This blog post is taken from Michael Kleinman's change.org blog on humanitarian relief

Will post more later today about what's happening in Sudan, where the Government yesterday expelled at least 10 major NGOs after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Bashir. Very quickly this morning, though, a few reactions.

Thirsty Palmetto, writing from South Sudan, points out that NGOs which are expelled from northern Sudan might have to leave South Sudan as well. (At least according to the actual letter of the law.)

She also described what it's like hearing the news from Khartoum:

"I spent this morning getting play by play accounts of what is going on right now out there. Offices seized, files destroyed, projects stopped. A terrified friend sat skyping as she listened on the security channel to the sound of another NGO, one who was kicked out, being assaulted by gunmen as they tried flee."

To read more of her excellent blog, see here.

Rob Crilly, writing from Darfur, has more information:

"The Sudanese government yesterday began ordering aid agencies to leave the country, leaving millions of people without aid in Darfur. Officials began telephoning charities at 16:05 local time, seconds after the International Criminal Court announced it had issued a warrant for the arrest of Omar al-Bashir.

They were told their registration in the country was cancelled with immediate effect...'We didn't know how the government was going to react,' said a Western diplomatic source. 'This is one of our worst-case scenarios.'"

So, millions in Darfur and potentially across all of Sudan left without assistance.

Yay, justice.

To be honest, I'm having quite a bit of trouble reining in my temptation to write what I'm really thinking - perhaps tonight, after I've had a chance to collect myself a little more.

And, yes, I'm particularly appalled at the good folks at the Enough Project, who posted yesterday:

"While we aren't sure if this move by Bashir is just reactionary political posturing or a step toward escalating, it does present yet another opportunity for President Obama and the United Nations to demonstrate that this kind of action is intolerable."

Right. Not even sure quite where to begin.

Let's see:

1. I would say that this is the textbook definition of escalation. Unless you consider crippling humanitarian operations in Darfur as nothing more than "political posturing".

1a. Would be interesting to get the perspective of people in the camps on this one.

1b. Though the use of the adjective "reactionary" was a nice touch.

2. That faith in the US and the UN to fix the situation also seems a wee bit misplaced - how, exactly, are they supposed to demonstrate "that this kind of action is intolerable"? I mean, beyond issuing more empty statements.

2a. Because, after six years, the international community is really quite good at issuing strong statements, and the Sudanese Government is equally good at ignoring them. It's the high-level diplomatic version of kabuki theater.

2b. No, really - what do you expect the US and the UN actually to do? Well, besides perhaps cave, and agree to suspend the arrest warrant.

2c. I know, I know, the Enough Project and other groups issued a statement that says Sudan should be held responsible for its actions, including the line that "we will fully support strong and immediate action to protect civilians and humanitarian aid operations throughout Sudan."

2d. But again, what actual action are you proposing to protect civilians and aid operations? Specifics - I think we're now at a time when specifics would be much appreciated. I guess, at the end of the day, it's the tone of this post that gets me more than anything else - as though the expulsion of ten aid agencies is really just another opportunity for international advocacy to work it's magic. Like it's done before.

I have a great deal of respect for the Enough Project, which is perhaps why I'm so disappointed with their response. Especially as they're also tracking the humanitarian situation at the same time.

Seems like a little cognitive dissonance.

Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.