Talk Is Cheap

According to Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, the Bali roadmap is "a stark breakthrough." Really? Talks that have achieved "an extremely weak agreement" to start negotiations on a new pact to succeed the Kyoto Protocol are hardly going to change the world. Even their "groundbreaking agreement" on deforestation appears to amount to little more than agreement to include forest conservation in their future discussions. So much for the UN's "historic" climate deal.

The End Is Nigh

At last, the UN has agreed its fourth and final report on climate change — or, more accurately, its final "synthesis" of the report from the highly politicised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The twenty-page document, to be released tomorrow in Valencia by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, is intended to act as a blueprint for the next round of climate talks starting next month in Bali, Indonesia, as the world's governments negotiate a successor to the Kyoto treaty, which expires in 2012.

Despite offering no new scientific evidence for human-caused global warming, and despite reducing their earlier predictions for future warming and suggesting its impact will be less severe and more distant than they had previously claimed, this latest forecast makes the strongest assertions yet that mankind is pushing the climate past some irreversible tipping point, some "point of no return."

As regular readers will know, I'm all for a serious discussion about environmental and social sustainability. I just wish the debate could be a little less myopic and a little more open, a little less hysterical and a little more rational.

Biofuels "Crime Against Humanity"

Every five seconds a child under ten dies from hunger or disease related to malnutrition and there are 854 million hungry people in the world.

Last month I asked when we were going to begin getting a proper sense of perspective on questions surrounding biofuels, food security and the environment. At last, people appear to have taken notice:

Earlier this month, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler described current approaches to biofuels as "a total disaster for those who are starving."

Last week, in its October 2007 World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund voiced concern that the increasing global reliance on grain as a source of fuel could have serious implications for the world's poor.

Earlier this week, in the Parliamentary debate to establish the first fixed targets for biofuels, the Shadow Minister for Transport, Julian Brazier warned, "If biofuels are to play a successful part in the fight against climate change, it is absolutely vital that they come from sustainable sources. Without clear and binding rules on sustainability, this proposal could damage the environment not protect it. It would be madness if UK biofuel targets actively encouraged people to rip up the rainforest."

Now, the UN's Jean Ziegler has described the conversion of food crops to fuel as a "crime against humanity" and has called for a five-year moratorium on biofuels. He suggests the ban would allow scientists to develop ways to make biofuels from other crops without diverting land from food production, such as a pilot project in India using trees planted in arid areas unsuitable for food crops. He also criticised European governments for choosing a military response to those fleeing famine and chronic hunger from sub-Saharan Africa and wants a new human right to be created in favour of these "refugees from hunger."

Let us hope good sense will prevail over the economic interests of the climate change lobby.

UN Fiddles While Darfur Burns

Darfur's surge in violence, that saw a town of 7,000 citizens burnt to the ground just a couple of days ago, continues...

A Sudanese army assault killed at least 45 people in the Darfur town of Muhajiriya, where bodies littered the streets amid burned out buildings ... Some analysts say the recent surge in violence in Darfur is an effort by warring parties to gain land before AU-U.N. mediated peace talks in Libya this month. Others said Khartoum may be trying to drive rebels from the peace process. [Reuters]

With Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) gathering in large numbers in at least six towns in northern Darfur, including Tine, Kornoy, Um Baru, and Kutum, further attacks are expected before the peace talks in Tripoli are due to begin, on 27th October.

Yesterday's attack, 130 kilomotres west of that in Haskanita, was allegedly supported by an SAF Antonov, painted white — the colour of the United Nations. Meanwhile, Jan Eliasson, the UN Special Envoy for Darfur is in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, for talks with Government officials. No doubt he will be as forceful as ever...

Lest We Forget Sudan

A Darfur town has been burned to the ground and its residents forced to flee, days after 10 African Union troops were killed there in an attack.

More than 7,000 residents of Haskanita fled into the bush or to other towns after it was torched, a spokeswoman for the U.N. said, adding a huge aid operation would be needed to bring them food, shelter and water.

The only buildings to survive were a mosque and a school.

A large armed group attacked a small African Union base in Haskanita on September 29, killing seven Nigerian peacekeepers and three other soldiers from Mali, Senegal and Botswana. [Reuters]

Other news sources add, "Yesterday rebels claimed that Haskanita had been left a smouldering wreck after being levelled by Sudanese troops, with 100 civilians dying in the process."

Why the Silence on Zimbabwe?

"Why is there such a crushing international silence on the outrages in Zimbabwe? Is it because a defeated and damaged people cannot get onto the streets in sufficient numbers for the western media to have good pictures? Is that what it takes to get western governments these days active and concerned about such flagrant abuses of human rights?"

Reflecting on all the noise being made over Burma, John Redwood asks some pertinent questions about the international community's media-driven foreign policy. Echoing sentiments expressed on this blog yesterday, he concludes, "Will someone in western governments please do something? Will the UN wake up from its slumbers and show it has the diplomatic skills to mobilise the international community against this evil?"

Beyond Disgrace and Disbelief

So, once again, China's economic interests and veto on the UN Security Council prevents the UN from taking any effective action in another world crisis. First Zimbabwe and Sudan, now Burma. And just yesterday UN chief Ban Ki-moon was saying, "To deliver on the world’s high expectations for us, we need to be faster, more flexible and mobile. We need to pay less attention to rhetoric and more attention to results — to getting things done... The Human Rights Council must live up to its responsibilities as the torchbearer for human rights consistently and equitably around the world. I will strive to translate the concept of our Responsibility to Protect from words to deeds, to ensure timely action so that populations do not face genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." Sadly, all just talk, once again...

The UN has proven itself this summer to be wholly irrelevant. There can be no more second chances for this sorry institution, not when so many lives are at stake. It is time for reform. At least France, Burma's biggest Western investor, is now talking about trade sanctions and even disinvestment.

UPDATE: Apparently Russia has also taken the opportunity to play games throw its weight around once more, threatening France instead of helping to send a unanimous message to the Burmese military.

Second Chances?

While the Foreign Secretary David Miliband pontificates about moving on from the mistakes made in Iraq and implementing a "second wave" of foreign policy — though providing no details as to how this second wave might be any different from the first, just as Gordon Brown failed to explain in his speech yesterday how a "second decade" of Labour would be any different from the first — United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has opened the UN general assembly by saying that he expects the year ahead to be among "the most challenging in our history."

Thinking about Darfur, Zimbabwe, Iran, China, Russia, and the Middle East — to name but a few of the international issues that we have examined in recent months — I suspect he may be right. However, I also suspect he is being rather optimistic when he goes on to suggest that "together we can make it one of the most successful."

Responsibility to Protect

Two generations ago, the United Nations promised in its 1945 Charter, "We the people of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scrouge of war..." Just two years ago, in its International Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, it determined that "the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect." More than six weeks ago, the Security Council agreed its "historic" Resolution 1706, later followed by President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown's call for action in Darfur.

So why, one might reasonably ask, is it still left down to thousands of grassroots activists across the world to urge the United Nations, "Don't Look Away Now"? The world's fourth Day for Darfur, tomorrow, prompts me to reproduce a letter that I wrote to The Times almost exactly a year ago:

We need action to avoid slaughter in Sudan

The Sudanese Government claims that any UN peacekeepers sent to save lives in Darfur would represent a threat to the country’s national sovereignty.

Yet, for more than a year, 10,000 UN forces have been in Sudan, and the Sudanese Government has made no claim that these troops interfere with its sovereignty. The difference is that, until now, the mandate of these Unamis forces has not included the protection of civilians’ lives.

During its World Summit last September the UN took the bold step of revising the principle of non-interference enshrined in its charter, asserting that it has a responsibility “to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”.

However, in truth, it already had the authority to uphold human rights where member states have conferred sovereignty on the UN through international treaties and covenants. If the UN is going to be able to take effective action against genocidal regimes, then it must now also redefine the concept of national sovereignty.

Sovereignty surely belongs to and is bestowed on governments by the people of a country, and any regime that violates the rights of the people under it so as to strengthen its grip on power should not be considered sovereign.

Failure to address this issue will inevitably mean that the UN will remain paralysed when confronted with obstructive, tyrannical regimes and Sudan will become but the first genocide of the 21st century, not the last.

Note: As I have observed previously, even now that the UN has agreed to send in additional troops, their remit excludes adequate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, they are to be referred to as an "operation" rather than a "force," and they will only be able to protect civilians deemed to be under threat. So, the Sudanese Government need not worry unduly about its "national sovereignty" being threatened...

Sarkozy & Brown's Darfur Push

"It is the combination of a ceasefire, a peacekeeping force, economic reconstruction and the threat of sanctions that can bring a political solution to the region –– and we will spare no efforts in making this happen."

At first glance, the call in today's Times (and Le Monde) by Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy for intense action to secure a ceasefire in Darfur appears a welcome step towards stopping the genocide in Sudan. They acknowledge that the ceasefire "cannot on its own resolve such a complex conflict" and that "we need a political settlement that addresses the root causes of the violence." They also go further than last month's UN Resolution 1769 in that they threaten "further sanctions against those who fail to fulfil their commitments, obstruct the political process or continue to violate the ceasefire." They are also right to "look beyond Darfur, to the issues affecting Sudan and the region," including the need for better security and greater humanitarian assistance among the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing the conflict across the border into Chad.

And yet, underneath, they seem to be accepting a number of false presuppositions:

• They describe the weak UNAMID operation as the deployment of a "robust force," though it has no authority to disarm the militias or to pursue and arrest suspected war criminals indicted by the International Criminal Court.
• They make reference to the meeting of Darfur's rebel groups in Tanzania earlier this month, but neglect to mention that the Sudanese Government's subsequent escalation of violence is already causing the rebels to reconsider attending full negotiations.
• They also make no mention of breaches in existing sanctions, notably by China and Russia, including photographs (such as the one above) published by Amnesty International just last Friday showing military equipment being supplied by Russia at West Darfur's Geneina airport.
• Perhaps most fundamentally, they appear to believe that a political solution will be the inevitable outcome of the supposed ceasefire and the recently agreed peacekeeping force, whereas in reality a political solution must be found first if any ceasefire is to hold.

To quote both Rodolphe Adada, the new UN-AU mission head, and Mark Kroeker, the retiring UN police chief, once again, although UNAMID is sure to be one of the main tools for forwarding peace in Darfur, "it's only a peace operation — you need to have peace to keep," and "The countries that have been talking about Darfur need to now do something about Darfur with their deployment of police in probably the most desperate place in the world."

Sudan Violence Surge

Just days before UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is due to visit Sudan next week, Darfur rebels have accused the Sudanese government of today bombing South Darfur — but the latest attack in an aerial campaign that has driven thousands of people from their homes over the past month.

Some, such as Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, argue, "We should have a no-fly zone over Sudan because the Sudanese government bombed the villages before and after the Janjaweed come and we should make it very clear to the government in Khartoum that we're putting up a no-fly zone. If they fly into it, we will shoot down their planes. It's the only way to get their attention."

However, aid agencies are unanimously against the prospect of a no-flight zone, fearing that Khartoum might respond by forcing them to leave and, even if they were allowed to stay, would almost certainly ground humanitarian aircraft. If this happened, Darfuris would soon suffer lethal food and health crises, as millions who rely on humanitarian assistance for food, shelter and clean water can only be reached by air, with some agencies delivering as much as 90% of their supplies using aircraft and United Nations and African Union traffic accounting for 90% of flights in Darfur. Besides which, given that Darfur covers an area greater than Iraq and that the nearest airfields in Chad are a vast distance from any NATO base, enforcing any no-fly zone would be a phenomenal challenge.

No, as the retiring UN police chief, Mark Kroeker, says, "The countries that have been talking about Darfur need to now do something about Darfur with their deployment of police in probably the most desperate place in the world" — that means us, not just the new joint UN-AU peacekeeping force UNAMID.

Brown's "Historic" Sudan Resolution

(Send in the Smurfs)

One year ago, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1706, authorising up to 22,500 UN troops and police officers for a United Nations peacekeeping force with the power to use all necessary means to protect humanitarian aid workers and civilian populations, as well as to seize and dispose of illegal weapons.

The new resolution agreed in New York, hailed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as "historic and unprecedented," makes no reference to this earlier resolution or to the Sudanese Government's refusal to comply with its provisions. It omits any condemnation of Sudan for failing to ensure humanitarian aid reaches those in need, deletes reference to evidence of violations of the UNSC-mandated arms embargo, removes a threat of UN sanctions in the event of continued non-compliance, and drops a request that the Secretary General immediately report any breach of this or previous resolutions and agreements.

Neither does the UN appear to have learned any lessons from last year's failed attempt to deploy UN peacekeepers in Darfur. The new "UNAMID" mission excludes adequate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, is referred to as an "operation" rather than a "force," and will only be able to protect civilians deemed to be under threat.

Just last week, in its first overall review of Sudan's record for more than a decade, the UN Human Rights Committee reported that "widespread and systematic serious human rights violations, including murder, rape, forced displacement and attacks against the civil population, have been and continue to be committed with total impunity throughout Sudan and particularly in Darfur." Without a political solution, UNAMID is destined to go the same way as Resolution 1706. As the new UN-AU mission head has commented, "I'm sure it will be one of the main tools for forwarding peace in Darfur, but it's only a peace operation — you need to have peace to keep."

One thing I find perplexing in recent media coverage is the assertion that this has been a four-year conflict. No mention appears to be made any longer of the previous two decades' violence by the Sudanese regime against its own people — as described by Baroness Cox in A Voice for the Voiceless. The present genocide and obstruction of humanitarian efforts in Darfur differs very little from the bloody civil war that tore the country apart from 1983 to 2005, which resulted in the death of 1,900,000 civilians in southern Sudan, and forced more than 4,000,000 others to flee their homes.

Brown's Coalition For Justice

Speaking to the United Nations in New York, Gordon Brown says he wants to "summon into existence the greatest coalition of conscience in pursuit of the greatest of causes" — that the world should "forge a coalition for justice" to combat what he called the "emergency" of global poverty.

The problem is, while he talks a good talk, his record just doesn't give any confidence that he will deliver on his promises of empowerment and free trade:

We need a compact - the rich accepting their responsibilities to invest, to support, to end protectionism and to deliver our promises; the developing countries accepting their responsibilities to reform, to open up to trade, and to be transparent and free of corruption. But our objectives cannot be achieved by governments alone, however well intentioned; or private sector alone, however generous; or NGOs or faith groups alone, however well meaning or determined - it can only be achieved in a genuine partnership together.

So it is time to call into action the eighth of the Millennium Goals so we can meet the first seven. Let us remember Millennium Development Goal eight - to call into being, beyond governments alone, a global partnership for development, and together harness the energy, the ideas and the talents of the private sector, consumers, NGOs and faith groups, and citizens everywhere. The sum of all the individual actions working together to achieve real change. Some people call it the mobilisation of soft power...I call it people power. People power in support of the leadership of developing countries.

After all, he has spent the last ten years taking power away from the people under his influence, so what makes anybody think he will begin giving it back to us all now? Consider what he says on protectionism:

Perhaps for too long we have talked the language of development without defining its starting point in wealth creation - the dignity of individuals empowered to trade and be economically self sufficient.

No country has moved to development without opening up to trade.

So I accept an immediate obligation on world leaders to address protectionism and work to make what we promised - the development trade round - happen this year.

If he really means what he says, presumably we will see Britain adopting a new tough stance in Europe as we withdraw from the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy? I, for one, won't be holding my breath...

It's The War, Stupid!

George Bush - under enormous political pressure at home - needs to ensure that his voters cannot say that now even the Brits are deserting him. He will know what it is that his visitor needs to go home happy and he will want to deliver it.

Key to that is a war - not the one which Britain and America started but one which they hope to help stop - the war in Darfur. Both men are backing a UN resolution this week which will not merely establish a 19,000 strong peacekeeping force in Darfur and will not only back a peace process between the warring factions but will also offer Sudan a package of long term economic support if it agrees to co-operate - a carrot to accompany the sanctions stick.

For Gordon Brown this would prove that something can be done to tackle what he calls the greatest humanitarian crisis the world faces. For George Bush it would prove that America is willing to act on the world stage to build and not just to destroy.

Nick Robinson seems to think that the rebranded trans-Atlantic alliance might finally bring about decisive and long overdue action in Sudan. Much as I would love to believe it, with the likes of China and the EU still making "more time for diplomacy," I can't see the Brown-Bush summit being that successful.

An Unquiet World

Almost before any of us have had a chance to digest Tuesday's report from the Globalisation and Global Poverty Policy Group, the Conservative Party's National and International Security Policy Group has today published its own final report, An Unquiet World. Unlike the ground-breaking first report from the Social Justice Policy Group, it is not always obvious why we had to wait eighteen months. For instance, take the first four conclusions:

• The UK has not made enough of its natural advantages in developing a close relationship with India.
• Our civil liberties at home and our human rights record abroad matter and must be upheld in a consistent manner.
• The broader Middle East is a region in turmoil. ... Iraq has made some aspects worse.
• The risk and danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have been increased by the situation in the broader Middle East.

... Or its verdict on the key relationships and institutions:

• The continuing importance of the transatlantic Alliance.
• The vital need for functioning US European relations.
• UK security involves close partnership in Europe.
• Functioning international law and invigorated international institutions protect and promote our interests. ... The UK should put effort into UN reform generally and Security Council enlargement in particular.

None of this sounds particularly fresh or insightful. Even once it reaches the sections on security, its criticisms of Government and European policy are nothing new:

• The identity of the British people needs to be rebuilt to include minority communities on the basis of shared values and active equal citizenship.
• The UK is without arrangements in place for guaranteed energy supply or a strategic reserve available for emergencies.
• Policies being pursued by European governments towards Russia and the countries on the EU’s borders in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe do not serve the political and security interest of member states as well as they could and should.
• It is urgent for EU leaders to agree with Turkey a way forward on the accession negotiations.
• Our armed forces which serve the nation with great professionalism round the world are overstretched and there is no reserve available for emergency. ... Their mission no longer corresponds to the real security requirements of the nation.

The real interest, therefore, doesn't come until we reach its recommendations. It suggests that an incoming Conservative government should:

• Conduct a Defence review not with the aim of inflicting further cuts, but of ensuring that our armed forces have been asked to do the right job, are properly equipped and trained and are employed on the right terms and conditions.
• Establish a dedicated force with a permanent command headquarters for homeland defence and security, to provide assistance as and when requested to the civil authorities in the event of a major terrorist incident or other national emergency.
• Maximise the influence of its considerable range of soft power assets (such as the British Council, the BBC World Service, and British university system). British diplomacy, an asset neglected by the Labour Government, should be revitalised.
• Create a National Security Council in the Cabinet Office. The FCO should be brought back from the sidelines. The FCO and DfID should develop a dedicated civil expeditionary capability.
• Adapt the method of budgeting for spending on the external aspects of national security by relevant departments (FCO, MOD, DfID) to support a national security approach and alter spending patterns to fund more adequately reform and nation building programmes relevant to the establishment of open societies.

Perhaps it should come as little surprise that "Much of the existing policy base is valid and should be built on." However, particularly coming so soon after the Prime Minister adopted Conservative calls for a unified border force (even though Brown's version turns out not be to quite as radical a reform as initially appeared), we could have hoped for a greater emphasis on those elements that would demonstrate to the public that there is in fact a difference between the major political parties — and that the Conservatives are the Party that can best meet the nation's domestic and international security challenges. ... Let's hope the next policy groups establish a little more "clear blue water" in their reports.

World Poverty - Who Cares?

"Existing trade barriers, agricultural subsidies and restrictive rules on intellectual property rights reinforce global inequities – and they make a mockery of our tall claims to eliminate hunger and poverty from our world."

The United Nations' mid-point progress report on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), published today, notes that although extreme poverty is beginning to fall in sub-Saharan Africa and the poorest are getting a little less poor in most regions of the world, poverty reduction has been accompanied by rising inequality and half the developing world remains without basic sanitation.

The report claims that the MDGs are still attainable and affirms that "The world wants no new promises." However, if success is to be achieved in the poorest and most disadvantaged countries, "Developed countries need to deliver fully on longstanding commitments to achieve the official development assistance (ODA) target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income (GNI) by 2015." In particular, it notes, the Group of 8 industrialised nations need "to live up to their 2005 pledge to double aid to Africa by 2010 and European Union Member States to allocate 0.7 per cent of GNI to ODA by 2015."

Speaking at today's meeting of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in Geneva, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the heads of the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, "The world desperately needs a successful conclusion to the Doha trade negotiations." However, any realistic chances of a deal have already been dashed with the collapse of talks last month between the so-called "G4" group of the World Trade Organisation's four most powerful members—that is, the European Union, United States, Brazil, and India.

Military Intervention in Zimbabwe

"Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect." [Article 1(B) of the Core Principles of the International Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, adopted at the United Nations 2005 World Summit]

According to the CIA World Factbook, Zimbabwe's death rate is four times greater than Iraq and 50% greater than Sudan — an incredible level of deaths, which are largely preventable. With inflation now running at 15,000% and the American Ambassador predicting it could hit 1,500,000% by the end of the year and with the failure of up to 95% of the crops, it is clear that Mugabe's Zanu PF regime either doesn't care about its people or is deliberately engaged in a course of conduct designed to subjugate an entire nation.

Little wonder that Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo, previously nominated for the Nobel peace prize for his work in Zimbabwe, yesterday called upon Britain to "raid Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe." Regrettably, given that Britain is already overstretched in Afghanistan and Iraq, his country will probably look in vain to Britain for its deliverance. Furthermore, given the UN's record in Sudan, it is unlikely that any call to invoke the International Responsibility to Protect would produce any result either. Will anybody help?

Moment of Truth

The chairman of the disreputable United Nations Human Rights Council has today presented its members with a "take-it-or-leave-it" ultimatum on a proposed new set of rules for how it will operate.

The 47-state Human Rights Council, launched in 2006 to replace its discredited predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, has until Monday night to complete year-long negotiations on how it will work. However, given its decision earlier this year to end routine scrutiny of human rights abuses in places like Iran and Uzbekistan, and its failure to condemn human rights abuses occurring anywhere around the world except in Israel, we ought to be asking what point there is in financing such a body.

Very sensibly, the United States is not a council member, rightly maintaining it is no improvement over its heavily politicised predecessor. Given that the best anyone has to say of the planned rules is that, if agreed, "the council will really not be too bad" even though "all could find something to object to," is Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico really inviting us all to leave the council? Whether or not that is what he means, if we truly want our foreign policy to have an ethical dimension, I suggest we would be better off following America's lead and instead investing in groups such as the Prague Democracy and Security Conference.

Good News From Sudan

Despite a decades-long conflict, an aerial survey in Southern Sudan has revealed that wildlife populations are thriving on an order that rivals the migrations of the Serengeti and could represent the biggest migration of large mammals on Earth.

Let's hope the aerial survey of Darfur brings equally good news for the human population under pressure there...

Richard Goldstone, a former justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the chief prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and a member of the Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program, today calls for the UN Security Council to institute an embargo on oil revenues to the Sudanese Government. After reflecting on some of the weaknesses and failings of the UN Oil for Food Program in Iraq, he concludes:

"We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Yes, there were weaknesses in the Iraqi program. But many of them could be addressed by simple reforms and better management within the UN. Such an embargo is the best tool that is realistically available to force Khartoum to end the slaughter in Darfur. It would be far better than the bloody status quo."

Evening UPDATE: News is that Khartoum has agreed to a combined United Nations and African Union peacekeeping force of between 17,000 and 19,000 troops and an additional 3,700 police to be deployed in Darfur. Of course, whether it will actually happen is another matter — on the basis of what's become of past agreements, I wouldn't bet on it.

Turning a Blind Eye

“I was dragged out of the farmhouse and tied to a tree. I was tortured and beaten for three days until they thought I was dead; then they took me to a river and threw me out on the banks. I had a broken leg, broken arm, massive lacerations to my head, my nose was broken, my kidneys were severely damaged. Because of the trauma I still have a swollen heart.” It is not until I ask what became of the farm workers that the tears begin to fall. “They were rounded up and put into a hut. The door was locked and it was burnt down while they were inside. There were 28 people. They were my colleagues, my dear friends,” he pauses for a moment and then says, more quietly, “eight of them were children.” He is keen to stress the point that Mugabe’s violence is colour blind. “The white farmers that have perished are in the minority,” he says. “The majority of people Mugabe has killed are black people, his own people.”

If you haven't yet read the interview with Robert MacDonald, Life after death, in this month's issue of The Difference magazine, then make sure you do. More importantly, if you have not yet joined our campaign, Zimbabwe: Will Anybody Help?, please take a moment to do so. For as the Life after death article concludes:

Like many who are aware of the situation in Zimbabwe, MacDonald finds it hard to stomach that the rest of the world is turning a blind eye to the horrendous death toll. “More people die in Zimbabwe per week than anywhere else in the world, but there is no oil. Today oil is the currency for action.” He continues: “The UN has done nothing besides wag its finger. In years past, many people in Zimbabwe regarded Britain as their motherland, and tens of thousands gave their lives in the two world wars, but now they feel abandoned. It could be so different if Britain was willing to take a formal, positive role in spearheading international condemnation and driving the EU’s response. Extending the EU’s economic sanctions could make all the difference.” The ball, it seems, is firmly in our court.