Thursday, November 30, 2006

Never Again International

Never Again International
30 November 2006 What is Happening Between France and Rwanda? A View Inside Rwanda.

“I hear there is rioting going on in Rwanda!” These were the first words out of my mother’s mouth in the middle of the night, last night. Considering we had not spoken since I left America a month ago, I thought this was a warm hello! In my slumbered-drowsiness I had to reassure her, “No, there are no riots going on in Rwanda right now. They have only closed the French Embassy, expelling the French Ambassador; closed the French Cultural Alliance; and, most erroneously, closed the Ecole d’Francais (a secondary school—not for French people, but for Rwandans, just completely taught in French).” Most of my lethargic surprise in my mother’s inquiry was that this had somehow even made news somewhere in Los Angeles—America seems not to notice such distant turmoil so well.

To alleviate my mother’s fears, I failed to mention that there are massive pro-government (e.g. Paul Kagame) rallies at most of the major gathering places around the country—football stadiums, churches, etc. According to the government mouthpiece newspaper, The New Times, something like 20,000 people turned out for such a rally at Amahoro Stadium in Kigali in support of his “Excellency.” I also failed to mention to my mother that many people here assume I am French before they talk to me anyway (it may be a white thing) and that if any random acts of unmitigated violence were to occur on the solitary “Frenchman” they would have already occurred. Okay, well actually I did get pick-pocketed the other day, but I doubt it had anything to do with assumptions of French ness and more to do with poverty and whiteness…

So what is going on between and amongst the French and Rwandan governments? And what about between and amongst the French and Rwandan people? All of what I know is either from The New Times (the only English daily here), the BBC website, and word of mouth from Rwandans based on what they are hearing from their sources and from the Rwandan radio stations which are constantly in tune. Suffice it to say, I can only imagine that while almost every Rwandan has some idea of what is going on (be it propaganda or truth), I doubt that the charges against Rwandan officials by a French magistrate are making too many headlines in France or in French national communities around the world. As for the real details, this essay should not be your source.

Rwanda is a country that is attempting to heal and reconcile from the scars of the past—every single day and in every single way of life. I can’t imagine walking around Lyon or Marseille, and having to encounter bitterness over Napoleon’s sale of Louisiana to Thomas Jefferson (the Louisiana Purchase) or Hitler’s jaunt through the Arc Du Triomphe, in every part of life. In Rwanda, there is no question in anyone’s mind the role the French played in the genocide that occurred in 1994. The French role in the years before the genocide, allowing for the build up of arms and other weapons into this country in support of the oppressive government in power at the time, is not easily forgotten in the halls of Rwandan authority.

As I arrived in Rwanda, the government of Rwanda was on the verge of publishing and disseminating a report describing the role of the French in the genocide. The report was to provide first-hand and documentary accounts (witness testimonials, observation, etc) of French soldiers allowing genocidairres free passage out of the country; of French soldiers and officials checking Rwandan ID cards to determine who was Hutu or Tutsi (or Twa); of the French ‘Operation Turquoise’ to actually allow the continuation of the genocide in some parts of the country; and on and on. It is certain that in 1993, Rwanda was one of the leading purchasers of weapons in the world (probably in proportion to GNP), and most of that was coming through the help of the French government and French intermediaries (as well as Egypt and a couple of other places, with strong French ties). At the same point, do not forget that France was the only government to act at all during the genocide, in any way. The U.N. peacekeepers were repeatedly denied the capabilities to engage perpetrators, and were often about to withdraw altogether. The U.S. road blocked military intervention, as did the other members of the Security Council (until France acted unilaterally), and the list goes on.

I am not sure if the report has been officially released as of yet, but the information espoused in it is common knowledge around Rwanda (accurate knowledge is another conversation and gets too much into semantics). This must have made some waves in France somewhere, because it was not long after that the French Magistrate, Jean-Louis Bruguierre, issued arrest warrants for 9 Rwandan Patriotic Front members (the party in power and of his “Excellency” that is considered to have ended the civil war/genocide in Rwanda, with little international support), not including President Kagame—who as a head-of-state is immune to prosecution/indictment according to French law (damn, I guess we can’t convince Bruguierre to issue a warrant for Dickey and Bushey). The charge links the 9 members of the RPF—who are mostly in the military cabinet of the current government—to the shooting down of the plane carrying Juvenal Habyarimana, the then-president of Rwanda, igniting the genocide the following morning. Why is a French magistrate taking up this case? Because the entire flight crew of the plane, which also carried the Burundian head-of-state, were French nationals.

What is the rationale of a French magistrate to basically accuse the Rwandan government of murder, again, 12-13 years after the genocide (Kagame had been the commanding general of the RPF/A when the plane was shot down, but has repeatedly denied that it was done by the RPF/A)? Why now? Why in this context? For Rwandans, it just seems to be another slap in the face from the international community which not only ignored them during the genocide, but also directly and poignantly ignored the signs leading to the perpetration of the genocide as well as to indirectly help carry it out. It does not seem to make sense, to Rwandans, that a country like France (large, economically-sound, powerful) would not only have helped the perpetrators at the time of the genocide, but come forth with accusations against a country that struggles everyday to keep its feet on the ground. The local conspiracy theorists are apt to claim the French are still angry in part for losing out on a Francophone country and are doing whatever they can, retributively, to remind Rwandans of the horrors of the past.

Still, this does not answer why a French magistrate would issue these warrants. According to the BBC, the French government is disassociating itself from Bruguierre, saying he acted in isolation and without the French government condoning the warrants. The Rwandan government doesn’t buy this, especially with their suspicions of the French government based on centuries of direct and indirect colonialism and imperialism. Rwanda has pulled their ambassador from France and cut all diplomatic ties.

What is going on here? Where can “blame” fall, if anywhere? This tit-for-tat struggle seems like a useless power struggle, not between nations (as I have mentioned, I have doubts if this issue is getting much “play” in France), but between men. As usual, we are in a historical, geopolitical context where men are out to prove themselves to each other and large swathes of powerless people. It is a patriarchal assertion of power that is both timeless and inane. How do you judge right and wrong, when right and wrong is not the goal of the argument, as everyone and everything is right and wrong (according to those who determine right and wrong!)?

Is Rwanda moving “forward” by again asserting French complicity and action in the genocide? Everyone knows there was involvement to some extent, but the current Rwandan power structure should know better than to make accusations, as well. Who is going to care out there, in this large, paternalistic world that would be willing to act in the favour of Rwanda? Nobody much cared about Rwanda before 1994 (by nobody, I mean the halls of power in this world—the old, “white” guys of the “Western” world), and not much has changed in world power structures since then. Sure, we have a Ghanaian as the head of the United Nations, but he didn’t do enough to avoid the Rwandan genocide, when he had the opportunity (before he was the Secretary-General) and the U.S. war on an imaginary target (terrorism—of which it is the biggest perpetrator) in Iraq and elsewhere, has proven that they are not long for being the global-power it was for the second half of the twentieth century. But this is still not a context for action in favour of Rwanda on a broad scale—one that would bring compassion and empathy enough to push France into admissions of wrongdoing. This seems a false and useless struggle to partake in for Rwanda, it will not get anywhere, and it seems only to boost the prestige of the government in power. In other words: propaganda.

As for France, of course, they have not much to lose in admitting wrong-doing, they also have not much to gain in issuing arrest warrants for high-level Rwandan government officials. Whether the magistrate acted alone in his issuances does not really matter. Whether it is France, or if it were the British, Portuguese, Germans, Spanish, Dutch, Belgians or anyone else that has a stake in historically-colonized people’s (America, too), this is another example of irresponsible articulations of historical grievances. All of the colonial powers have left legacies of atrocity, death, manipulation, control, and iron-fisted rule throughout the world. In the “post-“colonial world, these same countries are facing the impact of their past actions in manifestations that are belligerent and residual—which is all due to their own legacies of colonization. Domination is not just about the “here and now” but about the future too. For anyone to claim the legacy of slavery in the U.S. has diminished over the years is kidding themselves; anyone who claims the problems that persist in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, today, is not somehow related to the devastation wrought by King Leopold is a fool; and anyone who looks at religious “fundamentalism/extremism” throughout the world and see it as only a problem of Islam, is from another planet.

There is a long way to go before the “ex-“colonized countries are no longer colonized. Now, capitalism is a form of colonialism. It provides the same old direct and indirect rule of small, poor, autonomous states and impoverished people’s. It provides dependency (i.e. Rwanda will still be dependent, in someway, on France, no matter how this current problem plays out) that is impossible to relinquish vis-à-vis world bodies (like the World Bank, IMF, U.N.) and seductively, unequal bilateral relationships (government to government: USAID, DeD, DFID, GTZ, CIDA and NPA are as prominent here as hills and bananas). Frantz Fanon, in “Wretched of the Earth” and “Black Skin, White Masks,” wrote of the need for the mind to be decolonized, and then the condition for revolution of the poor, disenfranchised people of the world will prevail. But we are still not there; the neo-colonial power structure is making sure that there will never be such a revolution. This is not speaking of France-Rwanda, in particular, or of rich and poor, but of the need for an alternative power structure—be it geopolitical or psychological (Fanon) in nature, who knows—to have the space to exist in this world.

Since the expulsion of the French ambassador and the warrants for the arrest of the RPF leadership, there has been an outpouring of “love” for his “Excellency,” President Paul Kagame. In the newspaper, each day, there has been at least 4 or 5 full-page advertisements from “opposition” parties, government institutions and businesses alike showing their support for the president. At the bottom of each ad it is stated “LONG LIVE PRESIDENT PAUL KAGAME, LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY, LONG LIVE RWANDA.” There are pictures of anti-French, or pro-RPF, protesters with signs saying things like “Jean-Louis Bruguirre: We denounce your genocidal ideology!” And the numbers that go with the pictures are a bit misleading (of course, if you are prone to attend protests, numbers are often manipulated depending on who is doing the reporting).

Personally, I have not seen one person carrying or showing anything visible in protest walking around Kigali. Here in Kigali, people are going about their daily struggles—I doubt thoughts of devious French politics (oh, sorry don’t want to sound too much like the American White House) are permeating in thoughts of the people. Why worry about such things if it is difficult to feed your family or put clothes on your back? I have half-joked that maybe I shouldn’t be speaking French in public, less someone mistake me for a French national. Of course, my French still sucks, so I don’t think anyone who hears me speak French would at all accuse me of being French!

I know there is a lot of misinformation and manipulation that is going on, right now, in every direction. While the impact will be much more acute on the Rwandan populace than anywhere else, it is still useless fuel to add to all responsible actor’s machismo fire. Where is this struggle, in the halls of power and minds of men, going? We are seeing another reason being written to not challenge the authority of the Rwandan government, as well; we are witnessing another unforgivable and miscalculated act by the “authority” of an ex-colonizer. Maybe both France and Rwanda should focus more on the people being screwed (metaphorically and literally) in their own countries and stop attempting to placate internal and external opposition through the use of arbitrary power struggles. France is struggling with their debates about “immigration” (similar to the racism and elitism that abounds around this issue in the U.S. and U.K) and Rwanda is struggling with reconciliation and justice, poverty and governance.

If I leave you with one thing though, let it be this: Regardless of whether this Rwanda-France issue has to do with the genocide or not, whatever you do, do not confine this to a Rwanda-France issue. This is something we see all over the world and throughout time as a useless power struggle of weak versus strong (we already know who wins before the struggle begins). It is not about the masses of people within autonomous state boundaries, but about the assertions of a few who must keep grip on that which gives them power and authority. This is as much an American or Chinese issue as it s a French or Rwandan issue. Once again, we are witnessing words and actions used to perpetrate violence, albeit this violence may be more psychological than anything, it is still very much violence. Maybe if the minds of those in power used a little more compassion to understand their people or more imagination to come up with solutions to what really ails societies, than we would not see such mind-numbing abuses of power being perpetrated as often.

No, my mother was wrong, there is no rioting going on in Rwanda right now. Maybe she was just thinking about oppressed people’s, in general, and the need to literally and metaphorically resort to riots in order to be heard or seen. I think what we are all seeing, globally—be it with France and Rwanda, Iraq and America, Russia and Chechnya, George Bush and the face in the mirror—is a profound failure of the imagination to envision a world without negative conflict, that can move toward sustainable peace.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Never Again International

Never Again International
22 November 2006

A Poorly Written Internal Dialogue About Freedom of Speech and its Implications in Peacebuilding

Though the power has gone out again, we do have a couple of things going for us at the Peacebuilding Centre (PbC): the gang of gigantor-grasshoppers that have somehow found their way inside to flutter their helicopter wings at the tip of our hair, the small tin with a scented candle burning its breath on us and, well, 5 hours of battery power on this computer.

Something keeps coming up this week, if not in reality, than at least in my mind (which, you may come to notice, is often far from reality): This question of free speech and free expression. One of the things that Never Again promotes is critical thinking. Is this possible in a society that knowingly, practically willingly, says that free speech is not only bad but also counter-intuitive? Rwanda is by far not “out of the woods,” but there has been a lot done to encourage the role of youth in preventing another atrocity (oh, you know like that of mass ethnic cleansing) from occurring. In fact, that is what we/I am doing here, right? This whole idea of “peacebuilding” begins with the youth. But in order to promote peace, it seems that voices are somewhat subjugated.

This came up the other day, as I was observing a discussion about a proposal that someone had submitted to Never Again Rwanda (NAR). I am not sure what the proposal was really about, but part of the background in the piece mentioned that some RPF members had murdered innocent Hutu’s as the civil war was coming to an end (it was considered over when the RPF ended the genocide in July 1994). It was mentioned that by putting this in writing, the proposal writer was basically denying the genocide (which I don’t think was at all implied) by saying Tutsi’s had killed Hutu’s. It was said this kind of stuff cannot be written and that it can be punishable.

At the same time, we say “Never Again,” we say “oh, everyone must have rights, everyone must be equal as we are all the same.” All right, so this is a highly contextualized situation in Rwanda, magnified in so many people’s minds for what happened in 1994. But when terms like “genocidal ideology” and “manipulation” and “divisionism” can be tossed around every time opposition is brought to an idea, isn’t that actually a complete contradiction in terms? So maybe you are having trouble connecting this to my initial reaction to free speech, free expression, and critical thinking (I sure am, so if you aren’t maybe you know something about me that I don’t, so let me know). Maybe I should try to de-contextualize for a moment.

To completely take this conversation in another direction, think about the reaction to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) when they protect the neo-Nazis, KKK, or Skinheads in their right to hold a rally in some polarized neighbourhood somewhere in America. As much as one may speak hatred, and as much as I would be one of the first people out there acting against the hate speech, they are allowed to use their first amendment rights. While I hate (hmm, such a strong word—reminds me of a lot of real negative stuff) that such a rally can take place, I accept it and maybe I get 10,000 of my closest friends and get a marching permit across the street (or maybe I anonymously tip the cops about the anarchists in black—think WTO, Seattle, Starbucks and windows—hanging out in the middle of the crowd of white-supremacists and wait for the billy-clubs to shine).

Okay, so maybe that is a frivolous example, as Americans are not cumulatively dealing with PTSD. Heck, we are much more clever in hiding our genocides. We only celebrate them at holidays (Thanksgiving, Columbus Day) and protract them over centuries so no one has to notice anymore (unless you are, oh I don’t know, Native American or African American), turning our institutions and systems—schools, the “justice” system, health care—into metaphoric, but very real, killing fields. Americans, and other “Westerners,” supposedly live in peaceful societies. Even though we are still engaged in conflict internally and externally. We deny needing to do such things as “peacebuilding” as we are not in acute conflict (tell that to someone still displaced in Mississippi or Louisiana). We sit in international “development” institutes focused on “peacebuilding” elsewhere (us vs. them) and barely take part in it ourselves. We can have hate speech because we are a “free” society and we are also “peace-loving” therefore we know how to deal with opposition. Bullshit.

Have I made an argument yet? Probably not. I think what I may be trying to question, is: must free speech and free expression be curbed in order to build a peaceful society? It almost needs another step back in order to ask our selves “what is a peaceful society?” Is it one without conflict, whereby there may not be any opposition? Is it one where there is equal distribution of resources—materially and monetarily? What exactly are we building toward if really what needs to be eliminated is poverty, hunger and malaria (okay, you can add HIV/AIDS, guns, rich corporations needing to exploit raw materials and women and girls that have to walk miles each day to achieve water or wood for their families) in order for even the possibility for “peace” to exist?

How can we claim to promote critical thinking in our youth, if we cannot promote freedom of speech in society? I find something very hypocritical in that. I am not sure if I am willing to pass this one off as “oh, they experienced genocide, it is okay to curb some rights to avoid from happening again.” Is not the silencing of oppositional forces one of the first signs of society in turmoil? I am not talking about the need to allow anyone to say anything about everything. Silencing turns into a real constructive way for the voiceless to become angry and rise-up. We have seen this in many manifestations in the last 50 years: Watts in 1965, Everywhere in Europe in 1968, Soweto in 1976, Tiananmen in 1989, my mothers kitchen in 1991, L.A. in 1992, Paris and Ethiopia in 2005, and the various many I left out.

“Peacebuilding” is a great word, and it could have a great meaning. It takes words with negative connotations like turmoil, conflict and hate, and attempts to throw them into a receptacle (or burn them in a metal tin in the yard of the Peacebuilding Centre). But, there is so much just under the surface of “peacebuilding” in Rwanda. How do we, whether we are outsiders or Rwandans, decipher and pragmatically approach “peacebuilding” in this context? There is so much to be said about language and speech. How long can “genocidal ideologies” be used before people realize it is code for “shut up or watch out!”? And, with a whimper, freedom of expression and speech is gone.

As I am obviously full of questions and very empty of answers, maybe I will leave you with all I have just said as the power is back on and the gigantor-grasshoppers are sleeping. This means I can cozy up for a book about genocide underneath my mosquito-proof canopy that allows me to believe I am living in an antiquity-era English castle.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Never Again International

Never Again International
For the Blog:

12 November, 2006: Somebody’s Getting Married

Here is something a little more cheery than our usual blogs that announce our coming fates and faults in the ways of global death and destruction (I am at fault on this one, sorry). A wedding occurred amidst the chaos:

Our fearless leader (after all, he did face New York City for 2 months and came out standing), Albert Nzamukwereka, is no longer fearless, but, uh, married. On 11 November (okay, it started on 10 November and probably went into the wee-hours of 12 November), Never Again Rwanda’s (NAR) director got married. As a peacebuilding “activist” Albert can come up with the ideas that shape the way Great Lakes Regional youth will interact with the issues that face them as they grow. Now, he will get the opportunity to do the same thing at a more micro level—with his family.

On the evening of the 10th, Albert and Innocente’s closest families and friends gathered at the compound of National Defence in Kigali to take part in the civil ceremony with the Justice of the Peace (though I thought that was Albert’s role—Justice of the Peace, that is). Upon approaching Albert, it was obvious he was nervous. Looking sleek and spiffy in his suit, his first words to me as he stared at his phone, twenty minutes past the meet time, were “Jed, I have not heard from where Innocente is.” She had not yet arrived, but within minutes she was there, astounding in her pre-marriage dress. We entered the hall and the civil ceremony took place: a guy talked for a long time, Albert and Innocente sat in front of everyone, pictures were taking, documents were signed and we were all humbled.

From this, there was a reception at a nearby restaurant. Basically, a chance to ogle at the newly civil ceremony-ized married couple.

On the 11th, there was a church wedding at Zion Temple in Kicukiro, one of the many suburbs of Kigali. Along with 2 other couple’s, Albert and Innocente got through their religious ceremonial marriage after long last. The preacher preached, the choir choired and the congregation congregated to the hymns and haws of gospel and religious fervour. Albert and Innocente definitely stood out amongst the couples as they were the only ones that did not look horribly awkward and uncomfortable throughout the process. I think Albert may have even said something funny at one point (uh…). Their nervous tension showed as they went through the ceremony, but once it came to revealing the bride from beneath the veil, Albert was obviously ecstatic, and Innocente as well. Vows were exchanged and now they will be together forever (wow, that statement was a lot more absolute than I am used to making).

From there, it was off to Green Hills for the reception. This was only for Albert and Innocente, of course. The hall was beautifully decorated and jam-packed with family, friends, and well-wishers (Mazungu count: 9.5). A barrage of soda was served, music was played, we sat and stared at the married couple, a champagne cork (non-alcoholic, of course) was popped and flew across the room directly at my face (of all people…), cake was cut and served to everyone (except 3 small rows of gatherers, needless to say I was in one of those rows—but the cake sure looked good!). One man from each side of the family got up to share the ceremonial banana beer and talk about how Albert and Innocente met—this is all a time-honoured tradition and according to my source they were really just talking about cows and promises for drinks at a later time. Then gifts were presented to bride and groom, a song was sung, dancers performed, Innocente cried, Albert held back tears (peacebuilders are not allowed to cry in the face of marriage, I guess) but was obviously lost in thought about the future.

After the reception, there was another event back at Albert’s home. He had spent the previous months making is home acceptable to Innocente’s family, and so after the reception close family, friends and I were invited to come witness the ritual of watching as Innocente’s family came to judge Innocente’s new digs. I think they approved, for a few moments later all her belongings and a bunch of massive peace baskets were hauled into the house. Stuff kept on appearing, I would think “there couldn’t possibly be anymore” and all of a sudden a human-sized suitcase would appear. Talk about coming into a relationship with a lot of baggage (shit, that was too easy, disregard that last sentence and the obvious self-critique in it). Afterward, there was a lot of sitting, talking, staring, and, without precedent, drinking of soda.

What have we learned from this? And how, and why, does it matter to Never Again International and Rwanda? There are no full answers to these questions. But it is important to remind ourselves that no matter how much we are hating ourselves or our world for all the inhumanity and death that men (and a couple of women—thank you Ms. Thatcher) bring upon this world, we can still find some sustenance in the hope that love can come from somewhere and go somewhere. A lot of what this organization, and others like it, aims to do is to envision a better tomorrow and we often struggle (at least, in the Western sense) with how to make that more concrete and less abstract. Sometimes it may be more fruitful to go back to the basics and remind ourselves that we can still look for happiness amidst the chaos and anger. This is coming from someone who knows little how to do any of what I just proclaimed we should do and someone who untrusts the idea of marriage at this point in his life—but this is okay, I can still feign over the good it may do for others.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Arms Trade Treaty

news from the Control Arms Campaign, a joint collaboration between IANSA, Amnesty International and Oxfam:

30 October 2006

After three years of campaigning, the Control Arms campaign achieved a massive victory on Thursday, October 26, when 139 governments voted in the favor of a UN resolution to start work towards an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). While 24 governments abstained, the United States was the only government to vote against the resolution. This was a curious outcome, as well as a disappointing one, given that the United States’ own laws and regulations are generally seen to set the standards of best practice at the national level.

Going into the vote, 116 governments co-sponsored the resolution; a huge number for such a bold initiative. 15 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates supported the call for an Arms Trade Treaty this week in a statement issued by the Arias Foundation and the Control Arms Campaign.

Specifically, the resolution calls upon the UN Secretary General to first collect the views of member states on the feasibility and draft parameters for “a comprehensive, legally-binding instrument establishing common standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms” - an ATT - and second to establish a group of governmental experts to examine the issue in detail and report back to the UN General Assembly.

This resolution still needs to be formally adopted at the UN General Assembly in the month's time where more votes in favor of the resolution are envisaged. There is a long way to go until the treaty comes into effect, but this is a hugely important first step.

We would not have reached this point without the support of the more than 1 million people who have joined the Million Faces, and the thousands of dedicated and creative campaigners who have worked so hard up to now on the campaign. We’re counting on you as we continue our efforts to persuade the US to alter its position.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Do you know? Now you know. . .



sometimes i wonder if anyone's paying attention to how fk'd up things are getting here. take action at amnestyusa.org/believe

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Networking, Darfur, and things in between

Been a while since I last wrote a blog, because I've been quite busy with tasks here and there. I made friends with Nidya, a new NA member in Miami and we came up with the idea to start a NA chapter/network here for youth activists towards global conflict resolution and genocide wawareness/prevention. So far, we've contacted people whom could help, posted flyer's and planned what to do in the next couple of months. I'm still continuing my Darfur campaign at school (no I'm not wearing the sign sad to say) and recently did a presentation for a teacher, who is a sponcer of a club I'm in. He was so impressed that he gave me his ceramic apple for appreciation. That was really sweet for his part I must say! Slowly, I think I might be able to reach the message at my school and quiting isn't an option for me! It seems that things in Darfur, things are going to get way worse then getting better. I'd better hope Annan uses his last months as Secretary-General and work harder to force the Sudanese to acepect a UN Peacekeeping force.