Are you planning to attend UUA's General Assembly in Portland, Ore., in June? If so, you can hear Omer Ismail speak at one of UUSC's sponsored workshops. To get a sneak peak, check out his compelling op-ed in last Saturday's Boston Globe.

Want to take action now? Join UUSC's Drumbeat for Darfur campaign today and start raising the decibel level of concern in your community.

The latest honors have just been announced, and for the second year in a row, President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan has been proclaimed by Parade Magazine as the World’s Worst Dictator. This is no small feat, as he had to beat out strong competition from North Korea’s Kim Jong-Ill and Iran’s Sayyid Ali Khamenei, and many other worthy candidates.

It is interesting to note that both North Korea and Iran, second and third respectively in the Parade report, have been singled out by President Bush as members of his “Axis of Evil,” but Sudan has not yet reached that level of notoriety with our president.

Bashir earned his distinction in Parade for “his ongoing deadly human rights abuses in the Darfur region of Sudan.” He also outclassed his competitors by just recently agreeing to a ceasefire, then allegedly “ordering his troops to continue their attacks.”

Parade Magazine is distributed to more than 34 million readers, mostly as Sunday supplements in major newspapers across the country. Their Annual Report of the World’s Worst Dictators is taken largely from reports from several respected international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The magazine is inviting readers to participate in a survey, which you can do via their Interactive Poll.

Better yet. I’m guessing neither President Bashir nor President Bush read Parade Magazine –- or check their website -- very often. So send a message directly to President Bush through our Drumbeat for Darfur campaign. And send a message to Congress through our Legislative Action Center.

Several comments to Hotwire have suggested that there is a contradiction between our insistence that more troops is not the solution in Iraq, even as we call for a larger military force to protect civilians in Darfur.

Obviously, there is no simple comparison to be made between these two very different situations. Even so, many of our allies in the Save Darfur movement also wonder whether or not more troops can protect civilians unless there is a durable peace agreement in Darfur.

Jimmy Carter, founder of The Carter Center, has risen considerably in the eyes of Hotwire since the publication of his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. That courageous book speaks much painful truth in staking out a position on human rights in the Middle East that is well outside of the U.S. bipartisan consensus on the issue.

Now Jimmy is in Africa, preparing to meet with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir about the conflict in Darfur. In an interview from Ghana, Carter says that more troops in Darfur won't solve the problem without a prior peace agreement supported by all parties.

"The U.N., the EU and the U.S. need to harness all their tremendous influence to force all of the conflicting parties to negotiate a peace agreement and accept it," he said. "We need to emphasise a negotiated settlement. Then you should use military influence to enforce the agreement. That is what I will be discussing with Bashir."

As of this moment, the only outlet to pick up this story is a Sudanese PR group with close ties to the Sudanese government. That said, the comments are consistent with others made by Pres. Carter and others.

We certainly support a durable peace agreement in Darfur, but also note that the government has entered into and broken a long string of agreements, even as the death toll in Darfur has mounted. Rebel groups have, likewise, continued violent actions in violation of agreements. Last year's Darfur Peace Agreement is in shambles.

We support Jimmy Carter's efforts to promote a peace agreement in Darfur, and wish him luck in his conversations with Bashir. We also continue to wonder whether or not those dying in Darfur as we scribble can await a durable peace agreement before they get protection. Genocide offers no good choices.

Where do you get your news on the environment?

We have our blogs, we have our websites, we have our "go to" NGOs and groups working on the issues we care about. Among all the information we must track to keep up to date, I find the free news service from the Environmental News Service (ENS), which is very good for U.S. and some international news on key regulations, cases, the issues, and problems related to the environment.

If you don't already have a dozen good sources, you might want to check out ENS. For climate change and water issues, it's a good source of information.

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation is extending the public comment period for the proposed mandatory reductions in green house gas emissions from power plants. This legislation is being proposed to fulfill New York's commitments under the Regional Green House Gas Initiative, which Massachusetts joined in January.

Under the RGGI, states in the northeast are implementing the first "cap and trade" program on green house gas pollution in the United States. Again, local governments are taking action while the federal government continues its disastrous environmental policies.

In the field of water, local governments are also taking the lead. Barnstead, N.H., passed legislation in March 2006, making the extraction of water for profit illegal:

"We the People of the Town of Barnstead declare that we have the duty to safeguard the water both on and beneath the Earth's surface, and in the process, safeguard the rights of the people within the community of Barnstead, and the rights of the ecosystem of which Barnstead is a part."

State by state, city by city, town by town, we can take action, and win. And we must do. Save our Groundwater in New Hampshire shows us the way. Public control, over public trust and commons resources: water.

Africa Action, in its February 1 post "The Politics of Peace in Darfur" states: "When President Bush mentioned Darfur in the State of the Union, without any plan of action or instructions to Congress in regards to stopping the genocide, he must have believed that the American public would see his call to conscience as a sufficient response. We must make it clear that awareness raising [alone] is an inadequate response to a genocide."

The current administration has spent its years in power convincing the American public that waging a "War on Terror" should be the top priority. If President Bush is truly concerned about stopping terror, he must look further than Iraq. To be sure, the situation there has devolved from bad to worse, but it is not the only spot on the globe in dire need of help and urgent action.

Africa Action continues: "The direct violence against villages and the systematic attempts to destroy the livelihoods of civilians by burning crops and killing livestock continues. Women have been at the forefront of these increasing assaults, as sexual violence becomes a primary tactic."

Why is this terror not grabbing daily headlines?

The constant pressure of the Drumbeat for Darfur will have an effect. If the president acts toward Darfur, it would have an enormous impact for change. We must hold him accountable to his promise of rooting out all those who would perpetuate terror.

The House Foreign Affairs committee room was packed. Glad to know so many people on Capitol Hill want to attend a hearing entitled, “The Escalating Crisis in Darfur: Are There Any Prospects for Peace?” Isn’t that the question we all keep asking ourselves? We want to stay hopeful and we want make a meaningful difference.

Special Envoy Andrew Natsios was the sole witness at the hearing. He is still carrying out Plan A, shuttling between Sudan, Chad, and China, promoting a negotiated peace for Darfur. Members of the committee praised his experience in the region and the energy he is bringing to his new diplomatic position, but there is a general sense that time is running out.

So what are the measures of success?

Natsios outlined U.S. objectives for Sudan:

>Protection of civilians.

>Safe access for humanitarian aid
workers.

>Restarting negotiations for a political solution.

>Allowing deployment of the UN/AU hybrid peacekeeping force.

But these are all actions the Sudanese government was supposed to take by January 1.

Natsios would not elaborate in public on the mysterious Plan B. He wasn’t happy about the Washington Post article that was leaked. He said it was "accurate, but not complete."

One powerful member of the committee suggested Plan C – more sanctions and enforcing a no-fly zone so the Sudanese government will at least stop bombing villages. Others talked about the need for military intervention. Even the Republican committee members were impatient for progress. One wanted to indict Sudan's leaders for crimes against humanity. For now, Natsios thinks such actions would make the genocidal Khartoum government more intransigent and a long-term political settlement impossible.

After the hearing, I went up to Rep. Barbara Lee’s office to let her staff know that we are highlighting her bill H.R.180, the Sudan Divestment bill as part of our Drumbeat for Darfur campaign. They were heartened to know that our members and supporters from around the country are taking steady and escalating action.

Has your representative signed on yet? No one has a silver bullet solution to the crisis in Darfur, but working together, we can improve the prospects for peace.

Watching CNN's Anderson Cooper’s “Secret of the Delta: Sea of Oil, River of Blood” -- which showed the horrific images of masked ‘rebels’ displaying heavy guns and showcasing ‘strength’ evidenced by twenty-four Filipino hostages -- made my heart very heavy.

I have mixed feelings for those ‘rebels’ I saw on TV. These are people who chose to take up arms because they believe that is the only way the Nigerian government would take them seriously and act on their cause. But I do not support violence in any form. I wish an organized and visionary leadership would emerge to champion the cause of these people.

Anderson Cooper rightly pointed out the alarming rate of poverty in the Niger Delta. More disturbing is the horrendous impact of oil production on their water, fishes, and agriculture. The African Human Rights Commission has called on the Nigerian government to remedy these wrongs. The Niger Delta Development Commission, set up by the Nigerian government to undertake development projects in the Niger Delta, has been besieged by political bigwigs.

The Niger Delta activist Ken Saro-Wiwa was killed over ten years ago, but the cause he championed has continued to ignite dangerous flames. The violence in the Niger Delta may not end anytime soon unless the right of the people of the Niger Delta to live in a healthy environment void of water pollution and extreme poverty is recognized and enforced by the Nigerian government.

UUSC’s Environmental Justice Program, in collaboration with Environmental Defense Law Center, has commenced efforts to liaise with a Nigerian law firm to incorporate the human right to water in an ongoing lawsuit filed against Shell Nigeria by one of Nigeria’s oil producing communities.

In what can only be described as a stunning victory for defenders of free speech and military opponents to the war in Iraq, yesterday, a military judge declared a mistrial in the court martial of U.S. Army First Lt. Ehren Watada.

By any standards, Lt. Ehren Watada was called an exemplary soldier. But then he decided to face court martial rather than join a war he called "illegal."

As a matter of conscience, Lt. Watada refused deployment to Iraq and, because of his strong moral beliefs, he risked his military career and the possibility of years in prison. Truly a patriot, Lt. Watada was deeply torn between "loyalty to the military and his soldiers" versus his belief in truth and honor. In the end, he chose to speak truth-to-power and decided to "not send his soldiers to their deaths in a war that he believed was illegal."

The military brought the full weight of its power against this proud soldier and lost! Clearly, Judge John Head's ruling the case a mistrial is a major blow. Now, the prosecution of Lt. Watada is in free-fall.

Because Lt. Watada's defense team opposed the mistrial and because it was endorsed by the prosecution, the door is now open to Lt. Watada for a double-jeopardy defense. Double jeopardy, which forbids a person from being tried twice for the same crime, does not apply only after a verdict is rendered, but can apply after a jury is empaneled and witnesses have been called.

Double jeopardy protection is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and it certainly applies to citizens. It remains to be seen whether or not the military thinks soldiers should be covered by the Constitution.

The municipality of Huancayo, Peru, will likely decide to nullify the privatization agreements that were reached under the previous government for the town. UUSC program partner the Water and Sanitation Workers of Peru (FENTAP), and the coalition organized to promote a public, sustainable model for water services in Huancayo, carried out a campaign during last year's national and local elections to place their model in the debates and impact any post election decisions.

Their hard work has payed dividends in Huancayo. FENTAP announced today that the newly elected officials will "correspond to the political, social, and technical consensus for a sustainable, depoliticized, and participatory" model for Huancayo's water services sector.

What are the next steps? FENTAP and the local coalition are preparing to propose a "public-public" partnership with a public water services utility from Argentina, with support from Corporate Observatory Europe/Transnational Institute. Huancayo's decision will add another barrier to the schedule of privatizations of the Peruvian national government under an Inter-American Development Bank-funded scheme.