Renewal Of The Memorandum Of Understanding And Ground: Fill & Download for Free

Historically, the native Sudanese suffered in their own land for many reasons; most of which were generated by the foreigners who intruded and settled in the Sudan, since 7th century AD. In subsequent years, harmony between the peoples faded forever and Sudan remained a boiling pot for many centuries until today.Like I said, there were many reasons that led to the final separation of Sudan into two independent countries. Below is the historic timeline history of Sudan.South Sudan’s Historical Chronolgy:1881 – Revolt against the Turco-Egyptian administration.1899-1955 – Sudan is under joint British-Egyptian rule.1956 – Sudan becomes independent.1958 – General Abboud leads military coup against the civilian government elected earlier in the year1962 – Civil war begins in the south, led by the Anya Nya movement.1964 – The “October Revolution” overthrows Abbud and an Islamist-led government is established1969 – Jaafar Numeiri leads the “May Revolution” military coup.1971 – Sudanese Communist Party leaders executed after short-lived coup against Numeiry.1972 – Under the Addis Ababa peace agreement between the government and the Anya Nya, the south becomes a self-governing region.1978 – Oil discovered in Bentiu in southern Sudan.1983 – Civil war breaks out again in the south involving government forces and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang.Islamic law imposed1983 – President Numeiri declares the introduction of Sharia Islamic law.1985 – After widespread popular unrest Numayri is deposed by a group of officers and a Transitional Military Council is set up to rule the country.1986 – Coalition government formed after general elections, with Sadiq al-Mahdi as prime minister.1988 – Coalition partner the Democratic Unionist Party drafts cease-fire agreement with the SPLM, but it is not implemented.1989 – National Salvation Revolution takes over in military coup.1993 – Revolution Command Council dissolved after Omar Bashir is appointed president.US strike1995 – Egyptian President Mubarak accuses Sudan of being involved in attempt to assassinate him in Addis Ababa.1998 – US launches missile attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, alleging that it was making materials for chemical weapons.1998 – New constitution endorsed by over 96% of voters in referendum.1999 – President Bashir dissolves the National Assembly and declares a state of emergency following a power struggle with parliamentary speaker, Hassan al-Turabi.Advent of oil1999 – Sudan begins to export oil.2000 President Bashir meets leaders of opposition National Democratic Alliance for first time in Eritrea.Main opposition parties boycott presidential elections. Incumbent Bashir is re-elected for further five years.2001 Islamist leader Al-Turabi’s party, the Popular National Congress, signs memorandum of understanding with the southern rebel SPLM’s armed wing, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). Al-Turabi is arrested the next day, with more arrests of PNC members in the following months.Government accepts Libyan/Egyptian initiative to end the civil war after failure of peace talks between President Bashir and SPLM leader John Garang in Nairobi.US extends unilateral sanctions against Sudan for another year, citing its record on terrorism and rights violations.Peace deal2002 – Government and SPLA sign landmark ceasefire agreement providing for six-month renewable ceasefire in central Nuba Mountains – a key rebel stronghold.Talks in Kenya lead to a breakthrough agreement between the government and southern rebels on ending the 19-year civil war. The Machakos Protocol provides for the south to seek self-determination after six years.2003 February – Rebels in western region of Darfur rise up against government, claiming the region is being neglected by Khartoum.2003 October – PNC leader Turabi released after nearly three years in detention and ban on his party is lifted.Uprising in west2004 January – Army moves to quell rebel uprising in western region of Darfur; hundreds of thousands of refugees flee to neighbouring Chad.2004 March – UN official says pro-government Arab Janjaweed militias are carrying out systematic killings of non-Arab villagers in Darfur.Army officers and opposition politicians, including Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi, are detained over an alleged coup plot.2004 May – Government and southern rebels agree on power-sharing protocols as part of a peace deal to end their long-running conflict. The deal follows earlier breakthroughs on the division of oil and non-oil wealth.2004 September – UN says Sudan has not met targets for disarming pro-government Darfur militias and must accept outside help to protect civilians. US Secretary of State Colin Powell describes Darfur killings as genocide.Peace agreement2005 January – Government and southern rebels sign a peace deal. The agreement includes a permanent ceasefire and accords on wealth and power sharing.UN report accuses the government and militias of systematic abuses in Darfur, but stops short of calling the violence genocide.2005 March – UN Security Council authorises sanctions against those who violate ceasefire in Darfur. Council also votes to refer those accused of war crimes in Darfur to International Criminal Court.2005 June – Government and exiled opposition grouping – National Democratic Alliance (NDA) – sign reconciliation deal allowing NDA into power-sharing administration.President Bashir frees Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi, detained since March 2004 over alleged coup plot.Southern autonomy2005 9 July – Former southern rebel leader John Garang is sworn in as first vice president. A constitution which gives a large degree of autonomy to the south is signed.2005 1 August – Vice president and former rebel leader John Garang is killed in a plane crash. He is succeeded by Salva Kiir. Garang’s death sparks deadly clashes in the capital between southern Sudanese and northern Arabs.2005 September – Power-sharing government is formed in Khartoum.2005 October – Autonomous government is formed in the south, in line with January 2005 peace deal. The administration is dominated by former rebels.Darfur conflict2006 May – Khartoum government and the main rebel faction in Darfur, the Sudan Liberation Movement, sign a peace accord. Two smaller rebel groups reject the deal. Fighting continues.2006 August – Sudan rejects a UN resolution calling for a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur, saying it would compromise sovereignty.2006 October – Jan Pronk, the UN’s top official in Sudan, is expelled.2006 November – African Union extends mandate of its peacekeeping force in Darfur for six months.Hundreds are thought to have died in the heaviest fighting between northern Sudanese forces and their former southern rebel foes since they signed a peace deal last year. Fighting is centred on the southern town of Malakal.2007 April – Sudan says it will accept a partial UN troop deployment to reinforce African Union peacekeepers in Darfur, but not a full 20,000-strong force.War crimes charges2007 May – International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for a minister and a Janjaweed militia leader suspected of Darfur war crimes.US President George W Bush announces fresh sanctions against Sudan.2007 July – UN Security Council approves a resolution authorising a 26,000-strong force for Darfur. Sudan says it will co-operate with the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (Unamid).2007 October – SPLM temporarily suspends participation in national unity government, accusing Khartoum of failing to honour the 2005 peace deal.2007 December – SPLM resumes participation in national unity government.2008 January – UN takes over Darfur peace force.Within days Sudan apologises after its troops fire on a convoy of Unamid, the UN-African Union hybrid mission.Government planes bomb rebel positions in West Darfur, turning some areas into no-go zones for aid workers.2008 February – Commander of the UN-African Union peacekeepers in Darfur, Balla Keita, says more troops needed urgently in west Darfur.Abyei clashes2008 March – Russia says it’s prepared to provide some of the helicopters urgently needed by UN-African Union peacekeepers.Tensions rise over clashes between an Arab militia and SPLM in Abyei area on north-south divide – a key sticking point in 2005 peace accord.Presidents of Sudan and Chad sign accord aimed at halting five years of hostilities between their countries.2008 April – Counting begins in national census which is seen as a vital step towards holding democratic elections after the landmark 2005 north-south peace deal.UN humanitarian chief John Holmes says 300,000 people may have died in the five-year Darfur conflict.2008 May – Southern defence minister Dominic Dim Deng is killed in a plane crash in the south.Tension increases between Sudan and Chad after Darfur rebel group mounts raid on Omdurman, Khartoum’s twin city across the Nile. Sudan accuses Chad of involvement and breaks off diplomatic relations.Intense fighting breaks out between northern and southern forces in disputed oil-rich town of Abyei.2008 June – President Bashir and southern leader Salva Kiir agree to seek international arbitration to resolve dispute over Abyei.Bashir accused2008 July – The International Criminal Court’s top prosecutor calls for the arrest of President Bashir for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur; the appeal is the first ever request to the ICC for the arrest of a sitting head of state. Sudan rejects the indictment.2008 September – Darfur rebels accuse government forces backed by militias of launching air and ground attacks on two towns in the region.2008 October – Allegations that Ukrainian tanks hijacked off the coast of Somalia were bound for southern Sudan spark fears of an arms race between the North and former rebels in the South.2008 November – President Bashir announces an immediate ceasefire in Darfur, but the region’s two main rebel groups reject the move, saying they will fight on until the government agrees to share power and wealth in the region.2008 December – The Sudanese army says it has sent more troops to the sensitive oil-rich South Kordofan state, claiming that a Darfur rebel group plans to attack the area.2009 January – Sudanese Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi is arrested after saying President Bashir should hand himself in to The Hague to face war crimes charges for the Darfur war.2009 March – The International Criminal Court in The Hague issues an arrest warrant for President Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.2009 May – An estimated 250 people in central Sudan are killed during a week of clashes between nomadic groups fighting over grazing land and cattle in the semi-arid region of Southern Kordofan.Alliance strained2009 June – Khartoum government denies it is supplying arms to ethnic groups in the south to destabilise the region.The leader of South Sudan and vice-president of the country, Salva Kiir, warns his forces are being re-organised to be ready for any return to war with the northEx-foreign minister Lam Akol splits from South’s ruling SPLM to form new party, SPLM-Democratic Change.2009 July – North and south Sudan say they accept ruling by arbitration court in The Hague shrinking disputed Abyei region and placing the major Heglig oil field in the north.Woman journalist tried and punished for breaching decency laws by wearing trousers. She campaigns to change the law.2009 August – Darfur war is over, says UN military commander in the region, in comments condemned by activists.2009 October – SPLM boycotts parliament over a Bill allowing intelligence services to retain widespread powers.2009 December – Leaders of North and South reach deal on terms of referendum on independence due in South by 2011.2010 January – President Omar Bashir says he would accept referendum result, even if South opted for independence.Darfur deal2010 Feb-March – The Justice and Equality Movement (Jem) main Darfur rebel movement signs a peace accord with the government, prompting President Bashir to declare the Darfur war over. But failure to agree specifics and continuing clashes with smaller rebel groups endanger the deal.2010 April – President Bashir gains new term in first contested presidential polls since 1986.2010 July – International Criminal Court issues second arrest warrant for President al-Bashir – this time on charges of genocide.2010 August – Mr Bashir tests ICC arrest warrant by visiting Kenya, an ICC signatory. The Kenyan government refuses to enforce the warrant.2011 January – People of the South vote in favour of full independence from the north.2011 February – Clashes between the security forces and rebels in southern Sudan’s Jonglei state leave more than 100 dead.2011 March – Government of South Sudan says it is suspending talks with the North, accusing it of plotting a coup.2011 May – Northern troops overrun town of Abyei on disputed border between north and south. South describes it as ”act of war”. Thousands flee.South becomes independent2011 July – South Sudan gains independence.2011 September – State of emergency declared in Blue Nile state, elected SPLM-N Governor Malik Agar sacked. Some 100,000 said fleeing unrest.2011 October – South Sudan and Sudan agree to set up several committees tasked with resolving their outstanding disputes.2011 November – Sudan accused of bombing refugee camp in Yida, Unity State, South Sudan.A Kenyan judge issues an arrest warrant for President Bashir, saying he should be detained if ever he sets foot in the country again.2011 December – International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor requests arrest warrant for Sudan’s defence minister, Abdelrahim Mohamed Hussein, for alleged war crimes in Darfur.Sudanese government forces kill key Darfur rebel leader Khalil Ibrahim.2012 January – South Sudan halts oil production after talks on fees for the export of oil via Sudan break down.2012 February – Sudan and South Sudan sign non-aggression pact at talks on outstanding secession issues. although tensions remain high over oil export fees.The Conflict Timeline:Two: South and North SUDAN: CONFLICT TIMELINE (from the Insight on Conflict)1899: Sudan comes under British/Egyptian rule.1916: Sultanate of Darfur incorporated into Sudan.1955:First civil war begins between the South and North.1956: Sudan achieves independence.1958: General Abbud leads the first military coup against the civilian government.1962: Civil war breaks out in the predominately Christian region of the South.1964: The ‘October Revolution’ overthrows Abbud and a National Government is elected.1969: Gaafar Mohamed El-Nimeiri leads the “May Revolution” military coup and becomes President.1969: Military coup puts Nimeiri in power.1971: Nimeiri sees that the Communist Leader is executed after a failed coup attempt.1972: Peace agreement is signed in Addis Ababa and the South achieves partial self-governance. This led to 10 years of peace in the South.1978: Oil reserves are discovered in Bentiu in South Sudan.1983: Nimeiri introduces nationwide Islamic Sharia law.1983: Tensions in the South led to the formation of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) under leader John Garang. The southern based group takes up arms against government forces.1985: After widespread popular unrest Nimeiri is deposed from Presidency by a group of officers. A Transitional Military Council is set up to rule the country.1986: Post-Nimeiri elections see Sadiq al-Mahdi become Prime Minister.1989: National Salvation Revolution (NSR) takes over in a military coup.1993: After another military coup the Revolution Command Council is dissolved and Omar al-Bashir is appointed president.1998: The US launches a missile attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. It alleges that it was making materials for chemical weapons and has links to Al-Qaeda – the government dismisses the claims as false.1998: A new constitution is endorsed in a referendum.1999: Following a power struggle with Hassan al-Turabi, the Parliamentary Speaker, President Bashir dissolves the National Assembly and declares a state of emergency. The same year Sudan begins to export oil.2000: Omar al-Bashir is re-elected President after all other political parties boycott elections.2001: The Popular National Congress (PNC) signs a memorandum of understanding with the southern rebel SPLM’s armed faction, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). Hassan Al-Turabi, leader of the PNC is arrested the following day.2001: Citing its record on terrorism and human rights violations, the US extends unilateral sanctions against Sudan for another year.2002: The government and the SPLA sign a landmark peace deal. A renewable 6 month ceasefire agreement is made. This brings to an end 19 years of civil war.2003: Two rebel groups in the Western region of Darfur rise up against what they believe to be government neglect of the arid region. The groups arm Arab militia against civilians.2004: The Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebels agree ceasefire in the South.2004: In Darfur, as the army moves against the insurgency, hundreds of thousands of refugees flee into Chad.2004 (Mar): UN official says pro-government Arab militias known as “Janjaweed” are carrying out systematic killings of villagers in Darfur.2004 (May): Further progress is made in North – South relations when the government and southern rebels agree on power-sharing protocols.2004 (Sept): The US describes Darfur killings as ‘genocide’. The UN says Sudan has failed to disarm pro-government militias but do not accept the term ‘genocide.’ The Sudanese government agrees to the African Union (AU) sending in a protection force.2005 (Jan): Government and southern rebels sign a comprehensive permanent peace deal.2005: The UN Security Council says those who commit atrocities in Darfur can be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Three months later Khartoum seeks to head off international action by setting up its own tribunal.2005: Following the September introduction of a power-sharing government in Khartoum, in October, an autonomous government is formed in the South. The new administration is dominated by former rebels.2006 (Aug): The UN Security Council vote to send a 26,000 strong peacekeeping force to Darfur but Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir – citing a violation of sovereignty – refuses to allow the deployment of the UN force. Two months later, Jan Pronk, the UN’s top official in Sudan, is expelled from the country.2007 (May): The ICC issues its first arrest warrants for a Sudanese Minister and a Janjaweed militia leader. Khartoum rejects the statement and says the court has no jurisdiction.2007 (July): Sudan accepts the deployment of a 26,000 strong AU -UN force to Darfur –UNAMID.2008: UNAMID officially takes over from the AU peacekeeping force in Darfur.2008: Troops are deployed in Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR) to assist with the refugee flow from Darfur.2008 (April): The UN predict that 300,000 people have been killed in the five year Darfur conflict.2008 (May): Sudanese government bombs hit schools and market places in Darfur, killing 13 civilians. UNHCR withdraws its staff from sites on the Chad/Sudan border citing insecurity.2008 (June): Northern and Southern forces begin intense fighting over the disputed oil-rich town of Abyei.2008 (July): The ICC calls for the arrest of President Bashir for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur. It is the first appeal the ICC has ever made for the arrest of a sitting head of state. Sudan rejects the charges.2009 (Mar): The ICC in The Hague issues an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir.2009 (May): 250 people in central Sudan are killed during clashes between nomadic groups fighting over grazing land.2009 (July): North and South Sudan accept a ruling by The Hague which gives control of the Abyei region and its oilfields to the North.2010 (Feb): An ICC appeals court rules that a previous judgement that charges of genocide could not be considered against al-Bashir, was wrong. The case has been passed back for a decision on the case for charging al-Bashir with genocide.2010 (Apr): National elections return Al-Bashir as President of Sudan, and Salva Kiir as President of South Sudan. Opposition parties allege vote rigging.2010 (Dec): An upsurge in fighting in Darfur as the ceasefire between the SLA and the government breaks down. Followed by the end of the peace talks in Doha.2011 (Jan): With over 99% in favour, South Sudan votes overwhelmingly in favour of independence in a vote widely regarded as free, fair and credible.2011 (5 June): clashes begin in Southern Kordofan2011 (July): Formation of the South Sudan Liberation Army (SSLA)2011 (9 July): South Sudan becomes independent.2011 (13 July): Sudan’s parliament passes a law cancelling the Sudanese nationality of Southerners2011 (14 July): South Sudan is admitted by the General Assembly as the 193rdmember of the UN2011 (18 July): South Sudan launched its own currency2011 (20 July): Rebel leader Gatluak Gai signs a peace deal with the SPLA, and is shot dead three days later in Unity State2011 (27 July): South Sudan becomes the 54thmember of the African Union2011 (August ongoing): cattle raids and violence across South Sudan with a number of military and civilian deaths2011 (1 August): Salva Kiir Mayardit appointed the South Sudan Council of State, consisting of fifty representatives2011 (5 August): Sudan blocked a shipment of oil from South Sudan after Juba reportedly refused to pay customs fees – the South accused Khartoum of sabotaging its economy2011 (27 August): New Cabinet of South Sudan is announced, considered representative of ethnic groups and across states; it is made up of 29 ministers and 27 deputies2011 (3 September): State of emergency declared in Blue Nile state, elected SPLM-N Governor Malik Agar sacked. Some 100,000 said to have fled unrest.2011 (9 October): South Sudan and Sudan agree to set up several committees tasked with resolving their outstanding disputes2011 (11 November): Sudan accused of bombing refugee camp in Yida, Unity State, South Sudan.Three: South Sudan: a timeline to independence (from the Christian Science Monitor).On Saturday, July 9, 2011, after decades of civil war and almost two centuries of rule by outsiders, South Sudanwill finally become an independent state. Here’s a look at the road the fledgling nation has traveled to get to where it is today.- Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writerSudan under Turkish-Egyptian rule (1820s-1890s)Sudan was a collection of mostly autonomous, non-cohesive kingdoms and tribes until the 1820s, when Turkish-Egyptian forces took control of the territory and created a colonial administration. However, neither the original invaders nor the religious leader Muhammad ibn Abdalla, who came in the 1880s, were able to bring southern Sudan under their control. Although Mr. Abdalla, known as “the Mahdi,” did unify some of the central and western tribes with what is now northern Sudan, the South remained a loose confederation of kingdoms and tribes.British colonization of Sudan (1890s-1953)In the 1890s, British forces invaded the Mahdi’s Sudan, bringing it under their control, imposing their policies, and filling the top administrative posts with British officials.After World War I, the Sudanese nationalism movement gained steam. Conscious that the British could not suppress Sudanese desire for independence, the British colonizers signed an agreement in 1953 that granted the Sudanese self-governance.While free from British rule, however, the undeveloped, mainly Christian and animist South would still be ruled by an administration based in the remote capital of the Muslim-dominated North,Khartoum.Independent Sudan and the growing North-South divide (1953-1970s)Within the newly autonomous Sudan, a divide was growing. The southern part of the country began calling for a federal system that would allow it a level of autonomy from the central government. Khartoum refused, provoking a mutiny by southern military officials that launched Sudan’s first civil war, lasting from 1955 to 1972.The northern Sudanese sought, almost from the beginning, to unify the country under Arab-Muslim control, based in the north. In doing so, they alienated Christians and animists in the South, as well as other marginalized groups. Arabization and Islamicization efforts crystallized southern opposition to the central government, although the South was split over whether it wanted a federal system or complete independence from the North. A series of civilian governments through the 1960s exacerbated the divide between the North and South by refusing to grant any degree of self-determination to southern Sudan.Secular socialist leader Col. Gaafar Muhammed Nimeiri, who took power in 1969, crafted a policy granting autonomy to the south and signed it into agreement in 1972. Southerners showed their appreciation by helping Col. Nimeiri put down two coup attempts. However, his early support was swept away when mounting opposition forced him to abandon his unpopular support for the South.Strong support for an Islamic state and the discovery of oil in the south were the final blows to the south’s plea for autonomy. Nimeiri eliminated the separate southern region in 1983, putting control in the hands of the central government and making Arabic the official language there as well. The decision launched the Sudan’s second civil war and gave birth to the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement and Army (SPLA/M).The second civil war and the rise of the SPLA/M (1980s-2005)Nimeiri was overthrown in 1985. During the transitional governance period, several half-hearted attempts at peace failed over the question of exempting the South from Islamic law, an unacceptable prospect for many in the central government but something the South insisted upon.Sudan’s current President Omar al-Bashir – now wanted in the International Criminal Court for war crimes – took power via coup in 1989, installing the National Islamic Front government. His party’s emphasis on incorporating Islam into the country’s political and legal systems further exacerbated the North-South conflict.Meanwhile, the SPLA/M gained influence, becoming the main voice for South Sudanese. Bashir’s alienation of western and eastern regions of Sudan drove them to the sides of the southern rebels, led by the SPLM/A and united under the leadership of Col. John Garang.Several agreements were signed between Khartoum and some of the southern rebel factions to end the open conflict between the North and South, but the SPLA was not one of the parties to the agreement.The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005)The Khartoum government and the SPLM began talks about an agreement to end the civil war in 2002. Talks on the role of state and religion and southern self-determination continued through 2004. In January 2005, the two signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which laid out a plan for southern autonomy for the next six years followed by a referendum vote in the South on its independence.The CPA also includes a power-sharing arrangement for the central government that made SLPM leader Garang the vice president of unified Sudan. When Garang died in a helicopter crash only a few months later, Salva Kiir, his vice president, became the vice president of the central government. He also took over leadership of the SPLM and eventually the South’s government.In the years between the signing of the CPA and the referendum vote, tensions between the North and South calmed considerably, although they still sometimes boiled over into open conflict.The referendum on independence (Jan. 9, 2011)On Jan. 9, 2011, South Sudanese turned out en masse to vote in a referendum on their independence, with more than 99 percent of those in the South voting in favor of secession from northern Sudan. Despite concerns about violence around the vote, it went off mostly peacefully, and the vote was soon followed by waves of South Sudanese returning to their home ahead of independence.Despite the mostly peaceful vote, many contentious issues between the North and South remain unresolved, such as the status of the border region of Abyei, which was supposed to hold a referendum of its own to determine whether it would opt to join a newly independent South Sudanor stay with northern Sudan. Abyei and another border region known as South Kordofan have been plagued by fighting between northern armed forces and the fledgling state’s army, as well as attacks by southern rebels.South Sudan’s independence (July 9, 2011)On July 9, South Sudan officially becomes an independent state. With the situation in South Kordofan so shaky and Abyei’s status still unresolved, its transition to independence is unlikely to be completely smooth. It still faces internal tribal and ethnic divisions and rebel militias, as well as the continuation of hostilities with the North.Check out the first of a three-part series chronicling the challenges facing the world’s newest country here.Four: Timeline: South Sudan (from the AP).South Sudan will proclaim full independence, becoming the world’s newest nation on July 9th 2011. (AP)Key milestones in relations between soon to be independent south Sudan and the north of the vast African country:– 1983: Sudanese president Gaafar al-Nimeiri decides to rescind a 1972 agreement under which southern Sudan enjoyed internal autonomy. The measure, which implies the introduction of Islamic sharia law in the region, rekindles an independence movement led by John Garang and his Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).– 1989: Omar al-Bashir ousts Nimeiri in a coup. He remains in power to this day.– January 2005: North and south sign a US-brokered ceasefire agreement providing for a period of autonomy for the south followed by a referendum on full independence in 2011. The region around the town of Abyei, which has oil and is claimed by both south and north, is accorded special status.– July 2005: Garang killed in a helicopter crash and is succeeded as southern leader by Salva Kiir.– May 2008: Fighting in Abyei between troops from southern Sudan and those of the central government in Khartoum leave 100 people dead and raze the town.– July 2009: An international arbitration court in The Hague draws new borders around Abyei, locating its main oilfields in north Sudan, outside the disputed region.– April 2010: Sudan holds its first multi-party elections since 1986. Kiir becomes the south’s first elected president.– October 2010: Talks between north and south fail to produce an agreement on Abyei’s future status.– January 2011: As planned, south Sudan holds its independence referendum, with almost 99 percent voting in favour. Plans are laid for the region to split from the north and achieve full international recognition on July 9.– March 2011: At least 70 people killed and three villages razed in clashes between the Arab Misseriya tribe, which is backed by Khartoum, and the pro-southern Ngok Dinka people.– April 2011: Bashir says he will not recognise the south’s independence if it insists on claiming Abyei.– May 21: Northern Sudanese troops backed by tanks seize Abyei town and its environs.– June 3: UN Security Council demands that Sudan withdraw its troops from Abyei, a call swiftly rejected by Khartoum.– June 5: Fighting erupts between the northern army and southern-aligned militia in South Kordofan, which borders the south and is the north’s only oil-producing state. The conflict escalates tensions between Khartoum and Juba.– June 12: Bashir and Kiir fly to the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa for emergency talks aimed at resolving the crises in Sudan’s central border region.– June 20: North and south Sudan sign an African Union-sponsored deal in Addis Ababa to demilitarise Abyei.– June 27: UN Security Council votes to send a 4,200-strong Ethiopian peacekeeping force to monitor the withdrawal of northern troops from Abyei.– July 1: Bashir orders the army to continue its campaign in South Kordofan, to “cleanse” the state of pro-southern rebels.– July 9: South Sudan to proclaim full independence, becoming the world’s newest nation.Five: North, South Sudan now separate nations (from the CBC News).Abyei, Nuba conflicts, unresolved issues make for tense independence day in South, Jul 8, 2011 4:29 PM ETSouth Sudan formally declares its independence for Sudan on July 9. A man holds up South Sudan’s new flag during a rehearsal in Juba July 7 for independence celebrations. (Paul Banks/UNMIS/Reuters)The Republic of South Sudan declared its independence from Sudan on July 9, six months after the people of Southern Sudan voted overwhelmingly to separate from the rest of the country.Also on July 9, the 2005 peace deal that led to the referendum expired. That agreement — between the government of Sudan and southern rebels — ended a civil war that began in 1983.Since the referendum vote, three conflicts — between rebel groups and Southern Sudanese forces; between Northern and Southern forces in the border region of Abyei; and between the Sudanese army and a pro-Southern group in the Nuba mountains — have claimed over 2,360 lives.The two sides are still negotiating key issues such as citizenship rights, oil rights and border demarcation.Therefore; It is absolutely obvious that; South Sudanese, like many other marginalized peoples of the Sudan wanted their autonomy over the years. That led to demand a full independents.[1][2][3][4][5][6]Footnotes[1] South Sudan’s Historical Chronology[2] Sudan profile - Timeline[3] Sudan: Conflict Timeline[4] South Sudan: a timeline to independence[5] http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1568021/timeline-south-sudan[6] North, South Sudan now separate nations | CBC News

Q. What is a good military history of the Vietnam War?A. Great books that I am reading: A Better War, Black April, Without Honor, and Westmoreland.Amazon.com: A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam (9780156013093): Lewis Sorley: BooksISBN-13: 978-0156013093ISBN-10: 0156013096Editorial ReviewNeglected by scholars and journalists alike, the years of conflict in Vietnam from 1968 to 1975 offer surprises not only about how the war was fought, but about what was achieved. Drawing on authoritative materials not previously available, including thousands of hours of tape-recorded allied councils of war, award-winning military historian Lewis Sorley has given us what has long been needed-an insightful, factual, and superbly documented history of these important years. Among his findings is that the war was being won on the ground even as it was being lost at the peace table and in the U.S. Congress. The story is a great human drama of purposeful and principled service in the face of an agonizing succession of lost opportunities, told with uncommon understanding and compassion. Sorley documents the dramatic differences in conception, conduct, and-at least for a time-results between the early and the later war. Meticulously researched and movingly told, A Better War is sure to stimulate controversy as it sheds brilliant new light on the war in Vietnam.Amazon Exclusive Essay: "New Vietnam War History" by Lewis Sorley, Author of A Better WarFor a long time most people thought the long years of American involvement in the Vietnam War were just more of the same--with a bad ending. Now we know that during the latter years, when General Creighton Abrams commanded U.S. forces, almost everything changed, and for the better.Abrams understood the nature of the war and devised a more availing approach to the conduct of it. Building up South Vietnam's own armed forces got high priority, whereas before they had been neglected and allowed to go into combat outgunned by the enemy. The covert infrastructure which through terror and coercion kept South Vietnam's rural population under domination was painstakingly rooted out, not ignored as earlier. And combat operations were greatly improved, concentrating on large numbers of patrols and ambushes designed to provide security for the people rather than cumbersome large-unit sweeps through the deep jungle.Some commentators have called the description of these changes "revisionist" history, but actually it is new history. Virtually all the better-known earlier books about the war concentrated heavily on the early years, leaving the later period grossly neglected.New insight came importantly from a collection of hundreds of tape recordings of briefings and staff meetings in General Abrams's headquarters during the four years he commanded in Vietnam. They are filled with human drama, professional debate, successes and frustrations, and ultimately a hard-won triumph, told in the voices of Abrams and his senior associates; such visiting officials as the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and a succession of often brilliant briefing officers.Later, of course, what they had won was thrown away by the United States Congress, but the story of their better war is still a dramatic testament to courage, integrity, devotion, and professional competence.--Lewis SorleyFrom Publishers WeeklyUsing a host of oral interviews, 455 tape recordings made in Vietnam during the years 1968-1972 and numerous other sources, military historian Sorley has produced a first-rate challenge to the conventional wisdom about American military performance in Vietnam. Essentially, this is a close examination of the years during which General Creighton Abrams was in command, having succeeded William Westmoreland. Sorley contends that Abrams completely transformed the war effort and in the process won the war on the battlefield. The North Vietnamese 1968 Tet offensive was bloodily repulsed, he explains, as was a similar offensive in 1969. Together, the 1970 American incursion into Cambodia and a 1971 Laotian operation succeeded in reducing enemy combat effectiveness. Renewed American bombing of the North and Abrams's use of air power to assist ground operations further reduced Hanoi's ability to wage war. Sorley argues that the combination of anti-war protests in America and a complete misunderstanding of the actual combat situation by the diplomats negotiating the 1973 Paris accords wasted American military victories. In spite of drug use and other problems, Sorley maintains, the army in Vietnam performed capably and efficiently, but in vain, for South Vietnam was sold out by the 1973 cease-fire, America's pullout and the failure of Congress to provide further military assistance to the South. Sure to provoke both passionate and reasoned objection, Sorley's book is as important a reexamination of the operational course of the war as Robert McNamara's In Retrospect is of the conflict's moral and political history. Maps and photos not seen by PW.Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.Top Customer Reviews5.0 out of 5 starsTribute to General AbramsBy Amazon Customer on May 17, 2017The real story of Viet Nam and how we almost won that war. Not the normal un-researched politically correct dribble of media light weights who spent more time in Saigon bars than in the field. Right up there with Bernard Fall.5.0 out of 5 starsProud veteranBy kent Tompkins on May 14, 2017As a Vietnam combat veteran I arrived under General Abram in MACV it was my privilege to be part of such noble and courage purpose to bring freedom and democratic to south Vietnam. One thing I learn ed from this book is how thoroughly devastating the air campaign that was Linebacker I and II was to the enemy . We had won the battle but lost the war not because of the brave American and south Vietnam soldiers but self-serving modifications of President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger.4.0 out of 5 starswe did get a better military effort once Abrams took chargeBy Daniel E Swiger on May 4, 2017It was an interesting read, especially considering it covered the years I was in Vietnam. Having just read "Dereliction of Duty, by McMaster, which chronicles the early years of our intervention, I was prepared for what was to come. McMaster pointed out what I already knew about McNamara, LBJ & Westmoreland. Three words, Arrogance, Incompetence & Deception. On top of that, LBJ's myopia about his domestic agenda conspired to grind up lives and make us weaker. In Sorley's accounts, we did get a better military effort once Abrams took charge. hence the title. But the damage had been done and the Vietnamese were still too dependent on the U.S for money, materiel & air power. On top of that, they didn't seem to have the national will & purpose to meet the NVA head on. While Russia & China were unwavering in their support for their client state, the U.S was fickle and unreliable as an ally. But what bother's me more is that our negotiators in Paris actually seemed to believe what the North promised or committed too, then ultimately did nothing when they started to overrun the South. Then we just turned our backs & plugged our ears to the South's annihilation. I am disgusted, heartbroken & angry. There were so many things done poorly and yet so many opportunities missed. But the most painful part is the 58,000 that never had the opportunity to live a full life.In spite of all this,I am glad to have read both books as it somehow continues the closure. However, I am not likely to want to read more.5.0 out of 5 stars... combat tours in Vietnam and until I read "A Better War" I never fully grasped the ironic tragedy of ...By James Callahan on February 1, 2017I did four combat tours in Vietnam and until I read "A Better War" I never fully grasped the ironic tragedy of America's flawed commitment. The waste of Westmorland's misconceptions, the subsequent successes of the Bunker-Abrams-Colby team, General Giap's repeated ideologically driven strategic failures, and the ultimate triumph of the North Vietnamese handed to them by an American middle class and its political elite who not only betrayed an underrated South Vietnamese ally but in the process our own American heritage. When in 1975 that Soviet T-54 tank of the NVA broke through the gates of the Presidential Palace in Saigon, who in American still remembered John F. Kennedy's 1961 pledge that the torch had been passed to a new generation of Americans. A generation that would "bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." To read " A Better War" gives you the answer. No one.5.0 out of 5 starsThe Seventies of the Vietnam War are not likely to ...By Christian Walser on January 2, 2017The Seventies of the Vietnam War are not likely to be told, as the failure became more and more obvious. Still Abrams managed to adapt the military need to the political situation which had changed. A long awaited insight in Abram's achievements.1.0 out of 5 starsThis is a wonderful book; then, why the “one star”?By Daniel Biezad on December 29, 2016This is a wonderful book; then, why the “one star”? Because it misses what, to me, are two essential points—two massive failures, actually— that cost the loss of over two million lives in Indochina.The first failure is the flippant way that Americans viewed the Vietnamese and their culture. From JFK’s appointment, at the start of the war, of the disastrous Westmoreland (based solely on first impressions) to his brother Edward’s legislation, at the end of the war, that disowned further American responsibility and accountability to the South Vietnamese, it was apparent that America never regarded Vietnam as a strategic necessity. The communist Ho Chi Minh, on the other hand, used nationalism to excite intense motivation for victory into the hearts of his people, and his government enjoyed the unending logistic support of communist Russia and China.The second failure was a lack of political will to use the full force of air power to end the conflict quickly and bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table willing to accept an independent South Vietnam. Linebacker II—lasting only a short time in December, 1972—was the only example of the inevitable effectiveness of this approach in the entire war. It showed that air power could have been employed with naval power and blockades continuously until the North Vietnamese pulled their forces and released their prisoners.The actions of Gerald Ford and Edward Kennedy at the end of the Vietnam War made me ashamed to be a veteran of that conflict, though I served with many superb individuals and had great respect for the South Vietnamese. Colin Luther Powell and Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. learned Abram’s lessons well, but we seem to be regressing into political morass once again. I thank Lewis Sorley for highlighting both the errors and the accomplishments of the Vietnam era.5.0 out of 5 starsand the poor farmers who gave so much to the NLF were ...By jellolion on October 10, 2016This book explains the period of the Vietnam war after Westmoreland, focusing on the leadership of General Abrams. This is a period of the war that was largely uncovered in Hollywood movies other distortions of the war. The book makes a point to show that Westmoreland largely squandered American popular support for the war, and ignored the ARVN. Abrams came in at at time when everything about the war was shown in a negative light. He turned the ARVN into a highly effective, fighting force able to utilize modern methods. Abrams was winning the war. Under his watch, the Americans were being pulled out, while the ARVN was being ramped up. Nixon's programs of Vietnamization and pacification were actually shown to be working. By 1972, the North Vietnamese were largely defeated, and undertook no new offensives until 1975, after they had time to rebuild their military, and after they realized the Americans would no longer be giving any assistance to the South. This book allows one to fully realize the tragedy. We gave massive amounts of military equipment to the South Vietnamese, then cut off all further support. Most of the equipment sat with no fuel, no ammunition, waiting to be appropriated by the communists.. The ARVN were buying hand grenades out of their own pocket money. By 1973, we could have allowed the South to defend themselves, with a fraction of the investment that was spent in previous years. But by then, Nixon was demonized, and Congress was out to shut him down, at all cost, regardless of the cost to the country, and to our commitments to foreign allies. Although we did not see the bloodbath that the right had threatened would occur, we did see that the communists were far from the freedom fighters the left made them out to be. They were opportunists, and they fully used the victory to line their own pockets, and to take whatever they wanted from South Vietnam. The "workers utopia" that they promised never came close to materializing, and the poor farmers who gave so much to the NLF were never even allowed to participate in the "new" (old) government. The South was taken over and run by Northern war heroes, many of whom had little education. The war veterans were hunted down and executed or put into prison camps to waste away to death, or be released 10-20 years later. The former Viet Cong got nothing more than to be allowed to march as odd rag tag soldiers at the tail end of May Day parades. The suffering in the South after the war was great, leading to hundreds of thousands risking their lives, and losing their lives attempting to escape. The author makes the point that life was generous to Abrams in that he died before seeing what happened to the Vietnam that he worked so hard to save.Black April: The Fall of South Vietnam, 1973-75 Paperback – September 17, 2013by George J Veith (Author)Black April: The Fall of South Vietnam, 1973-75: George J Veith: 9781594037047: Amazon.com: BooksProduct Note:The defeat of South Vietnam was arguably America’s worst foreign policy disaster of the 20th Century. Yet a complete understanding of the endgame—from the 27 January 1973 signing of the Paris Peace Accords to South Vietnam’s surrender on 30 April 1975—has eluded us.Black April addresses that deficit. A culmination of exhaustive research in three distinct areas: primary source documents from American archives, North Vietnamese publications containing primary and secondary source material, and dozens of articles and numerous interviews with key South Vietnamese participants, this book represents one of the largest Vietnamese translation projects ever accomplished, including almost one hundred rarely or never seen before North Vietnamese unit histories, battle studies, and memoirs. Most important, to celebrate the 30th Anniversary of South Vietnam’s conquest, the leaders in Hanoi released several compendiums of formerly highly classified cables and memorandum between the Politburo and its military commanders in the south. This treasure trove of primary source materials provides the most complete insight into North Vietnamese decision-making ever complied. While South Vietnamese deliberations remain less clear, enough material exists to provide a decent overview.Ultimately, whatever errors occurred on the American and South Vietnamese side, the simple fact remains that the country was conquered by a North Vietnamese military invasion despite written pledges by Hanoi’s leadership against such action. Hanoi’s momentous choice to destroy the Paris Peace Accords and militarily end the war sent a generation of South Vietnamese into exile, and exacerbated a societal trauma in America over our long Vietnam involvement that reverberates to this day. How that transpired deserves deeper scrutiny.About the AuthorGeorge J Veith: George J. Veith is the author of Code-Name Bright Light: The Untold Story of U.S. POW Rescue Efforts During the Vietnam War, published by The Free Press in December 1997. Code-Name Bright Light was Book of the Month for the Military Book Club in January 1998. Mr. Veith has also published Leave No Man Behind: Bill Bell and the Search for American POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War in March 2004. He has published many symposium papers, various newspaper articles, and a well-received article on the battle for Xuan Loc in April 1975 that appeared in the January 2004 issue of the "Journal of Military History," along with. He presented papers at the following major conferences, including the October 2005 Australian War College symposium "Entangling Alliances: Coalition Warfare in the Twentieth Century," in 2006 to the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency at Fort Belvoir, VA, at the May 2008 conference in Paris on “War, Diplomacy, and Public Opinion: The Paris Peace Talks on Vietnam and the End of the Vietnam War (1968-1975),” and at the 2009 Society for Military History Conference. Most recently, he helped organize a conference held in Washington, DC in April 2010 on “35-Year Retrospective Look on Vietnam.” He has appeared on Fox News and other radio and TV stations, and testified twice on the POW/MIA issue before the U.S. House of Representatives. He has been invited to speak at the American Legion National Conference, the National League of POW/MIA Families and National Alliance of Families annual meetings, and many other venues.BiographyAmazon.com: George J. Veith: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, KindlePeople often ask me how I got involved in writing about Vietnam, since I did not serve there. Here is the short answer to that question.I am a former Armor officer, having served in tank units in Germany and the U.S. I've always been interested in military history, and in particular, historical mysteries. My initial foray into Vietnam was investigating the POW/MIA issue, a natural fit on both counts. One can't understand the POW/MIA issue without learning about the war, which led me to dive deeper into the conflict.I also always wanted to write, and years ago, I found some documents at the Army's Carlisle Barracks on the Joint Personnel Recovery Center (JPRC), the military's top-secret unit to recover American prisoners during the Vietnam War. Realizing that no one had ever written about these guys, I made ten trips to Carlisle going through all their Vietnam materials. Eventually I located about 80% of the JPRC weekly and monthly reports, and I was off! That research led to "Code-Name Bright Light," my first book.My second book, "Leave No Man Behind," is the memoirs of my friend Bill Bell, who led the USG's POW/MIA field investigation teams after the war. It was published in 2004.In April 2001, my friend and translator, Merle Pribbenow, and I visited MG Le Minh Dao, the last commander of the ARVN 18th Division. We interviewed him about the battle of Xuan Loc, which took place in April 1975. His unit stood their ground in some very heavy combat, and our article on the battle was published in January 2004 in the "Journal of Military History." Dao was so pleased with our efforts that he begged me turn the paper into a book on the final two years of the war. He emphatically told me that the RVNAF had fought well, and they were not the corrupt cowards so often portrayed in the American media. Thus began a ten-year journey of research and writing that finally culminated in "Black April."I hope you enjoy it, and I look forward to your comments.Top Customer Reviews5.0 out of 5 starsYou feel like you are a fly on the wall in Hanoi ...By Tennessee Craig on August 1, 2014Just finished (8/1/14). This book is loaded with complete details of all the battles, and political maneuvering, large and small that took place in the closing days, weeks, and months of the Vietnam War. I never knew so much was going on. It is being told from ALL SIDES. You feel like you are a fly on the wall in Hanoi and Saigon during the planning. You read all the movements of North and South Vietnam and how the USA dropped off the radar, leaving the South Vietnamese people hanging.....And, there was a Miracle that took place as the North Vietnamese were entering Saigon, which delayed their entry and caused many American Civilians not to be captured - (not giving full details, so the reader will find out for themselves) - .Great translation efforts of North Vietnam documents and letters...For any sincere Vietnam interested person, this is a FIVE STAR read, for sure !!!5.0 out of 5 starsA must-read for any serious student of the Vietnam WarBy Andrew California on April 14, 2013As a little teen-ager growing up in Saigon in the early 1970s, I have always been puzzled and perplexed about how the Vietnam War had ended the way it did in April of 1975. Why was the RVN's final collapse so sudden, so quick, and so chaotic ? How did the Northern Vietnamese Communists achieve final and total victory in such a short time and miraculous way ? Why was there no final deal agreement with the advancing and winning North Vietnamese for a more orderly, organized, transitional type of coalition government ? This book by George Veith have given me all the answers to those questions above, and much more.Very well-researched and written for a mainly Western/US audience, it tries to tell the story of how the Republic of South Vietnam has succumbed to the Northern Vietnamese Communist forces during the last 2 years of its existence. And this poignant story is told from a mainly Vietnamese (both North and South) viewpoints. Unless you were living in Vietnam and had participated in that War, it will be very hard for you to fully understand and grasp all of the details (geography, military, political, cultural, etc.) of the author's account, as well as the heroic fighting spirit of the South Vietnamese Army of that earlier era.Knowing what we know now, some of the insights, explanations and conclusions given by the author are really refreshing and dead-on. All of the unique military, geo-political, and socio-economic realities (and circumstances) that had lead to the Fall of South Vietnam have been revealed and analyzed in detail. (I have some relatives who were in the South Vietnamese Army and Government, and their account of the final 2 years, especially the final months and weeks leading to the Fall of Saigon, corroborates with the author's findings).Given all of the negative press from the liberal Left about the immoral nature of War (and the US involvement in it), the corrupt and incompetent South Vietnamese Government and Army, and its last "despotic" leader (Mr Nguyen Van Thieu), this book will help to rectify some of these falsehood, and help us see a more accurate, complete, and balanced picture of that final period of the Vietnam War, after the US has pulled out.No matter what side you are on (Hawk or Dove), I believe you will find this book very interesting. It is a definite must-read for all serious students of the Vietnam War.Knowing what we know now, some of the insights, explanations and conclusions given by the author are really refreshing and dead-on. All of the unique military, geo-political, and socio-economic realities (and circumstances) that had lead to the Fall of South Vietnam have been revealed and analyzed in detail. (I have some relatives who were in the South Vietnamese Army and Government, and their account of the final 2 years, especially the final months and weeks leading to the Fall of Saigon, corroborates with the author's findings).Given all of the negative press from the liberal Left about the immoral nature of War (and the US involvement in it), the corrupt and incompetent South Vietnamese Government and Army, and its last "despotic" leader (Mr Nguyen Van Thieu), this book will help to rectify some of these falsehood, and help us see a more accurate, complete, and balanced picture of that final period of the Vietnam War, after the US has pulled out.No matter what side you are on (Hawk or Dove), I believe you will find this book very interesting. It is a definite must-read for all serious students of the Vietnam War.5.0 out of 5 starsHighly educational and more..By Sally on May 10, 2017I was born and grew up in the Philippines during the Vietnam war. I was too young to remember it and my family would talked about it in whisper, for fear that Vietnam may invade us being so close to each other. It wasn't until recently that I heard a friend talked about Vietnam war so passionately that I decided to read this book. The book is incredibly detailed. It gave me a vivid pictures of how the war happened, the struggles of the faltering American soldiers, and how Vietnam finally fall under the Communist rule. Reading the book was like being funneled down to a live history documentary where you become a fly on the wall. A great read even if you are not a fan of history.4.0 out of 5 starsVery good picture of the fall of South Vietnam and the takeover by NVABy Chuck Cameron - Marine Mustang PA on February 27, 2014Step by step from north to south it details the moves made by the North Vietnamese and the unwillingness or inability of the ARVN we left well equipped in some respect but lacking will, guts and leadership to withstand the invasion from the north. I think the book is both well written factual. America under pressure from media and self-serving politicians abandoned South Vietnam and left it without air power and support necessary to hold its own against a powerful and determined enemy, therefore all the other weapons and support were not sufficient. Perhaps a lesson that should have been learned by the USA but unfortunately it appears it hasn't as we get involved ad pullout of other places and as our respect dwindles around the world.I enjoyed reading the book as I do most books involving our military in Vietnam.5.0 out of 5 starsNew light on the fighting abilities of the South VietnameseBy Scott Bailey on March 31, 2014Great book covering the fighting after America left. This book shows the South Vietnamese doing what they could to stop the offensive. One particular part I like the most is the Ranger units and certain South Vietnamese fighting to the last. Great book showing that the south did what they could and did not make it easy for the enemy to conquer.4.0 out of 5 starsTactically ExcellentBy Keith on November 18, 2014This is the only book on the Vietnam that gives a clear view of what the many other books overlook, that is the effect of excellent planning and also clear direction. It remains focused on how the plans and deployments could be used without any dispersion towards panic; despite enormous casualties. The role of the U.S. has been fully confessed to by former Defense Chief McNamara, in his long complete apology, itself a must read to fully understand the total picture.5.0 out of 5 starsIndispensable ResourceBy Frank Scotton on August 17, 2014Black April is an indispensable study resource for understanding one of the most prolonged and tumultuous foreign policy misadventures in the history of the United States of America. I believe, as a participant during that 1962-1975 period, that the most admirable aspect of the author's account is the objectivity with which he examines and then describes dynamics and problems of both sides during the final campaign. It is not easy for an American author to portray the extent to which his own country deceived the government in Saigon in order to extricate the United States of America. Veith, in a non-polemical way, describes our promises not kept and the devastating impact on Republic of Viet Nam combat capability relative to the better equipped/supplied and led PAVN.There is a wealth of essential detail. Readers who delve into other accounts will want to keep Black April at hand as a continuing reference. Maneuver/Battle Zone by Maneuver/Battle Zone, the author (benefiting from newly released materials and accurate translations by Merle Pribbenow) provides description of what both sides comprehended or misunderstood, and how they reacted to each other's moves. For those of us already aware of certain leadership deficiencies in Saigon, it is interesting to learn more about tensions on the other side between field commanders and Hanoi. Finally, depiction of the role played by communist agents providing on-time tactical intelligence is revelatory. Were I to move cross-country again, and bring only five or six books about Viet Nam with me, this would be one of them.5.0 out of 5 starsThe truth must be respected. Thank Mr Veith for telling the truth.By Michael Do on June 9, 2014For many years during and after the Vietnam War, the information of the War has been distorted to the American public. The fall of South Vietnam can be avoided if the American people knew what the North Vietnamese Communists's goals were. And if they knew how bravely our Republic of Vietnam soldiers fought in more than 20 years in the fierce war. We failed because we were not as good as our enemies in term of propaganda.Mr. Veith did the right thing in his valuable work. The book should be sent to all libraries in the USA for everyone will have a new look at the sorrowful past of our Vietnam.I myself, a soldier of South Vietnam, am very proud of all RVN Armed Forces servicemen and women.Without Honor: Defeat in Vietnam and Cambodia by Arnold R. Isaacs (1998-12-30): Amazon.com: BooksPaperback, 576 pages39 b&w illus.ISBN:9780801861079December 1998 $41.00Supplemental MaterialsA gripping account of one of the century's most harrowing human catastrophes—the fall of South Vietnam— Without Honor captures the tragedy and the irony of the Vietnam War's last days and examines the consequences of the American military and political decisions that had sustained the war effort for a generation only to lead to the worst foreign policy failure in the nation's history. Arnold Isaacs, who spent the final years of the war in Vietnam as a correspondent for the Baltimore Sun, describes his firsthand observations of the collapse of Cambodia and South Vietnam—from the 1973 Paris peace agreement to the American evacuation of Saigon and its aftermath—with heartbreaking detail, from the devastated battlefields and villages to the boats filled with terrified refugees. He also provides an historical record of unparalleled accuracy and depth about the strategic decisions made during the war's end game and the intelligence failure that led Americans and their Southeast Asian allies to underestimate the strength and perseverance of the enemy. Drawing on previously classified military documents, field reports from American advisors, eyewitness accounts by soldiers and civilians, and North Vietnamese propaganda broadcasts, Isaacs offers a compelling and compassionate portrait of the impact of America's "Vietnamization" of the conflict and a bracing indictment of political and military leaders in the United States and both Vietnams for the massive human suffering that accompanied the end of the war.Arnold R. Isaacs witnessed the final years of the Vietnam War as a war correspondent for the Baltimore Sun, where he also worked as Washington correspondent and editor. He is the author of the acclaimed Vietnam Shadows: The War, Its Ghosts, and Its Legacy, also available from Johns Hopkins, and coauthor of Pawns of War. Since 1984, he has taught courses on Vietnam at Maryland's Towson University.Editorial Reviews"Reportage at its very best, conveying even now a breathtaking kind of immediacy... This is a meaty, fact-rich book, peppered with interpretations, not judgments... Without Honor deserves attention, for it offers vivid recollections of key moments in the war, set down with honesty by a man who saw and felt deeply."— Douglas Pike - New York Times Book Review"Vivid and very passionate... [Isaacs] succeeds so brilliantly that one almost wishes—before our near-universal national forgetfulness and instinct for self-justification take over for good—that all candidates for public office could be required to pass a public examination of its contents."— Gene Lyons - Newsweek"Impassioned... Isaacs's anguished chapter on the collapse of the city of Da Nang, where the first American Marines had landed in 1965, is reason enough to read his fast-paced report."— John Spragens, Jr. - Commonweal"A sound and interesting narrative, which succeeds in combining vivid images of the war with the statistics and analysis that are essential of historical perspective... A good book."— Times Literary Supplement"A wonderful weave of Isaacs' eyeball-reporting and subsequent, intense research. The thud and blood of combat in the wailing of mortally wounded nations are here. So are the softer sounds of negotiations, riffled documents, the sigh of broken agreements, and the tinkle of glass on conference tables."— Paul Dean - Los Angeles Times Book Review" Without Honor is a courageous and honest book about a period of American history which most would rather forget."— Seymour Hersh"The most complete account of the fall of Indochina... A biting indictment of American policy... The immediacy and impact of his book is compelling."— Reviews in American HistoryTop Customer Reviews5.0 out of 5 starsTrust USA, but have a Plan B, in case we change our minds.By Charles A. Krohn on March 12, 2015I served slightly more than two years in Vietnam, and have always been proud of my service. But as an American, reading for the first time the details of our betrayal and hasty departure, I am depressed, perhaps clinically at times, after reading the details of this super-depressing book. Those who think America does little wrong, all things considered, should avoid this work. But those who wonder why many countries harbor suspicions about getting too close to us, based on our behavior in Vietnam in its final hours, will react to this book about the same way I have. I know we tired of the war, after expending blood and treasure. But the way we withdrew in the midst of the Watergate scandal and Nixon's collapse, will be a source of shame for many years.5.0 out of 5 starsbut I feel like I am learning why the so-called "peace with honor" ...By Tom Weiner on July 15, 2015I've not yet finished Mr. Isaacs book, but I feel like I am learning why the so-called "peace with honor" the American public was sold on was a giant fabrication on every page. The book is gripping, terrifically well-written and illuminating. I recommend it highly to anyone who cares about American history and learning another tragic story that has been either neglected or mis-taught.5.0 out of 5 starsWitness to SlaughterBy SFORD on August 4, 2013Fantastic book about little known tragedies of the Vietnam War. Ninety thousand refugees left DaNang for Phu Quoc Island.... and about forty thousand ultimately went ashore. It was ugly... I was there on a Navy ship. Nobody talks about Phu Quoc Island, but I remember it every day.5.0 out of 5By Stephen B. Coleman Jr. on June 22, 2015No one is better qualified to tell the true story.Amazon.com: Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam (9780547518268): Lewis Sorley: BooksEditorial ReviewsAmazon Exclusive: A Q&A with Author Lewis SorleyQ: How can the loss of Vietnam be blamed on Westmoreland?A: He served for four years as U.S. commander there during the crucial period of the buildup of American ground forces, a flood that eventually reached 543,400 due to Westmoreland’s repeated requests for more and more troops. Given a free hand in deciding how to conduct the war within South Vietnam, he chose to pursue an unavailing war of attrition, which failed miserably. Westmoreland thus squandered four years of support by Congress, much of the American people, and even the media.Q: How did a man as limited as Westmoreland achieve such high rank and position?A: Fueled by ambition, Westmoreland drove himself relentlessly. He was of impressive military mien, energetic, effective at self-promotion, and skillful in cultivating influential sponsors. From his earliest days of service he led his contemporaries, was admired and advanced by his seniors, and progressed rapidly upward. Westmoreland’s strengths eventually propelled him to a level beyond his understanding and abilities.Q: What was Westmoreland’s approach as commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam?A: Westmoreland decided to conduct a war of attrition in which the measure of merit would be body count, the number of enemy killed. His premise was that if he killed enough of their soldiers, the enemy would lose heart and cease its aggression against South Vietnam. He went about this primarily through the use of search and destroy tactics, often involving very large operations in the jungles near South Vietnam’s western borders with Laos and Cambodia.Meanwhile he neglected other crucially important tasks, such as strengthening South Vietnam’s military forces and rooting out the covert infrastructure that enabled the enemy to use coercion and terror to dominate South Vietnam’s rural populace. He was successful in killing a large number of enemy troops, but this did not represent the progress he claimed; the communists simply replaced their losses and continued to fight. Westmoreland was on a treadmill.Q: What are the sources for your account of Westmoreland’s life and career?A: Westmoreland himself provided extensive—and revealing—archival material. His papers, on deposit at the University of South Carolina, run to many thousands of pages. I spent four months going through them.I interviewed about 175 people who had known and served with Westmoreland over the years. One of the most important, and most helpful, was General Bruce Palmer Jr., with whom I spoke dozens of times. Having been Westmoreland’s West Point classmate, then having served under him in Vietnam and subsequently as his Vice Chief of Staff, General Palmer was an authoritative, sympathetic, and invaluable source of both factual information and sensitive insights.Q: What do you hope will be the lasting impression of General Westmoreland?A: It is not a happy story, but I believe it is an important, even essential, one. Unless and until we understand William Childs Westmoreland, we will never fully understand what happened to us in Vietnam, or why.In the end, of course, this is the story of an officer whose strengths propelled him to a level of responsibility beyond his capacity. From early days prideful and image-conscious, Westmoreland developed into a man of incredible industry, driving himself to achieve, forever in a rush, with unbounded ambition and no apparent sense of personal limitations—doing it by the book, even though he hadn’t read the book or studied at any of the Army’s great schools. His ultimate failure would have earned him more sympathy, it seems certain, had he not personally been so fundamentally to blame by reason of his relentless self-promotion.Those who have long been Westmoreland admirers and supporters may be offended by an account that, as they will view it, tarnishes his reputation. But many others, I believe, will welcome a factual, detailed, and well-documented explanation of how and why he failed so completely in his most important assignment; what that failure cost us as a nation; and, most important, what it cost the ill-fated South Vietnamese, who risked all and lost all.Review"This is a terrific book, lively and brisk, and surprisingly interesting. How could this deeply flawed, limited man rise so high in the U.S. Army? This will be the definitive book on Westmoreland, and a must read for anyone who tries to understand the Vietnam War."-Thomas E. Ricks, author of Fiasco and The Gamble" Lewis Sorley's brilliant portrait of General Westmoreland helps us understand why our war lasted so long and ended as it did. This is biography at its finest."- Bui Diem, South Vietnamese Ambassador to the United States (1967-1972)"A riveting history of how ambition corrupted soldierly virtues and led to slyness, hubris and national disaster. A scorching indictment of how generals covered up for each other."-Bing West, author of THE WRONG WAR: Grit, Strategy, and the Way Out of Afghanistan"To understand the Vietnam War in its totality one must logically try to understand General Westmoreland. Dr. Lewis Sorley has made an enormous contribution by revealing General Westmoreland’s complex personality and the role it played in U.S. foreign policy."-Melvin R. Laird, former Secretary of Defense and nine-term Member of Congress"Reaching beyond the surface to penetrate the enigma of General William C. Westmoreland, Lewis Sorley gathers the recollections of Westy’s Army colleagues, the man’s personal papers, and official records to tell the story of a general who has remained opaque despite the many debates over his role in the Vietnam war. Eye-opening and sometimes maddening, Sorley’s Westmoreland is not to be missed."-John Prados, author of Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable WarProduct detailsPublisher: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 1 edition (October 11, 2011)ISBN-10: 0547518269ISBN-13: 978-0547518268Top Customer Reviews5.0 out of 5 starsgreat bookBy L. B on April 6, 2017Wonderfully write. As a member of the US Army, active duty 1969-1971, the information and description is right on. The a general,visited the base to which I was assigned. Many days were spent making the location spotless. Much time and energy expended. He swept out of his vehicle, great coat swirling, made a circle around his vehicle, into his vehicle and disappeared in a cloud of dust. That was the time the General provided to those who labored long and hard to please him.5.0 out of 5 starsComprehensive Biography of Gen. Westmoreland.By John M. Cooper on January 21, 2017My father was assigned to ACSI when Gen. Westmoreland was the CSA. Storley's biography brings this time to life for me. When Westmoreland commanded MACV, Dad was first an aide to Gen. Knowlton and later part of the G-2 Section and II Field Force. I had little idea what II Field Force did, and this biography helped me understand somewhat. It also left me very interested about Gen. Weyand, the II Field Force commander who had a complex relationship with Westmoreland.4.0 out of 5 starsGood ReadByJumpmaster173on March 26, 2017I wonder how things would have turned out if Westmoreland had not been in command? Tragic.....5.0 out of 5 starsA Model Soldier Stretched to the Limit - Caught in a Difficult ConflictBy Carl H. Mcnair Jr. on August 28, 2013Book is candid and clear, but incomplete. While it is well researched from the military tactical aspect, it fails to cover the strategic and political intrigue of the "will to win" versus the "resources and strategy to win". Other books have covered that well, but seems to be minimized in this phase of the war. Excellent reading, but not totally balanced in the political/military sense.5.0 out of 5 starsFive StarsBy Christian Walser on January 2, 2017You will find out a lot more about the Vietnam war, its backgrounds, reasons, and effects5.0 out of 5 starsA biography of a General which should be read by everyone who cares about how the USA prosecutes COINBy Sgt. Rock on October 19, 2013I rarely read the memoirs of or biographies about General officers simply because there have been so very few that I admire. I did not admire Gen. Westy Westmoreland and I admire him less after having read Lewis Sorley excellent biography of him. This does not mean that I hate him either, Westmoreland was after all a decent man who was well intentioned in his prosecution of the war in vietnam. He was sadly out of his depth especially intellectually. I actually feel sorry for Westy an emotion bordering on near pity for the man he must have gone to his grave realizing that his bungling of the war killed 58.000. Americans and killed millions of Asians. Westy strikes me as being emblematic of too many Generals a man who feigned high intellect and got by because he was politically hooked and because with his matinee like looks he 'looked like a soldier.' While Westy was in charge of MACV from 1964-early 1968 he wasted nearly 4 years pursuing a policy of 'firepower,' trying to kill his way out of it.' A policy that the majority of the other Generals especially the marine corp generals knew was fatally flawed. In short West squandered 4 irreplaceable years, thousands of US lives, wounded, billions of dollars and much of the prescious good will of the American public and media pursuing a failed strategy. In short Westy lost the war! But damn he did it while looking like a soldier.5.0 out of 5 starsWestmoreland: The General Who Lost VietnamBy Daniel J. Blattenbauer on July 1, 2014The book was very interesting and included how the insiders saw the progression of the Vietnam War over time. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in our military.4.0 out of 5 starsSad but TrueBy M. Dawson on July 12, 2012The picture that Lewis Sorley paints in this book is of an intelligent, dedicated and ambitious military career officer but with a few fatal flaws, namely that he was unimaginative and rigid in his thinking. Westmoreland is consistently portrayed as conformist and "by the book" throughout his life. Enamored first of the Boy Scouts and then of the military, he loved living "in the box". It is no wonder that as the book describes and several reviewers have commented, Westmoreland could not think "outside the box". Not a good choice for the commander who was to develop the strategy for and command the forces of an ever-changing insurgency war in a foreign country with a foreign culture. Sorley paints the picture but lets the readers draw their own conclusion, but the conclusion is inescapable, Westy was not up to the job.I felt that Sorley's earlier book "The Better War" did a better job of making the case that Westmoreland did a poor job in Viet Nam. By contrasting Westmoreland's approach with that of Gen. Creighton Abrams, who took over as MACV commander in 1968, it became clear what a flawed approach Westmoreland's strategy of attrition was, and how a different strategy and different tactics could actually make positive progress in Viet Nam. Unfortunately it was too late. The U. S. press and population had turned against the war and the U. S. was on the way out. This book adds color to "The Better War" by going into more detail about the commander who played such a major roll.As an infantry veteran who served in Viet Nam while Westy was commander my thoughts on him have run the gambit over the years. Although I enjoyed reading this excellent short summery of his life I felt a bit sad when I was finished.

Zimbabwe is faced with widespread hunger because the country lacks the hard currency needed to import basic food, and a new currency introduced in June has provided little relief.“Millions die needlessly every year, from countless diseases of energy and economic poverty.But under a Biden-Harris Administration, with John Kerry at the forefront, there is little hope that these African and other pleas will be heard.”Duggan Flanakin below.“For more than two decades, Zimbabwe has been trying to break ground on a giant coal-power complex near the world’s biggest man-made reservoir. Now, China has agreed to get the $4.2 billion project underway.”This is a most pressing question with implications far beyond coal in my opinion. Is the West being blind sided by China’s expansions of coal fired energy at “insane levels” around the world and at home? Does China privately understand from its scientists that natural forces not minute amounts of CO2 from coal are the driving forces of climate change giving China confidence to go it alone on coal power expansions? There is evidence that they do. See NATURE STUDY below.NOTE: the carbon reduction targets of the PARIS ACCORD sideline everyone else from competing with China coal on the false premise and unfounded science that minute amounts of non polluting fossil fuel CO2 emissions (0.117%) are dangerous to the climate ? The world has been wrongly convinced that not only is coal a dirty fuel but it is harming the climate. China may be seeing more clearly that this view is false.BUT: This just in from the Global Warming Policy Forum GWPF China is not alone as many countries are resuming consumption of coal power.Global coal demand to rebound as economy recoversDate: 19/12/20BloombergGlobal coal demand is poised to rebound next year as the economy recovers and the U.S. and Europe may see the first increase in consumption in several years, the International Energy Agency said.Despite the global shift toward economies based on renewable energy, the dirtiest fossil fuel looks set to keep its role as the world’s biggest power source although its share will slip to 35% in 2021 from 36.5% last year.Coal use in power generation globally is expected to increase by as much as 2.8% next year as electricity demand rebounds particularly in Asia, the IEA said in its 2020 coal report.Global Coal Demand to ReboundDemand for the fuel will return in 2021 but won’t reach 2019 levelsOver the next 5 years, global demand is forecast to “flatten out” at around 7.4 billion tons, as declines in Europe and the U.S. will offset any increased use in Asia. The main drivers of demand for the fuel will continue to be China and India, which both rely heavily on the fuel in their energy mix.While there are few signs that use of the fossil fuel will fade away any time soon, the IEA said that unless there are unforeseen developments that would significantly boost demand, it’s likely that consumption peaked in 2013.EU coal demand is expected to increase marginally for the first time since 2012, rising 3.5%. The U.S. rebound will be the first since 2014, increasing consumption by 11.1% next year.Full storyHere are the relevant points about China and coal.The world is awash in fossil fuels and coal reserves in particular that there is no end in sight. (US alone has more than 357 years waiting to be mined.)China coal production at 3242 tonnes dwarfs all countries by a large factor. (US is only 672 t.)More than 2 billion in the developing world live in the dark off grid and need coal power to see the light.Clean coal power technology is used by China buiding state of the art plants arouond the world and at home.Significant climate studies published by Chinese academics in Beijing debunk the shoddy science of the PARIS ACCORD and may help explain why China ignores the carbon targets.China is single handedly destroying any chance of the world meeting the PARIS ACCORD carbon targets now or in the future because of its massive coal fired expansion.“In one sense, China's push for coal is not surprising: China knows how to build coal plants. It is the world's largest coal consumer, drawing more than 70 percent of its electricity from coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.”Why Is China Placing A Global Bet On Coal?WRITTEN BY DUGGAN FLANAKIN, GUEST POST ONDEC 24, 2020. POSTED IN LATEST NEWSHow China Is Conquering Africa One Coal Plant At A Time“Joe Biden has pledged that one of his first acts as President will be rejoining the Paris Climate Treaty – which gives China a complete pass on reducing emissions until at least 2030.Even Biden’s designated “climate envoy,” former Secretary of State John Kerry, says the existing treaty “has to be stronger,” but then claims China will somehow become an active partner, instead of the competitor and adversary it clearly is. His rationale: “Climate is imperative, it’s as imperative for China as it is for us.”As to China employing more Green technology and abiding by (much less strengthening) the Paris agreement, the evidence is at best spotty, at worst completely the opposite.President Trump pulled the United States out of Paris, but between January 2017 and May 2019, the US had shuttered 50 coal-fired power plants, with 51 more shutdowns announced, bringing the total shutdowns to 289 (330 once announced shutdowns also take place) since 2010, soon leaving under 200 still operating.Meanwhile, as of 2019, China had 2,363 active coal-fired power plants and was building another 1,171 in the Middle Kingdom – plus hundreds more in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere.A CO2 Coalition white paper by Kathleen Hartnett White and Caleb Rossiter reveals that China now has modern pollutant-scrubbing technology on over 80% of its coal-fired power plants, but no scrubbers at any Chinese-built coal-fired power plants in Africa (or likely anywhere else) – and none anywhere that remove carbon dioxide.Harvard University China specialist Edward Cunningham says China is building, planning, or financing more than 300 coal plants, in places as widespread as Turkey, Egypt, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and the Philippines.India, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, and even Germany are also building hundreds of coal-fired power plants. No matter how many the USA closes down, it won’t make any global difference.Boston University data indicate that China has invested over $50 billion in building new coal plants overseas in recent years, and over a quarter of new coal plants outside the Middle Kingdom have some commitment or offer of funds from Chinese financial institutions.“Why is China placing a global bet on coal?” NPR wonders. That’s a 40 or even 50-year commitment, the life span of coal-fired units.The NPR authors even quote the Stinson Center think tank’s Southeast Asia analyst, who says “it’s not clear when you look at the actual projects China is funding that they are truly Green.” They’re obviously not green, and more is obviously going on than their poor eyesight can perceive.China knows it and the world will need oil, natural gas, and coal for decades to come. It sees “green” as the color of money and is happy to extend credit under terms very favorable to China.Communist Party leaders seek global military and economic power – and global control of electricity generation, raw materials extraction, and manufacturing of wind turbines, solar panels, and battery modules they will sell to address the West’s obsession with the “manmade climate crisis” and “renewable, sustainable” energy.Party leaders also know its production of “green” technologies is a good smokescreen for all this coal power – and few Western governments will dare to criticize China sharply over this or Covid.A recent Global Warming Policy Foundation report lambasts environmentalists (like John Kerry) as “useful idiots” who “praise the scale of Chinese ambition on climate change while paying lip service in criticizing China’s massive coal expansion.”It notes that China rarely honors its international agreements and has no intention of reducing fossil fuel consumption.But what are Africa and other developing nations to do? The West will not fund even clean coal projects that would eliminate pollution from dung and wood fires, while providing reliable, affordable electricity for lights, refrigerators, schools, shops, hospitals, factories, and much more.China will – and despite the heavy price, their demand for energy requires that they get electricity by any means necessary.With 1.1 billion people, Sub-Saharan Africa remains the world’s poorest region, despite massive mineral resources and a young, energetic population with an affinity for entrepreneurship.Dutch economist Wim Naudé says Africa must industrialize, which means it must have affordable, reliable electricity if it is to overcome poverty and disease, create jobs and discourage terrorism.Unfortunately, outrageously, US, EU, UN, and World Bank policies have stymied African energy resource development.As White and Rossiter note, US policies since the Obama era oppose Africans using the continent’s abundant coal and gas to fuel power plants, on the ground that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels might exacerbate climate change.African Energy Chamber executive chairman NJ Ayuk recently reported that the United Kingdom has also decided it will stop funding new oil, gas, and coal projects as of November 4, 2021, the fifth anniversary of the Paris treaty.The decision kowtows to Green opposition to UK Export Finance support for a Mozambique terminal to export low-CO2 emissions liquefied natural gas.Ayuk had been touting natural gas as an increasing option for African power plants, boasting that Africa is home to four of the world’s top 20 crude oil producers (Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, and Libya); Algeria and Nigeria are among the top 20 natural gas producers, and Mozambique also has huge gas reserves.“It is troubling,” Ayuk said, “that an aggressive foreign-funded anti-African energy campaign continues to undermine the potential of making Mozambique an oasis for gas monetization and meeting our increasing energy demands.”Despite this setback, he continued: “We must continue to be unwavering in our commitment to stand up for Africa’s energy sector, its workers, reducing energy poverty, and those free-market values that will make our continent attractive to committed energy investors.”In much of Africa, electricity demand far outstrips supply. “In factories, businesses, government buildings, and wealthy neighborhoods in every African country,” White and Rossiter observe, “a cacophonous symphony of soot-spewing backup diesel engines erupts when the grid goes down, which is usually every day.”In fact, says the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, many African countries spend more on dirty backup power than on electricity for the grid itself; in West Africa, backup kilowatts equal 40% of total grid kilowatts.In Sudan, which gets 30% of its energy from dams on the Nile River, diesel-based pumps run constantly to lift river water for irrigation, even at the confluence of the Blue and White Niles.In Nigeria, hotels ban guests from jogging because of health dangers from breathing soot from their diesel backup generators, which kick in repeatedly as neighborhoods go dark.In Southern Africa, construction sites simply run generators all day, filling nearby streets with noxious clouds. Universities rely on diesel to run old, inefficient air conditioning units.White and Rossiter note that American clean coal technology, exemplified by the Turk power plant in Arkansas, virtually eliminates health hazards from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates.They urge the U.S. to support proposals by African governments to import this technology, noting that electricity is “the central nervous system of a modern economy and modern life expectancy. Africa’s electricity deficit translates directly into its life-expectancy deficit of 15 years per person.”Millions die needlessly every year, from countless diseases of energy and economic poverty.But under a Biden-Harris Administration, with John Kerry at the forefront, there is little hope that these African and other pleas will be heard.With European allies in myopic puritanical lockstep, China will continue to get a total pass on complying with Green demands – and will have free rein to turn sub-Saharan Africa into a giant Chinese colony, despite the environmental damage, monstrous debt, slave and child labor under horrific workplace conditions, and likely modest benefits to Africans.It is eco-imperialism and eco-manslaughter at its worst. Where are the vaunted guardians of climate and environmental justice?”Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)How China Is Conquering Africa One Coal Plant At A TimeCHINA INDUSTRY DEMANDS INCREASED COAL POWERThe industry group for China’s power sector giants, China Electricity Council, has argued that coal-power capacity “will” reach 1,300GW by 2030, up from 1,050GW today. This target is based on its projections for annual electricity demand and the need for capacity to meet peak loads.A cap of 1,300GW in 2030 would imply the addition of well over 300GW of new coal-fired capacity this decade, after accounting for the retirement of older plants.China Electric Power Planning and Engineering Institute (EPPEI), the authoritative consultancy that has designed most of China’s coal power units and grid infrastructure, warned in June 2019 that 16 provinces in the country should increase new capacity and start working on a new batch of thermal power plants to avoid the possibility of shortages in the next two to three years.The thinktank affiliated with China’s giant grid utility company, State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), stressed the need to maintain coal-power capacity in a July 2019 intervention:“[China] should not close coal power plants at a large scale too soon or too fast and, by around 2030, we should maintain around 1,200GW of coal power to ensure the reliability of the power system, and key power generating regions should retain some backup and reserve capacity.”Analysis: Will China build hundreds of new coal plants in the 2020s?“For awhile it looked like China was moving away from coal toward clean energy, but coal is still a pretty big part of the country’s economy,” says Christine Shearer, the coal program director at the Global Energy Monitor. “We don’t have a lot of time in terms of emission reduction, but clean energy development is happening alongside coal plant construction rather than displacing it.”BUTDANIEL OBERHAUSSCIENCE11.27.2019 07:00 AMChina Is Still Building an Insane Number of New Coal PlantsWhile the rest of the world turns away from the fossil fuel, China is investing big in coal-powered electricity.China Building Hundreds Of Coal-Fired Power Plants Abroad ...www.npr.org › why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coalApr 29, 2019 — But now it plans to build hundreds of coal plants abroad. ... Forum in Beijing over the weekend, promoting his signature foreign policy of building massive ... But within the past four years, all four stopped burning coal. ... China has made more than $244 billion in energy investments abroad since 2000, much ...Hassyan Clean Coal Project, DubaiThe 2,400MW Hassyan clean coal power station is an ultra-supercritical (USC) power plant being developed in Saih Shuaib, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.Plant TypeCoal-fired power plant Location DubaiCapacity 2,400MWEstimated Investment $3.4bnHassyan Energy Company is developing the 2,400MW ultra-supercritical Hassyan clean coal power plant in Dubai. Credit: Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA).Construction of the Hassyan clean coal project began in November 2016 and is expected to be fully completed by 2023. Credit: Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA).The Hassyan power plant will be equipped with Alstom’s (now GE) ultra-supercritical boiler and steam turbine generators. Credit: Alstom.The 2,400MW Hassyan clean coal power station is an ultra-supercritical (USC) power plant being developed in Saih Shuaib, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Upon completion, the project is set to be the first coal-based power plant in the region.Construction of the $3.4bn power plant commenced in November 2016. It will comprise four units of 600MW each, which are expected to start operations in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 respectively, in March of those years.Hassyan Energy Company, which is a joint-venture (JV) between Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA, 51%) and the consortium of ACWA Power, Harbin Electric, and the Silk Road Fund (49%), is the project developer.The project supports the Dubai Clean Energy Strategy 2050, which is aimed at producing environment-friendly energy. The programme aims to produce 25% of energy from solar power, 7% from nuclear power, 7% from clean coal, and the remaining 61% from gas by 2030.The power plant is expected to produce sufficient electricity to power approximately 250,000 households.https://www.power-technology.com/projects/hassyan-clean-coal-project-dubai/Dubai has also set the lofty goal of having the world's lowest carbon footprint in the world by 2050 - something that would be impacted by burning coal.Read more at:Dubai, oil-rich UAE sees a new wonder: A coal power plantLast Updated: Oct 22, 2020, 11:59 AM ISTCarbon dioxide emitted by coal power plants is clean without any pollution.COAL24 March 2020 8:00Analysis: Will China build hundreds of new coal plants in the 2020s?Signs of stimulusMany experts and industry bodies argue for a move away from top-down targets and controls, to investment driven by market forces. However, the spending needed to fuel a new stimulus program can only be mobilized if investment is directed at the behest of the state, rather than the market – as a rule, China does not fund stimulus with on-budget spending, but by directing state-owned enterprises and commercial banks to spend more. In these circumstances, lack of controls on capacity additions runs a high risk of over-investment.For example, efforts to control overcapacity might be vulnerable to the political priority of boosting investment spending to reach economic targets. An indication of this was the loosening of “traffic lights” for new coal-plant approvals, published by the National Energy Administration in February.The traffic light policy was first introduced in January 2017 to prevent provinces with overcapacity from permitting new projects. A year ago, however, 21 of China’s 31 provincial grids included in the policy were given a “green light”. Last month this increased to 25, as the figure below shows.Locations and sizes (megawatts, shown by the size of each circle) of new coal-fired power capacity in the pipeline in China. The maps are colour coded according to the “traffic light” status of the relevant provincial grid, with red meaning new capacity cannot receive permits to move ahead towards construction. Source: Global Energy Monitor and NEA. Figure: Authors.The change is significant, as the four additional greenlighted grid regions have a total of 34GW of coal-fired capacity in the pipeline.According to data from Global Energy Monitor, the traffic light loosening is already apparent in new project activity in 2019, with construction started or restarted on another 18GW of capacity, while 37GW of previously inactive projects have been revived.Furthermore, the past weeks have seen the announcement of major infrastructure programmes and other stimulus to offset the economic impacts from the coronavirus, but so far no mention of initiatives prioritising clean energy or other green investment.The focus on stimulating the economy with major investment – and a recent shift of emphasis towards energy security (below) – appear to cast aside concerns about overcapacity and financial viability.Some have interpreted Chinese premier Li Keqiang’s remarks at an October 2019 event as a signal of support for coal-power expansion. At the conference a “new energy security strategy” was formulated, in which the core role of coal was emphasised more strongly than renewable energy.This was widely interpreted as a retreat to coal in the face of energy security concerns, following the trade war with the US. However, China’s energy security fears mainly relate to oil – and, to a lesser degree, gas.Analysis: Will China build hundreds of new coal plants in the 2020s?China virtually alone in backing Africa’s dirty coal projectsWorkers unload imported coal at a port in Lianyungang, Jiangsu province, China, in December. A retreat from financial institutions in developed countries has paved the way for Chinese companies to invest in the coal industry in Africa. | VIA REUTERSBLOOMBERGSHAREMay 7, 2020For more than two decades, Zimbabwe has been trying to break ground on a giant coal-power complex near the world’s biggest man-made reservoir. Now, China has agreed to get the $4.2 billion project underway.The development, near the southern shore of Lake Kariba, is good news for Zimbabwe, where a collapsing economy and erratic policies have deterred foreign investment for the past 20 years.But it flies in the face of a growing global consensus that has seen financial institutions from Japan to the U.S. and Europe shun investments in coal projects. That retreat leaves the way open for Chinese companies — many with state backing — even at the risk of undermining the spirit of China’s international commitments to fight climate change.“We are very pleased that the project is going ahead, especially as major banks in the world are forced to stop financing coal-fired power stations,” Caleb Dengu, chairman of RioZim Energy, the company that owns the project, said in a response to questions. “This is testimony of Chinese commitment to development projects in Africa. The Chinese are interested in joining hands.”China is certainly in need of friends: A global backlash is building over Beijing’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak first identified in the Chinese city of Wuhan — evidence of a deficit of trust that was compounded by incidents of racism toward Africans in the southern city of Guangzhou last month.RELATED STORIESSumitomo Mitsui and Mizuho to end lending for new coal-fired plantsNearly half of global coal plants will be unprofitable this year, study showsYet pumping money into coal just underlines China’s creeping isolation in backing plants that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.For financial institutions, “the ever-increasing reputational risk of funding a project like this, and the high likelihood that it would end up as a stranded asset, should make them very wary of getting involved,” said Tracey Davies, director of Cape Town-based shareholder activist organization, Just Share.In fact, the Chinese government promised back in 2017 to green its Belt and Road Initiative overseas construction plan, to promote environment-friendly development in line with United Nations goals. President Xi Jinping pledged last year that the program must be green and sustainable.Nonetheless, Chinese companies and banks are involved in financing at least 13 coal projects across the continent with another nine in the pipeline, according to data compiled by Greenpeace. Since 2000, the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China alone have supplied $51.8 billion of finance for coal projects globally, according to the Boston University Global Development Policy Center.“Despite promises to shift support to green and low-carbon energy, Chinese banks have continued to bankroll coal power projects,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst for the Centre for Energy Research and Clean Air, an independent research body. “China has enormous state-owned thermal-power manufacturing and engineering firms that rely on overseas deals to stay in business.”President Xi regularly mentions China’s commitment to multilateralism through fighting climate change as a signatory of the Paris Agreement. China, however, is unlikely to divest from coal anytime soon. Despite hefty investment in renewable energy over the past decade, China still mines and burns about half the world’s coal.China has undoubtedly made progress domestically. By 2018, China had exceeded its target for reducing CO2 emissions, Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the U.N. climate action summit in New York in September. He touted increases in non-fossil fuel use and in forestation along with sales of some 1.25 million electric cars that year. But now, as it claws its way out of the pandemic-induced slump, Beijing has started to roll back restrictions on industrial pollution and slash subsidies for cleaner energy.There shouldn’t be a “one-size-fits-all approach” for green development in poorer nations, but rather the decision should be based on a host country’s natural resources, according to Yu Zirong, a vice director at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, a think tank affiliated with the Ministry of Commerce.“For countries with rich coal resources, it is impossible to completely forbid them using coal,” said Yu, who spoke at a forum on sustainable Belt and Road Initiative in October in Beijing. “The key is how to use them more reasonably.”China’s agreement to invest is a rare win for Zimbabwe, which is currently subject to power cuts of as long as 18 hours a day as it doesn’t produce enough electricity to meet demand and can’t afford to pay for adequate imports.The project was initially owned by London-based miner Rio Tinto Group, the one-time parent of RioZim Ltd, which in turn owns Riozim Energy. It was set aside as Zimbabwe’s relations with the U.K., its former colonizer, deteriorated. After the project was revived in 2016, General Electric Co. and a unit of Blackstone Group LP didn’t pursue initial inquiries, according to Dengu, the company’s chairman.Power Construction Corp. of China, the state-owned company known as PowerChina, has been contracted to build the first phase of the plant known as Sengwa, which includes a 700 megawatt generation unit, as well as a pipeline from Kariba Dam to bring the water needed and power lines at a total cost of $1.2 billion. Funding is likely to come from Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, while China Export and Credit Insurance Corp., or Sinosure, may provide the country risk cover needed, according to Dengu. Both are owned by the Chinese government.Repeated calls to ICBC and Sinosure went unanswered. PowerChina said it didn’t have information on the Zimbabwe project at the moment. It had no comment on the possible climate impact of its involvement in overseas coal-related projects.Last month a deal was signed for the rest of the project, which will add a further 2,100 megawatts at a cost of $3 billion. China Gezhouba Group, which is partly state-owned, will develop the project and lead fund raising, Dengu said. The company didn’t respond to calls or an email request for comment.“The Chinese are looking at the business opportunity,” said Dengu. “We bring the market knowledge and management capacity, they bring the finance and the technology.”Rio Energy had few other options. European banks no longer fund coal projects and over the last year the biggest banks in South Africa have committed to reducing their coal funding under pressure from shareholders. Morgan Stanley and Citigroup Inc. are also among those looking to curb or halt project financing for coal-related projects.While the Zimbabwean project is sizable among those being considered by Chinese companies, it is not the biggest. PowerChina has signed a memorandum of agreement with South Africa’s Limpopo provincial government to build a power plant of at least 3,000 megawatts at a cost of $4.5 billion.Not all are welcomed by local communities.Sengwa would draw water from Kariba, a reservoir already so depleted by recurrent droughts attributed to climate change that its hydropower turbines operate at a fraction of their capacity. The South African government is facing a lawsuit because coal-fired power plants there cause some of the world’s worst air pollution.“It’s a fading industry,” said Han Chen, who manages the international energy policy program at the New York-based National Resources Defense Council. “So they are going places where the environmental standards are low so they can use more polluting equipment that is cheaper to operate.”Of 11 coal projects in Africa she tracks that are likely to get foreign support, 10 involve Chinese state-owned entities.As banks in other countries, including Japan and South Korea, snub coal, those projects will increasingly rely on China.“Chinese banks will find themselves increasingly alone in funding new coal plants, both at home and around the world,” said Christine Shearer, director of the coal program at Global Energy Monitor.China virtually alone in backing Africa’s dirty coal projectsIdentification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record.Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院New research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy.The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are“the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.”The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordhttps://www.nature.com/articles/...Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NATURALThe “driving forces” of climate change are natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming.AbstractThe identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. [Emphasis added]. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.James Matkin 
This research is very relevant and should make climate alarmists pause in their crusade against Co2 emissions from fossil fuels. Far too much focus on Co2 like a one trick pony in a big tent circus where solar radiation is a more compelling show. The thrust of recent research has demonstrated that climate changes continually and is determined by natural forces that humans have no significant control over. Many leading scientists have presented research of other "driving forces" and cautioned against the arrogance of many that "the science is settled." See Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and blogger at Climate Etc. talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about climate change. Curry argues that climate change is a "wicked problem" with a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the expected damage as well as the political and technical challenges of dealing with the phenomenon. She emphasizes the complexity of the climate and how much of the basic science remains incomplete. The conversation closes with a discussion of how concerned citizens can improve their understanding of climate change and climate change policy.
http://www.econtalk.org/arc...https://www.nature.com/articles/...JAMES MATKIN•2017-08-23 10:03 PMThe great failure of the Paris accord is the failure to accept that the IPCC Al Gore hypothesis of anthropogenic warming is not settled science. Indeed, none of the predictions of doom have occurred. New research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy. The “driving force” of climate change is natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming. The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院 Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NOT ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are “the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.” The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record This means that climate change cannot be stopped as Paris attendees believed. Co2 is very beneficial plant food and we need more not less. Why climate change is good for the world | The Spectator It is good news for civilization that the Paris targets are not being met around thttps://www.nature.com/news/prov...29 Apr 2020China to Help Build $3 Billion Coal Plant in ZimbabweCategoryStoriesCountryZimbabweTagsEnergy Access, Finance and Investment, Fossil FuelsSourcehttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/riozim-seals-3-billion-zimba…Zimbabwe’s Rio Energy Ltd., a unit of RioZim Ltd., will build a 2,100 megawatt thermal power plant with China Gezhouba Group Corp in northern Zimbabwe at a projected cost of $3 billion, Rio Energy said Monday.“CGGC will develop the project and assist with the fund raising,” Caleb Dengu, chairman of Rio Energy Ltd said last week. The power plant at Sengwa will be constructed in four phases of about 700 megawatts each, bringing total capacity to 2,800 megawatts.“We have coal reserves to support a 10,000 megawatt plant at Sengwa,” Dengu said.A 250 kilometer (155-mile) pipeline will carry water from Lake Kariba to Sengwa. The pipeline, and a 420 kilovolt-ampere power line, will be built by PowerChina, said Dengu. The first phase of the project will cost about $1.2 billion, he added.The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has given a formal expression of interest in the project and is negotiating with Sinosure, also known as the China Export and Credit Insurance Corp, to cover country risk insurance costs, Dengu told Bloomberg.Zimbabwe generates and imports about 1,300 megawatts of electricity, short of its 2,200 megawatt demand. Daily power outages have hampered industrial capacity for almost two decades.A two-year drought blighted the country’s Kariba thermal power plant by draining the reservoir, while aging equipment at its main Hwange thermal plant causes incessant breakdowns and outages that see many consumers receiving only eight hours of power a day.RioZim was spun off from Rio Tinto Plc in 2004. London-based Rio initially retained a stake in diamond mines and Sengwa before selling those to RioZim in 2015.China to Help Build $3 Billion Coal Plant in ZimbabweCHINA HAS BLIND SIDED THE WEST AND THE WEST IS CAUSING DEVASTATING ECONOMIC DAMAGE TO PREVENT A FAKE CLIMATE PROBLEM.I affirm this QUORA answer by Dr. John Walker.John WalkerNovember 28I have written a 500+ page treatise skeptical of CAGWQUORA QUESTION“Is China's carbon neutrality pledge by 2060 nonsense? Are they simply trying to buy decades worth of time to ignore the complaints of the rest of the world during this period, if so, are they in the right since the US also depends on fossil fuels?“Yes, of course.Anyone who believes anything the Communist Chinese pledge is a fool.But I doubt the Chinese have bought into the scam being promoted by climate alarmists using the unproven hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 are leading to catastrophic global warming. So, indeed, they are taking the logical approach to energy, continuing to increase their wealth and prosperity by utilizing cheap fossil fuels to power their enormous growth. They no doubt laugh at Western nations which are wasting $trillions on unproven dangers of future climate change while they build up their massive military, buy up mineral rights and mines around the world, infiltrate Western nations to steal crucial industrial and military secrets, etc.it’s also likely that the Chinese superficially and deceitfully promote CAGW and renewables to help ensure that Western nations continue to waste their wealth on this scam.Unfortunately, if the Democrats gain control of both Houses of Congress and the White House, then the US will join these other ignorant nations, wasting even more limited resources on an unproven future problem while watching numerous known current existential problems (hunger, violence, pollution and over-fishing of our oceans, infectious and other diseases, inadequate housing, sanitation and clean water, decaying infrastructure, etc.) go unsolved.You may want to learn to speak Chinese.”