PARISĀ - French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged swift international action Monday toward speeding up deployment of troops in Darfur, as key world players met to try to consolidate efforts and resources for the ravaged Sudanese region.
Sudan was not invited to the one-day Paris conference, organized by a new French government that has made the four-year conflict in Darfur a top priority. The meetings come after Sudan agreed - under international pressure - to allow the deployment of a joint African Union-United Nations peacekeeping force in the region. 
Sarkozy pledged an additional $13.4 million to the existing - and cash-strapped - African Union force.
"Silence is killing," in Darfur, Sarkozy said in greeting participants to the conference. "The lack of decision and the lack of action is unacceptable."
He praised Sudan for agreeing to the hybrid force but insisted, "We must be firm toward belligerents who refuse to join the negotiating table."
Stepping up pressure for progress, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday night that the international community has fallen down on the job in Darfur.
"I have seen firsthand the devastation and the difficult circumstances in which people live in Darfur, and I will be very frank," Rice said after meeting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in Paris. "I do not think that the international community has really lived up to its responsibilities there."
Rice welcomed the fresh energy France's new conservative-led leadership has put to the Darfur cause. She and Sarkozy met Tuesday morning, their first face-to-face talks since Sarkozy took over last month from Jacques Chirac, who often had prickly relations with the United States.
French officials said they hope to mobilize the international community at what they called a "pivotal moment," following the Sudanese government's agreement earlier this month to allow the deployment of the joint AU-U.N. force.
Details about the composition, mandate and timetable of the joint force were expected to top discussions at Monday's meetings.
Sarkozy praised Sudan for agreeing to the new hybrid force but insisted, "We must be firm toward belligerents who refuse to join the negotiating table."
"There are now 19 rebel groups in Sudan and we must exert important pressure so they return to the negotiating table," Kouchner added.
China, viewed as a power broker in Sudan, spoke against sanctions and a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games to force Beijing to get tough with Khartoum.
Beijing has dramatically stepped up efforts to end the violence in Darfur in the wake of mounting criticism that threatened to taint the Olympics.
China's special envoy for Sudan, Liu Giujin, said, "That's baseless, that's unfounded," when asked by reporters whether the Chinese oil industry's involvement in Sudan made Beijing reticent to come down hard.
"Now is not the time to talk about further sanctions," he said. He said any attempt to link the crisis the Beijing Olympics was "really unfounded. The basic character of the Olympics is nonpolitical."
China, which has heavy investment in Sudan, is one of the five U.N. Security Council permanent members with veto power. It has long opposed harsh measures against Sudan over Darfur.
More than 200,000 people have died in the Darfur region of western Sudan and 2.5 million have become refugees since 2003, when local rebels took up arms against the Sudanese government, accusing it of decades of neglect. Sudan's government is accused of unleashing in response a militia of Arab nomads known as the janjaweed - a charge Sudan denies.
The U.N. and Western governments had pressed Sudan for months to accept a plan for a large joint force of U.N. and AU peacekeepers to replace the overwhelmed 7,000-strong African force now in Darfur.
Sudan initially accepted the plan in November but then backtracked, before finally agreeing earlier this month. Rice warned Sudan's government not to renege on its agreement.
Officials from the Sudanese government in Khartoum have said Monday's conference could backfire and cause more harm than good.
The head of Darfur Emergency Group, an umbrella organization representing French groups lobbying for an end to the conflict disagreed.
"Perhaps those at the conference will be able to say certain things they wouldn't be able to say in front of the Sudanese," he said.
Kouchner insisted Sunday, "This is not a 'peacemaking' meeting, but on the contrary, a meeting to support the international efforts that have been deployed."
Kouchner, a Socialist who co-founded aid group Doctors Without Borders, said "humanitarian work ... is not enough." He also noted that the world powers must agree to support the U.N. force financially.
"If there are 20,000 forces who are in the hybrid force, whoever they are, they must be paid," he said.
The conference includes Rice, Kouchner, officials from the United Nations, the Arab League and the European Union, as well as 11 European countries, Egypt and China.
Notable absences, other than Sudan, include the AU and neighboring Chad, which has seen an influx of tens of thousands of people fleeing Darfur and is a key conduit for aid.
China has not received a formal request to send soldiers for the AU-U.N. peacekeeping mission, but officials have said it is open to contributing troops.
Associated Press Writer John Leicester contributed to this story.
© 2007 The Associated Press.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
4 Comments so far
Show AllI would have to say from those I have as a source from Africa and other sources in this country which are progressive that the main problem with getting any real resolution to the crisis in Darfur is the USA's actions to dominate much of Africa with piratical imperialism as John Pilger probably the greatest UK based journalist would put it, and the USA's getting in the way of either the UN or the OAU, representing Africa intervening to stop the killing and relieve the suffering of the people there. The USA, as it was in the time of Martin Luther King Jr, is the greatest source of violence in this world, and the Dr King was right on the mark about that then, and he would say the same thing today I'm sure.
Get the UN or the OAU in and the USA and imperialist booty out.
More from counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp05022006.html
Sudan, Oil, and the Darfur Crisis
Are the U.S. and Britain seeking a pretext for intervention in order to take advantage of Sudan's oil?
by Enver Masud
The situation in Darfur is tragic, but it is not genocide - oil may be the real target of those seeking military intervention.
According to Alex de Waal, the "world authority" on Sudan,
Characterising the Darfur war as 'Arabs' versus 'Africans' obscures the reality. Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous, African and Muslim - just like Darfur's non-Arabs . . . Until recently, Darfurians used the term 'Arab' in its ancient sense of 'bedouin'. These Arabic-speaking nomads are distinct from the inheritors of the Arab culture of the Nile and the Fertile Crescent.
'Arabism' in Darfur is a political ideology, recently imported, after Colonel Gadaffi nurtured dreams of an 'Arab belt' across Africa, and recruited Chadian Arabs, Darfurians and west African Tuaregs to spearhead his invasion of Chad in the 1980s. He failed, but the legacy of arms, militia organisation and Arab supremacist ideology lives on. (The Observer, July 25, 2004)
Sudan's 40 million population is 70% Sunni Muslim, 25% indigenous beliefs, and 5% Christian. Sudan's African Muslims killing African Muslims in tribal warfare is tragic, but cannot correctly be described as genocide - the systematic destruction by the government of Sudan of a national, racial, ethnic, or religious group.
Tensions in Darfur, in western Sudan, have existed since the 1970s. Forced by drought and scarce resources, the nomadic cattle herders in the north ventured into lands populated by the more settled communities in the south.
Renewed fighting broke out at the very moment when a peace agreement was about to be signed which would have ended 21 years of conflict between the government of Sudan, and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) in southern Sudan.
Darfur's tribes rebelled against the government complaining that the Sudan government had failed to develop the area. It is alleged that the rebels, aware of the terms of the proposed peace agreement between the government of Sudan and the SPLA, hoped to strike a favorable deal for themselves.
Southern Darfur, like southern Sudan, is rich in oil. The Chinese National Petroleum Corporation holds the large oil concession in southern Darfur. Chinese soldiers are alleged to be protecting Chinese oil interests.
It is also alleged that the rebels in southern Darfur are getting weapons from outside Sudan. "UN observers say they have better weapons than the Sudanese army, and are receiving supplies by air," according to Crescent International (UK).
The government of Sudan, after agreeing with UN Secretary General Kofi Anan to a 90-day period to end the conflict, was given 30 days under a UN resolution pushed through by the U.S. and Britain.
Sudan, largely undeveloped, and barely emerging from colonial oppression, has been given a virtually impossible task of pacifying an area the size of France. This may be the pretext for yet another U.S.-British intervention for oil.
In 1996, the U.S. sent nearly $20 million in surplus U.S. military equipment to Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda to topple the government of Sudan (The Washington Post, November 10, 1996), and it would appear that the U.S. and Britain are now competing with China, Sudan's largest trading partner, for Sudan's oil.
What Sudan, and Darfur in particular, need now are humanitarian assistance - not avarice masquerading as altruism.
Meanwhile, the international community remains largely silent about Uganda.
There the Lord's Resistance Army has killed tens of thousands of people, often mutilating their bodies, displaced more than 1.6 million people in northern Uganda, kidnapped thousands of children, forced many to become soldiers or sex slaves. (Voice of America, July 29, 2004)
---
Does the absence of posts here mean that we don't care about poor black people?