View previous stories
	Stopping a war before it starts by George Clooney and John Prendergast Aegis Trust / Save Darfur Campaign Sudan   24 December 2010   UN-African mission voices concern over ongoing Darfur clashes. (UN News)   The United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID) voiced grave concern today over the ongoing clashes between the Sudanese Armed Forces and rebel movements in the strife-torn region.   “UNAMID calls on all parties to cease hostilities, which not only endanger the lives of innocent civilians but also further jeopardize the peace process,” the mission said in a statement.   The recently reported clashes occurred in Dar al-Salaam, North Darfur, about 60 kilometres south of El Fasher, where the mission is headquartered.   UNAMID urged both Government forces and rebel movements to ensure safe access for humanitarian groups to displaced persons in Khor Abeche, Shangil Tobaya and Shaeria, where thousands have fled to the mission"s team sites after fighting last week.   In a statement issued earlier this week, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon voiced his concern over the recent clashes in Darfur, where at least 300,000 people have been killed and 2.7 million others driven from their homes as a result of fighting.   Mr. Ban expressed his support for the work of UNAMID, UN agencies and non-governmental personnel in areas of South Darfur and North Darfur affected by the latest violence, noting that they are working tirelessly to protect civilians under difficult conditions.   He also appealed to rebel groups to rejoin the peace process aimed at ending the conflict, and urged the Government to exercise restraint and to ensure the protection of civilians.   Nov 2010   The cost of future conflict in Sudan.   A new report has been released by the Aegis Trust, on the immense economic costs of any future potential conflict in Sudan.   In 2011, Southern Sudan will vote in a referendum on whether or not to become an independent state. The referendum comes six years after the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement brought a formal end to the 22-year conflict between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People"s Liberation Movement/Army. An estimated two million people were killed in Sudan and four millions displaced between 1983 and 2005.   The Aegis Trust has released a new report on the future economic cost of war in Sudan. It finds the potential costs, conservatively estimated, may be over $100bn. In particular, such costs could include: US$50 billion to Sudan itself in lost GDP; US$25 billion of GDP relative to a more stable situation in neighbouring countries; and US$30 billion in peacekeeping and humanitarian costs to the international community.   After twenty years of civil war, and the atrocities in Darfur, there is a potential for a return to war during political instability surrounding the referendum on independence for the South. The sheer size of the potential costs will, we hope, concentrate minds on the need to peacefully navigate Sudan through this moment of risk.   Economic analysis underpinning the report was carried out by Frontier Economics, and the report was supported by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in South Africa and SID in Kenya.   * To access the report as a PDF document visit www.aegistrust.org for more details.   Oct 2010 (Save Darfur Campaign)   Enough Project co-founder and Save Darfur Coalition board member John Prendergast recently returned from a trip to Sudan with actor and activist George Clooney. The pair visited Southern Sudan and the contested border region of Abyei with NBC"s Ann Curry to draw attention to the potential for a return to war in the lead up to the January 9th referendum on Southern independence.   Following their trip, Clooney and Prendergast called on US President Obama to prevent what Secretary of State Clinton called a "ticking time bomb".   On January 9th, Southern Sudan will vote for its independence. The country is currently led by Omar al-Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.   Both north and south are preparing for war, leaving civilians at grave risk of major human rights violations.   The U.S. Secretary of State has called the situation a "ticking time bomb". The CIA has said that "mass killing or genocide is most likely to occur in Southern Sudan." President Obama has said that "the stakes are enormous".   We have a brief window of opportunity to do something that has rarely been done: stop a war before it starts. But if the international community is too hesitant or too late in its efforts - as was the case in Darfur - hundreds of thousands could die. The last war between the North and South was ended by a U.S. led peace process, but not before two and a half million men, women, and children perished.   This is a cause which does not require sending US troops or billions of dollars. In fact, a combination of international pressure and robust diplomacy ended the last North/South war in 2005. It can work again.   Tell President Obama that we support every effort to use robust diplomacy - in coordination with all our diplomatic partners - to ensure a successful referendum, and peace in the South and Darfur. Our President has the power to gather the political will to stop a genocide before it starts, and we must demand that he do so.   The international community was late to Darfur. Late to the Congo. Late to Rwanda. Late to Bosnia. Tell our President that the people of South Sudan can"t afford for us to be late again. Your voice can help stop a war. Visit the related web page
	Protection of civilians in armed conflict: an ICRC perspective by Yves Daccord Director-general of the ICRC   The protection of civilians in armed conflict has been high on the international agenda in the last decade. On one level, progress had been impressive. Never before have there been so many policy statements and resolutions, so much global information and advocacy, and such a proliferation of actors professing to carry out protection work.   Sadly, as we know, these fine words and good intentions are rarely matched by the reality on the ground.   While there may still be divergent views as to what protection actually is, there can be little doubt about what happens when there is no protection. This is the reality facing the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in our daily work in far too many armed conflicts and other situations of violence around the world.   The reality in some places is men, women and children being killed or raped, being forced out of their homes and losing all their possessions, living in a state of fear. It is hospitals being bombed and health workers being attacked.   Beyond the deliberate targeting of civilians, the reality is also the countless numbers of other – often forgotten – victims who are equally in need of protection.   The reality is that in war, people go missing. The plight of these people and their families is a major concern for the ICRC. People have the right to know what happened to their missing relatives. Governments, the military authorities and armed groups have an obligation to provide information and assist efforts to put families back together.   In addition, the hundreds of thousands of people imprisoned or detained in armed conflict must not be forgotten. Ensuring their humane treatment and detention in acceptable conditions is another of the ICRC"s main concerns and core activities.   So why is the reality on the ground so often dismal compared to the great progress we see in policy and doctrine?   The fundamental reason is as obvious as it is challenging. It is of course the lack of respect for international humanitarian law (IHL) by states and non-state actors. This, coupled with a prevailing culture of impunity, is the main cause of the large-scale human suffering we are witnessing.   Various factors compound this challenge. The increase in non-state armed groups in some contexts is one. When armed actors are motivated by crime or banditry it is harder to talk to them about their obligations to protect civilians. The constant evolution in the means and methods of warfare – sometimes accompanied by a reckless disregard for the protection of civilians – is another factor. Waging battle in the midst of a densely populated urban area – sometimes with highly explosive weapons – is just one example that comes to mind here.   Yet despite – or rather because of – the flagrant violations committed by parties to conflict around the world, the ICRC firmly believes that the relevance and importance of IHL is reaffirmed rather than weakened. Indeed, this is echoed in the five core challenges set out by the UN Secretary-General in his 2009 and 2010 reports on the protection of civilians.   Working to ensure respect for IHL in situations of armed conflict remains at the heart of our mandate and our mission, and this is reflected in how we aim to protect and assist the victims of armed conflict.   Indeed, for the ICRC, protection and assistance go hand-in-hand. Our operational presence in diverse situations of armed conflict or other violence ensures our proximity to the victims. We engage in confidential dialogue with state and non-state actors to uphold the rights of people affected, aiming as much as possible to prevent violations.   Such dialogue is facilitated by strict adherence to a principled approach. We remind the parties of their obligations to protect civilians and we promote compliance with IHL at all levels.   This includes supporting authorities to incorporate IHL into national legislation and into army training manuals, for example. It also includes working to clarify or develop certain aspects of IHL, requiring extensive consultation with states and other stakeholders.   At the same time, the ICRC works to address victims needs – be they food, water, shelter, other essential items or medical care; tracing missing family members and re-establishing links between them; or ensuring that people in detention are well-treated.   Of course the ICRC"s approach is only one of many among an increasing number of civilian and military actors with different mandates, objectives and ways of working. But an effective protection response requires adequate professional competencies from all involved. With this in mind, ICRC developed a set of commonly agreed, minimum professional standards in 2009. These standards are considered essential for more effective interface and complementarity among humanitarian and human rights actors.   Importantly, these standards affirm that persons at risk must be at the centre of any action taken on their behalf, playing a meaningful role in analysing, developing and monitoring protection responses to the threats and risks they are facing.   The UN has gone a long way in including protection activities in the mandates of its peacekeeping missions, and in improving protection for specific groups such as women and children, refugees and IDPs.   The ICRC will continue to work for the protection of civilians within the limits of our mandate and expertise, based explicitly on a neutral and independent approach. Other actors will continue to operate according to their own particular mandates and approaches.   True consensus on the meaning of "protection" among all actors may be hard to achieve. However, it is essential to have clarity and transparency on the objectives of different actors, be they civilian or military, and a clear distinction between the two. To avoid unrealistic expectations, it is important to distinguish between physical protection (which humanitarian actors cannot provide) and protection by promoting compliance with the law. And in any event, men, women and children in need of protection must truly be at the centre of any action that is undertaken. The challenge of turning words and intentions into concrete, meaningful action – where it counts – is one we all face.   That challenge ultimately rests with states – and non-state actors – both bound by IHL. I end by making a sincere plea to them – and to this Council – to show the necessary political will and good faith needed to turn legal provisions into reality, to take seriously the obligations to protect civilians. That would be the most meaningful progress of all. Visit the related web page
	View more stories