UN Peacekeepers patrolling the South Sudanese village of Yuai in 2012. Credit: Jared Ferrie/IPS.

By Jonathan Loeb
NEW YORK, Dec 20 2016 (IPS)

With the future of the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Darfur now in jeopardy, the safety and security of the Sudanese region’s most vulnerable communities hangs in the balance.

Although the United Nations (UN) Security Council and the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council unanimously renewed the mandate of the UN-African Union Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) last June, the renewal masks deep divisions within both Councils. Some member states support strengthening the mission, while others accept the Government of Sudan’s position that the war in Darfur is over and that the mission should draw down and ultimately withdraw.

Withdrawal is not a morally legitimate option. The large-scale violence against civilians in Darfur in 2016 demonstrates the urgent need for a robust peacekeeping force.

Despite UNAMID’s mandate to use force to protect civilians, it has consistently failed to protect the population during attacks. The mission has, however, provided protection for civilians who are displaced by violence and manage to get themselves to bases or camps secured by peacekeepers. This protection – while inadequate – is indispensable for many of the two-and-a-half million people who remain displaced at the end of 2016 and, in and of itself, justifies the mission’s continued existence.

Whether there is a plausible scenario under which the UN Security Council and the AU Peace and Security Council can strengthen the mission to deliver better protection for the people of Darfur is debatable; the history of the international response to the conflict provides little evidence for optimism. The intractable nature of the conflict and the entrenched views of the most powerful members of both Councils present tremendous obstacles to action.

A more immediate – and addressable – explanation for some of the inaction is the fact that member states are ill-informed about the severity of the abuses that are still taking place in Darfur.

During the past three years, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Darfur have been forcibly and unlawfully displaced by government troops using the same scorched-earth tactics that have characterised the war from its outset nearly 14 years ago. The Government of Sudan has gone to great lengths to prevent reporting on this violence. Independent journalists and foreign diplomats are forbidden to travel in Darfur unless they are part of government-chaperoned trips to government-approved locations.

The lack of access has created an information black hole, leaving UNAMID as the only actor on the ground in Darfur with a mandate and responsibility to report about the conflict.

This duty primarily takes the form of the quarterly reports of the UN Secretary General to the Security Council on the situation in Darfur, which include updates on, among other things, conflict dynamics, political developments, the humanitarian situation, human rights and civilian protection.

Unfortunately, the mission’s reporting capabilities are severely hindered by the Government of Sudan. And it stands to reason that the government, which has been accused repeatedly of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, will continue to resist all efforts to document its military activities.

The Secretary General’s reports identify how the government hampers the mission’s reporting, including repeated denials of access to the most conflict-affected parts of Darfur and the refusal to grant visas for the mission’s staff, especially civilian staff working on issues related to human rights and protection. There are other, arguably even more crippling, tactics. These tactics – which are more difficult to prove and are not disclosed in the SG’s reports – include, most notably, the government’s continued monitoring of the mission’s activities. Civilians who speak with UNAMID about sensitive issues, and UNAMID national staff who report on sensitive issues, face a constant risk of arrest and detention.

These significant obstacles notwithstanding, the SG’s reports convey a general impression that the mission is providing the Council with an accurate and reasonably comprehensive assessment of the nature of the conflict and its impact on the civilian population. This impression is false. Reports by the SG and UNAMID frequently mischaracterise the impact of violence on the population and often fail completely to report on gross violations of human rights.

The large-scale violence that occurred in Jebel Marra between January and September 2016 is the most recent example of the UNAMID’s egregious failure to report. Jebel Marra is a 5,000-square kilometre volcanic massif in the centre of Darfur, consisting of approximately 1,500 villages and hamlets. The area has been a stronghold for armed opposition groups throughout the conflict; in 2016, portions of Jebel Marra were the only significant territory in Darfur still held by an armed opposition movement. Access to Jebel Marra has been largely cut-off since 2009, when the Government of Sudan responded to the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir by expelling nearly all the aid agencies operating in the area. No journalist, human rights investigator, humanitarian actor or peacekeeper has been granted any meaningful access to the most conflict-affected parts of Jebel Marra for years.

In January 2016, UNAMID reported a massive build-up of government forces in the plains surrounding Jebel Marra. In mid-January, large-scale violence erupted on four different fronts, with government forces attacking positions held by members of the armed opposition.

UNAMID had no access to the attacked areas in Jebel Marra; the SG’s reports relied on observations made by local sources and staff members on distant bases to describe the military offensive. The result was an incomplete picture of fighting between the government and members of the armed opposition. Absent from the reports was any of the overwhelming evidence that strongly suggests the commission of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, as well as other serious violations of international human rights law. The reports are almost entirely silent on sexual violence, unlawful killings, indiscriminate bombings, destruction of civilian infrastructure, looting of civilian property and other violations of international law, including credible allegations of chemical weapons use – all of which were carried out by Sudanese government forces during the offensive.

While UNAMID’s lack of access, shortage of personnel and the real risks facing its local staff and its civilian interlocutors are valid reasons for being unable to comprehensively document the recent violence, they in no way justify the irresponsible misrepresentation of the nature and magnitude of the violence.

Based solely on the content of the SG’s reports and other public UNAMID reports about the violence in Jebel Marra it would be reasonable to conclude that many if not all the tens of thousands of civilians who fled from Jebel Marra to UNAMID-protected spaces were displaced lawfully under international humanitarian law. Any good-faith effort by UNAMID to investigate, by interviewing survivors, analyzing publicly available satellite imagery, or setting up its own network of trusted intermediaries inside Jebel Marra, would reveal that this is simply not the case. Most were displaced from (now destroyed) villages, which had no formal armed opposition presence at the time of the attacks, by attackers whose purpose was to target the entire civilian population in the village.

UNAMID’s unwillingness or inability to conduct either on-site or remote research into the nature of the attacks in Jebel Marra has left both the UN and AU security councils grossly ill-informed about the magnitude of the human suffering that has pervaded the region. As a result, the councils have less reason to doubt the government’s false assertions that fighting was limited to combatants.

Ideally, both councils would work together to apply sufficient political pressure to overcome the government’s obstruction of UNAMID’s ability to report. In the interim, the mission’s civilian staff members need to use the considerable tools still at their disposal to document and accurately characterise the impact of violence on the civilian population and, in turn, better inform the councils about the urgent need for protection. If this is not feasible, then UNAMID needs to fully and publicly acknowledge the shortcomings of its reports to ensure that they are not relied upon as evidence of an absence of gross violations of human rights. Perversely, UNAMID’s failure to report on recent attacks in Jebel Marra largely serves as false evidence of the nonexistence of abuses, which the Government of Sudan now cites in support of its narrative that the war is over and that UNAMID is no longer necessary.

The war is not over. A peace operation is still necessary. There are recent reports of a government troop build-up ahead of another military offensive in Jebel Marra expected in early 2017. This should catalyse both Councils to immediately take steps to ensure that UNAMID is prepared to protect vulnerable populations still living inside Jebel Marra. Chief among these steps is the enforcement of the status of forces military agreement between UNAMID and the government of Sudan entitling the mission to full and unrestricted movement throughout Darfur.  UNAMID must be allowed to mobilise its military and civilian resources in accordance with a current threat assessment, which would inevitably involve unfettered access throughout Darfur – especially in Jebel Marra – including the ability to reposition its operating bases.

In the absence of a political resolution to the conflict – which 13 years of peace-negotiations has failed to deliver – or a genuine cessation of hostilities by all parties, redoubling support for UNAMID remains the best option for delivering urgently needed civilian protection. Darfur’s long-suffering people deserve this, at the very least.

Excerpt:

The UN has only limited access to Jebel Marra, the location in Sudan where Amnesty International alleges Sudanese government forces have used chemical weapons, UN Peacekeeping Chief Herve Ladsous said here Tuesday.

‘’We have not come across any evidence regarding the use of chemical weapons in Jebel Marra,’’ Ladsous told the UN Security Council, noting that UN mission’s consistently restricted access into Jebel Marra has hindered effective monitoring and reporting.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has also assessed that no conclusions regarding Amnesty’s conclusions can be made without further investigation.

In a report released on September 30, Amnesty pointed to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Sudanese government forces against civilians in Darfur, resulting in an estimated 200-250 deaths since January 2016.

Amnesty alleges that chemical weapons have been deliberately targeted towards civilians in the remote region of Jebel Marra in Darfur at least 30 times in the past eight months.

The Amnesty investigation was conducted remotely, from outside Jebel Marra, mostly due to access restrictions. It therefore relied upon satellite imagery, extensive interviews, and expert analyses of survivors’ injuries.

According to the report, interviewed survivors witnessed a ‘’poisonous black smoke that gradually changed colour and smelled putrid’’ during the attacks in their villages.

‘’It smells like someone burning plastic, mixed with the smell of rotten eggs…’’said Kobei, a senior armed opposition group commander, in an interview in the report.

Disturbing images from the investigation show injuries ranging from weeping blisters, bloody lesions and darkened skin peeling off. Other reported injuries include eye problems, severe respiratory problems, involuntary seizures, red urine, miscarriages, bloody vomiting and diarrhea.

The report mentioned that children were generally more affected than adults after the alleged exposure. Further, injured survivors have had ‘’no access to adequate medical care.”

Both chemical weapons experts who reviewed the evidence stated that the victims experienced a variety of symptoms that “strongly suggest an exposure to chemical weapon agents.”

Identifying the specific chemical agents requires collecting samples from those allegedly exposed, from the environment and from weapon remnants used during the attacks. Given the severe access restrictions into Jebel Marra, Amnesty have not been able to do this.

Sudan is currently a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention that bans the use of chemical weapons.

The Sudanese government has refuted the allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Jebel Marra and said that it will to cooperate with the OPCW investigation.

In a letter dated 27 September 2016, Sudan’s Minister of Justice, Awad Hassan Elnour, said that the evidence in the report is “unreliable, contradictory and unsubstantiated ’’ and alleged that ‘’the survivors and witnesses in the report were either members of the opposition or influenced under fear.”

Elnour questioned whether the satellite imaging relied on in the report showed government forces wearing protective suits and helmets against chemical weapons as they stood on the very ground supposed to be targeted with such weapons. She additionally questioned the alleged death toll of 200 people, considering no such information was available in any health centers in the country.

The report however alleges that the chemicals were released primarily through air bombs and rockets and that the victims had no access to medical treatment.

Peacekeepers from the UN-African Union force in Darfur have been denied access into Jebel Marra where the alleged chemical weapon attacks occurred, according to Ladsous, in his briefing to the UN Security Council on October 4.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 7 2015 (IPS)

As part of a politically-amusing annual ritual, the guessing game is on at the United Nations: will he, or will he not, address the General Assembly, along with more than 150 heads of state who are due in New York next month?

Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who has been indicted on war crimes charges by the International Criminal Court (ICC), is reportedly toying with the idea of defying the international community once again – as he did in South Africa in June — and appearing before the U.N.’s highest policy making body when it begins its general debate, come Sep. 28.“Even though we’re not a party to the Rome statute of the ICC, we have strongly supported the ICC’s efforts to hold accountable those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. So I’ll just leave it at that.” -- U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner

This will be his third attempt to address the General Assembly, the last two being aborted.

However, his proposed visit to New York this time has been accompanied, as usual, by a rash of widespread rumours: will he be arrested on his way from the airport and handed over to the ICC? Does the United States, which is not a party to the ICC statute, have the legitimate right to do so?

Elise Keppler, Acting Director, International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, told IPS, “Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir belongs in one place only, the International Criminal Court, where he faces outstanding warrants for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur.”

“A visit by al-Bashir to the U.N. would not only be an affront to Darfuri victims, but a brazen challenge to the U.N. Security Council, which was responsible for sending Darfur to the ICC for investigation in the first place in 2005,” she added.

Still, will the U.S. Embassy in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum provide him with an entry visa which the United States has rarely denied to visiting heads of state because it is mandated to facilitate the working of the United Nations under what is called the Headquarters Agreement with the host country?

But so far neither the United Nations nor the U.S. State Department is willing to provide any answers.

Asked about the proposed visit, Mark Toner, the U.S. State Department’s deputy spokesperson told reporters: “We’ve seen reports that President Bashir plans to speak at the U.N. summit in September – Summit for Development. We don’t have any further information at this time.”

“We can’t, frankly, talk about individual visa cases or disclose any details from it. We’re prohibited by law from doing so,” he said.

More broadly, “Even though we’re not a party to the Rome statute of the ICC, we have strongly supported the ICC’s efforts to hold accountable those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. So I’ll just leave it at that.”

Asked if the Sudanese president will be arrested if he arrived in New York, Toner said: “Again, I’m not going to get out and speak to hypotheticals. We haven’t received any word that he’s intending to go there. And frankly, if we did, I couldn’t speak to it from here. Sorry about that.”

Addressing the U.N.’s Legal Committee last year, Hassan Ali, a senior Sudanese diplomat, told delegates, “The democratically-elected president of Sudan, Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, had been deprived of the opportunity to participate in the General Assembly (last year) because the host country, the United States, had denied him a visa, in violation of the U.N.-U.S. Headquarters Agreement.”

Furthermore, he complained, the host country also applied arbitrary pressures on foreign missions, “depending on how close a country’s foreign policy is to that of the United States.”

“It was a great and deliberate violation of the Headquarters Agreement,” he said, also pointing to the closing of bank accounts of foreign missions and diplomats as another violation.

“Those missions have now been without bank accounts for some three years,” he added.

A denial of a U.S. visa amounts to violations of specific international agreements such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, and particularly the U.N. Headquarters Agreement, entered into by the U.S. and the U.N. in 1947 and unanimously ratified by Congress.

In response to the U.S. refusal to grant a visa to Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat in 1988, the General Assembly had to move its meeting to Geneva at huge expense and inconvenience.

In June al-Bashir, in complete defiance of the international community, participated in an African Union (AU) summit meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa.

But he left the country hours before a South African court issued an interim order to prevent the president from leaving the country.

Peppered with questions early this week, U.N. Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, was non-committal.

“Well, I don’t speak on behalf of the ICC, but what is clear and what the Secretary-General has said repeatedly is that he believes that the Member States of the U.N. system need to take the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court seriously, and, of course, as you know, there are relevant resolutions of the Security Council also about this matter, which we expect the Member States will abide by.”

Asked if al-Bashir will be visiting the U.N., Haq said “Well…at this stage, I’m not… I’m not aware that this is confirmed. I am aware of what the (Sudanese) Permanent Mission has said on this, but at this stage, I’m not aware of what the arrangements are for this.”

“And we’ll have to see how that goes. But certainly, we have continued to treat the matter of the ICC prosecutions regarding Darfur seriously, and we believe all Member States should do so,” he added.

Pressed further on the issue of a U.S. visa, Haq said the basic understanding is that the Heads of State and Government who come for the general debate will be able to come to the United States in order to speak (at the U.N.)

“As you know, there have been some disputes about this over the years, but the general rule has been that,” he noted.

Asked if the United States could refuse a visa and not let him into the country, or arrest him at the airport, even though the U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC, Haq said: “That would essentially be a matter to ask the United States Government… I wouldn’t comment on what they may or may not do.”

Asked if it is his understanding that immunity would attach to all Heads of State in transit between the arrival point in the United States and the U.N. Headquarters, Haq said, “It is basically a question based on a speculative question, so I wouldn’t go further on that realm of speculation.”

“Regarding the issue of immunity, that is covered in a number of treaties including the Vienna Conventions, and I would just refer you to those,” he said.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

A woman from Kassab camp for Internal Displaced Persons, in Kutum (North Darfur), shows her sorrow for the increase of rapes in the area in 2012. Credit: Albert Gonzalez Farran - UNAMID

By Lyndal Rowlands
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 16 2015 (IPS)

The future of the U.N. African Union Hybrid Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) could depend largely on determining what exactly happened in the town of Tabit in Northern Darfur at the end of October last year.

‘Mass Rape in Darfur’, a report released by Human Rights Watch (HRW) last week, documents over 200 alleged cases of rape of girls and women that occurred in Tabit over a 36-hour period from 30 October to 1 November last year.

UNAMID conducted its own investigation in Tabit last year, releasing a press statement on 10 November that stated that they “neither found any evidence nor received any information regarding the media allegations during the period in question.”

However, the United Nations Secretary General’s Spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, stated on 17 November that, “The heavy presence of military and police in Tabit made a conclusive investigation difficult,” calling for UNAMID to be granted “unfettered” access to conduct a “full investigation.”

At the time the HRW report was released, UNAMID was still yet to be granted that access. UNAMID’s statement from 10 November remained on their website, without retraction or clarification.

IPS contacted UNAMID about the Tabit reports and was directed to the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping which did not respond to IPS’ inquiries.

Satellite Image of the town of Tabit, Sudan. Credit: Human Rights Watch.

The contradiction between the Secretary General’s Spokesperson’s statement about UNAMID’s investigation and UNAMID’s own press release, fits within a pattern of reporting described, and documented in April 2014 by UNAMID’s former spokesperson turned whistleblower, Aicha Elbasri.

IPS spoke with Elbasri about her allegations and the implications of incomplete or inaccurate reporting of the situation in Darfur for UNAMID.

“The Tabit story which is extremely tragic confirmed what I’ve been denouncing for the past two years,” Elbasri told IPS.

Elbasri describes the investigations into her allegations, of incomplete and inaccurate reporting by UNAMID over the period of 2013 to April 2014,  as a ‘cover-up of a cover-up’.

“When Fatou Bensouda, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), requested an independent thorough and public investigation into my charges I expected that Ban Ki-moon would respect this call, which he did not.” Elbasri told IPS.

Disagreement over conflicting reports of what happened in Tabit is also evident between the permanent members of the Security Council.

The United States Permanent Representative to the U.N. Samantha Power said on Thursday: “Because the Government of Sudan denied the UN a “proper investigation”, we have to rely on organizations such as Human Rights Watch to gather witness and perpetrator testimony and to shine a light on what happened.”

Mother told HRW Sudan gov soldiers raped her & 3 daughters (2 under 11yo): “They put clothes in mouths so you could not hear the screaming”

— Samantha Power (@AmbassadorPower) February 12, 2015

However, Russia has endorsed the Sudanese government’s own finding that there was not a single case of rape, calling on the US government to end economic sanctions against Sudan, which Russia claims are contributing to ongoing violence.

In December last year Fatou Bensouda the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court told the Security Council, “Given this Council’s lack of foresight on what should happen in Darfur, I am left with no choice but to hibernate investigative activities in Darfur.”

The ICC has had an arrest warrant out on Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir since March 2009, for his role as indirect co-perpetrator in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

However, even this arrest warrant reveals political divide between international governments, with some in Africa claiming that the ICC is unfairly targeting Africa.

Exit Would Leave Darfur’s Villages Unprotected

With UNAMID’s authorisation set to expire on 30 June 2015, there are concerns that plans to downsize or withdraw the peacekeeping mission in Darfur, will leave civilians unprotected amid ongoing violence.

“As we speak there are talks about the exit strategy. The Sudanese government is pressuring, with the support of the Russians and Chinese to just end this mission so that they have no witnesses on the ground and the can just finish off their crimes against humanity,” Elbasri told IPS.

“The United Nations is at a crossroads. It has to decide it means what it says. Whether it is still committed to protecting the millions of people in Darfur. Or whether it will just declare its failure and abandon the people of Darfur,” Elbasri said.

The HRW report also questioned the U.N. and A.U.’s downsizing of UNAMID.

“Officials have indicated that this process has been driven by several factors including Sudan’s hostility to the mission, the mission’s high cost, its long standing ineffectiveness with respect to its core mandate, and the perception that the conflict in Darfur is subsiding and no longer requires a robust peacekeeping force.

“The withdrawal of peacekeepers could undermine what little protection the mission has afforded the people of Darfur,” HRW stated.

HRW said that the U.N. and A.U.’s evaluation of UNAMID “should focus on how to urgently improve and bolster the ability of UNAMID to protect people from the kinds of horrific abuses that occurred in Tabit, and effectively investigate human rights abuses without endangering victims and witnesses.”

Professor Eric Reeves, a Sudan researcher and analyst, is also concerned for the future of UNAMID after its authorisation expires at the end of June.

“What will happen is it will not be renewed or it will be renewed in ways that will make it meaningless,” he said. “It’s really meaningless now. But this will go to unheard-of depths with any renewal that Khartoum will permit, otherwise they will simply demand that UNAMID withdraw.”

“We are approaching a moment of truth,” said Reeves.

Reeves told IPS that one of the reasons the UNAMID mission has failed is because it is a hybrid.

“It’s the countries of Africa that continue to celebrate UNAMID as a great success that are responsible here, and none of them is taking responsibility. And short of a non-consensual deployment of a civilian protection force, we will see on July 1st an eviscerated UNAMID or no UNAMID at all,” said Reeves.

“I believe that given the escalating level of violence, we are going to see a major major increase in civilian destruction and displacement. This has been ongoing for three years now, at least.”

Reports of Violence Continue

Hamza Ibrahim, Chairperson of Foreign Committee of the Darfur People’s Association of New York told IPS that violence in North Darfur has continued, including in areas where people have signed peace agreements with the government.

The government forces are occupying or burning down all of the water sources, people who usually access underground water by pump, now have no access to water and are dying of thirst, Ibrahim told IPS.

He said that when people called for help from UNAMID, that UNAMID said that they couldn’t help because they were in a ‘no go’ area.

“UNAMID have to go there to protect the people, that’s the reason they are there. But for us it looks like the mission is failing, because they can’t even protect themselves.” Ibrahim told IPS.

Follow Lyndal Rowlands on Twitter: @lyndalrowlands

Edited by Roger Hamilton-Martin

A displaced mother and her child inspect the remnants of their burnt house in Khor Abeche, South Darfur. Apr. 6, 2014. Credit: UN Photo/Albert González Farran

By Josh Butler
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 11 2015 (IPS)

More than 200 Darfurian women were reportedly raped by Sudanese troops in one brutal assault on a town in October 2014, with the conflict in war-torn Darfur escalating to new heights.

A report released by Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Wednesday claimed up to 221 women in the town of Tabit, in northern Darfur, were raped over a 36-hour period between Oct. 30 and 31.“Three of them participated in the attack, and two said they had orders to rape. Their attacks were more or less a pre-emptive strike on the town for allegedly supporting rebel groups." -- HRW's Jonathan Loeb

Several hundred Sudanese government troops were said to have looted the town, severely beat men and boys, and sexually assaulted women and girls.

Jonathan Loeb, the report’s author and a fellow in the Africa division of Human Rights Watch, told IPS that HRW investigators were forced to conduct secretive phone interviews with victims and witnesses, as Sudanese forces blocked all access to the town. Even in the aftermath of the October attack, Loeb said United Nations peacekeepers, aid workers, human rights investigators and journalists were denied access.

“The only time they let anyone in, it was in circumstances not remotely close to a real investigation,” Loeb said.

“People did take real risks to talk to us. Some only wanted to speak after they obtained a new phone card or number that wasn’t registered to them, and some only spoke once they were outside the town.”

Witnesses and victims told of brutal beatings and whippings, as well as repeated rapes. They reported Sudanese forces claiming the attack was in retribution for the disappearance of a soldier from a nearby army base.

“[The soldiers] made us lie with our faces down and they said: ‘If anyone [lifted] their head it would be shot off. And if you don’t find our missing soldier you will be food for termites,’” a man called Idriss told HRW.

Khatera, a woman, explained the systematic nature of the Sudanese attack.

“Immediately after they entered the room they said: ‘You killed our man. We are going to show you true hell.’ Then they started beating us. They took my husband away while beating him. They raped my three daughters and me,” she said.

“Some of them were holding the girl down while another one was raping her. They did it one by one. One helped beat and the other raped. Then they would go to the next girl.”

Loeb said investigators had several theories on the reason behind the attack.

“We don’t know for certain, but from the victims’ perspective, they were being collectively punished for the soldier going missing. They were accused of abducting or killing him,” he said.

He said other possible reasons for the attack included discouraging rebel forces from using Tabit as a meeting point before attacking the Sudanese base. Four Sudanese defectors told HRW the base had received intelligence that a rebel commander was to soon arrive in Tabit.

“Three of them participated in the attack, and two said they had orders to rape. Their attacks were more or less a pre-emptive strike on the town for allegedly supporting rebel groups,” Loeb said.

Dan Sullivan, director of policy and government relations with activist organisation United To End Genocide, said the situation in Darfur has sharply deteriorated in recent months.

A U.N. panel reported over 3,000 villages were destroyed by Sudanese forces in 2014, with almost 500,000 people displaced.

“It is bad, and it’s getting worse. The sad truth is, we’re seeing the highest levels of violence and displacement since the height of the Darfur genocide almost a decade ago,” Sullivan told IPS.

“A lot of people have been displaced consistently over a long time. There’s lawlessness, tribes fighting over gold reserves, and the government of Sudan continues to drop bombs in direct violation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions. There just hasn’t been any enforcement of violations.”

Both Sullivan and Loeb attributed a recent surge in violence to a newly created militia force, the Rapid Support Force (RSF). Sullivan said the RSF was formed largely of former members of the Janjaweed, the Sudanese counter-insurgency force accused of killing tens of thousands of Darfurians during the genocide.

“They are a reconstitution of the Janjaweed, the men on horseback with guns. It’s the same people, but now they’re in this new force and supported by the government of Sudan,” Sullivan said.

Loeb said it was unclear whether the Sudanese government had directly ordered, or had knowledge of, the Tabit atrocity, but said the government at least played a role in the attempted cover-up.

“We’re able to state the soldiers reported they were given orders by a senior commander, and another travelled from the regional capital to participate. We’re not sure how far up the chain of command these orders came from,” Loeb said.

“We know the government at a variety of levels was complicit in the cover-up, and stopping the investigation going forward.”

Loeb said the commissioner of the locality threatened victims and witnesses with violence or death if they spoke to the U.N or journalists.

“There was significant government involvement, an government-orchestrated cover-up. But exactly how high it went, we don’t know,” he said.

The HRW report calls for the U.N. to make greater interventions into the conflict to protect at-risk Darfurian citizens, as well as for a formal investigation into the Tabit incident.

“Citizens in Tabit are extremely vulnerable. They are living in the same houses where the rapes happened, and Sudanese soldiers are a constant presence. We’re recommending the U.N. mission on the ground establish a permanent presence and base in the town,” Loeb said.

“The Security Council should demand that happen. The incident also requires further investigation by an international body. We say the High Commissioner for Human Rights would be best placed.”

Sullivan said the conflict in Darfur would continue until real structural and political change happened in the region. He said current Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, in power since 1989 and indicted by the International Criminal Court in 2009 for the campaign of mass killing and rape, would retain power for the foreseeable future.

“It comes down to accountability. The guy in charge at the beginning of the genocide [Al-Bashir] continues to be president. He’s wanted on charge of genocide, but is set for election again and win again in April,” Sullivan said. “This cloud of impunity is a major part of allowing the attacks to continue.”

Edited by Kitty Stapp

A view of the briefing room as Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (left, facing camera) addresses journalists at his annual end-of-year press conference. At his side is his spokesperson Martin Nesirky. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 16 2013 (IPS)

As the ongoing crises in some of the world’s hot spots – including Syria, the Central African Republic, Mali, Libya, Palestine and Darfur, Sudan – continue unabated, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Monday singled out some of the biggest challenges facing the international community in 2014.

At his traditional year-end press conference, Ban said 2013 was the year in which the Syrian conflict, now in its fourth year of relentless killings, has “deteriorated beyond all imagination”."I can think of nothing I would rather see in 2014 than for world leaders to emulate [Mandela's] example in upholding their moral and political responsibilities." -- Ban Ki-moon

“The people of Syria cannot afford another year, another month, even another day of brutality and destruction,” he added.

And 2013, he noted, was also the year in which the Central African Republic “descended into chaos”.

The situation in the Central African Republic has become “one of the most serious crisis issues for the United Nations to manage,” he said.

“I am gravely concerned about the imminent danger of mass atrocities,” Ban warned, appealing to the country’s transitional authorities to protect people.

The crisis in both Syria and the Central African Republic will remain two of the primary issues high on the U.N. political agenda in 2014.

The Syrian crisis is furthest from a resolution since the Security Council remains deadlocked with two veto-wielding permanent members, Russia and China, opposed to any sanctions against the beleaguered regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

A conference of the warring parties is scheduled to take place Jan. 22 in Geneva. But it is in danger of unraveling over several contentious issues, including the composition of the rebel forces’ representation at the conference, and whether or not Iran and Saudi Arabia should participate, besides the five permanent members of the Security Council, namely the United States, UK, France, Russia, China, plus Germany (P5+1).

Meanwhile, the fighting between the government and rebel forces in the Central African Republic has been temporarily thwarted with the deployment of French and African forces.

But as the battle intensifies, Ban is expected to call for an upgrade of the joint military force, called the International Support Mission for the Central African Republic, into a full-fledged U.N. peacekeeping force.

Asked about the important lessons he may have drawn after six years in office, Ban said he was “just amazed there are still so many challenges unresolved”.

The number of crises now seems to be increasing than during his first term, which began in January 2007. At that time, the situation in Darfur was the most serious issue, he said.

“Now you have so many issues,” said Ban, specifically Syria, the Central African Republic and Mali.

Making a strong case for international collaboration, he said “nobody, no organisation, no country, however powerful, however resourceful” can singlehandedly resolve the current crop of problems.

“That is a very important lesson which I learned, and that is why I have been appealing and reaching out to member states: please, let us work together.”

But he cautioned that he himself or even the United Nations cannot do it alone. “We need support from many regional and sub-regional organisations,” he said.

As the situation in Syria continued to deteriorate, there was a humanitarian appeal Monday for a staggering 6.5 billion dollars in funds. The collective appeal came from several U.N. agencies involved in humanitarian assistance to 9.5 million people affected by the fighting in Syria.

The U.N.’s Emergency Relief Coordinator Valerie Amos, and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, described the crisis as “appalling”.

Jens Laerke, spokesperson and public information officer at the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, (OCHA), told IPS the combined appeal is “the largest ever appeal for a single emergency.”

Asked how much of this will be realised, he said, “We certainly hope the generosity shown by donors in previous years will also apply this time round. Having said that, appeals are rarely if ever 100 percent funded.”

At the press briefing, Ban also laid out some of the key success stories of 2013.

Alongside the new and ongoing crises, he said, 2013 was also a promising year for diplomacy.

The United Nations reached a landmark agreement on the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme, while the 193-member General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty, “realising a long-held dream.”

At the same time, member states agreed on a roadmap for shaping the post-2015 development agenda, which will include a new set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a logical successor to the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) whose deadline is 2015.

Ban also said the climate change conference in the Polish capital of Warsaw last month “kept negotiations on track for an agreement in 2015.”

And across the Sahel and West Africa, peacekeeping and mediation promoted stability, with the people of Mali conducting peaceful legislative elections last week.

Saturday’s “bombing attack in Kidal will not deter us,” he added.

Ban also referred to “another highlight of 2013”: the agreement reached last month between Iran and the P5+1 countries on Iran’s nuclear programme.

“I hope this initial understanding will be followed by a comprehensive agreement on all outstanding concerns,” he declared.

Finally, 2013 will be remembered, he said, as the year in which the world bid a sad but celebratory farewell to former South African President Nelson Mandela.

“I can think of nothing I would rather see in 2014 than for world leaders to emulate his example in upholding their moral and political responsibilities,” Ban said.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, accused of war crimes and genocide in the politically-troubled Darfur region, is apparently planning to visit New York and address the U.N. General Assembly next week.

The proposed visit has triggered outrage among human rights groups and has been rebuffed by the United States."The last thing the U.N. needs is a visit by an ICC fugitive.” - HRW's Elise Keppler

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague “invited the competent U.S. authorities to arrest Omar al-Bashir and surrender him to the Court, in the event he enters their territory.”

The ICC reminded the United States of the two outstanding arrest warrants issued on Mar. 4, 2009 and July 12, 2010 against al-Bashir for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

On Mar. 6, 2009 and Jul. 21, 2010, the ICC Registry transmitted requests for al-Bashir’s arrest and surrender to all U.N. Security Council members that are not states parties to the Rome Statue, including the United States.

The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), a global network of civilsociety organisations working to strengthen international cooperation with the ICC, said it is “seriously concerned” by reports that al-Bashir has applied for a visa to attend the 68th session of the General Assembly which begins next Tuesday.

The speakers on opening day include U.S. President Barack Obama.

Al-Bashir is not on the official list released by the United Nations, which is expected to update it to reflect changes, if any.

A Third World diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS that to the best of his knowledge, the United States cannot refuse a visa to a visiting head of government or a visiting delegation because the U.S.-U.N. headquarters agreement calls for the facilitation of delegates participating in U.N. meetings in New York.

Sudanese President Omer Hassan A. al-Bashir at United Nations Headquarters in New York in 2006. Credit: UN Photo/Erin Siegal

William Pace, convenor of the CICC, said while the 1947 U.N. Headquarters Agreement requires the U.S. government to cooperate in the attendance of representatives of governments, the U.S. government did assist in the transfer of fugitive Bosco Ntaganda from the Democratic Republic of Congo to the ICC in The Hague earlier this year.

Asked for a clarification, U.N. Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq told IPS, “The question of whether the United States is to grant President al-Bashir a visa to allow him to attend the General Debate [of the General Assembly] is, first and foremost, a matter for the United States to determine, consistent with the applicable rules of international law.”

He acknowledged that al-Bashir is subject to an arrest warrant issued by the ICC. “The secretary-general would therefore urge him to cooperate fully with the ICC, consistent with Security Council resolution 1593 (2005), by surrendering himself to the ICC,” Haq said.

Pace said, “If al-Bashir comes to the U.N., the Coalition will monitor very closely that U.N. officials and governments respect the principles of ‘non-essential contact’ with persons subject to international arrest warrants for the worst crimes against humanity.”

Asked about the proposed visit, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers told reporters she had seen published reports that al-Bashir intends to travel to New York.

“President al-Bashir, as you know, stands accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity by the ICC,” she said. Such a trip “would be deplorable, cynical and hugely inappropriate”.

“We would suggest that given that he is under those charges, and that the ICC has indicted him, again, on genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity charges, that it would be more appropriate for him to present himself to the ICC and travel to The Hague.”

Jose Luis Diaz, head of the U.N. office of Amnesty International, told IPS, “We’re looking at the different legal issues involved, which are seemingly complex.”

Still, he said, “it would be outrageous for al-Bashir to come to the U.N. to thumb his nose at the international community and essentially mock the victims of the crimes committed in Darfur.”

He said there are two ICC arrest warrants outstanding. And as the president of the Assembly of ICC States Parties said, should al-Bashir transit through a state party on his way to New York, that country has the obligation to arrest and surrender him to the ICC.

“What’s more, Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005) urges all states and concerned regional and other international organisations to cooperate fully with the court, including in sending suspects to The Hague,” said Diaz.

Elise Keppler, associate director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, told IPS, “This is an unprecedented situation that raises a range of legal issues. If al-Bashir turns up at the U.N. General Assembly, it will be a brazen challenge to Security Council efforts to promote justice for crimes in Darfur. The last thing the U.N. needs is a visit by an ICC fugitive.”

Notably, a number of states have avoided possible visits by al-Bashir to their countries by encouraging him to send other Sudanese officials and making clear he is not welcome, and also sometimes rescheduling, cancelling or relocating meetings, said Keppler.

Pace said members of the Coalition are exploring all legal measures that could be taken by the U.N., the ICC states parties and the U.S. government to secure the arrest and transfer of President al-Bashir to the ICC.

The Coalition will also assist in organising political protests if al-Bashir attends the U.N. General Assembly, he added.

Residents of the Kassab Camp for Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) in North Darfur wait to be examined by doctors. Credit: UN Photo/Albert González Farran

By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Feb 15 2013 (IPS)

Amidst ongoing violence and continuing humanitarian emergencies in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile states, the International Crisis Group (ICG) called Thursday for a comprehensive solution to Sudan’s many regional conflicts.

In the first of a series of reports on the subject, the Brussels-based think tank urged the long-ruling National Congress Party (NCP) to sit down with both its armed and unarmed opposition, as well as civil society groups, to forge a transition to a new governance system designed to resolve conflicts between the central government in Khartoum and its restive regions.

It also urged the international community, including the U.N. Security Council, the African Union, and the Arab League, to join the demand for a single, comprehensive solution to Sudan’s multiple conflicts lest the country fragment further 18 months after South Sudan gained its independence.This conflict in Darfur is now 10 years old, and we need to see a renewed effort to bring about stability and peace in this devastated area.

“Unless the government and the international community engage with both the armed and unarmed opposition and achieve a comprehensive solution to Sudan’s chronic problems, the conflicts will continue and multiply, threatening the stability of the entire country,” according to E.J. Hogendoorn, the ICG’s deputy Africa programme director.

The new 55-page report, which focuses primarily on the war between the government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North in South Kordofan, comes as aid groups are reporting growing humanitarian crises in North Darfur, as well as states bordering South Sudan.

Oxfam warned Thursday that tens of thousands of already-displaced people have fled inter-tribal fighting in several areas of a gold-producing region in North Darfur and now lack access to clean water and adequate shelter and sanitation.

It said at least 90,000 people had been displaced in the Jebel Amir area over the past month – more than the number who were displaced in Darfur during all of 2012. The group called on the government to open a key road into the area and permit relief organisations full access.

“This conflict in Darfur is now 10 years old, and we need to see a renewed effort to bring about stability and peace in this devastated area,” said El Fateh Osman, Oxfam’s Sudan country director. “We are struggling to meet already existing needs even as more are pushed into crisis.”

Oxfam’s statement followed an appeal last Friday by the U.S. State Department for the Sudanese government of President Omar Al-Bashir to halt aerial bombings in the region and to “urgently disarm militias” there.

Some of the Arab tribal militias taking part in the current fighting there were allied with the government 10 years ago as part of a scorched-earth counter-insurgency campaign that resulted in the deaths of at 300,000 people, most of them from black African farm communities.

But the ongoing economic crisis faced by the government resulting from the loss of oil revenue that followed South Sudan’s independence has weakened Khartoum’s influence over the militias, some of which have since turned on their former ally and patron not only in Darfur, but also in other regions, including South Kordofan and Blue Nile states where the Bashir government has used tribal militias to fight rebel movements.

Over the 18 months, more than 200,000 people have fled to South Sudan or Ethiopia from those two states, while another half million or more have been displaced internally in areas controlled either by the government or by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), a rebel group with close ties to South Sudan’s government.

In its latest report, ICG said the conflict in South Kordofan, in particular, has reached the state of “strategic stalemate”, exacting a “horrendous toll” on the civilian population.

The SPLM-N, according to the report, has as many as 30,000 soldiers and a large stockpile of weapons, compared to between 40,000 and 70,000 government troops. While the rebels are deeply entrenched in the Nuba mountains, the government controls much of the lowlands where most of the region’s food is grown.

“Government forces have fallen back on their familiar pattern of striking at communities suspected of supporting the rebels, so as to prevent the SPLM-N from living off the surrounding civilian population. Unable to farm, and with the government preventing humanitarian access to insurgency-controlled areas, many civilians have been forced to flee,” the report noted.

Adding to the SPLM-N’s strength, however, is its alliance with the Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), a coalition of rebel groups from around the country, and its increasing coordination with the official opposition parties

In its on-again off-again negotiations with the government, according to the report, the SPLM-N has increasingly pressed a national agenda, reflecting the concerns of its SRF partners, while the government has preferred to confine discussions to local issues.

In a major development last month, the SRF signed a “New Dawn Charter” with the National Consensus Forces (NCF), a coalition of all of Sudan’s opposition parties and some civil society groups. The result is a growing national coalition, including both armed and unarmed groups, in favour of a major reform in the way the country is governed.

The international community, according to the report, should engage with the SRF in order both to encourage its evolution “from a purely military alliance to a more representative and articulate political movement” and to facilitate negotiations with Khartoum for a comprehensive solution to Sudan’s regional conflicts.

“Piecemeal power-sharing arrangements, negotiated at different times with divided rebel factions, often encourage further rebellion with the sole aim of obtaining more advantageous concessions from Khartoum,” the report noted.

“If negotiations only partially address the political marginalisation of peripheries, calls for self-determination, still limited in Darfur and Blue Nile but vocal in South Kordofan, will increase.”

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

A three-day polio vaccination campaign kicked off throughout Darfur on Feb. 28, 2011 as part of the Sudanese Government's efforts to eradicate the disease. Credit: UN Photo/Olivier Chassot

By Siddharth Chatterjee and Dr. Sam Agbo
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 6 2012 (IPS)

It was early July 2004, and Darfur was looking like a war zone – massive human displacements of an estimated one million people, ongoing skirmishes, inclement weather, a parched landscape due to the recurring droughts, and sheer misery everywhere.

The worst affected were women and children. Each passing day, the agony and suffering we witnessed was heartbreaking. There was an urgent need to quickly immunise all children in Sudan, and this included Darfur, to prevent polio, a life-threatening and crippling disease, which loomed ominously on the horizon.

In June 2004, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) led by WHO, Rotary International, U.S. Centres for Disease Control and UNICEF warned that the polio virus was spreading at an alarming rate across West and Central Africa. In May 2004, it was confirmed that a child was paralysed by polio in Darfur.

This was a complex emergency; a simmering conflict, combined with hunger, malnutrition, lack of access to clean water, sanitation, health and other basic services made survival itself a challenge.

It was in these circumstances that UNICEF and WHO in Sudan along with important NGO partners started planning with local authorities on how best to immunise all children in Darfur. Saving lives and mitigating the suffering of these affected populations scattered over the three states in Darfur was included in a joint response plan that was being developed.

The overarching issues remained addressing the rights and the humanitarian needs of vulnerable populations and groups, irrespective of their political status or differences. Most importantly, it was about giving children and their mothers the best possible start in life, building their resilience and addressing their basic needs, despite the enormous challenges around them.

Challenges and issues

Safety of all staff, international and local was paramount. The local rebel factions that were operating in Darfur refused to allow vaccinators to enter the areas they controlled. The ongoing conflict, absence of infrastructure, lack of adequate cold storage and the very high temperatures all posed formidable challenges for vaccination.

In order for the immunisation campaign to succeed, we needed to include all stakeholders in the planning process, especially to reach out to and involve the various rebel factions, who controlled many parts of areas inaccessible to our staff.

Actions and the way forward

With full knowledge of government counterparts, talks were initiated with the leadership of the different rebel groups. From the senior-most political leaders to the local commanders in the field, it was important to get everyone aligned on the importance of this initiative, as it was about the children in the areas they controlled or communities they came from.

Following active engagement, negotiation and persuasion with the Sudanese government and non-state entities (rebel groups), a window of two weeks of cessation of hostilities was secured from all parties. Large numbers of staff were mobilised by WHO, UNICEF and the NGO partners to help with the campaign.

This allowed multi-agency teams the opportunity to conduct a rapid assessment of previously inaccessible areas and develop a micro-plan for a ‘Polio plus’ campaign (polio vaccines with de-worming tablets and Vitamin A supplements) to improve child health and minimise under five-year-old mortality.

More than 10,000 children under five years of age were reached in the rebel-controlled areas during the two vaccination rounds. Education and health kits were provided to these communities as part of the campaign in order to address the educational and health needs of children in the communities as well as provide a sense of normalcy under the very stressful conditions they lived in.

At least 10 skilled staff in the recipient populations were trained to provide care and support. This was combined with a mass campaign of hygiene promotion with simple messages on hand washing and waste disposal to prevent diarrheal diseases.

The polio immunisation campaign was the driver for a wider process of improving and ramping up assistance to communities and this made the campaign attractive to mothers to bring their children to the immunisation hubs that were established.

To overcome some of the challenges of very poor infrastructure, large numbers of donkeys and camels were hired to ferry supplies, including cool boxes, to remote communities. The U.N.’s World Food Programme also assisted the initiative by providing helicopters which helped reach some of the most remote areas.

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) had served as a bridge, an entry point and a disease control strategy for reaching the unreached and most vulnerable. The lesson learned is that it is possible to immunise children even in complex emergencies and conflict settings.

Embracing the principles of neutrality, humanity and independence is fundamental to the success of these approaches, and willingness to negotiate with all parties is paramount.

Forging partnerships with national institutions like the Red Cross and Red Crescent national societies, guided by their Fundamental Principles and auxiliary to their governments, has helped to scale up polio eradication programmes exponentially. As per GPEI, “In 1988 when the campaign began there were 125 countries where polio rages, today there are three.”

Finally, a critical aspect for success was not being risk-averse. The humanitarian imperative became the driver for social mobilisation and action to prevent polio. This campaign gave us an opportunity to not just scale up the immunisation programme but allowed us to address issues around child survival in Darfur.

With resolve, leadership at global and country level, partnerships, commitment and alacrity, it is possible to eradicate polio forever everywhere, and soon. And health services may well serve as a bridge for peace in conflicts.

*Siddharth Chatterjee is the Chief Diplomat and Head of Strategic Partnerships at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. He can be followed on Twitter at sidchat1. Dr. Sam Agbo is an independent public health advisor in the UK.

More than 200 of Sudan’s journalists are now unemployed after the government forced the closure of a number of newspapers in the country amid increasing press censorship. Credit: Zeinab Mohammed Salih/IPS

By Zeinab Mohammed Salih
KHARTOUM, Sep 15 2012 (IPS)

In Sudan’s newspaper district in Khartoum East, dozens of people sit beneath the trees sipping tea or reading newspapers. Most are journalists who once worked for the 10 newspapers that were either forced closed by the country’s security services or because of economic constraints that resulted after the government raised printing taxes in an attempt to prevent the media from reporting on anti-government demonstrations. 

Mohamed Ahmed, a former journalist for the Ajrass Elhuriya newspaper, which was closed in July 2011, is one of them.

“I have been sitting under the trees for a year and a half because the government closed my newspaper and other newspapers, that consider me to be opposed to the government, are afraid to hire me.”

The Sudanese Network of Journalists, a union for reporters, estimates that about 200 journalists are currently unemployed by the closures, which, it says, is the highest unemployment rate the profession has seen. The crackdown against the press began more than a year ago, soon after Sudan and South Sudan separated in July 2011.

More than 10 journalists were reportedly arrested and tortured by the police before and during nationwide anti-government demonstrations in June after the implementation of a government austerity plan that scrapped fuel and commodity subsidies.

In addition, security services have been accused of preventing 15 reporters from publishing stories on the demonstrations.

On Sep. 9, the general court in Khartoum north upheld the closure of a local newspaper, the Rai Elshab, and fined it for breaching the “duties of the press” and for “starting sectarian strife” after it published a story about rebel forces fighting the government in the country’s volatile western region of Dafur.

The war between the rebel forces in Dafur and the Sudanese government has raged since 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Army and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) began attacking government, accusing it of oppressing black Africans in favour of Arabs. Since 2010, the warring factions have been in peace talks. However, fighting has continued in the region, with the most recent incident occurring on Sep. 6, which resulted in the death of 10 government soldiers.

The country’s National Intelligence Security Services (NISS) had closed the Rai Elshab newspaper in January, and owners had gone to court in an attempt to have the publication reopened. However, the judge ruled that the paper would not be allowed to publish again without NISS approval.

Ashraf Abdul-Aziz, the head of the political department at Rai Elshab, told IPS: “The NISS complained against us in a court and closed our newspaper because we published a story about JEM, which has been fighting against the government in Darfur. That the NISS has the right to allow us to publish or not is a very strange situation.”

The Sudanese Network of Journalists told IPS that in the coming weeks the organisation would lay a complaint against the Sudanese government with the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. According to one of the organisation’s leaders, Khalid Ahmed, the complaint will be made once all national and regional mechanisms to put pressure on the government for a free and fair media had been completed.

In July reporters protested against the censorship at Sudan’s Human Rights Commission to no avail.

Khalid Ahmed said that the network’s last memorandum to the Human Rights Commission in Sudan had been submitted on Jul. 4 and called for the cessation of censorship and the release of journalists in police custody.

“They didn’t reply to our memorandum as we’d expected, but we will continue on our mission to complain to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva to set the media here free,” he said.

Faisal Mahmed Salih, the former chief editor of the now-closed Eladwaa newspaper, and the head of Teebba Press Center, told IPS that the censorship had negatively affected the media’s role in disseminating information.

“Due to censorship, readers don’t buy newspapers because all of them are the same. People only buy one newspaper or two now.”

Political analyst Hafiz Mohamed told IPS that the crackdown against the press would have a negative effect upon democracy and any possible political reform.

“Freedom of expression is a basic part of the democratic process, included with other freedoms such as freedom of assembly and association. If the government forbids journalists and the media from doing their jobs, there will be no democracy in Sudan,” he said.

He added that the government’s current censorship “shows that the government is afraid of the freedoms of the press.”

However, Rabei Abdallatee, consultant to the Information and Communication Minster, told IPS that censorship had been imposed on the media because there were “public and special circumstances in the country.”

He said that the censorship would only end if the circumstances changed. “Our country has special circumstances, because we are in a war with rebel groups and the media has to be careful,” Abdallatee said.

He said that the newspapers closed by the NISS, which are yet to be charged, “published negative articles, and threatened our national security” and were being investigated.

Osman Shinger, the chief editor of Eljareeda newspaper, told IPS that his publication had been to court 15 times during the last two months because of an arrest warrant against him. Shinger was charged after the publication of an opinion article criticising the governor of Sudan’s Al Jazirah state.

“I think that all the Sudanese problems are relevant to freedom of expression and access to information,” Shinger said.

“We tried to talk to the Centre of Media and Information, but it is seen as an NGO that favours the government. They didn’t reply to our phone calls and they didn’t allow to us to enter their building.”

Meanwhile, some journalists who were arrested and subsequently released now face ostracism from other publications practising self-censorship.

Mohamed Alasbst, the former managing editor of the Al-Ahram daily newspaper, spent two months in prison because he aided the now-deported Egyptian journalist, Shymaa Adil, who was covering Sudan’s nationwide protests for the Egyptian Elwatin newspaper. She spent two weeks in prison. He told IPS that because of his stint in prison, newspapers will not hire him for fear of being targeted by the government.

Alasbst added that his own newspaper fired him after he was released from prison.

“They expelled me from my job and the other newspapers also don’t want me to work with them, because I was in prison and they are afraid for the government. They fear if they hired someone like me who is considered to oppose the government, the government might fight them or close them down.”

The difficult situation has resulted in some choosing to quit the profession altogether.

Mohamed Ahmed told IPS that he has decided to leave Sudan to find work in one of the Gulf states.

“I was just a professional in my career and the government didn’t accept the professionalism, they want all the journalists to be in with the government or not to be journalists at all.”