Dr Kaukab Siddique | Editor-in-Chief Sha'aban 21, 1425/ October 6, 2004 #97

My heartfelt thanks go out to all those who wrote to me to wish my mother, Mahmudah Qureshi, well in her hour of ordeal and suffering. I am thankful to Allah for such good friends and such sensitivity and compassion. The letters were sweet in the extreme, much better than what I expected.


That's how Zionist Propaganda works.

The death toll has reached 2000 in Haiti. Thousands are homeless. The Zionist media are keeping silent about it although Haiti is in America's backyard.
Instead the media let loose a barrage of killer propaganda aimed at Sudan. [See extensive rebuttal of Sudan propaganda below.]

Christiane Amanpour on Karzai and Afghanistan: Trying to Mislead the American People


Dear Newsnight:

Christiane Amanpour's report from Kabul [October 4] on the forthcoming "elections" in Afghanistan was non-factual and misleading. In polite language, it can be described as disinformation.

Amanpour talked positively about Hamid Karzai and presented some interesting clips from a woman supposedly a candidate for Afghanistan's presidency! Such reporting is seriously damaging for Amanpour's credibility.

She should read IMPERIAL HUBRIS by a senior officer in the U.S. intelligence community. It might disabuse her of the silly idea that the western puppets implanted in Kabul by American military might have any relevance to Afghan realities.

Karzai can trust no Afghan and is protected by American security guards. The women being inducted into the situation by American game masters have absolutely no chance of making the slightest dent in Afghanistan's history and culture.

As the author of Imperial Hubris has pointed out, any movement in Afghanistan which means anything to the Afghan people will come from Islam, probably from the resurgent Taliban.

I advise CNN to withdraw Christiane Amanpour from Afghanistan. She is wasting CNN's funds on the "made in America" version of Afghanistan she presented.


Kaukab Siddique, Ph.D

Hathout let the Muslim Community Down

I too was extremely disappointed in Hathout's "performance." It was so bad that I got distracted by something else and I didn't finish watching it. When I lived in Los Angeles, it was the Islamic Center that I went to for juma'a when I wanted to hear an impassioned response to some injustice going on in the world against Muslims. Almost every other masjid would be completely silent. I went to my first demonstration for Palestine back in the 80's (in front of the Federal Building) and it was sponsored by the Islamic Center.

That Larry King Live thing was sickening. I know of Dennis Prager. He had (maybe still has) a radio program in L.A. He is one of the staunchest zionist radio talk show hosts in America. For Hathout to be "loved" by that man! What does it say to be loved by a zionist and to have his stamp of approval? I was also disgusted by his waffling on the gay issue. Why the quibbling masquerading as a concern for privacy? Islam is crystal clear on the issue. Who was he trying to please? Is he planning to run for office? Hathout really let the community down.

Sis. Karen English

October 5, 2004. The U.S. vetoed a United Nations' resolution urging Israel to stop its military incursion in Gaza.



SAMARRA: The "Victory" that Wasn't

by New Trend's Mid East Media Monitor

Over the weekend of October 1 to 3, 2004, U.S. forces entered the city of Samarra, north of Baghdad. After a three day assault, the U.S. declared victory which is now being proclaimed on every TV screen. Below the headlines, the news reports [all American too] tell quite a different story.
Headline writing is an art and it seems that the headline writers are misleading the American people.

Here are the facts of the Samarra story available in the U.S.'s own news reports:
  1. Three thousand U.S. troops with 2,000 Iraqi troops trained by the U.S. entered Samarra under cover of air and tank fire. That's a total of 5,000 troops.
  2. Opposed to the U.S. were 200 Iraqi Islamic fighters. That's 5,000 versus 200.
  3. The U.S. military has issued a report that 128 "insurgents" were killed in Samarra and 88 captured [which would mean that the entire force was wiped out, an impossibility in guerrilla warfare].
  4. However New York Times and AFP are reporting that the "insurgents" melted away as the Americans advanced. There were evidently NO fighters killed.
  5. Hospital sources and eyewitnesses in Samarra report that 50 people were killed in the U.S. attack and several hundred wounded, ALL CIVILIANS, including a few women and children.
  6. There were no U.S. losses which indicates that there was NO CONTACT at any point with the Islamic fighters. The Iraqi losses were evidently ALL owing to bombardment by aircraft and tanks.
Palestine Analysis

ISRAELI JEWS ON THE RAMPAGE in GAZA: 72 People Killed by Jewish tanks and Missiles
Defenseless Palestinians being Mauled by the Dregs of International Jewry

From New Trend's Palestine Periscope

October 6, 2004. For a WHOLE WEEK now the military forces of International Jewry's armed wing known as Israel have been hunting Palestinians in Gaza. A systematic campaign has been launched by Sharon to kill Palestinian leaders, activists and youth. The plan seems to be aimed at creating an "Red Indian Reservation" type of Palestine in which secularized servants of Israel will be allowed to function after all the Islamic resistance has been liquidated and those who support the fighters are reduced to extreme poverty and denied the basic facilities of human existence.

[Sharon's offensive, our analysts say, is tied to the elimination of Islamic charities worldwide to deny the Palestinian people any outside help even in the form of medicine, clean water and books for children. The removal of President Saddam Hussain was part of the effort to deny the Palestinians any outside help. Meanwhile the Jews of America and Europe are pouring endless supplies of funds and weapons into the illegitimate and racist entity known as Isael.]

The Palestinians are improvising some pathetically inadequate weaponry in the form of "rockets" and "mortars" which are no more than grandified fire crackers. They are unable to hit anything with precision and usually end up killing one or two Israeli civilians every six months, thus providing the Israelis the propaganda material needed to justify their ongoing GENOCIDE against the Palestinian people.

The Muslim world is aghast at the atrocities the Jews are committing. Most observers agree that the Palestinians should be armed and given the chance to kill the Jews at the same rate as the jews are killing them. Analysts say that the Jewish armada is blatantly genocidal because the Palestinians are unarmed. Most agree that once the Jews are hit hard and a few thousand killed every month, they'll start returning to their rat holes in Brooklyn and Russia..

NOTICE IRAN's ROLE: Hizbullah and Syria have not fired a shot during the week long rampage by Jewish tanks and helicopter gun ships in Palestinian towns and refugee camps. The Iranians are behaving like the Soviet army on the Vistula [1944-45] which waited patiently while the Germans destroyed Polish resistance in Warsaw


from New Trend's Pakistan representative

October 3, 2004: In preparation for the coming battle against Al-Qaida, Taliban and Pakistani mujahideen, General Pervez Musharraf has carried out a major reshuffle of top brass in the Pakistani army. He has promoted 5 major generals to Lt. General and placed them in key cities. These are: Lt. General M. Afzal Muzaffar will lead the army units in the key hearland city of Multan. Lt. Gen. Syed Athar Ali [sectarian name?] has been appointed Corp Commander in the tumultuous city of Karachi. Hamid Rab Nawaz, now Lt. General, will be in charge of the city of Quetta where the Taliban have significant support. Musharraf's ISI, responsible for important victories against Islamists captured and handed over to the U.S., will now be led by Musharraf's favorite, Lt. General Ashfaq Pervez. The key city of Rawalpindi will be controlled by Lt. General Salahuddin Sitti. Newly promoted Lt. General Muhammad Sabir will run the strategic city of Gujranwalla. [Source: Nawa-i-Waqt daily Urdu language paper, usually reliable.]


October 3. Pakistani newspapers report that Pakistani mujahideen attacked Pakistani army positions at 13 places in South Waziristan Some of these places had been peaceful before this.
The attackers suffered casualties as they fired machine guns and threw grenades at the Pakistani troops who replied with artillery and mortars. The attackers took their dead with them while the army suffered 18 killed and 30 injured. The mujahideen are also trying to stop Pakistani troop convoys bringing reinforcements. A mine was used to blow up a Pakistani troop carrier killing 2 Pakistani soldiers, wounding 7.
[With thanks to Br. Hodari Abdul-'Ali in Maryland.]

The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council
1 Northumberland Avenue
Tel: 020 7872 5434
Fax: 020 7753 2848
Email: director@espac.org
Date of Publication: 6 October 2004


In February 2003, two armed groups, the 'Sudan Liberation Army' (SLA) and the 'Justice and Equality Movement' (JEM), launched attacks on government administrative centres, police stations and civilians in the western Sudanese region of Darfur. The government responded vigorously and the conflict spiralled out of control causing a growing humanitarian crisis. (1) Since the international community was alerted to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur from early 2004 onwards there has been an attempt by the United States government and sections of the Western print and broadcast media to portray the Government of the Sudan not only as being solely responsible for the crisis, but actively and deliberately conniving in the "genocide" of black African peasant farmer tribes by nomadic "Arab" tribes. (2) In August 2004, for example, the United States Congress unanimously adopted a resolution labelling the situation in Darfur as genocide. (3) On 9 September, American Secretary of State Colin Powell, responding to domestic pressure from conservative and anti-Islamic constituencies, in turn declared before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, "[that] genocide has taken place and may still be continuing in Darfur". These declarations echoed attempts to compare events in Darfur with Rwanda in 1994.

Central to these claims of genocide have been accusations that in preventing humanitarian access to Darfur by UN aid organisations, such as the World Food Programme and other non-governmental relief groups, the Sudanese government was carrying out a genocide by famine or by other means they wished to hide from the international community. Secretary of State Powell appears to have forgotten John Adams' powerful observation that "facts are stubborn things". The simple facts, as they have unfolded in recent months, have exposed American claims of genocide as little more than political opportunism in a crunch election year. In less than twelve months the Sudanese government has facilitated an increase in aid workers, expatriates and Sudanese nationals, from two foreigners and a few dozen nationals in September 2003 to just under six thousand aid workers - over seven hundred of them expatriates - by August 2004. (4) In total, there are now 155 locations assisting with internally displaced people in the three Darfur states, of which 136 are in areas that UN security officers say the World Food Programme can enter and operate within. By September 2004, the World Food Programme was feeding some 940,000 conflict-affected people in Darfur. (5)

Not only is the almost six thousand aid workers' presence in Darfur clear evidence of the Khartoum government's commitment to the provision of food and medical relief to Darfur's war-affected communities, but they are able to confirm or refute the existence of any policy of genocide on the part of the government. Far from confirming it, reputable international aid agencies have criticised American claims of genocide. (6)

Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has been one such group. (7) In July 2004 MSF President Dr Jean-Herv Bradol stated, for example, that the use of the term genocide was inappropriate: "Our teams have not seen evidence of the deliberate intention to kill people of a specific group. We have received reports of massacres, but not of attempts to specifically eliminate all the members of a group". (8) Dr Bradol subsequently described the August and September American declarations of genocide in Darfur as "obvious political opportunism". (9)

Any study of the humanitarian presence in Darfur would indicate that for much of the first half of 2003 the attention of the UN, its aid organisations and NGOs as well as the government of Sudan and the whole international community was focused on achieving a peace accord between the government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) to end the civil war in southern Sudan. The UN personnel that were on the ground were mainly concentrated in south Darfur to deal with the problem of feeding and medical care of internally-displaced persons from southern neighbouring Bahr El-Ghazal resulting from the war in the south. (10)

The intensity of the conflict in Darfur made humanitarian access to the area very problematic. In September 2003, the Government of Sudan and the SLA signed an agreement allowing "free and unimpeded" humanitarian access within Darfur. (11) The rebels have however escalated humanitarian access difficulties by deliberately targeting aid workers. They murdered nine World Food Programme truck drivers, and wounded 14 others, in an attack on a relief convoy in October 2003. (12) In January 2004, UN media sources reported that "about 85 percent of the 900,000 war-affected people in Darfur...are inaccessible to humanitarian aid, according to the UN, mainly because of insecurity." (13) In addition, on 11 February 2004 JEM declared its intention to close down every road within Darfur in spite of the devastating consequences this would have on the ability of the Government and aid agencies (national and international) to provide emergency assistance to those communities suffering in Darfur. As a UN humanitarian relief spokesman quite simply stated: "You can't give aid when there are bullets flying." (14)

The government nonetheless sought to ease access, conflict permitting. (15) Negotiations between the government and rebels resulted in a further humanitarian ceasefire being agreed on 7 April 2004, facilitating humanitarian access to civilian populations in need. In May the government introduced further measures aimed at streamlining the delivery of humanitarian assistance. (16) From its office in Nyala UNICEF initiated assistance to the internally displaced persons during the first ceasefire in September-November 2003. Additional offices were opened in El Geneina and El Fasher in November 2003. As access improved, UNICEF moved quickly in February and March 2004 to assess immediate needs, and most importantly, to provide basic services to accessible populations. By the end of March, UNICEF had tripled its staff in El Fasher, Nyala and El Geneina. (17)

The level of aid access to Darfur is a simple matter of record. In September 2003 the World Food Programme (WFP) was the only UN agency that had international staff (two) in Darfur. There were in addition a few dozen national staff, many of them working on development rather than humanitarian relief programmes. (18) Access for relief staff had been cut off from March to the beginning of September 2003, when the first ceasefire took effect, and operations during this time were severely restricted. International UN staff on the ground remained few until February 2004, when freer access followed a new ceasefire. The UN then began sending as many people to the field as possible. In March 2004, there were 37 international aid workers in Darfur, and 191 Sudanese nationals: April, 128 international and 972 national personnel; May, 169 international and 1139 national personnel; June, 322 international and 1721 national personnel; July, 483 international and 3689 national personnel; August, 705 international and 5004 Sudanese personnel.

According to the UN's Sudan Information Gateway website (19), as early as April 2004 the following UN agencies and non-governmental organisations were working in Darfur. North Darfur: UN Development Programme (UNDP), Save the Children UK, SpRC/SRC, UNICEF, SUDO, ITDC, SCRC, WHO, IARA, Lep Mission, MSF, WFP, Oxfam Great Britain, USAID, ICRC, UN Population Fund (UNFPA), GOAL; West Darfur: UNDP, UNFPA, Save the Children UK, SpRC/SRC, UNICEF, WHO, Lep Mission, Oxfam GB, Medair, Al Massar, USAID, IARA, Dawa; South Darfur: Save the Children UK, ICRC/SRC, UNFPA, UNICEF, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), SCRC, OCHA, WHO, Lep Mission, WFP, Oxfam GB, SRC. The Catholic agency CAFOD, Catholic Relief Services and Adventist Development and Relief Agency, began operations in South Darfur as well. (20)

On 28 May Kofi Annan welcomed the government's announcement that aid workers wanting to travel to Darfur would receive entry visas quickly and would no longer need travel permits for Darfur. (21) Speaking in June 2004, Kevin Kennedy, the acting UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan confirmed that "access has improved somewhat over the last several weeks. Various procedures, [including] restriction requirements that had been imposed have either been eliminated or have been softened." He also stated that "there has been significant progress made in the last few weeks in terms of visas, travel permits, registration of new NGOs, release of items from customs clearance, and so forth." Mr Kennedy confirmed that visas were generally being granted within 48 hours - as promised by the Government of Sudan - and that "people are experiencing very few visa difficulties". (22) An indication of this NGO access could be seen in the July 2004 United Nations announcement that two million children in Darfur had been immunised against measles. (23) This was carried out by 2,000 health teams made up of World Health Organisation, UNICEF and other humanitarian workers.

In July 2004, Jan Egeland, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs (and a fierce critic of the government), found it necessary to challenge some of the claims being made about Darfur: "It is strange to see that there is still the notion in the world that nothing is happening and we're completely blocked from accessing Darfur. We are reaching some 800,000 people at the moment with some sort of assistance and food." (24) Mr Egeland also had something to say about claims of "ethnic cleansing" in Darfur, stating that the term "ethnic cleansing" did not fit events in Darfur: "I think we have more reports actually of a kind of scorched earth [policy] - and that nobody has taken over....It's complex, because some have said that it doesn't fit the legal definition of ethnic cleansing. The same tribes are represented both among those who are cleansed and those who are cleansing." (25)

The government also appears not to have impeded UN agencies operating in rebel-controlled areas of Darfur. On 26 August, for example, UNICEF started a polio immunisation programme of 50,000 children in the SLA- controlled part of North Darfur. (26) And on 30 September, a WFP food convoy reached an IDP camp behind SLA/JEM lines in South Darfur. (27)

Compared with 2003 it is obvious that by September 2004 the number of UN and other agencies and their personnel had increased substantially in response to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur without any hindrance of GOS, although continuing clashes between GOS forces and rebels was causing difficulty for humanitarian access. (28)

Governments involved in genocide do not tend to enable, facilitate and speed up access to the area or population allegedly targeted for genocide. A sovereign government can restrict access to its territories. What emerges from any study of UN documents on the crisis in Darfur over 2003 and 2004, or the reports of any of the non-governmental organisations active in Darfur, however, is that the government appears to have assisted as much as possible with opening Darfur up to humanitarian assistance. There were under thirty aid workers in Darfur in mid 2003. The government sanctioned and facilitated the increase in that presence to just under six thousand less than a year later. Similarly, the Khartoum authorities have allowed unfettered access to Darfur by the international and national media, including reporters from the BBC, Sky News, New York Times, the London Times and Sunday Times and Time magazine to name but a few. The media, however, ultimately comes and goes. It is the humanitarian community, in the form of dozens of non-governmental organisations, that has maintained a personal or institutional presence in Darfur virtually throughout the past year. It is the humanitarian aid community who are now challenging opportunistic claims of genocide in Darfur.

The dangers of crying wolf on such issues are all too clear. The cynical use of allegations of genocide or ethnic cleansing for propaganda reasons is morally repugnant. It may also have international and domestic consequences, enflaming an already fraught situation in Darfur as well as misinforming international opinion.


US 'hyping' Darfur genocide fears

'The Observer' (London)

Sunday October 3, 2004

Peter Beaumont

American warnings that Darfur is heading for an apocalyptic humanitarian catastrophe have been widely exaggerated by administration officials, it is alleged by international aid workers in Sudan. Washington's desire for a regime change in Khartoum has biased their reports, it is claimed.

The government's aid agency, USAID, says that between 350,000 and a million people could die in Darfur by the end of the year. Other officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, have accused the Sudanese government of presiding over a 'genocide' that could rival those in Bosnia and Rwanda.

But the account has been comprehensively challenged by eyewitness reports from aid workers and by a new food survey of the region. The nutritional survey of Sudan's Darfur region, by the UN World Food Programme, says that although there are still high levels of malnutrition among under-fives in some areas, the crisis is being brought under control.

'It's not disastrous,' said one of those involved in the WFP survey, 'although it certainly was a disaster earlier this year, and if humanitarian assistance declines, this will have very serious negative consequences.'

The UN report appears to confirm food surveys conducted by other agencies in Darfur which also stand in stark contrast to the dire US descriptions of the food crisis.

The most dramatic came from Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, who told UN officials: 'We estimate right now, if we get relief in we'll lose a third of a million people and, if we don't, the death rates could be dramatically higher, approaching a million people.'

A month later, a second senior official, Roger Winter, USAID's assistant administrator, briefed foreign journalists in Washington that an estimated 30,000 people had been killed during the on-going crisis in Darfur, with another 50,000 deaths from malnutrition and disease, largely among the huge populations fleeing the violence. He described the emergency as 'humanitarian disaster of the first magnitude'.

By 9 September Powell was in front of the Congressional Foreign Relations Committee accusing Sudan of 'genocide', a charge rejected by officials of both the European and African Unions and also privately by British officials.

'I've been to a number of camps during my time here,' said one aid worker, 'and if you want to find death, you have to go looking for it. It's easy to find very sick and under-nourished children at the therapeutic feeding centres, but that's the same wherever you go in Africa.'

Another aid worker told The Observer : 'It suited various governments to talk it all up, but they don't seem to have thought about the consequences. I have no idea what Colin Powell's game is, but to call it genocide and then effectively say, "Oh, shucks, but we are not going to do anything about that genocide" undermines the very word "genocide".'

While none of the aid workers and officials interviewed by The Observer denied there was a crisis in Darfur - or that killings, rape and a large-scale displacement of population had taken place - many were puzzled that it had become the focus of such hyperbolic warnings when there were crises of similar magnitude in both northern Uganda and eastern Congo.

Concern about USAID's role as an honest broker in Darfur have been mounting for months, with diplomats as well as aid workers puzzled over its pronouncements and one European diplomat accusing it of 'plucking figures from the air'.

Under the Bush administration, the work of USAID has become increasingly politicised. But over Sudan, in particular, two of its most senior officials have long held strong personal views. Both Natsios, a former vice-president of the Christian charity World Vision, and Winter have long been hostile to the Sudanese government.

  1. See "Sudan: One Million At 'Imminent Risk' in Darfur, Says US Government", News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 3 March 2004.
  2. See, for example, "Thousands flee war in Sudan", 'The Guardian' (London), 30 January 2004, and "Rape, torture, and one million forced to flee as Sudan's crisis unfolds. Will we move to stop it?", 'The Independent' (London), 23 April 2004.
  3. It is not the first time that the US Congress has made these sorts of claims. On 17 June 1999, for example, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a resolution condemning the Sudanese government "for its genocidal war in southern Sudan". The measure, House Concurrent Resolution 75, passed by a vote of 416 to 1, claimed that the Sudanese government was "deliberately and systematically committing genocide in southern Sudan", stating that an estimated 1.9 million Sudanese have died of war-related causes and that "Millions have been displaced from their homes" (See, for example, "U.S. House Passes First Sudan Measure in Six Years; Calls War 'Genocidal' and Urges Stronger U.S. Peace Efforts", Press Release by US Committee for Refugees, Washington-DC, 16 June 1999).
  4. Figures provided by the UN press office, Khartoum.
  5. "Darfur: Humanitarian Emergency Fact Sheet Number 24", US Agency for International Development, 1 October 2004.
  6. "US 'Hyping' Darfur Genocide Fears", 'The Observer' (London), 3 October 2004.
  7. See, for example, "Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres Challenges US Darfur Genocide Claims", Mediamonitors, 5 October 2004, available at www.mediamonitors.net
  8. "Thousands Die as World Defines Genocide", 'The Financial Times' (London), 6 July 2004. See also, Bradol's views in "France Calls on Sudan to Forcibly Disarm Darfur Militias", News Article by Agence France Presse, 7 July 2004.
  9. "From One Genocide to Another", Article by Dr Jean-Herv Bradol, 28 September 2004, available at Medecins Sans Frontieres (UAE) website, www.msfuae.ae
  10. See, for example, UN publications covering early 2003 such as the "Sudan Assistance Bulletin", published by the Office of the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan, http://www.unsudanig.org.
  11. "Agreement Reached Allowing Humanitarian Access to Darfur Region of Sudan", Press Release by United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, New York, 17 September 2003.
  12. "Workers in Sudan Aid Convoy Killed", News Article by BBC News, 28 October 2003.
  13. "Authorities Forcibly Close IDP Camps in Southern Darfur", News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 16 January 2004.
  14. "Aid Workers Unable to Reach Most War Zones in Darfur, Western Sudan", News Article by Deutsche Presse Agentur, 13 January 2004.
  15. "Aid access to Sudan's war-torn west improves", News Article by South African Broadcasting Corporation, 11 February 2004.
  16. See, "Sudan Adopts New Measures to Facilitate Delivery of Humanitarian Aid in Darfur", News Article by Sudan News Agency, 20 May 2004.
  17. "UNICEF Humanitarian Action Sudan, Children Affected by Darfur Crisis", donor update 19 May 2004.
  18. According to a spokesperson for the UN's Office for Co- ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Khartoum in September 2004.
  19. "Starbase: Agency Interventions North" http://www.unsudanig.org/ system.
  20. "Sudan Transition & Recovery Database, South Darfur State", version 2, 17 June 2004, Office for Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Sudan.
  21. "The UN Responds to the Crisis in Darfur: A Timeline", available at www.un.org/news.
  22. "Interview with Kevin Kennedy, Outgoing Acting UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan", News Article by UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, Nairobi, 23 June 2004.
  23. "Two Million Darfur Children Get Measles Shot", Press Release by UNICEF, Geneva, 6 July 2004.
  24. "Interview with UN's Jan Egeland on the Situation in Darfur", News Article by UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, Nairobi, 5 July 2004.
  25. "Sudan: Interview with UN's Jan Egeland on the Situation in Darfur", News Article by UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, Nairobi, 5 July 2004,.
  26. "Darfur aid worker's diary XIX", News Article by BBC News Online 17 September 2004, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/africa
  27. "Behind the invisible frontline", Press Release by World Food Programme, 2 October 2004, available at www.wfp.org.newsroom.
  28. "Sudan Assistance Bulletin" no 34, United Nations, 15 September 2004.

click here to email a link to this article

2004-10-08 Fri 20:27ct