Nicolas Henin, a reporter’s blog

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Luis Moreno-Ocampo just filed genocide charges against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.
He accuses him of masterminding attempts to wipe out African tribes in Darfur with a campaign of murder, rape and deportation.
“Genocide is a crime of intention — we don’t need to wait until these 2.5 million (displaced people) die,” Moreno-Ocampo said in an interview with The Associated Press.

I do actually believe that this is a very bad move that endangers Sudan, and therefore the Sudanese people.

I was very impressed reading an article in the May/June 08 issue of Foreign Affairs. Under the title ‘Beyond Darfur’, Andrew S. Natsios writes that continuing Western pressures on Sudan seriously jeopardize the peace agreement signed between Khartoum and the South, and are even counter-productive to reach a goal of a stable and peaceful Sudan.

Andrew S. Natsios is not a leftist activist, nor a agent of a Chinese lobby. Just the former special envoy of the Bush administration for the crisis in Darfur.

It is very important to read again his text as the future of the Sudan has been darkened by this decision of the ICC

I post down here the summary. The full article may be read here.

Summary: While the crisis in Darfur simmers, the larger problem of Sudan’s survival as a state is becoming increasingly urgent. Old tensions between the Arabs of the Nile River valley, who have held power for a century, and marginalized groups on the country’s periphery are turning into a national crisis. Engagement with Khartoum may be the only way to avert another civil war in Sudan, and even that may not be enough.

This is a piece of furniture the Iraqis are pretty not happy to seat on.

The Status of forces agreement is being bargained between the US administration and the Iraqi governement.

Considering what is at stake, it is likely the bargain will last.

All details on these talks are kept secret, in order not to jeopardized them by debates in the Iraqi public, but the British The Independent daily released some of its exclusive content. I republish the story below.

What is strange is that the US media dont seem to understand the value of the Iraqi sovereignty. Time magazine, for instance, has no problem writting : “U.S. troops, for instance, are not subject to local laws in any of the countries where they are stationed, an arrangement okayed by unquestionably sovereign countries such as Germany, Japan, South Korea and Italy”. (read the complete story here).

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called “strategic alliance” without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create “a permanent occupation”. He added: “The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.”

Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

If there is an islamofascism, then I believe that Rod Parsley is a very good example of ‘christianofascist’.

This man is a pastor, a televangelist, who lives in Columbus, Ohio.

You can visit his web page or read about him on Wikipedia.

This Parsley is one of these guys who made up his carreer on racism and hatred.

‘Islam is an anti-christ religion’, he says in this video. ‘America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed. Muhammad received the revelation from demon spirits, not from the living god.’

The problem is that this good-looking christian version of a djihadist is also a man that is thanked by John MacCain for ‘(his) leadership and (his) guidance’.

In the last weeks, Somalia came back to the headlines. 85 people were killed in fightings in Mogadishu in a couple of days. Unrest have driven 750,000 others out of their home in the capital city during the last 15 months.

But who cares ?

The media concentrated their attention to two European ships that were taken by pirates off the shores of Somalia.

France and the US presented to the UN security council two resolutions drafts to fight piracy inside the Somali sea borders.

For Daniela Kroslak and Andrew Stroehlein, International crisis group experts, it’s like ‘watching flames engulf your neighbor’s house and calling in the fire brigade to help you wash your car.’

Moreover, the US counterterrorism policy prevent the Somali interim governement to engage the islamists in a real national conciliation talk, by considering them ‘terrorists’.

By the way, during their short reign in Mogadishu, these ‘terrorists’ succeeded eradicating piracy off Somali coasts. But no one will give them credit for that.

I post here the original column, published in the International Herald Tribune.

“Oh My Gosh, Pirates!”,
Daniela Kroslak and Andrew Stroehlein in the International Herald Tribune
29 April 2008

Strange how an African country can be moving from prolonged chaos to violent collapse and no one in the world notices until a couple of European boats get seized by armed gunmen.
War-ravaged Somalia is in the worst shape it has been in for years - which, for this devastated country that has not had a proper government for nearly a generation, is really saying something.
Yet, neither of the two resolutions currently in preparation at the UN Security Council mention the 85 dead in Mogadishu last weekend, or the exodus of newly displaced persons from that city, or Ethiopian shelling of civilian areas or the dwindling international humanitarian response.
Instead, one of the resolutions proposed by France, the United States and Britain is a reaction to the hijacking of a French yacht and a Spanish fishing vessel, and would authorize countries to fight piracy off Somalia’s coast.
It is like watching flames engulf your neighbor’s house and calling in the fire brigade to help you wash your car.
The death and displacement in Somalia is caused by the violent confrontation between the evaporating transitional government troops and its Ethiopian allies on the one hand, and insurgents on the other.
Officials in African and western capitals shrug their shoulders when confronted with the dire situation in Somalia. A lack of political will, investment and imagination has made Somalia a hopeless case in their eyes.
Realizing no one in power cares in the slightest, most international media have also been ignoring Somalia, barely mentioning the recent heavy fighting in Mogadishu for example.
Ethiopian troops have been accused of having targeted mosques and killing religious leaders and civilians in the north of the capital. Whole areas of Mogadishu were sealed off, leaving outsiders only to guess the gravity of the plight in those sectors. Did anyone hear about any of this?
But pirates taking a French luxury yacht? That story was hard to miss.
According to the United Nations, 2.5 million people are in urgent need of assistance in Somalia. 750,000 alone were displaced from Mogadishu over the last 15 months. Critical water shortages and a severe drought have befallen central and northern Somalia further aggravating the hardship for the civilian population.
The verdict seems to be clear: combined Ethiopian, African Union troops and transitional government forces have failed to establish security in the capital Mogadishu, or any other part of the country.
Islamist al-Shabaab militants in southern and central Somalia are combining their military operations with political outreach. Ultimately, the rise and consolidation of an Islamist movement pursuing a regional and international agenda will create a growing threat to the rest of the Horn of Africa.
A narrow window of opportunity has emerged in the form of Somali Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein’s recent offer to negotiate with both the internal and external opposition, including al-Shabaab, many members of which belong to the clan controlling Mogadishu, the Hawiye. This bold political initiative led by a widely respected figure, if seized upon, could potentially usher in an inclusive Somali national political dialogue.
But it now faces a steep hurdle, if not a fatal blow, from the U.S. designation of al-Shabaab as a terrorist organization. Whether well founded or otherwise, the U.S. move - preceded by the latest American air strikes on Dobley in southern Somalia - could undercut the prime minister’s initiative, widen the rift between the president and the prime minister and undermine local and international efforts to facilitate a political resolution to the Somali crisis.
The lack of strategic engagement by the international community is a significant obstacle to progress. The efforts of the UN special representative, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, to build greater cohesion among members of the international community should be encouraged, and he should be supported to build a strategy for a meaningful peace process.
This new political process should work to achieve an end to the current insurgency. The first point on the agenda for negotiation should be a cease-fire. Involved parties need to be given security guarantees in order to agree to it and truly engage in political dialogue. For the opposition this might involve a clear plan and timeline for phased Ethiopian withdrawal supported and monitored by the international community. The Ethiopians would be given guarantees about greater Somalia claims and other security concerns.
The negotiations should include an agreement on the borders of the federal state, its internal divisions and the devolution of powers between states and central government. Also, a national reconciliation process should put an end to the cycle of revenge that has ruined the country for over two decades. The incentive for the parties to discuss this issue would be accountability mechanisms that would apply to perpetrators of crimes committed by all sides of the conflict. Finally, there must be an agreement on an electoral process leading to a democratic election of political leaders.
All this may seem quite a reach for a collapsed state like Somalia. But if world leaders and the international media gave this the kind of priority they have given the pirates, then progress would be far easier.

Daniela Kroslak is the deputy director of the Africa Program, and Andrew Stroehlein is media and information director, of the International Crisis Group.