Darfur: UNMIS Mandate Extended, Resolution Watered Down

From Reuters

The U.N. Security Council on Monday extended the U.N. mission in southern Sudan for six months, lamented the lack of a chief U.N. envoy and called for an end to atrocities in the Darfur region.

But the United States, which drafted the resolution, was forced to water down the text on Darfur and delete calls for a large U.N. force in the western Sudanese region.

Instead council members insisted the resolution focus mainly on the 10,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Sudan, where troops are helping to enforce a 2005 peace pact after decades of an intermittent civil war between the Arab-dominated north and the Christian and animist south.

"What is important was not in any way to send a signal that we were undermining our continued support for an agreement, which was crucial after all to ending a 35-year civil war," said British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, the current council president.

Still, the text expresses "grave concern" over the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Darfur, condemns attacks on civilians and calls on all parties to "put an end to the violence and atrocities in Darfur" where at least 200,000 people have died and 2.3 million are homeless.

The resolution also asks Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to appoint "urgently" a new special representative for the U.N. Mission in Sudan, known as UNMIS, which has been without a chief of mission since Khartoum expelled Dutchman Jan Pronk last October.

It renews the mandate of UNMIS until Oct. 31, although the United States had wanted only a three-month extension, mainly to keep pressure on Sudan to approve a large "hybrid" United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur.

Darfur: Sudan Ready for Talks With Rebels, Bombs Them

This sums up the Khartoum regime in the nutshell: they are willing to negotiate with the rebels once they unify, but every time the rebels try to get together to do that, the government bombs them- From Reuters

Sudan is ready to negotiate with Darfur rebels once they unite their leadership but should not be expected to sit idly by if government forces in the region are attacked, the junior foreign minister said on Monday.

Rebels and the African Union have accused Sudanese forces of bombing territories in northern Darfur in April while leaders of several rebel factions were preparing for unity talks.

Al-Samani Al-Wasyla blamed the fragmentations and divisions among the many rebels in Darfur, along with "negative messages" sent by western powers, notably the United States, for hindering the prospects of peace negotiations.

"Sudan has not closed the door in the face of any party that could convince the rebel groups (to join peace negotiations) ... because these groups are Sudanese. Peace cannot be achieved without them," he told Reuters in an interview.

"(But) there are countries ... like the United States that have been sending negative messages, thinking that pressure and threats of sanctions will make the Sudanese government accept anything," he said.

The prospect that Sudan will yield to western demands and allow a large United Nations peacekeeping force in Darfur prompted some rebel groups to delay joining peace talks, hoping for more government compromises, Wasyla added.

[edit]

And the leader of one rebel faction said his forces brought down a government helicopter that attacked a site in northern Darfur ahead of similar unity talks early on Sunday.

The armed forces denied the attacks but said it had lost contact with a helicopter that was sent on a reconnaissance mission on Sunday after its pilot reported a technical failure.

Wasyla said he could not confirm or deny those raids, but added: "The government respects all ceasefire deals ... But is the government required to take attacks from groups that have not signed any agreement and not respond?"

The rebels say the attacks in April were unprovoked.

Sudan has so far rejected the deployment of a 20,000 U.N. force in Darfur but said it would accept as many African Union peacekeepers as required to stop the violence and called on the world body to fund these troops.

"Transforming the (African) force into a United Nations one rather has become the (west's) goal, rather than reaching a solution," Wasyla said, adding that Sudan will not bow to pressure to accept such a force.

"There are limits that could not be exceeded," he said.

Darfur: Revitalising the Peace Process

A new report from the International Crisis Group [PDF here]

Almost a year after Sudan’s government and one of three rebel factions signed the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), the humanitarian and security situation has deteriorated in the troubled western region of Sudan. Despite a recent lull, the post-DPA period has seen increased combat, including further government reliance on aerial bombardment and its allied Janjaweed militia. Civilian displacement continues while humanitarian space shrinks. If there is to be peace, the international community will need to coordinate better to surmount significant obstacles including Khartoum’s pursuit of military victory and growing rebel divisions. Over the last year, the primary focus has been on overcoming resistance of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) to deployment of UN peacekeepers (or an AU/UN hybrid) so that civilians can be better protected; that remains essential but elusive, even after the NCP’s 16 April acceptance of the UN heavy support package for the AU force, as does an effective ceasefire. Equally important, however, and the focus of this report, is revitalising the moribund peace process.

The DPA has failed because it did not adequately deal with key issues, too few of the insurgents signed it, and there has been little buy-in from Darfur society, which was not sufficiently represented in the negotiations. A lasting solution to the conflict can only come through a revised political agreement but there is no consensus on the way forward. In November 2006, after months of inaction, the AU and UN announced joint efforts to renew political talks between the government and the rebel factions that did not sign the DPA but there has been little progress, while concurrent initiatives by Eritrea, Libya, Egypt and others have created confusion.

Darfur is the epicentre of three overlapping circles of conflict. First and foremost, there is the four-year-old war between the Darfur rebel movements and the government, which is part of the breakdown between Sudan’s centre – the NCP in Khartoum, which controls wealth and political power – and the marginalised peripheries. Secondly, the Darfur conflict has triggered a proxy war that Chad and Sudan are fighting by hosting and supporting the other’s rebel groups. Finally, there are localised conflicts, primarily centred on land tensions between sedentary and nomadic tribes. The regime has manipulated these to win Arab support for its war against the mostly non-Arab rebels. International interests, not least the priority the U.S. has placed on regime assistance in its “war on terrorism” and China’s investment in Sudan’s oil sector, have added to the difficulty in resolving the conflict.

What happens in Darfur may well be decisive for Sudan as a whole, where calculations about its political future are affecting the preparations of all parties for the vital 2009 elections scheduled by the North-South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The NCP insists, as it pursues its familiar divide-and-rule tactics, that the DPA remain the basis of any new talks and seems unwilling to consider more than a few small changes. The rebels demand the agreement be reopened, with the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) calling for a radical restructuring of national governance as well. The major northern political opposition parties, which want a new national consensus on the country’s direction, are trying to use the Darfur issue to isolate and pressure the NCP. The losers in the cacophony are Darfur’s suffering civilians.

The haphazard, NCP-directed, Khartoum-centric effort to implement a fundamentally flawed DPA – most recently the formal launch of the new governing body for the region despite a lack of popular support – creates opportunities for confusion and conflict. The new peace talks that are necessary would be best served by freezing further efforts to apply the DPA’s political and wealth-sharing provisions. Likewise, the DPA’s Darfur-Darfur Dialogue and Consultation, a potentially important conflict-resolution mechanism, should not be discredited by attempting it now, as Khartoum urges, before the main flaws of the agreement are fixed.

The mediation team needs to engage in a carefully prepared process. Artificial deadlines weakened the DPA, and there must be realistic expectations this time about how long it will take. The mediators must take control of the process and design a framework for renewed talks that responds to the conflict’s complex nature. Peace can be built on the constitutional framework established by the CPA, signed in 2005, but some CPA provisions – particularly on power sharing – need adjusting. The Darfur conflict increasingly undermines CPA implementation and the fragile relationship between the NCP and its minority partner, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). Collapse of the CPA would lead the country to a new civil war. Regionally, there is need to integrate Eritrea’s parallel initiative, while bringing Chad into the process to limit its capacity as a spoiler and encourage political resolution of its own internal conflict. The conference in Libya which ended on 29 April appears to have been a positive step towards a single, common approach.

Darfur: War Without End

From the Independent - via POTP

If Mohammed Izadein had met Elsadiq Elzein Rokero last year, he would have tried to kill him. Today, he calls him "brother".

Sitting on a straw mat in a simple mud hut in the village of Sabun, deep in the heart of the Jebel Marra, a fertile mountainous region in the centre of Darfur, Mr Izadein recounts how the two men - one Arab, one Fur - have become unlikely allies against the Sudanese government.

Mr Rokero, a Fur, is a general in the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA). Mr Izadein, an Arab from the Talba tribe in the Kass region of south Darfur, was a janjaweed fighter, attacking villages in SLA territory. "Now, this man is my brother," Mr Izadein says, reaching out an arm towards Mr Rokero.

It is an alliance that symbolises the changes taking place in Darfur's four-year- long conflict - a war that has claimed the lives of at least 200,000 people and forced nearly three million from their homes. What began as a rebellion by three non-Arab tribes against perceived marginalisation by the Arab-dominated Khartoum government has escalated into a complex multi-layered conflict.

Mr Izadein signed a peace agreement with the SLA in Jebel Marra at the end of last year. He claims he now leads a group of 3,000 former janjaweed fighters from 12 different Arab tribes who have switched sides and taken up arms against the government they once served.

There are Arabs fighting alongside the rebels and Africans siding with the government. Arab tribes are fighting other Arab tribes - some are even fighting themselves. Desertification has increased tensions, between everybody, as tribes fight to gain control over precious water points.

If it was ever as simple to describe the conflict as a "genocide" of black Africans by an Arab government - and few analysts in Sudan believe it was - it certainly is not now.

Sudan's government is arming any group that is prepared to attack anyone connected with the rebels, be they African or Arab. In some cases they have even armed both sides of the same mini-conflict. It is less about ethnic cleansing and more about power. Khartoum, argue some analysts, may not even want the war to end. "This government has always had a crisis," said Dr Madawi Ibrahim, a Darfurian expert with close ties to the rebel movement. "You keep people busy with a crisis."

President Omar al-Bashir's regime has more than one eye on the general elections due to be held in Sudan in 2009. The government hopes an election victory would give the dictatorship a seal of legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. It would also ensure that Sudan's booming oil revenues remain in the hands of the ruling elite.

The divide-and-rule policy in Darfur has intensified following the signing of last year's peace agreement. The factions of the SLA which backed the peace deal have been rewarded with weapons and power.

"It is not only divide and rule - it is divide and destroy," said Hamid Ali Nur, a Darfur expert. "The government is continuing to create this conflict by giving money and arms to different groups."

Keeping those weapons under government control is becoming more difficult. One humanitarian official in Darfur said: "The government has created something they cannot control. They have been handing out weapons all over the place." Mr Izadein happily shows off his three rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPGs) given to him by government officials. He is now preparing to use them against government troops.

"We have been deceived by the government," he said. "We have been lied to. Now we will fight with our SLA brothers." For more than three years, Mr Izadein's tribe fought alongside the Sudanese government.

"I feel very sorry for what happened," he said. "When SLA attacked El Fasher in 2003 (the attack that started the rebellion) the government came to us and told us the SLA is targeting us and we have to protect ourselves and our animals." Two government officials, one of whom Western diplomatic officials confirmed works for Sudanese military intelligence, met with the leaders of eight tribes in a village called Gardud in Jebel Marra. Mr Izadein's tribe was given 300 Kalashnikovs and told to attack villages where SLA fighters supposedly lived.

"We were working together, the janjaweed and the government. First the fighters on horseback went into the village. If we found any SLA then the government would come in with their big weapons. If not, we were allowed to take what we want - we could burn it if we wanted."

On one occasion, Mr Izadein and his men prepared to attack the village of Leiba. After two days of continuous bombing by Sudanese planes, the janjaweed entered the village. "It was all empty," he said. "So we burned it down." The turning point, Mr Izadein said, came after one of the tribal leaders went to Khartoum to ask the government for compensation for their dead. "We had many deaths but the government refused to help. That's when we began to realise we had been deceived."

Darfur: US Says Sudan Looking for Way Out

From Sudan Tribune

“Sudan is in a corner and they are looking for the way out”. This is how this State Department official started off his conversation with me on the Darfur crisis. The official who spoke to Sudan Tribune on condition of anonymity said that given the pressure from the international community including China, Sudan’s closest ally, president al-Bashir will ultimately have no option but to accept UN peacekeepers in Darfur. The official likened Bashir’s rejection of the UN force to his position during the North-South peace talk in 2003 when he rejected a draft framework presented by mediators saying they can “soak it in water and drink it”. The Sudanese president was later forced to accept a stricter version of the proposal under pressure.

The official strongly rejected the notion that the Bush administration is accommodating Khartoum and described their position as the least “conceding” compared to other countries on the Darfur crisis. He also criticized the “unrealistic” suggestions by some US lawmakers and think-tank groups on how to force Sudan to accept UN peacekeepers in Darfur.

The official also denied that the US is planning to arm the Southern Sudan army as part of the proposed ‘Plan B’ to sanction Khartoum. He also signaled a growing impatience with the splintering of rebel groups saying it is about time they unite at least politically so that negotiations can resume.

Sudan has insisted that any forces in Darfur under the terms of the Addis Ababa communiqué will be under African Union command. Andrew Natsios, President Bush’s Special Envoy to Sudan, told the senate committee on foreign relations that the US insisted that the Addis Ababa communiqué clearly states that the AU-UN hybrid force will be under UN command and control. However at a press conference in Khartoum the US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte appeared to have hinted to a change in the US position on this issue. Negroponte said the Darfur peacekeeping force should have a chain of command that “conforms to U.N. standards and practices” as opposed to insisting on the UN command.

The State department official told Sudan Tribune that no change of position was suggested by Negroponte and it was merely a “matter of wording”. He went on to explain by saying that the hybrid force has a military component and a political one. The latter will be run by a representative reporting to both the AU & the UN. However the military component of the force will be led by one commander reporting to New York. He added that it was the AU who said that they do not have the command structure that will enable them to lead a 20,000 strong peacekeepers force.

During the first meeting of Natsios with Bush following his appointment as Sudan’s special envoy, the US president spoke of a “U.N. force of peacekeepers to protect the innocent people” as outlined in resolution 1706 adopted by the UN Security Council on August 2006. However on their second meeting after Natsios’s trip to Khartoum, Bush called for an “effective peacekeeping force” dropping its characterization as a UN force. This eventually led to the plan proposed by the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan known as the AU-UN hybrid force and Sudan has agreed to it in the Addis Ababa meeting attended by the UN, AU, Arab League and the major powers including the US. Ever since that agreement, Sudan has boasted that it was able to overcome resolution 1706 in a major defeat to the “colonial powers of the West”.

However the US does not see it this way. “Sudan hates resolution 1706” the official said. According to him the main difference between resolution 1706 and the Addis Ababa agreement is that it emphasizes the African component of the force to make it more appealing to Khartoum. In other words it is a different packaging for the same plan. But some have said that the tripartite commission created by the Addis Ababa agreement gives Khartoum a veto power on the composition and the size of the force. The official firmly rejected this view saying that the agreement has provided for the creation of an effective peacekeeping force with a robust mandate. According to him this is the minimum acceptable to the US. When asked about Sudan’s rejection of non-African troops in Darfur he said that the US strongly urges contributions from African nations but he stressed that if it falls short from what is needed then they will have to look outside the continent. He added that Sudan has agreed to this condition in Addis Ababa.

John Bolton, the former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, was quoted as saying that it may be time to contemplate a regime change in Sudan. By that he meant getting rid of the National Congress Party (NCP) component of the government who are practically the only ones in Sudan to object to international peacekeepers in Darfur. Long before that the Sudanese government has consistently accused Washington of trying to topple their regime.

The official wondered “How are we going to do that?” describing the US policy as supportive of a democratic transition in Sudan per the Comprehensive Peace agreement (CPA) of 2005. He noted that it was the US who told the Darfur rebels to stop trying to remove the Sudanese regime. He then raised the question “If there was to be a coup in Khartoum who would it be carried by? It will not be the SPLA, the “Mu’arada” (Northern Opposition Parties) or the Darfur rebels. It will probably be a hardliner”. “Our agenda on Sudan is purely humanitarian” he added.

I asked the official on the Darfur Peace agreement (DPA) given the fact it is currently hardly worth the ink it was written on. The Sudanese government insists that no changes will be made to the DPA, contrary to the wishes of the rebel groups. The US official told Sudan Tribune that the DPA is a good agreement and that so much effort was made in Abuja to accommodate the demands of the rebel groups. The official, who was present at the Abuja talks, said that Abdel Wahid Nur leader of Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) has accepted the terms of the DPA but changed his mind the very last minute.

The official disclosed that Khalil Ibrahim, head of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), was bringing up issues at the Abuja talks that were irrelevant to the Darfur crisis. He declined to confirm if this is why the US administration is planning to sanction him per a recent Washington Post article. However he mentioned that Ibrahim’s agenda is that of Hassan Turabi, the head of the Popular Congress Party and an ex-ally of President Bashir. He elaborated by saying that it is clear to the US administration that Ibrahim is focused on Khartoum and not on the crisis of his people in Darfur.

In any case the official made it clear that the DPA should not be changed but rather “enhanced” to incorporate the rebel demands, particularly on the issue of compensation, but that starting again from scratch on a new agreement is “not acceptable”.

“The issue of Darfur is not black or white as some people in the US think it is; it is not African tribes against Arab tribes” the official said, criticizing the misunderstandings regarding the Darfur conflict in the US. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs, along with other US lawmakers called for military action against Sudan. The State Department official blasted these calls by saying “Do they expect us to invade a Muslim country?. He said that no country will be willing to send peacekeepers to Darfur without the consent of Khartoum even though resolution 1706 does not require Sudan’s approval of such a force. He underlined the importance of working with the Sudanese government to get the force on the ground.

I was curious as to whether there are some improvements in the US-Sudanese relationship recently given that the Sudanese president allowed 40 containers containing material for the new US embassy in Khartoum to enter without the regular custom duties. Al-Bashir also told NBC that the intelligence cooperation with the US will continue. I asked the official why Khartoum will cooperate with Washington on counter-terrorism given the strong rhetoric exchanged between the two capitals.

“The US-Sudanese relationship is in its worst phases since the bombing of the Shifaa [pharmaceutical] factory in 1998” the official said. However the cooperation with Sudan on counter-terrorism will continue. Notwithstanding this, the US has not rewarded Sudan by removing it from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism.

He added that the Washington told Khartoum it is in their interest to allow these containers to enter the country or else “it will take another 10 years to build the new embassy” and will continue the inconvenience for the residents of the area surrounding the current location of the US embassy in Khartoum.

I questioned the official as to why the US is avoiding sanctioning senior Sudanese officials either unilaterally or through the UN Security Council. A year ago the US objected to a list of senior Sudanese officials to sanction submitted by the UK. The US so far has not sanctioned any member of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) or even the Sudanese president who is blocking the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur.

“We don’t run down the street to Treasury and ask them to sanction individuals” he said. Unlike Europe, the US has to meet a threshold before they can sanction an individual. Any error in these procedures may create potential lawsuits from financial institutions.

Whether he expects that the US will sanction other Sudanese officials he smiled and said “Wait and see”.

Asked about reports that the US intends to arm the Southern Sudan army as part of the proposed Plan ‘B’ he said there was a misunderstanding in this regard. Upgrading the capabilities of the Southern Sudan army was part of the North-South peace agreement signed in 2005, he said. The Sudanese government has refused to fund the Southern army from the federal budget so a compromise was reached that will allow the South to receive military assistance from abroad, and the US is working in that context.

Darfur: ICC Inches Closer Towards Issuing Arrest Warrants

From the Sudan Tribune

The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo, sent a letter last week to the Sudanese government inquiring about the prospects of voluntarily handing two suspects in the Darfur war crimes. Media Reports from Khartoum indicated that Ocampo asked the government for a response by today.

The Chief Prosecutor of the ICC had announced late February that he filed charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Ahmed Mohamed Harun the Sudanese state minister for Humanitarian Affairs and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kosheib.

In the letter Ocampo said that he was aware of statements made by Harun in which he said he was prepared to surrender himself to the ICC should his government asks him to. Accordingly Ocampo asked if Khartoum will allow the suspects to report to the ICC judges under a summons to appear or else face an arrest warrant.

The Sudanese justice Minster Mohamed Ali Al-Mardi confirmed the receipt of the letter through the Sudanese embassy in the Netherlands. Al-Mardi reiterated Sudan’s position of refusing to extradite any suspects to be tried before the ICC. It was not clear whether Khartoum responded to Ocampo’s letter affirming its position or simply ignored it as some reports have indicated.

The letter sent by the ICC’s chief prosecutor could signal his intention to amend the application he filed before the judges of Pre-Trial Chamber I looking into the Darfur case. Ocampo has originally requested that the judges issue a summons to appear against the two suspects instead of an arrest warrant. The prosecutor however, has to demonstrate to the judges that a summons to appear will ensure the suspects appearance before the court. It is expected that the judges will issue a decision on the matter very soon.

If Sudan fails to comply with a summons to appear order issued by the ICC judges on a specified date an arrest warrant is issued for the named suspects. The arrest warrant will then be transmitted to the states that are parties to the Rome Statue and to the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) to execute. It is also expected that the UN Security Council would address Sudan’s failure to cooperate with the ICC as spelled out in resolution 1593 referring the situation in Darfur to the ICC.

Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statue, but the UN Security Council triggered the provisions under the Statue that enables it to refer situations in non-State parties to the world court if it deems that it is a threat to international peace and security.

Darfur: Arab League Offended by US. House Resolution

From Reuters

The Arab League said on Sunday is was astonished and offended by a U.S. House of Representatives resolution calling on the league to recognise the conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan as genocide.

The House resolution, passed on April 25, also accuses the 22-member Arab League of obstructing the deployment of U.N. forces in Darfur or seeking to reduce the mandate of the forces.

“The secretariat of the Arab League expresses its extreme astonishment at the resolution ... at a time when no international or regional organisation has used this designation (genocide),” a league statement said.

“The league also expresses its indignation at the resolution saying the Arab League has obstructed the deployment of U.N. forces in Darfur. This shows that incorrect information has been submitted to the U.S. Congress on which to base resolutions which are far from reality,” it added.

The Arab League statement defended the organisation’s diplomatic record on the Darfur conflict.

Darfur: Britain Gives Sudan Days to Meet Demands

From the Guardian

Sudan has "days not weeks" to curb military operations in Darfur and accept an international peacekeeping force or face tougher sanctions, the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, has warned.

On a day of protests around the world to mark the fourth anniversary of the conflict and to call for UN intervention, Mrs Beckett sought to inject a sense of urgency into the diplomatic effort that has so far failed to contain the crisis.

At least 200,000 people have been killed in the region and 2.5 million people displaced since 2003.

A declaration last month by Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, saying he would no longer stand by an earlier agreement to accept a 22,000-strong UN force, triggered the move by the US and the UK to impose tougher sanctions on Khartoum. President Bashir has since relented, allowing 3,000 UN peacekeepers with six attack helicopters to reinforce 7,000 African Union troops already acting as observers.

But Mrs Beckett made clear the Sudanese leader would have to do more to fend off new punitive measures. She said the work on sanctions would "give a little breathing space to see if there would be progress", but thought there was "a general feeling this must not be allowed to be a recipe for more deliberate delay". She added: "If we don't see progress in days rather than weeks, we will have to move ahead with a fresh sanctions resolution."

Scepticism has been reinforced by Sudan's continuing air raids, including an attack on a rebel meeting yesterday in north Darfur. Tony Blair had pushed for a no-fly zone over Darfur, enforced if necessary by air strikes on Sudanese airfields, but met opposition in the security council. Now Britain is pushing for more observers to monitor Sudanese flights. UK officials believe that further evidence of violations will either force Sudan to end its bombing, or add weight to the prime minister's call for a no-fly zone.

To hold off further sanctions, British officials say, Khartoum would have to agree to a UN-AU hybrid force, and take steps to allow in the UN deployment.

But even with Khartoum's cooperation the "heavy support package" would not be in place until the year-end, and the hybrid force not deployed until next year.

Darfur: Sudan Ready for New Talks

From the BBC

Sudan's government says it will meet Darfur rebels for talks being organised by the South Sudanese authorities.

Foreign Minister Lam Akol told the BBC he hoped the rebels would attend the meeting, which is due to be held in the South Sudan capital, Juba, next month.

One Darfur rebel leader said various leaders were meeting in North Darfur early on Sunday when their talks were interrupted by a government air raid.

At least 200,000 people have died since the conflict began, the UN estimates.

Past attempts at bringing the rebel groups and the Sudan government to the discussion have failed, partly due to divisions among the rebel groups.

Sudan Liberation Movement chairman Ahmed Abdul Shaffi said the various factions first had to agree on a common position before they could begin talks with the government.

Several people were wounded and a government helicopter was brought down when the air raid took place, Mr Shaffi told Reuters news agency.

A peace deal was signed last year in Nigeria with one Darfur rebel group, but it has failed to stop the conflict.

The BBC's Alfred Taban in Khartoum says the chances of talks taking place are better than before.

He says the southern government is trying to boost the peace process because international donors have said unless there is peace in Darfur, there will be limited money going into the south for reconstruction following the peace deal there.

The 21-year conflict between north and south ended in 2005, with an autonomous government in the south.

On Sunday, protests took place around the world to demand intervention to end the fighting in Sudan's Darfur region to mark the fourth anniversary of the conflict.

Under the slogan "Time is up... protect Darfur", demonstrators in some 35 capitals turned round some 10,000 hourglasses filled with fake blood to highlight the continuing violence in Darfur.

But Sudan's foreign minister warned that external pressure on the government would not work.

"Those who think that the government will act under pressure are making a grave mistake. We do what we think is right for our people and this is what we have been doing all along," Mr Akol told the BBC's Network Africa.

What was originally a conflict between the Sudanese government and rebel groups in Darfur opposed to it has now spilled over into Chad and the Central African Republic.

Last year the government of Sudan agreed in principle to accept a joint African Union/UN peacekeeping force but Khartoum wants the force to be mostly African in composition and for the African Union to take the leading role, not the UN.

There has been a lot of diplomatic debate between Washington, Beijing, New York and Khartoum recently as international pressure is brought to bear on Sudan's government, BBC UN correspondent Laura Trevelyan notes.

The US and the UK have been persuaded to hold off on imposing sanctions against the Sudanese government for now to see if Khartoum does shift significantly and allow for a major deployment of peacekeepers.

Darfur: Why Genocide is Difficult to Prosecute

From the Christian Science Monitor

As public consciousness of the grim situation in Darfur grows, the difficulty of prosecuting what is often popularly called genocide is becoming clearer.

For years, the term genocide was used to describe the ultimate crime. But that crime was rarely – if ever – charged, since international courts were too weak.

Now, the mechanics of international justice are modestly rising to confront man's inhumanity to man: take, for example, the International Criminal Court and the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals here at The Hague.

Yet at the same time, the political sensitivity surrounding a genocide charge, which requires nations to intervene under international law, is creating friction. The cases of Rwanda, Bosnia, and now Darfur demonstrate this.

Sunday, protesters in 35 nations and more than 280 US cities marched against what a UN mission calls "apocalyptic" scenes still emerging from the Darfur war, now spreading from Sudan to Chad. Protest groups, including Amnesty International, called on Britain and the US to help create a peacekeeping force.

So is Darfur a genocide? A US Holocaust Memorial Museum committee and Colin Powell have said it is. So do at least two human rights reports. One French expert, Marc Lavergne, calls it "worse than a genocide" since mass killings are not done out of racial hatred, but because Darfurians are simply "in the way" of Sudan's plans to control land.

Yet many Sudanese experts and an International Criminal Court (ICC) don't term it genocide. They say it doesn't fit the 1948 Geneva Convention definition to win a case. This requires absolute proof of "mental intent" to kill or displace based on national, ethnic, or religious identity. Hence, an ICC prosecutor this winter did not charge a Sudanese interior minister and a rebel Janjaweed militia leader with "genocide," but crimes against humanity.

The word genocide raises deep legal and moral conundrums in a globalizing world, experts say: The term has gained popular usage in a media age to describe mass atrocities, as in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia. Yet prosecutors and world courts are ever more cautious about leveling the charge, even when it may apply – since it raises a requirement to intervene.

"Genocide is an explicit call to action under the 1948 treaty, a call to prevent and punish," says Diane Orentlicher at American University in Washington. Recent court rulings show that "if you wait until there is a legal certainty to prove genocide, you have waited too long," she adds.

That's where politics enter. A party or state charged with genocide will likely be isolated and stigmatized in the global community, perhaps even making the situation worse. This is disputed on Darfur. Some Darfur activists feel Sudan hasn't been charged with genocide because that would make it impossible for governments to deal with Khartoum.

The politics of genocide rose in a ruling on Bosnia this February. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague did not find Serbia guilty of genocide in the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims in the early 1990s. Rather, it found Serbia culpable in not preventing genocide in the Srebrenica massacre, and awarded no damages.

The ruling outraged scholars like Ruth Wedgwood of Johns Hopkins University who told the Monitor it "appeared to be a posthumous acquittal of [then President] Slobodan Milosevic for genocide. The court didn't look at a pattern of crimes in Bosnia, but selectively picked its evidence."

Early this month it came to light that ICJ judges did not read and did not seek to investigate a huge range of materials from Belgrade that were used as evidence by the UN-sanctioned Yugoslavia Tribunal, just down the street in this city.

New York Times reporter Marlise Simons wrote that the ICJ ruling "raised some eyebrows because aspects of Serbian military involvement are already known from records of earlier [Tribunal] trials.... In late 1993, for instance, more than 1,800 officers and noncommissioned men from the Yugoslav Army were serving in the Bosnian Serb Army, and were deployed, paid, promoted, or retired by Belgrade [and] given dual identities" through a secret office known as the 30th Personnel Center of the General Staff."

ICJ defenders say it is a civil not a criminal court, and that its purpose is to settle disputes between nations to keep amity and peace intact. Critics say the ruling seemed more about conciliation than justice.

"A lot has changed in the past 12 years; the EU is anxious to normalize relations with Serbia," says an American jurist with ties to The Hague, who requested anonymity. "I'm sure there are political pressures. The court probably didn't want to send Serbia back to the 1990s, isolate it, make it a pariah state in perpetuity.... When it came to the legal standard required to prove genocide, the court shrank."

(Serb fugitives Radovan Karadzic and Gen. Ratko Mladic, architects of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, still face genocide charges at the tribunal.)

UNHCR head Louise Arbour, who as chief prosecutor at the Yugoslav tribunal charged Mr. Milosevic with genocide, told the Monitor that courts should resist politics: "At the end of the day, there's going to be tension between peace and justice. By saying that genocide is a destabilizing charge [to the country accused], you politicize the justice issue," she said. Regarding Darfur, she said, "The UN embraced a responsibility to protect citizens from genocide…. But in Darfur, [head of the ICC investigation Antonio] Cassese looked for three months with a large staff and could find no genocidal intent. He couldn't find a case."

That document, "The 2005 Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the UN Secretary-General," finds that the brutality in Darfur is for "purposes of counter-insurgency warfare."

Yet legal scholar Nsongurua Udombana at Central European University in Budapest, Hungary, states bluntly that the Cassesse report finds no genocide in Darfur – to avoid an obligation to act.

In a closely argued essay, "An Escape from Reason" in the Spring 2006 issue of The International Lawyer, he says Darfur is prima facie far closer to genocide than the report finds.

One conundrum: "It is impossible to determine genocide while it is actually happening," Mr. Udombana says. He adds, "By not calling it a genocide, it appears to make the issue less urgent than it actually is."

Indeed, mass killings can create new on-the-ground dynamics, he suggests: Whether or not precise causes of intent can be determined by outside investigators, still, as rapes and murders continue on their bloody way, war can breed an intent to exterminate on the grounds of group identity.

He agrees with Samantha Powers, author of "The Age of Genocide," that Darfur has spawned a dynamic in which Arabs are killing Africans, and lighter skinned and darker skinned groups are set against each other. He says a confession by a high ranking Sudanese official isn't needed to prove genocidal intent. It can be shown via a common standard of "practice and pattern" of crime.

Mr. Lavergne of the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris says prosecuting mass crimes boils down to two often different motives: an effort to change behavior, or an effort to punish. In the midst of a nightmare like Darfur, he says, a genocide charge may not be the best way to change behavior, though he admits the problem is ambiguous.

He also questions if Darfur is a genocide. The extermination is not aimed at Darfurian identity: "Darfurians who live in Khartoum are not targeted," he notes.

For years "genocide" was a sanctified word, emerging from the Holocaust, and it defined mass atrocities like the Armenian genocide, or the killing fields of Pol Pot in Cambodia. But its popular use rose in the midst of the Rwanda and Bosnia wars.

French scholar Jacques Semelin, author of the book "Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacres and Genocide," notes that "In Nuremburg, the charges were crimes against humanity. Genocide didn't come into the legal framework until 1948 in Geneva."

Bosnia was an early instance of systematic mass killings in close proximity to a region, Europe, with an incorporated value system based on history that contained an assumption that such crimes would "never again" take place.

Reports of mass killings along the Drina River in 1992, with Bosnian Muslim villages purged and teachers and elders shot, created a dilemma for Europe and the US. The US State Department's initial downplaying of killings and prison camps led one mid-level US diplomat, Richard Johnson, to write "The Pin-Stripe Approach to Genocide" – an early effort to pair the term with an event that seemed to warrant it.

At the time, little notion existed of international courts as a tool to deal with mass crimes. That has changed. The Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals, the 1998 Treaty of Rome, the decision of the UN Security Council to empower indictments on Darfur by the ICC, the pressure on Serbia and Croatia to hand over war criminals – have created pressure on regimes to change behavior, though not a preventive one.

For John Packer of Human Rights Internet in Ottawa, the world is in an "awkward moment" between the old Westphalian system of adjudication, "based on sovereign states and designed to create peace and stability between them, and a new developing model of international law."

The ICJ ruling on Bosnia "brings this awkward moment into relief," he says. "The court was caught willfully disregarding evidence showing Serbia's culpability, to avoid being put in a difficult spot."

Darfur: Deep-Founded Disaster

From CBS News

Darfur has gone on for so long that camps for displaced people are taking on an air of permanence, relief workers are barely holding their own, and there is no prospect of any of these people going home, no matter how much the world protests.

Aid officials call Darfur the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today.

It is also one of the most complex, reports CBS News foreign correspondent Allen Pizzey.

The simple version is that ethnic Arabs are conducting genocide against black African tribes people across an area of Sudan almost the size of Texas. But, in fact, violence has become so endemic that the two million people who are now displaced and homeless have enemies on all sides.

Two or three militia groups have splintered into more than a dozen that range from the Janjaweed to tribal-based warlords and — political factions all fighting each other, adds Pizzey.

The sprawling, overcrowded and ever-growing camps serve as their recruiting grounds.

There is nothing the aid agencies, which feed four million people, can do about it.

And, as it that wasn't enough, a few days ago a United Nations assessment team had to flee for their lives from a bombing raid by the Sudanese air force.

"We have no communication with them," Chris Czerwinski, of the World Food Program, tells Pizzey.

The 7,000 African Union soldiers who are there as peacekeepers can barely protect themselves.

The latest plan calls for an additional 3,000 troops from the United Nations. That is supposed to be grow into a 21000-strong joint UN-African Union force, if the Sudanese agree and the international community gets its act together.

"Put your money where your mouth is, because they keep saying Darfur is huge," said Radia Achouri, a spokesperson for the U.N. mission in Sudan. "It's a problem. We need to do something about it. Well, prove it. Because the international community also has to prove that it is serious about Darfur."

If the world does not act, the camps will be the best part of the crisis because the longer politicians argue about what to do, the worse the security situation becomes, and the number of people that aid cannot reach grows larger by the day.

Darfur: AU Chief Calls for Financial Support

From the Sudan Tribune

Alpha Omar Konare, visiting Chairman of the Commission of the African Union (AU), called here Sunday for the international community’s logistic and financial supports for the AU peacekeeping force in Darfur.

The AU chief made the call in a press conference following his meeting with Sudanese President Omer al-Bashir, during which they discussed a three-phase plan on deploying UN-AU hybrid force in the western Sudanese region Darfur according to an agreement reached by the UN, the AU and the Sudanese government last November.

"If the demanded logistic, financial and equipment supports are provided for the African forces in Darfur, they can deal with the challenges there," Konare told the reporters.

He reiterated that the Darfur problem must be resolved through political process, stressing AU’s determination to hold its responsibility.

The AU chief, meanwhile, accused the Darfur rebel movements, which have refused to accept an AU-sponsored Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) signed by the Sudanese government and a rebel faction on May 5 last year, of continuing military activities.

Calling on all the non-signatories of the DPA to be involved in the peace process, Konare stressed that the Darfur problem should be resolved by the Sudanese themselves.

Konare left Khartoum Sunday evening after winding up a several hours short visit to Sudan.

The UN, the AU and the Sudanese government agreed in November last year on a three-phase support plan, also known as the Annan plan as it was put forward by then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

With the first phase of the plan, also known as a light support package, already underway, the three parties reached an agreement in principle in Addis Ababa on April 9 to inaugurate the second phase of a UN support plan for the AU mission in Darfur, known as "the heavy support phase."

The second phase involves the deployment of 3,000 UN troops and six attack helicopters in Darfur to support the 7,800-strongAfrican force, as well as preparation for the next phase, in which a much larger UN force would be sent to the region.

On April 16, the Sudanese government announced its approval of inaugurating the second phase.

Majzoub al-Khalifa, the Sudanese presidential adviser, said Sunday that Sudan did not oppose the deployment of additional troops in Darfur as long as all the forces there should be commanded by the AU.

He disclosed that the President al-Bashir had stressed to Konare the commitment of the Sudanese Armed Forces to a two-month ceasefire, which started 10 days ago, to create the atmosphere for the resumption of the peace negotiations.

Rape in Darfur

An op-ed by Kathryn Cameron Porter of the Leadership Council for Human Rights in The Washington Times

In every conflict zone in the world, women bear the brunt of the burden. The situation in Sudan is no exception.

During a recent fact-finding mission to Darfur, I saw firsthand the scars of war, evidenced by refugee women's painful stories as they shared with me the harsh realities of their day-to-day lives. No one I met said that she herself had been raped, but they talked about many they knew who had been; it was clear that discussing sexual attacks on others was a way for them to talk about their own ordeals without becoming doubly victimized by the intense stigma and lost honor associated with rape in this part of the world. Despite the taboo of discussing it, rape is a matter of course in Darfur.

Women in the camps I visited asked for better security so that they could search for firewood and gather food for their families without fear of being brutalized or killed. If you can't give us that, they said, at least give us an alternative source of fuel so that we can avoid being attacked out in the fields. As they know all too well, in Darfur, hunting women has become a sport.

No one, it seems, is interested in giving Darfurian women so much as a solution to the problem of collecting firewood, never mind a place at the negotiating table. While the world is outraged by reports of atrocities against women and the use of rape as a tool of war, women's basic needs are ignored by actors on all sides -- the rebels, the Sudanese government and the so-called civilized Westerners involved in the negotiations.

This lack of regard for women marks the ultimate obscenity in the midst of a sustained killing spree that is better characterized as greed-o-cide than genocide; a massacre of complex dimensions that includes not only ethnic and religious components but also pure money lust -- contrary to popular belief, the killing does not break down strictly along sectarian lines.

The rebels in Darfur want money. They will let Darfurians, especially innocent women and children, bleed for the cameras to advance their agenda. Photographing these starving, dehydrated refugees has become a fund-raising method for heart-hardened nongovernmental organizations (NGO). Meanwhile, the Sudanese government could today pull back the janjaweed, who are doing the raping and killing, if desired. But the horror continues. Both sides exclude women from the discussion of achieving security. While many in the West push sanctions, in reality this would raise the possibility of all-out civil war, and millions would die. In Sudan, nothing is as it seems.

The inability of men to look at the whole package and the needs of women increases the number of women and children that will die in the ongoing conflict. The tragic bottom line is that women are worth literally one-half, or even one-quarter of their male counterparts in terms of blood money. Women's worth must be highlighted to alleviate their urgent plight. Even Darfurian women who escape into neighboring countries are double victims with little recourse. In Cairo and other refugee destinations, for instance, women who have fled Sudan are subject to further gender-based persecution and violence. And as in so many parts of the world, women's voices simply do not carry weight.

We in the West like to think the terrible events unfolding in Darfur cannot continue on our watch, but they do. Every day women are being raped and dying for firewood. Yet when they try to speak up, their voices are silenced from all sides. We will remain complicit in their suffering until we recognize that women are the focal point around which everything is centered. They are the key to unlocking international security issues. If women were equally valued and their basic needs met, it would stem the movement of people across borders currently causing security nightmares. This is where the seeds of terrorism are sown.

Women also play a crucial role in solving the environmental degradation and societal inequalities that spawned the conflict in the first place. As Swanee Hunt writes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, in her piece titled "Let Women Rule," "the world could use more sway and less swagger." Her words ring especially true for Sudan. However, if the men at the negotiating table pursue their current course, without valuing or including women, evil will continue to prevail in Darfur.

Darfur: Rebels Claim Downing a Helicopter

From VOA

Rebels in Sudan's embattled Darfur region say they have shot down a Sudan Armed Forces helicopter, which had attacked their positions -- capturing two Sudanese soldiers. From Khartoum, Noel King reports the fighting comes as rebels in Darfur meet in an attempt to unify various factions.

For several months, rebels in Darfur have attempted to hold talks aimed at re-uniting splintered factions.

Observers say a united rebel front will be easier to negotiate with, rather than attempting to deal with the dozen or more rebel factions on the ground in Darfur.

But rebels charge the Sudan government has repeatedly bombed their meetings, despite vowing to give the rebels time to negotiate.

Sudan Liberation Army Commander Ibrahim al-Hilu spoke to VOA by phone from Darfur.

He told VOA that the SLA has captured a Sudanese Air force pilot and another soldier, who has not yet been identified.

"Yesterday the government air force attacked al Hashaba area with helicopters. Our forces dealt with them and we captured Mouawiya Hussein Mohammed (allegedly the pilot)," al-Hilu says.

A Sudan Armed Forces Spokesman denies knowledge of the incident.

Sawarmy Khalid tells VOA the army lost contact with a helicopter, Sunday, after pilots reported the aircraft would make an emergency landing in north Darfur.

He says the helicopter was merely on a reconnaissance flight and was not bombing rebel positions.

The Darfur rebels have been trying to unite since last year.

CAR: The Forgotten Conflict

From the AP

In this forgotten corner of Africa devastated by a forgotten conflict, no men work, no women cook, no children attend school.

Here, there is not a soul in sight.

Here, empty homes stand silently side by side: straw roofs burned away, dry mud walls scarred black by flames, earthen floors covered with ash and debris. Some, smashed in, don't stand at all.

This tiny village is one of hundreds torched and reduced to rubble by security forces hunting suspected rebels over the last year in Central African Republic's troubled northwest, according to government officials, soldiers, humanitarian workers and villagers in the region.

“It's a forgotten crisis, if it was ever remembered in the first place,” actress Mia Farrow, a U.N. Children's Fund goodwill ambassador, said during a recent visit.

Only a half dozen foreign aid groups operate here, and the ones that do are baffled there are so few.

The U.N. says tens of thousands of women have been raped by different factions. Hundreds of thousands lack access to clean water and shelter. Thousands of farmers have been unable to seed their fields, prompting warnings food shortages may be on the horizon.

Watching from afar as tall yellow grass sprouts around their charred homes, the displaced keep away from roads that carry army troops and presidential guards, running in panic at the mere sound of approaching vehicles.

They sleep in the open, surviving on swamp water, leaves and what's left of their crops.

“Why don't we move back? We're afraid to, everybody is afraid to,” said Emmanuel Lockoulet Djerada, mayor of another ruined village a few miles from Gbarain whose entire population of several thousand has lived in the bush for more than a year. “There is nobody to protect us. We are at the mercy of God.”

Battered by coups and mutinies for decades, Central African Republic, a country slightly smaller than Texas, is no stranger to war and conflict. President Francois Bozize came to power in 2003 at the head of an insurgent army that swept down from the north and seized the capital in a hail of mortar-fire, ousting ex-President Ange-Felix Patasse.

The rebellion in the northwest appears to have evolved in 2005 in part out of widespread banditry and a complete breakdown of law and order. The country of 4 million has just a few thousand soldiers, but they, like the police, are rarely seen outside major towns. Diplomats in Bangui estimate the government controls just 2 percent of the national territory.

Uganda: Victims Prefer Peace Over Punishment

From Reuters

Pasca Lakob doesn't see much point in punishing the Ugandan guerrilla leader whose fighters murdered many of her family and friends.

"His atrocities are so evil, there's no punishment that could fit the crime. They might as well pardon him," she said of Lord's Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony.

Many Ugandans living in the north agree, despite having borne the brunt of a vicious two-decade insurgency that killed tens of thousands of people and spawned 1.7 million refugees.

Peace talks aiming to end one of Africa's longest wars restarted on Thursday in southern Sudan, but their success hinges on the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

Kony and four other commanders are wanted for war crimes by the ICC and the fugitive rebel leader has said he will never make peace unless international tribunal drops the charges.

Lakob, 30, has reason to want Kony indicted.

"The LRA killed most of my family and husband's family," she said. "I returned to my village one evening to find their bodies. They had been beaten to death with clubs."

She fled that night to one of the north's miserably congested refugee camps, where she lived for 10 years before moving back home, buoyed by a truce signed last year between the LRA and the government at peace talks.

Harrowing as her tale is, Lakob wants peace more than retribution. "I can forgive him if he stops this," she said, as a malnourished child with a swollen belly devoured a small slice of mango next to her mud hut.

Since peace talks started, a wave of popular opposition to the ICC amongst northern Ugandans -- the main victims of Kony's cult-like rebel group -- has dismayed rights groups.

Northerners say only a lifting of the indictments will bring lasting peace.

"That is what is going to decide the future of Uganda," northern politician and peace campaigner Norbert Mao told Reuters. "The ICC ... must stay out of the process."

Traditional leaders from Kony's Acholi tribe want him and his henchmen to undergo a reconciliation ritual.

Traditional, or Mato Oput, justice involves a murderer facing relatives of the victim and admitting his crime before both drink a bitter brew made from a tree root mixed with sheep's blood.

The ICC has said it will not withdraw its warrants and U.N. officials have said those who blame the tribunal for holding up the peace process are engaging in revisionist history.

Groups like Human Rights Watch say the LRA leaders must face penalties that reflect the gravity of their crimes, which include killing civilians, mutilating victims and kidnapping children to recruit as fighters and sex-slaves.

Some northerners agree.

"He has committed a crime and must face justice. Instead of talking, why doesn't the ICC take action?" said Alphonse Otto, 67, who lives in Pabbo refugee camp alongside 50,000 others.

Demonstrations Go Ahead Worldwide Over Darfur Plight

From DPA

Demonstrations were going ahead in some 35 cities worldwide Sunday to draw attention to the plight of victims of the conflict in the western Sudanese region of Darfur. According to UN estimates, over 200,000 people have been killed since the conflict began in 2003 when, according to the UN, the Sudanese government allowed Arab Janjaweed militias to force out black Africans from their homelands, displacing some two million.

The aim of the protests, staged by humanitarian organisations including Amnesty International as part of the Global Day for Darfur, is to urge the deployment of an effective peacekeeping force to protect refugees.

Under the slogan, "Time is up ... protect Darfur," demonstrators were to turn round some 10,000 hourglasses filled with fake blood to highlight the ongoing violence in Darfur, the BBC reported Sunday.

Events held included a rally in London opposite the prime minister's residence at 10 Downing Street, while in Berlin an interactive event at the Sony Center, one of the city's main tourist attractions, was staged.

In Rome, demonstrators marched across the city to the Colosseum and in Cairo a day of cultural events was held including the screening of a documentary entitled "Jihad on Horse Back" containing victims' testimony.

In the Nigerian capital, Abuja, protestors shouted, "Stop stalling", outside the Sudanese embassy.

An appeal signed by stars including Mick Jagger and George Clooney called on the world to "end its stalling and take decisive action".

Darfur: Rebels Report Government Air Raids

From Reuters

Sudanese government aircraft on Sunday attacked the site where rebel leaders in the Darfur region were planning to hold unity talks, injuring several people, one of the faction leaders said.

Ahmed Abdel Shafi, head of one of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) factions which did not make peace with the government last year, told Reuters the rebels had brought down one of two helicopter gunships which took part in the attack.

The helicopters, together with an Antonov plane, attacked at 9.30 a.m. (0630 GMT) at a site in North Darfur state. He declined to be more specific about the location and he did not say whether any leaders had yet arrived there.

"We brought one gunship down. We have several wounded but the situation is under control now," Abdel Shafi added.

The commander of another SLM faction, Jar el-Nabi Abdel Karim, told Reuters that government planes and helicopters had attacked a separate target near Hashaba in North Darfur but there were no injuries there.

A Sudanese armed forces spokesman said he had no knowledge of the attacks. He noted last week's statement by presidential adviser Majzoub al-Khalifa that the armed forces have not fought with the rebels for the past two months.

Darfur: US Sees Progress

From Reuters

The United States said on Sunday that Sudan was "falling in line" on accepting a major U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur and welcomed progress at weekend talks towards a political settlement to the conflict.

"There's enough international pressure now and enough support from (Sudan's) allies" for such a force, Andrew Natsios, Washington's special envoy on Darfur, told Reuters, citing Egypt and China in particular.

He said there was now a "broad international movement" behind the deployment of a so-called "hybrid force" of more than 20,000 U.N. and African Union peacekeepers and police in the western Sudanese region where four years of fighting have killed at least 200,000 people and displaced some 2.5 million.

"The Sudanese have been resisting it, but gradually on that front they've been falling in line," Natsios said in a telephone interview from the Libyan capital Tripoli after talks on Darfur involving the United Nations, African Union and more than a dozen countries.

A joint communique from the talks, where Sudan was represented by its foreign minister, said sustained funding was needed for the 5,000 AU peacekeepers now in Darfur until the transition to the "hybrid operation" took place.

The United States accuses Sudan of allowing genocide to take place in Darfur, and President George W. Bush has told Khartoum it has one last chance to accept the full U.N.-AU contingent or face international sanctions.

Sudan has so far agreed to accept just 3,500 U.N. military and police personnel on top of the overstretched AU force, one of whose officers acknowledged last week that Arab militia in Darfur were killing and pillaging with impunity.

The conflict between rebels, government forces and the militia, known as Janjaweed, has triggered one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

Natsios said the talks in Libya had deliberately kept away from the peacekeeping issue and focused instead on delivering a plan for a political settlement under the umbrella of the AU and U.N.

"We all agree...that while the peacekeeping operation is essential, we want to raise the visibility and importance of the political negotiations up to the same level," Natsios said.

One of the key obstacles has been that the Darfur rebels themselves are split. A peace deal in May last year was signed by only one of three rebel factions.

Until now, diplomats and analysts say, competing initiatives including from regional players like Libya and Eritrea, have enabled the rebel factions to stall by playing off one side against the other.

The joint communique, entitled the "Tripoli consensus", said the talks "agreed on the need for convergence and coordination of all these initiatives under an AU-U.N. lead".

"I would call it steady progress," said Natsios, declining to use the term breakthrough.

Libya's Africa minister Ali Treiki said a mechanism was needed to bring together first the neighbouring countries affected by the crisis -- Sudan, Libya, Chad and Eritrea -- and then the Sudanese factions which had not signed the peace deal.

He said such meetings should take place in Tripoli within the next three weeks. It was not immediately clear how the rebel groups would respond.

This weekend's talks brought together the U.N., AU, Arab League and European Union with ministers or officials from Libya, Sudan, Chad, Egypt, Eritrea, the United States, China, Britain, France, Russia, Canada, Norway and the Netherlands.

Darfur: Gadhafi Urges World To End Crisis

From the AP

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi on Saturday urged African, Arab and Western diplomats to work with Sudanese rebels to find an immediate solution to the crisis in Sudan's troubled Darfur region.

Libya is hosting a two-day conference aimed at exploring ways to persuade all the groups fighting in Darfur to sign a comprehensive peace agreement, officials said. The Sudanese government and one major rebel group signed the Darfur Peace Agreement last year, but other factions have rejected the deal, saying it is insufficient.

"My advice is to lay down a final agenda for solutions in the (Darfur) region that we all agree on, and whoever rejects it, he should be ignored and not supported," Gadhafi said.

The Libyan leader greeted the representatives, including the U.S. envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios, in the city of Surt on Libya's Mediterranean coast, about 230 miles east of the capital, Tripoli. After Gadhafi's speech, the officials flew to the capital to formally begin the conference.

During his remarks, Gadhafi warned some of the rebel groups may not believe that resolving the crisis is in their best interests.

"We have to be careful that some of these rebel parties are rejecting even the solutions that are beneficial for them, and that means they are seeking other things rather than solutions," he said.

Ethnic African rebels have been battling the Arab-led Sudanese army and pro-government janjaweed militiamen in Darfur for the past four years, killing some 200,000 people and turning the region into the world's largest humanitarian disaster.

There are currently 7,000 AU peacekeepers in Darfur, but the violence has shown little sign of ending. Sudan recently agreed to allow 3,000 U.N. peacekeepers to reinforce the outnumbered AU force following months of stalling.

Gadhafi has been accused of supporting Arab militias in Darfur in the past, and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir seized power with Libya's backing.

Nevertheless, Libya has high hopes for the conference, which the country's secretary of African affairs, Ali al-Treiki, called "the most important conference held over Darfur." The meeting includes representatives from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Sudan, Chad, Egypt, the African Union, the Arab League and other nations.

Gadhafi's decision to host the meeting represents one more step in Libya's recent efforts to reverse its international isolation. The Libyan leader surprised the world in late 2003 when he swore off terrorism and announced plans to dismantle his country's weapons of mass destruction programs. The U.S. has since opened an embassy in Tripoli.