil companies raise a fuss about Sudan, but that does not mean that they are not at work promoting their own interests. Hamid Karzai was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan prior to the invasion. These types of efforts are kept as quiet as possible. U.S. commercial interests helped to keep Mobutu in power for a very long time, but eventually his image was beyond redemption.
Even though you doubt that the U.S. will engage in South Sudan, the fact that Africom is in existence, makes it clear that it is not infeasible that one of its possible future missions could be to engage in some intervention designed to allegedly “help” South Sudan.
Finally, as I stated earlier, we may not necessarily witness a “surge of troops in South Sudan.” We may instead witness the shipment of military arms and the insertion of military or mercenary advisors. But if Americans are so exhausted of military commitments why does the U.S. have combat troops [receiving combat pay] in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, part of the Arabian Sea Gulf of Aden, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Best Regards
Vagn Sparre-Ulrich:
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:01 am
The South is receiving help from the US at the moment. USAID is cofinancing comprehensive infrastructure projects (roads tec.) in the South linking towns and markets in the South with a Southern outlets, i.e. orientation toward Uganda and Kenya. There are plans for an oil pipeline through Kenya. The North has only implemented the restructuring of the railroad to Wau, which was inaugurated recently. But at the same time considerable all weather roads are connecting the North and the Southern oil fields. So, US present investments in the development of the South has a “southern” pull towards black African states and towards independence.
If one looks at the history of foreign support for a Southern military power (the Anyanya and the SPLA) one sees Israel as the possible proxy for US involvement in the South although other actors are possible. There has been some mentioning of Kenyan support.
My conclusion is that the struggle for an independent South has started long time ago and is ongoing.
The main strategic interest for the US could be American control of the main oil riches of the present Sudan which is now mainly under Chinese control and placed in the South. An independent South could help tilt the strategic competition between the US and China over the African oil resources in favour of US interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
