Sudan Conflict

Population: 34,500,000

Capital: Khartoum

Area: 967,493 Sq. Miles

People: Black 52 %, Arab 39%, Beja 6%,

Religion: Sunni Muslim 70%, indigenous beliefs 25%,
Christian 3%

Sudan, Africa’s largest country, has endured civil war for all but 10 years since it achieved independence in 1956, after nearly 80 years of British rule. One of the world’s poorest, most backward countries, Sudan sits on a sea of oil that cannot be exploited due to the continuing conflict. Despite its vast size, Sudan is largely a forgotten land torn by a complex struggle that stems from its colonial experience, its ethnic and religious divisions and from the self-interests that take precedence over progress.

Historically, Sudan has been viewed as a nation divided between north and south. The North is more developed and more prosperous, is influenced by Egypt and is predominately Muslim. The South is home to untapped natural resources, Christian and animist beliefs, poverty and a resilient rebel movement.

---

During most of the 1800s, Sudan was controlled by the Turko-Egyptian (Ottoman Empire) and developed a substantial slave trade. In 1881, Muhammed Ahmad el Mahdi, (the Rightly Guided One) led a rebellion of northern tribes, driving the Egyptians from Sudan. In 1896, the British and Egyptian allies invaded and defeated the Mahdist forces in 1898 at the battle of Omdurman.

The Anglo-Egyptian allies created a so-called “condominium” administration in the capital Khartoum and focused their attention on developing agriculture in the North. The North was predominately Muslim and more similar to Egypt than the traditionally African South. The British exploited ethnic and religious differences as a means to maintain control, as they had in many other colonies.

The South of Sudan was declared a “closed area” and was isolated in almost all respects. After World War II, Britain prepared to abandon its colony, but wanted to prevent Egypt from gaining total control. To counterbalance Egypt’s influence in the North, Britain sought to include Southerners in a federated government and opened the closed areas. Sudan gained its independence in 1956. As usual, the stage was set for violent conflict and factions fought for control over a weak and ineffectual government in Khartoum.

In 1958 General Abboud seized power, established military rule and pursued an agenda of Arabization. He was quickly confronted by the Anya Nya rebels and the allied Sudan African National Union (SANU). Abboud was deposed in 1964 as civil war escalated. In 1969 Col. Mohammed Jaa’far Nimeiri seized power and declared an Islamic state, its policies based on Shar’ia, or Islamic law. He negotiated the Addis Abba Accord, which brought a ceasefire and limited autonomy for the South.

After the government reneged on portions of the agreement, a new rebel force emerged in the South. With foreign support, Dr. John Garang led the Sudan people’s Liberation Army and Movement (SPLA/M) as it took control over substantial areas in southern Sudan. In Khartoum, other dissident factions overthrew Nimieiri in 1985. Government instability continued until 1989 when General el-Bashir and the National Islamic Front gained control. El-Bashir declared a holy jihad and mounted increasingly successful counter attacks against the SPLA.

Under pressure, SPLA broke into two factions: SPLA-Mainstream (led by Garang) and SPLA-United led by Dr. Rick Mashar). SPLA-United has suffered from infighting but remains a source of friction and influence in isolated areas. SPLA-Mainstream emerged as the more powerful of the rebel factions established an area of influence in the Upper Nile and Southern Kordofan region. In northeastern Sudan another rebel group, the Sudan Allied Forces, are waging their own battles against the Khartoum government in the Darfur provinces. Given Khartoum’s limited resources and capabilities much of Sudan is essentially without any form of government.

Sudan’s civil war is being fought essentially without rules. All of the factions, government or guerrilla, have committed atrocities, without concern for human rights, or condemnation and sanctions from an international community that isn’t watching. The death toll is unknown and humanitarian organizations estimate refugees numbers as high as 4 million, of which as many as 2 million have died while in flight.

Ironically, much of the conflict is a battle for control of resources in the South, even though no one seems capable of developing the resources. It’s estimated that Sudan oil reserves may be as much as 200 billion barrels. Until Sudan can develop a more diverse economic base, its people rely on the country’s fragile agricultural base, prone to drought and resulting famines. Extensive efforts to produce food are devastating the land. Between war and famine unknown millions of people have been displaced and forced to migrate to other regions and neighboring states.

In 1999, an international consortium built an oil pipeline from the Muglad basin to the Red Sea. Rebels immediately started a bombing campaign targeting the pipeline. Meanwhile, the Khartoum government is plagued by factional power struggles among the various Muslim groups, while there is essentially no political participation from the rebel-held Southern territories.

Sudan shares borders with Egypt, Libya, Chad, the Central African Republic, Zaire, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and Eritrea. Virtually all of these states have their own political problems, continuing conflicts and diverse interests. Given the size of Sudan and absence of security measures, the region has become a base or transit point for assorted guerrillas and terrorists. Amid this cauldron of dissent, Islamist fundamentalists have tried to make headway. Osama bin Laden set up operations in Sudan before being expelled and relocating al-Qaeda to Afghanistan.

On the tenth anniversary of the Rwanda genocide that claimed an estimated 800,000 lives, UN Secretary General expressed growing international concern about the conflict in the western Darfur region of Sudan. Civil war in Sudan's western provinces has driven an estimated 100,000 black African civilians to seek refuge in neighboring Chad to escape reported attacks from Arab militias affiliated with the Khartoum government. The Sudanese government has refused access to the region by aid groups and independent observers, hence information is based on reports from refugees arriving in Chad.

Brutal wars in Africa's biggest country

Sudan, the largest country in Africa, has been at war for nearly 50 years. We look at three main conflicts:

A brutal 21-year civil war between the north and the south that ended in 2005

The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Darfur in the west where at least 200,000 have died and 2.5 million been displaced by fighting since 2003

Tensions in eastern Sudan where insurgents have threatened to challenge the government for a share of the country's power and natural-resources.

An obvious question is: Why is Sudan plagued by internal conflict, and how are these three conflicts related, if at all? There is no easy answer, but a few explanations do shed light on the problem.

First, colonisers drew the boundaries of present-day Sudan without heed to the different religious and ethnic groups that already inhabited the territory, which was under joint Anglo-Egyptian control until 1956. This set the stage for showdowns between the north, populated predominantly by Arab Muslims, and the south, populated largely by animists and Christians of African origin.

The British lit the tinderbox when they left by leaving an elite group of northerners in charge.

Second, over the years those in power in Khartoum have marginalised southerners, Darfuris and several other groups in various pockets of the country, including provinces in eastern Sudan. In addition, the Islamist policies of the government in the 1990s added to the alienation of the southerners.

Third, rebels in all corners of the country share similar grievances over Khartoum's failure to provide even the most basic of services, and widespread abject poverty has fueled calls to share the wealth.

The discovery of oil in southern Sudan in 1978 only raised the stakes. Sudan rakes in up to $1 billion year in oil exports but there is little in the way of social services to show for it.

In 2005, it looked as though Sudan had finally moved to put its house in order. The government and the main rebel group in the south, the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), signed a peace deal that ended the north-south civil war.

A new power-sharing government was sworn in. But the peace deal looks shaky.

The conflict in Darfur and the possibility of new violence in the east, where rebels have the same grievances as those elsewhere in the country, threaten to derail the entire process.

Former SPLM rebels are now in the central government as ministers, so the fates of the south and of other troubled areas are increasingly linked. And as SPLM soldiers have supported the rebels in the east, the south could yet play a role in further conflict with Khartoum.

China : Criticized of supporting Sudan

As based on Security Council’s YALTA formula, substantive issues which requires the Security Council under it’s responsibility of maintaining or restoring world peace to invoke measures of enfrocement – the approval of which needs 9 votes including the Big Five (China as one of the Big 5). With the veto power vested to the so-called Big 5 , one vote from any of them will totally reject a draft of resolution or proposal of possible preventive measures. Under this Rule of Great-Power Unanimity, the Security Council is unable to function once any of the Big 5 exercises it’s veto power.

"Human Rights First" claimed that over 90% of the light weapons currently being imported by Sudan and used in the conflict are from China; however, according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)'s "Arms Transfers Data for 2007", between 2003-2007, Sudan received 87 per cent of its major conventional weapons from Russia and 8 per cent from China.[ Human rights advocates and opponents of the Sudanese government portray China's role in providing weapons and aircraft as a cynical attempt to obtain oil and gas just as colonial powers once supplied African chieftains with the military means to maintain control as they extracted natural resources. According to China's critics, China has offered Sudan support threatening to use its veto on the U.N. Security Council to protect Khartoum from sanctions and has been able to water down every resolution on Darfur in order to protect its interests in Sudan. In response to these allegations, Chinese Ambassador to Sudan Li Chengwen said that "China played an important role in promoting the agreement of the Sudanese government, the African Union and the UN for the deployment of the Hybrid Force in Darfur. China's view is that intensive economic development of the region is a more effective means than harsh economic sanctions, in the effort to stabilize the crisis and alleviate the suffering of the people".[60] Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao reiterated these views on February 20, 2008, and "pointed out that China was the first non-African nation to send peacekeepers to Darfur and the biggest development aid provider to the region". However accusations of the supply of weapons from China in breach of a UN embargo continue to arise.

Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) has put countries providing arms to Sudan on notice that they are arming a potentially indicted war criminal, as well as likely violating the Genocide Convention, said Human Rights First.

China's trade and oil interests in Sudan have induced the permanent U.N. Security Council member to provide diplomatic cover for the government accused by many of war crimes against its own people, analysts say.

Sudan has had its back against the wall of the U.N. headquarters in New York during the past 18 months over the conflict in Darfur, where tens of thousands of people have died as a result of violence the United States called genocide. But the spectre of a Chinese veto has shielded Sudan from possible sanctions over the conflict and in turn protected a growing source of much-needed oil for Beijing. "This is RealPolitik," said Adwoa Kufuor, a human rights analyst on Sudan. "Yes China has economic interests ... and yes China will not risk offending the government of Sudan."
China's heavy but understated presence in Sudan is symbolised by the vast, walled compound housing its embassy on prime real estate in Khartoum. It dominates Sudan's crude oil sector, which produces around 330,000 barrels per day, and is building roads, bridges and dams. China has become Sudan's biggest foreign investor with $4 billion in projects.

China has in the past "sold" its UN veto power to protect Sudan from sanctions over the killing of people in Darfur in exchange for access to Sudanese oil. China is now Sudan's biggest customer.

Montevideo Convention

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

Published December 26, 1933

This treaty was signed at the International Conference of American States in Montevideo, Uruguay on December 26, 1933. It entered into force on December 26, 1934. The treaty discusses the definition and rights of statehood.

CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES

The Governments represented in the Seventh International Conference of American States:

Who, after having exhibited their Full Powers, which were found to be in good and due order, have agreed upon the following:

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

ARTICLE 2

The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

ARTICLE 5

The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.

ARTICLE 6

The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

ARTICLE 7

The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.

ARTICLE 8

No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.

ARTICLE 9

The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.

Nationals and foreigners are under the same protection of the law and the national authorities and the foreigners may not claim rights other or more extensive than those of the nationals.

ARTICLE 10

The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature which arise between them should be settled by recognized pacific methods.

ARTICLE 11

The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

ARTICLE 12

The present Convention shall not affect obligations previously entered into by the High Contracting Parties by virtue of international agreements.

ARTICLE 13

The present Convention shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in conformity with their respective constitutional procedures. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uruguay shall transmit authentic certified copies to the governments for the aforementioned purpose of ratification. The instrument of ratification shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union in Washington, which shall notify the signatory governments of said deposit. Such notification shall be considered as an exchange of ratifications.

ARTICLE 14

The present Convention will enter into force between the High Contracting Parties in the order in which they deposit their respective ratifications.

ARTICLE 15

The present Convention shall remain in force indefinitely but may be denounced by means of one year's notice given to the Pan American Union, which shall transmit it to the other signatory governments. After the expiration of this period the Convention shall cease in its effects as regards the party which denounces but shall remain in effect for the remaining High Contracting Parties.

ARTICLE 16

The present Convention shall be open for the adherence and accession of the States which are not signatories. The corresponding instruments shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union which shall communicate them to the other High Contracting Parties.

In witness whereof, the following Plenipotentiaries have signed this Convention in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French and hereunto affix their respective seals in the city of Montevideo, Republic of Uruguay, this 26th day of December, 1933.

RESERVATIONS

The Delegation of the United States of America, in signing the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, does so with the express reservation presented to the Plenary Session of the Conference on December 22, 1933, which reservation reads as follows:

The Delegation of the United States, in voting "yes" on the final vote on this committee recommendation and proposal, makes the same reservation to the eleven articles of the project or proposal that the United States Delegation made to the first ten articles during the final vote in the full Commission, which reservation is in words as follows:

"The policy and attitude of the United States Government toward every important phase of international relationships in this hemisphere could scarcely be made more clear and definite than they have been made by both word and action especially since March 4. I [Secretary of State Cordell Hull, chairman of U.S. delegation] have no disposition therefore to indulge in any repetition or rehearsal of these acts and utterances and shall not do so. Every observing person must by this time thoroughly understand that under the Roosevelt Administration the United States Government is as much opposed as any other government to interference with the freedom, the sovereignty, or other internal affairs or processes of the governments of other nations.

"In addition to numerous acts and utterances in connection with the carrying out of these doctrines and policies, President Roosevelt, during recent weeks, gave out a public statement expressing his disposition to open negotiations with the Cuban Government for the purpose of dealing with the treaty which has existed since 1903. I feel safe in undertaking to say that under our support of the general principle of non-intervention as has been suggested, no government need fear any intervention on the part of the United States under the Roosevelt Administration. I think it unfortunate that during the brief period of this Conference there is apparently not time within which to prepare interpretations and definitions of these fundamental terms that are embraced in the report. Such definitions and interpretations would enable every government to proceed in a uniform way without any difference of opinion or of interpretations. I hope that at the earliest possible date such very important work will be done. In the meantime in case of differences of interpretations and also until they (the proposed doctrines and principles) can be worked out and codified for the common use of every government, I desire to say that the United States Government in all of its international associations and relationships and conduct will follow scrupulously the doctrines and policies which it has pursued since March 4 which are embodied in the different addresses of President Roosevelt since that time and in the recent peace address of myself on the 15th day of December before this Conference and in the law of nations as generally recognized and accepted".

The delegates of Brazil and Peru recorded the following private vote with regard to article 11: "That they accept the doctrine in principle but that they do not consider it codifiable because there are some countries which have not yet signed the Anti-War Pact of Rio de Janeiro 4 of which this doctrine is a part and therefore it does not yet constitute positive international law suitable for codification".

Essential Documents are vital primary sources underpinning the foreign policy debate.

The Flawed Montevideo Convention of 1933

International law and the recognition of states is not always straight forward. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 is a clear example of this. In that year, the Montevidoe Convention was signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26 at the Seventh International Conference of American States.

The essence of this treaty comes down to this:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

The treaty was limited to 19 states and was never ratified into international law. However, it is often cited by any group (or person!) who meets this criteria as evidence that an entity should be treated as an independent sovereign nation. Just about every separatist group in the world cites this as evidence that they are already technically an independent nation-state. So do micronations.

What is a micronation?

A micronation (cybernation, fantasy country, model country, new country project, pseudonation, counternation, ephemeral state, online nation, and variants thereof) is an entity intended to replace, resemble, mock, or exist on equal footing with recognized independent states. Some micronations are created with serious intent, while others exist as a hobby or stunt. For the most part they exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators and participants. A small number have also managed to achieve some degree of recognition. When they do, they converge to some degree with other organizing paradigms that offer, or seem to offer, political or infrastructural independence of some sort.

There are hundreds of micronations ought there. Most exist only as websites. However, some exist with real land territory as well. Some examples include The Government of the Principality of Sealand, Christiania, The Conch Republic, and the Dominion of Melchizedek. And according to the Montevideo Convention, these are all "states" worthy of international recognition.

Despite how widely the Montevideo Convention is cited, it is ignored by the international community today. Under the definition of that treaty, anyone with a piece of real estate and a lawyer can produce a state. This is not very helpful under international law and is actually rather harmful. It dilutes the meaningfulness of international statehood to the level of absurdity.

The way international law actually works is closer to the Declarative Theory of Statehood. In essence, that theory states that other sovereign nation-states have to recognize a state for it to be valid. Sorry to say, the abandoned platform off of the United Kingdom which is Sealand does not qualify.

Signatories

The states that signed this convention are: Honduras, United States of America, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Cuba. However, as a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles and therefore does not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.

The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood.

Switzerland, although not a member of the European Union, adheres to the same principle, stating that "neither a political unit needs to be recognized to become a state, nor does a state have the obligation to recognize another one. At the same time, neither recognition is enough to create a state, nor does its absence abolish it."

Zimbabwe Conflict

Economy of Zimbabwe

The Economy of Zimbabwe is collapsing under the weight of economic mismanagement, resulting in 85% unemployment and spiraling hyperinflation. The economy poorly transitioned after Robert Mugabe's leadership, deteriorating from one of Africa's strongest economies to one of the world's worst. Inflation has surpassed that of all other nations at over 2,000,000% (although it is impossible to calculate an accurate value), with the next highest in Burma at 39.5%. The government has attributed the economy's poor performance to ZDERA, a US congressional act hinging debt relief for Zimbabwe on democratic reform, and freezing the international assets of the ruling class. It currently has the lowest GDP real growth rate in an independent country and 3rd in total (behind Palestinian territories.)

The country has reserves of metallurgical-grade chromite. Other commercial mineral deposits include coal, asbestos, copper, nickel, gold, platinum and iron ore. However, its ongoing political turmoil and the world's highest rate of AIDS infection have greatly hampered its progress. Mugabe's policies towards land reform have led to internal upheaval and population displacement, high inflation, and an inability of the country's citizens to feed themselves.

1980’s

Following the Lancaster House Agreement in December 1979, the transition to majority rule in early 1980, and the lifting of sanctions, Zimbabwe enjoyed a brisk economic recovery. Real growth for 1980-1981 exceeded 20%. However, depressed foreign demand for the country's mineral exports and the onset of a drought cut sharply into the growth rate in 1982, 1983, and 1984. In 1985, the economy rebounded strongly due to a 30% jump in agricultural production. However it slumped in 1986 to a zero growth rate and registered negative of about minus 3% in 1987 primarily because of drought and foreign exchange crisis faced by the country Zimbabwe's GDP grew on average by about 4.5% between 1980 and 1990.

Infrastructure and Resources

Zimbabwe has adequate internal transportation and electrical power networks. Paved roads link the major urban and industrial centres, and rail lines managed by the National Railways of Zimbabwe tie it into an extensive central African railroad network with all its neighbours. In non-drought years, it has adequate electrical power, mainly generated by the Kariba Dam on the Zambezi River but augmented since 1983 by large thermal plants adjacent to the Wankie coal field. As of 2006, crumbling infrastructure and lack of spare parts for generators and coal mining means that Zimbabwe imports 40% of its power - 100 megawatts from the Democratic Republic of Congo, 200 megawatts from Mozambique, up to 450 from South Africa, and 300 megawatts from Zambia.

Independent analyst put the inflation rate at +165 000% a figure which critics claim is far less than the actual inflation rate. Parity rates of measurement show point towards a figure of close to 500 000% but these cannot be cited for obvious reasons. The use of oppressive laws as manifested in the likes of the infamous National Price and Income Commission has seen the country at the bottom list of the of the World Bank Index. Recently the President of the republic signed the Empowerment bill whose effect is to transfer ownership from all foreigners into the hands of the local people something that has already had its toil on the DI. The telephone service is problematic, and new lines are difficult to obtain.

Agriculture was once the backbone of the Zimbabwean economy. Due to large scale eviction of white farmers and the government's land reform efforts, this is no longer the case. Reliable crop estimates are not available due to the Zimbabwe government's attempts to hide the realities following the evictions. The ruling party banned maize imports, stating record crops for the year of 2004.

The University of Zimbabwe estimates that between 2000 and 2007 agricultural production decreased by 51%.

Maize was the country's largest crop prior to the farm evictions. Tobacco was the largest export crop followed by cotton. Poor government management has exacerbated meager harvests caused by drought and floods, resulting in significant food shortfalls beginning in 2001. The land redistribution has been generally condemned in the developed world. It has found considerable support in Africa and a few supporters among African-American activists, but Jesse Jackson commented during a visit to South Africa in June 2006, "Land reform has long been a noble goal to achieve but it has to be done in a way that minimises trauma. The process has to attract investors rather than scare them away. What is required in Zimbabwe is democratic rule, democracy is lacking in the country and that is the major cause of this economic melt down.

2000–2008

In recent years, poor management of the economy and political turmoil has led to considerable economic hardship. The Government of Zimbabwe's chaotic land reform program, recurrent interference with, and intimidation of the judiciary, as well as maintenance of unrealistic price controls and exchange rates has led to a sharp drop in investor confidence.

On November 1, 1989 a former government minister in Rhodesia, Denis Walker, produced a paper in London for the Conservative Monday Club's Foreign Affairs Committee on Land Reform in Zimbabwe. In his last paragraph he stated that "once the land has been redistributed, the commercial farms will be broken up, the remaining white farmers reduced by exile or imprisonment; Zimbabwe's government, already morally bankrupt, will decline towards economic collapse."

Between 2000 and December 2007, the national economy contracted by as much as 40%; inflation vaulted to over 66,000%, and there were persistent shortages of foreign exchange, local currency, fuel, medicine, and food. GDP per capita dropped by 40%, agricultural output dropped by 51% and industrial production dropped by 47%.

Direct foreign investment has all but evaporated. In 1998, direct foreign investment was US $400 million. In 2007, that number had fallen to US $30 million.

Billions were spent in the country's involvement in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Price controls have been imposed on a wide range of products including food (maize, bread, steak), fuel, medicines, soap, electrical appliances, yarn, window frames, building sand, agricultural machinery, fertilisers and school textbooks.

Mugabe's supporters maintain that economic hardship has been brought about by Western-backed economic sanctions instituted through the United Nations. However, the only sanctions in place are personal sanctions against about 130 senior Zanu-PF figures; there are no sanctions against trade or investment with Zimbabwe.

As of February 2004 Zimbabwe's foreign debt repayments ceased, resulting in compulsory suspension from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This, and the United Nations World Food Programme stopping its food aid due to insufficient donations from the world community, has forced the government into borrowing from local sources.

Zimbabwe began experiencing severe foreign exchange shortages, exacerbated by the difference between the official rate and the black market rate in 2000. In 2004 a system of auctioning scarce foreign currency for importers was introduced, which temporarily led to a slight reduction in the foreign currency crisis, but by mid 2005 foreign currency shortages were once again chronic. The currency was devalued by the central bank twice, first to 9,000 to the US$, and then to 17,500 to the US$ on 20 July 2005, but at that date it was reported that that was only half the rate available on the black market.

In July 2005 Zimbabwe was reported to be appealing to the South African government for US$1 billion of emergency loans, but despite regular rumours that the idea was being discussed no financial support has been obtained from South Africa.

The official Zimbabwean dollar exchange rate had been frozen at Z$101,196 per U.S. dollar since early 2006, but as of 27 July 2006 the parallel (black market) rate has reached Z$550,000 per U.S. dollar. By comparison, 10 years earlier, the rate of exchange was only Z$9.13 per USD.

In August 2006 the RBZ revalued the Zimbabwean Dollar by 1000 ZWD to 1 (revalued) dollar. At the same time Zimbabwe devalued the Zim Dollar by 60% against the USD. New official exchange rate revalued ZWD 250 per USD. The parallel market rate was about revalued ZWD 1,200 to 1,500 per USD (28 September 2006).

In November 2006 it was announced that sometime around December 1 there would be a further devaluation and that the official exchange rate would change to revalued ZWD 750 per USD. This never materialized. However, the parallel market immediately reacted to this news with the parallel rate falling to ZWD 2,000 per USD (18 November 2006) and by year end it had fallen to ZWD 3,000 per USD.

On April 1, 2007 the parallel market was asking ZWD 30,000 for $1 USD. By year end, it was down to about ZWD 2,000,000. On 18 January 2008, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe began to issue higher denomination ZWD bearer cheques (a banknote with an expiry date), including $10 million bearer cheques - each of which was worth less than US $1.35 (70p Sterling; 0.90 Euro) on the parallel market at the time of first issue. On April 4, 2008 the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe introduced new $25 million and $50 million bearer cheques. At the time of first issue they were worth US$0.70 & US$1.40 on the parallel market respectively.

On May 1, 2008, the RBZ announced that the dollar would be allowed to float in value subject to some conditions.

On May 6, 2008, the RBZ issued new $100 million and $250 million bearer cheques. At the date of first issue the $250 million bearer cheque was worth approximately US$1.30 on the parallel market. On May 15, 2008, a new $500 million bearer cheque was issued by the RBZ. At time of first issue it was worth US$1.93. In a widely unreported parallel move, on May 15, 2008, the RBZ issued three "special agro-cheques" with face values $5 billion (at time of first issue - $19.30), $25 billion ($96.50) & $50 billion ($193). It is further reported that the new agro-cheques can be used to buy any goods and services like the bearer cheques.

Government Response

The 2007 Empowerment Bill to increase local ownership of economy is being drafted for presentation to parliament in July 2007. It is signed into law by President Mugabe on 7th March 2008. The law requires all White or foreign owned business to hand over 51 percent of their business to indigenous Zimbabweans. Many economists predict this will plunge the country into deeper economic woes.

In response to skyrocketing inflation the government has introduced price controls, but enforcement has been largely unsuccessful. Police have been sent in to enforce requirements that shopkeepers sell goods at a loss. This has resulted in hundreds of shop owners being arrested under accusations of not having lowered prices enough. Because of this, basic goods no longer appear on supermarket shelves and the supply of petrol is limited. This has diminished public transport. However, goods can usually be had for a high rate on the black market.

How the UN is feeding tyranny in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe

TheTimes
March24,2008

MichaelHolman

Here we go again! Seven years after the World Food Programme helped to save
Robert Mugabe's political bacon by unilaterally and unconditionally deciding
to feed his starving people, the UN agency is making the same mistake.

At the end of 2001 Zimbabwe's leader was in trouble. Presidential elections
were looming. The consequences of his land grab were becoming clear. After
denying that hunger was imminent, Mugabe finally admitted that half a
million Zimbabweans faced famine.

At this point the WFP stepped in to feed the country - but without an
insistence on minimum conditions, such as an end to the land policy which
created the crisis that donors sought to alleviate.

The outcome of the operation was predictable: food aid became
institutionalised as the land grab continued. The WFP has fed millions of
Zimbabweans and Mugabe has been cushioned from the consequences of his
policies.

Seven years later history repeats itself. Mugabe is fighting for his
political life. Elections are imminent. And he has been forced to admit that
his country is starving. But again, help is at hand from the same source.

In a statement last week the WFP announced that it "plans to complete this
month's food distributions in Zimbabwe earlier than usual to avoid any
overlap with the final run-up to the presidential and parliamentary
elections on 29 March". In other words, in time for Mr Mugabe to use the
resources of the State to distribute the food as he deems fit.

The WFP claims that it has "zero tolerance for political interference . . .
in the distribution of its food assistance," a claim as pompous as it is
hollow. For a start, it should be unacceptable to the WFP that reporters
from the very countries who pay for the food should be banned from Zimbabwe.
It is also unacceptable that election monitors are similarly proscribed.

No one underestimates the UN agency's predicament. What if Mr Mugabe
responds to a WFP attempt to impose conditions by choosing to let his people
starve rather than accept foreign reporters, and the presence of independent
monitors?

But there is another question to ask: If Mr Mugabe's political life is in
the balance, could these terms prove the straw that will break his back? If
he agrees, the better the chance that democracy prevails on March 29. If he
refuses, might this tip the scales towards his overthrow?

Selecting and applying the conditions that should accompany food aid is no
easy task. But the record suggests that the naïve and unconditional
generosity the WFP has displayed has done long-term harm, whatever
short-term good.

---

Zimbabwe Opposition Leader

Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai held his last election rally in Harare Sunday and promised that a new Zimbabwe, driven by love and not fear, is on the horizon. Mr. Tsvangirai, enjoying a huge surge of popularity around the country, is standing against President Robert Mugabe in elections next Saturday. Peta Thornycoft reports for VOA from Harare.

Tsvangiriai, founding president of the Movement for Democratic Change, told about 20,000 supporters gathered on the edge of the city they should go out and vote.

The rally was held in an open field because the police denied the MDC access to any of the city's stadiums, according to party officials.

Nevertheless, the rally was well organized. People sang popular MDC songs, some of which mock Mr. Mugabe and his colleagues in the ruling ZANU-PF party.

Tsvangirai told the crowd that Zimbabweans are beyond fear now. He said the road for the opposition has been long and painful, but that victory is at hand.

"We will stand together, we will stand for food, we will stand for jobs, for justice," he said. "We will stand for freedom as one, for a new Zimbabwe. We will line up at those polling stations and we are going to vote in our millions."

Tsvangirai said people want jobs, food and a decent life, and that the current economic chaos was caused by bad government.

He praised President Mugabe for delivering Zimbabwe from colonial rule, but said it was now time for the 84-year-old leader to go. He said that so many people would vote for the MDC next Saturday that any rigging and cheating would be overcome.

"We expect the enemies of justice to engage in every trick in the book. We are ready for them," Tsvangirai said. "We are ready for those that would like to subvert the people's victory."

On Saturday, during rallies in high density suburbs in Harare, President Mugabe blamed businessmen for what he called exorbitant prices.

He also said that after the elections he would nationalize British-owned companies and ensure that new legislation giving majority ownership of all businesses to black Zimbabweans is quickly implemented.

Zimbabweans are, for the first time, voting in four elections simultaneously including presidential, parliamentary and local government contests.

On Sunday, civil rights leaders briefed a group of observers from the Southern African Development Community or SADC.

Western observers are not being allowed to monitor these elections. And the government says it will not allow any white Western journalists to cover them.

Archipelagic Doctrine

The archipelagic principle is a fundamental pillar of the Philippine concept of national territory.

The guiding principle for resolving the issue about offshore islands is the archipelagic principle, which is enshrined in Art. 1 of the 1987 Constitution and has been one of the fundamental pillars of the Philippine concept of national territory. Since the 1950s, the Philippines has pushed this principle, which led to the so-called "Archipelagic Doctrine" in international law and has become the legal and political basis for considering our 7,107 islands as one political unit. The "Archipelagic Doctrine" is one of our most important contributions to the international legal system; without it, the widely scattered islands of our archipelago will be separated by international waters, and the Filipino nation will be deprived of the large tracts of marine resources between the islands that it has claimed since its inception.

Central to the archipelagic principle is the concept of equality between landmasses, where each island regardless of size is treated in the same manner as all others. Without such equality of treatment, small outlying islands like Tawi-Tawi and Batanes may be considered as mere territories not entitled to provincial or municipal status; at most they may be mere attachments to some province located in one of the 10 major landmasses of the country. Equally important to the archipelagic principle is the concept of unity between land and water, where the water forms the link between the disparate islands. The proper application of the doctrine demands that, as a national policy, we should treat all of our islands in the same manner, not allowing some of them to be insignificant as if they were mere parts of the water, and that we should not allow the waters to create highly fragmented political units.

Our foreign policy and legal positions before the international community cannot be inconsistent with our national law and policy. If we were not to apply the archipelagic principle to the component units of our country (the LGUs), then we would undermine the most fundamental pillar of our concept of national territory. We might as well allow foreign countries to also treat our outlying islands as insignificant pockets of land less important than the largest islands of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao; and the waters in between as thoroughfares open to everyone.

source: www.wikipedia.org

Treaty of Paris (1898)

Treaty of Paris

(1898)

The Treaty of Paris, signed on 10 December 1898, between Spain and the United States, ended one war and set the stage for another. Following the U.S. military victories at Manila Bay in May 1898 and in Cuba in early July, Madrid asked for an armistice that began in August. Peace negotiations followed in Paris, the main sticking point being the future of the Philippine Islands, a Spanish colony since 1564. President William McKinley insisted that Spain cede sovereignty to the United States. The treaty gave the United States temporary control over Cuba (Congress had rejected annexation in the Teller Amendment when it declared war) and actual possession of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Spain received $20 million.

The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in February 1899 by one vote more than the necessary two‐thirds. By that time, some Filipino nationalists, angry at U.S. intentions, had launched attacks that opened the Philippine War, which lasted several years, became a bitter guerrilla struggle, and ended in defeat for the native fighters. The Treaty of Paris marked the high tide of late nineteenth‐century colonialism in the United States. The euphoria of victory over Spain turned into significant popular unhappiness and doubt about a protracted war against the Filipinos.

source: www.answers.com

The Treaty of Paris of 1898, signed on December 10, 1898, ended the Spanish-American War.

American and Spanish delegates met in Paris on October 1, 1898 to produce a treaty that would bring an end to the war after six months of hostilities. The American commission consisted of William R. Day, Sen. Cushman K. Davis, Sen. William P. Frye, Sen. George Gray, and Whitelaw Reid. The Spanish commission included the Spanish diplomats Don Eugenio Montero Ríos, Don Buenaventura de Abarzuza, Don José de Garnica, Don Wenceslao Ramírez de Villa-Urrutia, and Don Rafael Cerero, as well as a French diplomat, Jules Cambon.

The Treaty of Paris provided that Cuba would become independent from Spain but the US congress made sure it would be under US control. Specifically, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over - and title to - Cuba. Upon Cuba's evacuation by Spain, it was to be occupied by the United States, and the United States would assume and discharge any obligations that under international law could result from the fact of its occupation.

The Treaty also assured that Spain would cede to the United States the island of Puerto Rico and other islands then under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, as well as the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.

The major conflict concerned the situation of the Philippines. Spanish commissioners argued that Manila had surrendered after the armistice and therefore the Philippines could not be demanded as a war conquest, but they eventually yielded because they had no other choice, and the U.S. ultimately paid Spain 20 million dollars for possession of the Philippines. The Treaty specified that Spain would cede to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the a specified line.

The controversial treaty was the subject of debate in the US Senate during the winter of 1898-1899, and it was approved on February 6, 1899 by a vote 57 to 27, only one vote more than the two-thirds majority required. Only 2 Republicans voted against ratification George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts and Eugene Pryor Hale of Maine.

In accordance with the treaty Spain,

• gave up all rights to Cuba.
• surrendered Puerto Rico and gave up its possessions in the West Indies.
• surrendered the island of Guam to the United States.
• surrendered the Philippines to the United States.

The defeat put an end to the Spanish Empire in America and, one year later in the Pacific Ocean (after the German-Spanish Treaty (1899)), and marked the beginning of an age of United States colonial power.

source: www.wikipidia.org