

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Recent claims by the Sudanese government that the situation in
Darfur is improving are not borne out by reality, fifteen organizations
said in a report released today. In an effort to bolster their argument
that the U.N. Security Council should suspend the International
Criminal Court's (ICC) consideration of an arrest warrant against
President Omar al-Bashir, Sudan has contended that there have been
serious improvements in Darfur. The ICC prosecutor is scheduled to
brief the Security Council on December 3, 2008, about the progress of
his investigation.
In stark contrast to Khartoum's claims, the 22 page report, "Rhetoric vs. Reality - the Situation in Darfur,"
prepared by a coalition of nongovernmental organizations - including
the Save Darfur Coalition, Human Rights First and Human Rights Watch -
documents the lack of progress in Darfur in recent months regarding
security, the humanitarian situation, the deployment of peacekeepers
and domestic justice.
Read the full report here.
Following the July 14 announcement by the ICC prosecutor that he was
requesting a warrant for the arrest of President Bashir on charges of
war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, his administration
began a diplomatic campaign aimed at convincing Security Council
members to suspend the case against him. The government has made a
number of public statements proclaiming its willingness to pursue
justice in national courts and to achieve peace in Darfur, and has
claimed that the situation on the ground there has improved. President
Bashir claimed in a televised interview on October 17, that the
situation in Darfur is now "very normal."
"The situation in Darfur is far from what the world would define as 'normal'," said Julia Fromholz, Director of the Crimes Against Humanity Program at Human Rights First. "Millions
of people are living under daily threat of violence and are dependent
on humanitarian aid that is hindered or entirely blocked by ongoing
insecurity and endless bureaucratic hurdles."
The report describes the ongoing insecurity in Darfur. Between July
and October 2008, government bombing and fighting in North Darfur led
to the displacement of some 90,000 people. In October government forces
and allied militia carried out attacks on at least 13 villages near
Muhajariya, South Darfur, in which at least 44 civilians were
reportedly killed. Even in November, following the governments
declaration of a "unilateral, unconditional ceasefire," the Sudanese
army continued to bomb villages in North and West Darfur.
"Once again the Sudanese government is talking peace with diplomats and journalists while waging war in Darfur said Save Darfur Coalition president Jerry Fowler. "And once again civilians are bearing the brunt of the violence."
More than four million people in Darfur remain in need of
humanitarian aid, but the dire security situation prevented access by
relief agencies to 250,000 people in September, the greatest number so
far this year. Since the beginning of the year, 170 aid workers have
been abducted and 11 killed. The Sudanese government also continues to
obstruct the delivery of assistance through bureaucratic constraints
and harassment of humanitarian staff.
The United Nations/African Union peacekeeping force (UNAMID) remains
at less than 50 percent of its mandated strength and has repeatedly
come under attack. The Sudanese government has once again recommitted
to fulfilling its obligations to facilitate the force, but these
commitments have yet to be tested. At a local level, government forces
and authorities consistently hamper the ability of the force to protect
civilians, through obstruction, bureaucracy and even violent attacks.
Sudanese authorities have also announced a series of steps
ostensibly designed to improve domestic justice for crimes in Darfur,
including a new prosecutor for Darfur. However to date the prosecutor
has only considered three cases, and no fresh prosecutions in relation
to major atrocities have begun.
"The international community has an unfortunate record of judging Sudan by its words rather than its actions," said Richard Dicker, International Justice Director at Human Rights Watch. "The
Security Council must not allow itself to be hoodwinked by Khartoum
into handing Bashir impunity in return for empty promises. Following
its Presidential Statement of June 16, Security Council members should
reiterate that all parties to the conflict have a binding obligation to
cooperate with the court."
The report was produced by:
Human Rights First
Human Rights Watch
Save Darfur Coalition
Action pour les Droits Humains et l'Amitie Senegal
Arab Coalition for Darfur
Arab Program for Human Rights Activists
Cairo Institute for Human Rights studies
Centre for Human Rights Sierra Leone
Cercle de Reflexion et d'Action pour le Developpement Economique et Social Mali
Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre
Federation Internationale des ligues des droits de l'homme
International Refugees Rights Initiative
L'Action de la jeunesse Guineenne pour l'Aide au Developpement et a la Prosperite Guinea Conakry
Socio-Economic Rights & Accountability Project Nigeria
West African Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons Network- Senegal
Contacts
In New York
- Nicolas Burniat, Pennoyer Fellow, Human Rights First, New York
(English and French): +1 212 845 5242, +1 917 328 9252 -
burniatn@humanrightsfirst.org
- Richard Dicker, International Justice Director, Human Rights Watch: +1 917 747 6731
- Selena Brewer, Sudan Researcher, Human Rights Watch: +1 917 535 4093 - brewers@hrw.org
In Cairo
- Moataz El fegiery, Director, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (English and Arabic): +201 234 29991 - moataz@cihrs.org
In Dakar
- Djibril Balde, West Africa Focal Point, Darfur Consortium (English and French), +221763936799
In Kampala
- Dismas Nkunda, Co chair, Darfur Consortium: +256 75 331 0404, dismas.nkunda@refugee-rights.org
In Washington
Allyn Brooks-LaSure, Senior Director of Communications, Save Darfur Coalition: +1 202 478 6174 - press@savedarfur.org
Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. Human Rights First believes that building respect for human rights and the rule of law will help ensure the dignity to which every individual is entitled and will stem tyranny, extremism, intolerance, and violence.
"Trump doesn't need Israel's permission to end this war," said one observer. "The longer he waits, the more Americans pay."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that "there has to be a ground component" to the war on Iran as a new survey of US voters showed just 7% support for a large-scale invasion involving American forces.
"It is often said that you can't win, you can't do revolutions from the air. That is true," Netanyahu told reporters during a press conference in Jerusalem. "You can do a lot of things from the air... but there has to be a ground component, as well. There are many possibilities for this ground component. And I take the liberty of not sharing with you all of those possibilities."
Netanyahu's insistence on the necessity of ground operations in Iran came as US President Donald Trump declared to reporters in the White House on Thursday, "I'm not putting troops anywhere."
"If I were," he added, "I certainly wouldn't tell you."
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday found that just 7% of US voters support the idea of a large-scale ground invasion of Iran—but 65% of Americans believe that Trump will order such an operation anyway.
Just 34% of US voters would support "deploying a small number of special forces troops" to Iran, the survey found, while 55% said they would oppose the use of any ground troops.
The survey came days after Reuters reported that the Trump administration is "considering deploying thousands of US troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the US military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran."
The Pentagon's push for $200 billion in supplemental funding from the US Congress, which did not authorize the Iran war, amplified concerns that the Trump administration is gearing up for a prolonged conflict that could involve American troops on the ground, despite Trump's repeated public insistence that the war will be over "very soon."
Both US and Israeli intelligence agencies have reportedly assessed that Iran's regime is not on the verge of collapse after nearly three weeks of relentless bombing.
"Western officials and analysts who study Iran said they see little near-term prospect of a 'regime change' end to the 47-year-old Islamic republic or the rise of a more democratic government," The Washington Post reported earlier this week. "The latter is a goal cited by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and sometimes by President Donald Trump, who has said he’ll know the war is over 'when I feel it in my bones.'"
Raed Jarrar, advocacy director at the pro-democracy group DAWN, said Thursday that "the United States and Israel are not fighting the same war," pointing to recent Israeli strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure. The strikes drew a public rebuke from Trump, who is facing soaring gas prices at home due to the illegal war he launched in partnership with Netanyahu.
"Trump wants a quick exit. Netanyahu wants to permanently destroy Iran as a regional power," said Shakir. "There is an exit. Trump doesn't need Israel's permission to end this war. He's done it before in Yemen. The longer he waits, the more Americans pay."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned Thursday that Trump may be running out of time to "convincingly declare victory and provide himself a face-saving exit."
"Israel will do all it can to sabotage any such off-ramp, including killing Iranian's negotiators," Parsi wrote. "But it will become increasingly clear—if it hasn't already—to Trump that all his escalatory options only deepen the lose-lose situation he has put himself in."
"That's why Trump should never have listened to Netanyahu in the first place," he added.
"People can't afford childcare," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that it is absurd for the Trump administration to demand another $200 billion from Congress for an illegal war on Iran after lawmakers already approved $1 trillion in military spending for the year—and while millions of people across the nation are struggling to afford basic necessities.
"You got people all over this country, 20% of households, spending 50% of their income on housing," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an appearance on MS NOW. "People can't afford healthcare. People can't afford childcare. And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
The senator's remarks came as President Donald Trump, who has not yet formally requested the funds from Congress, suggested another $200 billion would be a "small price to pay" as the US-Israeli war on Iran heads toward its fourth week with no end in sight.
"I think the Trump people are in a bit of panic," Sanders said Thursday. "They're losing ground. Gas prices are soaring. There is massive discontent against this war. It's got to end, and we've got to make sure that Trump is neutered in 2026."
With the Trump administration considering a plan to deploy thousands of additional troops to the Middle East amid widespread fears of a ground invasion of Iran—which would explode the price tag of an already costly war—the National Priorities Project (NPP) released an analysis highlighting where the $200 billion requested by the Pentagon could be better spent.
The group estimated that $200 billion would be enough for all of the following this year:
"Pete Hegseth would rather the US bomb Iranian families than feed American families," wrote NPP's Lindsay Koshgarian, referring to the Pentagon secretary. "We should remember the lies that led us into war in Iraq a generation ago. That war ultimately cost nearly $3 trillion. We must not go down that path again. Our tax dollars should be helping struggling Americans, not feeding new forever wars."
One advocacy group leader highlighted that "$200 billion is enough to materially change the lives of Americans," from establishing universal pre-K education to building over 100,000 housing units.
As US President Donald Trump on Thursday confirmed reporting that he's seeking $200 billion more from Congress to continue waging his unpopular war of choice on Iran, Rep. Ilhan Omar was among those forcefully pushing back.
"We're told there's no money for universal healthcare or to end hunger in this country. But somehow $200 billion more for war will likely move through Congress without question," said the progressive Minnesota Democrat, who fled civil war in Somalia as a child. "Not another penny for another endless war."
Since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started bombing Iran late last month—creating a spiraling crisis that has now killed and injured thousands of people across the Middle East, plus damaged civilian infrastructure in multiple countries—anti-war lawmakers and organizations have delivered similar messages.
"While they kick 17 million Americans off their healthcare, Republicans want to spend billions on Trump's reckless war of choice," Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in early March. "Hell no."
Last week, shortly after Pentagon officials told Congress that just the first six days cost Americans more than $11.3 billion, over 250 groups collectively told lawmakers on Capitol Hill to "vote against any additional funding for Trump's unconstitutional war."
At the time, the reported figure was a quarter of what it is now: $50 billion. The coalition noted that the funding "would be enough to restore food assistance for 4 million Americans that was taken away in the tax and budget reconciliation bill, establish universal pre-K education, and pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing, among other possible priorities."
After Trump confirmed that he wants four times more than expected, one coalition member, the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, took to social media to highlight other ways the money could be spent to improve the lives of working Americans, from school meals and paid leave to funding all levels of education.
Another coalition member, Public Citizen, released a Thursday statement in which co-president Robert Weissman ripped Trump's spending request as "grotesque beyond words."
According to Weissman:
It should properly be understood not just as a request to replenish supplies, but to expand, escalate, and perpetuate the illegal, unconstitutional, unpopular and devastating war on Iran. Congress should understand that approving any portion of this funding opens the gates for one, two, and potentially many more war funding requests in the future.
How dare the administration propose this gargantuan sum to expand an illegal war of choice at the same time it has rammed through deep cuts in healthcare and food assistance, refuses to spend foreign assistance at a cost of millions of lives, and has cut spending on protecting clean air, maintaining our national parks, investing in health research, protecting consumers from fraud, and so much more.
$200 billion is enough to materially change the lives of Americans and truly make our country stronger. It would be enough to restore food assistance to the 4 million Americans and Medicaid to the 15 million Americans who will lose those crucial supports under the Republican reconciliation bill; establish universal pre-K education; pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing; double the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency; and expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing.
Weissman argued that "every member of Congress should announce, right now, that they will reject this monstrous war funding proposal, before it is formalized."
Despite rising casualties across the Middle East and polls showing that the US assault on Iran is unpopular, even with Trump voters, a few Democrats voted with nearly all Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives earlier this month to reject war powers resolutions intended to end Trump's Operation Epic Fury. The upper chamber blocked a similar effort late Wednesday.