Darfur update: No UN "surge"; blame George

An account of the current situation follows--should you wonder why so little is happening, see here.

The forced withdrawal of aid organisations from Darfur could leave more than two million civilians facing catastrophe, vulnerable to militia attacks, starvation and disease, a leading human rights activist has warned...

...[There have been] a string of attacks on humanitarian organisations by Janjaweed militiamen and rebel groups, in which a dozen aid workers have died. The onslaught prompted an unprecedented joint statement this month by UN agencies in the western Sudanese province, saying that the aid operation there, the world's largest, was under threat. Aid officials say the government of Omar al-Bashir is also holding up visas and customs clearance for their supplies...

The Sudanese government breached a UN-brokered ceasefire agreement in recent days by conducting air strikes on Darfur villages, according to African Union observers. Mr Bashir told the BBC that his forces had carried out bombing in northern Darfur, but said the truce had first been broken by rebel forces.

Mr Bashir has agreed to allow UN peacekeepers into Darfur to support a small force deployed by the African Union, but only 40 have arrived, and Khartoum is dragging its heels over further deployments...

Now note the final paragraph of this piece in The Guardian:

In his state of the union address on Tuesday, President George Bush said he would "continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur". But, said Mr Rossin [a former US ambassador now acting as international coordinator of the Save Darfur Coalition]: "We've all raised consciousness about Darfur. That's not the president's job. It's the president's job to do things."

Of course, as always, it's George's fault. No mention of China or Russia. Do we want a hyperpower or not? Or just when it suits us?

Mark C.

Posted by markc at January 27, 2007 09:56 AM