Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[GAP]

Gee, it's true then...  : Stupidity knows no borders.

 

[Kirkhill]

"In the absence of Sudan's consent to the deployment of UN troops, any volunteering to provide peacekeeping troops to Darfur will be considered as a hostile act, a prelude to an invasion of a member country of the UN," the Sudanese letter said.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/05/sudan-united-nations.html

I know we have got threads on Darfur, Sudan, Afghanistan, UN Peacekeeping and Jack - but this touches them all.

If we sign up to support the UN by offering to provide troops for Darfur, merely putting our signature to that peace of paper will be deemed an act of war by the government of Sudan - friend of Al Qaeda and militant islamists everywhere.

We don't even have to put a boot on the ground, or even cast off a line from Halifax dock or lift a tire off of Trenton.  Putting pen to paper will make us a target for the Sudanese government.

Over to you Jack.  Do you want to stand on principle and make us a target, inflame the arab world and see Canadians come home in caskets?

Now, if we had enough troops, equipment, money, support etc it would be a grand thing to do.  Seeing as how we have none of the above the discussion is moot in any event.

 

[bilton090]

  Al Qaeda Jack sould read that ! 

 

[a_majoor]

Something about the fun people we would possibly be meeting should we ever go to Dafur. Although this is not verified, it has a ring of truth based on other reports.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2409336,00.html

'We burnt their homes and killed all the men, women and children'
By Martin Fletcher

For three years, this Arab shepherd says, he was forced to raze the villages of black Africans in Darfur

OUTSIDE the back window Bakerloo Line trains rattle past. Downstairs someone makes tea. But in the upstairs living room of a nondescript house off Lambeth Road in South London a slight, softly spoken young man tells a story of atrocities in a far-off land that is anything but mundane.

Dily, a Sudanese Arab, recounts how for three years he and his fellow Janjawid charged the farming villages of Darfur on their camels and horses, raking the huts with gunfire and shouting: “Kill the slaves. Kill the slaves.”

He reckons he attacked about 30 villages in all, and cannot count the people he shot. The villages were invariably destroyed, he says. The homes were burnt to the ground and the men, women and children killed — sometimes with the help of government airstrikes. If there were survivors “they would be left there . . . They couldn’t get help. Sometimes they made it to camps but mostly they died of thirst or starvation”.

Dily is a rarity in that wretched conflict. Filled with disgust, he finally escaped the Janjawid’s clutches and last month, with the help of “people smugglers”, reached Britain, where he is now seeking political asylum. He expresses remorse. He is willing to talk, and the story he tells flatly contradicts the Sudanese Government’s claims that it has no control over the Janjawid — the predominantly Arab “devils on horseback” who have driven two million of Darfur’s black Africans into camps and killed at least 200,000.

He says the Government deceived innocent Arab shepherds like himself into joining the Janjawid, saying they had to defend their communities against attack by Darfur’s black African rebel groups. He says they were trained and armed by Sudanese soldiers, ordered by the Government to attack Darfur’s villages and given military support when necessary. The Janjawid was formed for ethnic cleansing, he insists. “Why (else) would you attack villages, kill people, displace them and kill them in their thousands?”

Dily is not his real name, and he would be photographed only with a scarf around his face and a baseball cap pulled low over his eyes. His wife and young child remain in Sudan and he fears for their safety if he is identified.

Nor can Dily’s story be independently verified, but he specifies names, places and events, speaks with the accent and idiom of the area he says he comes from, and has persuaded Darfuris living in Britain that he is genuine.

“He’s for real,” said Ishag Mekki, the deputy chairman of the Darfur Union, which represents Darfuris in Britain. James Smith, the chief executive of the Aegis Trust, a pressure group which campaigns against genocide, concurs: “We’ve checked his credibility as much as we can and we’re convinced he is who he says he is.”

Dily, who is in his early twenties, rarely smiled and fidgeted nervously with his hands as he spoke through an interpreter. He said he was tending his family’s camel herd in northern Darfur when rebel groups began attacking government targets in 2003: severe droughts had set black African farmers against nomadic Arabs and the rebels accused the Government of siding with the Arabs.

Dily said he was pressed to join the Janjawid by tribal elders, who were under pressure from government officials. “We were told we were Arab nomads and we had to protect our lands and our cattle,” he said.

Dily and about 20 other youths from his area rode off on their camels to a training camp near the town of Kebkabiya where they joined hundreds of other Janjawid recruits. He says uniformed Sudanese soldiers spent about 20 days teaching them how to use guns — a Kalashnikov in his case — and attack villages.

Those with camels were separated from those with horses. They were organised into battalions of more than 500 men each. They were paid two million Sudanese pounds — roughly £500 — for the use of their camels and promised a monthly salary of 500,000 Sudanese pounds.

Then they were unleashed. Apart from occasional visits home, Dily and his battalion — led by a former bandit — spent the next three years on the move, destroying one village after another. “The Government said attack all villages. The local commanders decided which,” he said.

The battalion would send scouts to check whether there were armed fighters in the targeted village. “If there were no fighters we just attacked straight away. If there were we had to be more cautious.” Sometimes they used satellite telephones to request airstrikes by the Sudanese military helicopters before attacking. “We would see smoke and fire and then we would go in.”

The attacks usually started early and lasted most of the day. The commanders said the villages had to be destroyed, and they did not spare women or children. “Mostly they said “Kill the blacks. Kill the blacks,” Dily said. “The majority of (the victims) were civilians, most of them women.”

Dily said he never raped a woman but other Janjawid did. “They took girls and women away, just out of sight, and started to rape them. Sometimes you heard gunshots if they refused.” They took away the cattle. Some were drunk.

Dily said he felt no elation during or after the attacks. He and his colleagues did not even know what they were fighting for, but faced execution if they disobeyed orders. “I hated the war and I hated the killings and decided to leave and to leave Sudan altogether,” he said.

One night he slipped away from the camp, risking death and knowing that he might never see his wife and child again. He hid in the mountains for three days, then made his way to the town of Kutum. A fellow Arab drove him to Mellit, and from there he was smuggled by car to the Libyan border for 500,000 Sudanese pounds. He was determined to reach Britain because, he was told, “it’s different from other European countries. They look after refugees”.

He borrowed money from friends of his father in Tripoli’s Sudanese community and paid $1,200 (£640) to reach Italy on a small boat packed with 25 other illegal immigrants. He paid another $200 to reach Paris by train and $300 to be smuggled into Britain in a lorry carrying boxes of bottled water.

He arrived somewhere — he thinks Oxford — on September 20. He was arrested and sent to Croydon to apply for asylum. He is now living in a hostel, haunted by memories of burning villages. “Anybody who participates in war has to feel sorry for what happened,” he says.

The Aegis Trust plans to present Dily’s testimony to the International Criminal Court as evidence of genocide by Sudan’s leaders, who are still refusing to let United Nations troops into Darfur. “Everything this man says confirms that the Government of Sudan, contrary to its protestations, has been organising and supporting the Janjawid’s ethnic-cleansing operations from the beginning,” said Dr Smith, of the Trust.

Told of Dily’s testimony on a BBC Newsnight programme, Hilary Benn, the International Development Secretary who has just returned from a visit to Sudan, said: “It’s clearly very serious evidence and I would urge that that information is passed to the International Criminal Court investigators.”

THE CONFLICT IN DARFUR

February 2003 The Darfur Liberation Front, later the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), claims discrimination by the mainly Arabic Government against black Africans

Spring 2004 Government is accused of using Arab militia — Janjawid — against SLA

January 2005 UN reports that Government and militias collaborated to commit atrocities, but “genocidal intent appears to be missing”

May 2006 Government and SLA sign peace deal, promise to disarm the Janjawid

August 2006 Janjawid still armed. UN resolution calls for a peacekeeping force

September 2006 African Union ignores order to leave

October 2006 Bush imposes further sanctions

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and since China gets oil from Sudan in exchange for military support, you can guess who will veto any SC resolutions against it.

 

[Journeyman]

and since China gets oil from Sudan in exchange for military support, you can guess who will veto any SC resolutions against it.

I suspect that any veto to such a resolution would cause a massive sigh of relief from the UNSC. They get to say "hey, we tried our best," knowing full well that implementing such a resolution is a non-starter.

 

[muffin]

Copied under Fair Dealings etc...

from http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/19/darfur-un.html

UN can play a role in Darfur: Sudanese official
Last Updated: Thursday, October 19, 2006 | 9:57 PM ET
The Associated Press

The Sudanese government is willing to discuss United Nations support for the African Union's struggling peacekeeping force in Darfur, a senior government official said Thursday.

The government in Khartoum has staunchly opposed a UN Security Council resolution to replace the 7,000-strong AU force with about 20,000 UN peacekeepers, saying it would violate Sudan's sovereignty.

The ill-equipped and underfunded AU force has been struggling to bring peace to Darfur, a vast region of western Sudan where more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced in three years of fighting.

Instead of replacing the force with UN peacekeepers, the Sudanese government appears to be pushing for a stronger AU force to counter Western accusations it is letting the situation in Darfur deteriorate. Aid groups say the humanitarian crisis is edging toward an all-time low.

"We are not averse to the idea of discussing what kind of support the AU can receive in terms of troops, material and funding from the UN," said senior adviser to the president Ghazi Saladdine after meeting with the U.S. special envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios.

"Ultimately, we want to have an effective force in Darfur," said Saladdine, one of the hard-liners of the ruling National Congress Party.

Natsios, due to leave Khartoum on Friday, held talks with several high-ranking officials during his one-week visit but did not meet with President Omar al-Bashir. He did not speak to the media.

Several Western officials, including Jan Pronk, the head of the UN mission to Sudan, view a reinforced AU mission as one way to overcome the diplomatic deadlock on how to solve the Darfur crisis.

More in article.....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Fu*K them, keep the AU there and beef them up with a crapload of advisers driving tanks, APC and helo gunships, it will save everyone the grief of going through another round of pointless UN talks. The "new and improved" AU can go in there and kick some butt, so what if Sudan declares war on the rest of Africa, world etc. an all out war will last how long? I am sure the Chinese will have a talking to them and demanded that they shut up and worry about pumping oil. The countries backing the AU quietly tell China that their investments in the Sudanese oil fields will be safe.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Okay, while I have some problems with Gen Dallaire's positions on Darfur, I have tried not to question his professionalism until now.  I held the high and mighty rank of coporal (that's sarcasm folks), and learned a bit about our deployable troop levels.  Now Senator Dallaire received a far more extensive military education than I did, so how is it he thinks we can scrape up enough troops to send a battlegroup to Darfur?  The PPCLI are just back from Afghanistan, and working up for another roto, the RCRs are deployed in Afghanistan now, the Engineers have been rotating through since forever, and now we have armored deployments added to the Afghan mix.  We have the bulk of our Infantry either deployed, or on workup/depressurizing cycles between workups, and the remainder trying to scrape together enough cadre to handle the influx of recruits that we are getting, while maintaining the already overstressed training schedules for the troops already in harness.  Where are the troops to invade Darfur supposed to come from?  Without leaving Canada unable to meet its internal, let alone international commitments, we do not have the ability to send more than a token force anywhere, let alone invade a hostile nation that has made it quite clear we are not welcome.  Now granted, I didn't spend much time with officers above the rank of Captain, but those that I did speak with generally had a firm grasp of reality, and a better grasp of the logistics of force projection than I did (hence the bars on the epaulets), so I wonder what happened to Romeo?

 

[geo]

mainer....
The Engineers - yup
The Armoured - they have been there all along, doing the Recce & observation side of their business.  The addition of the Leo will only put the strain on ONE unit, where all our expertise of Tank usage has been concentrated.

 

[GAP]

October 25, 2006 at 12:00 p.m.
Sudan would allow vast increase of African Union forces in Darfur
Meanwhile, UN diplomat expelled by Sudan will remain in charge of mission.
By Arthur Bright  | csmonitor.com
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1025/dailyUpdate.html?s=rel

According to a British newspaper, Sudan is willing to allow almost triple the number of African Union forces operating in Darfur in order to protect civilians there.

In an interview with the Guardian, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir said that a larger African Union (AU) force could receive logistical support from European and Arab countries, but UN forces would not be allowed in the country for fear of "such troops becoming a target of attacks and part of the conflict, not the solution."

Denying reports that the Arab League had suggested he accept troops from Arab or Muslim countries outside Africa, [Mr. Bashir] insisted any non-African help for the AU be confined to equipment and logistics.

Asked if the AU could [increase] its troop strength to 20,000, the president said: "We have no objection to the AU increasing its troops, strengthening its mandate, or receiving logistical support from the EU, the UN, or the Arab League for that matter, but this must of course be done in consultation with the government of national unity."

Currently, there are 7,000 AU soldiers in Darfur. The UN passed a Security Council resolution in September to replace the AU troops with some 20,000 UN peacekeepers, but Khartoum has refused to allow them into the country. The Christian Science Monitor reports that it is believed about 22,000 government and government-allied troops are currently in Darfur, an area the size of Texas.

The Associated Press reports that Mr. Bashir also recently declared the government was working to expel foreign media and relief groups in Darfur. Bashir told the Sudan News Agency that the government was trying to "rid [refugee] camps of those exploiting the suffering of the people, those suspicious organizations who are part of a series of conspiracies.... We have promised before God not to let Darfurians' suffering be a pretext for foreign intervention or a subject for hostile media."
More on link

 

[MarkOttawa]

I just wonder where all those extra AU troops might come from and how effective they might be.  Pure propaganda.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Wouldn't it be nice to take these AU troops, maybe starting a battalion at a time, to WATC for a prolonged period of work up training? Questions about their efficiency would be rapidly reduced, and exposure to being in a professional military setting and a stable democracy might bring about some long term changes in that part of the world as well.

I'd like to do the same with ANA troops and perhaps send Afghan police to the RCMP depot (or Aylmer police college or some place similar) for many of the same reasons.

While not a 100% solution, this sort of training regime would ensure the local forces are far more effective and interoperable than otherwise possible.

We are quite wealthy enough to do this, on our own if necessary, but with the financial help of our allies as a desirable end state.

 

[Kirkhill]

Wouldn't it be nice to take these AU troops, maybe starting a battalion at a time, to WATC for a prolonged period of work up training? Questions about their efficiency would be rapidly reduced, and exposure to being in a professional military setting and a stable democracy might bring about some long term changes in that part of the world as well.

I'd like to do the same with ANA troops and perhaps send Afghan police to the RCMP depot (or Aylmer police college or some place similar) for many of the same reasons.

While not a 100% solution, this sort of training regime would ensure the local forces are far more effective and interoperable than otherwise possible.

We are quite wealthy enough to do this, on our own if necessary, but with the financial help of our allies as a desirable end state.

Another great idea Arthur - although, as you suggest, it will require more money. I understand that the Government is already investing more in facilities at the Regina Depot to increase the capacity of the place to produce the necessary increase in RCMP numbers.  To add formed numbers of Overseas personnel would increase the demands pretty significantly I would think.  Similarly at WATC.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It would seem that much of the problems of the ANP, Afghan government, is from the failure of government infrastructure. Training senior civil servants and accountants in basic management would likely help solve some of the pay and equipment issues.

 

[McG]

It seems things are changing, but there still are many "ifs."

Sudan agrees in principle to UN peacekeepers
Updated Fri. Nov. 17 2006 8:25 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

Sudan reversed its long-standing opposition to welcome United Nations support for the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur, one of the world's bloodiest conflict zones.

"It is agreed in principle that, pending clarification of the size of the force, we should be able to take it forward," UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said late on Thursday at the end of a major diplomatic meeting on Darfur in Addis Ababa.

"The troops should be sourced from Africa as far as possible and the command and control structure would be provided by the UN," he said, adding the force would include as many as 17,000 troops and 3,000 police.

The outgoing UN chief convened the meeting between Sudanese officials and African Union, Arab League, European Union and UN leaders in an attempt to end bloodshed in the vast Sudanese region.

Sudanese diplomats said Thursday they needed to consult with their superiors in Khartoum before giving unreserved support to the plan.

But it was clear there were still disagreements over the size and shape of the force.

The leaders did not pinpoint a timetable for the force to start work partly because Sudan had some uncertainties, including the question of who would be in command.

Sudan's UN ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad told reporters after the meeting that the peacekeepers will be African while the UN would provide the logistical support.

"If you have a predominantly African force, then you expect to it to be led by an African commander," he said.

He also expressed reservations over the size of the force.

"The UN says 17,000 (troops), that figure is very high. We think 11,000 to 12,000."

Sudan is expected to respond to the latest proposal before the AU Peace and Security Council meets on Nov. 24 to discuss Darfur.

The AU force mandate expires on Dec. 31.

The UN Security Council voted in August to replace the AU's underpowered force of 7,000 troops with 20,000 U.N. peacekeepers.

But Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir repeatedly rejected their deployment, and this paved the way for new proposals for a "hybrid" alternative in which the United Nations would boost the AU force.

In recent days, pro-government militia forces known as janjaweed have ramped up attacks in Darfur villages, killing dozens of people, international observers said Wednesday.

In one raid, rebels described seeing janjaweed militiamen force children into a thatched hut, then set it on fire, killing parents who tried to rescue the children.

Human Rights Watch has called for a significant increase in the size of the Darfur peacekeeping force.

The New York-based advocacy group said it has documented renewed aerial bombing attacks on civilians both in Darfur and inside neighboring Chad since late last month.

The aid agency Doctors Without Borders, or Medecins Sans Frontieres, also reported that thousands of people have fled their homes and refugee camps in Darfur.

The agency warned that it was becoming increasingly difficult to provide aid to the victims because of the violence.

The gravity of the conflict was underscored on Thursday when UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland cut short a planned three-day trip to Darfur after government officials warned the areas he wanted to visit were too dangerous.

"This is my fourth visit to Darfur, and I have never before seen such a bad security situation," Jan Egeland said from El Geneina, capital of West Darfur.

"There are too many armed elements in and around the camps threatening the inhabitants and preventing us from going in."

Egeland said aid workers in West Darfur were prevented from travelling on roads because they were being attacked.

After years of low-level clashes over water and land, rebels from ethnic African tribes took up arms against Sudan's Arab-dominated central government in 2003.

Khartoum is accused of unleashing the janjaweed militiamen, who are blamed for the atrocities in a conflict that has killed some 200,000 people and driven 2.5 million from their homes.

The Sudanese army has dismissed the accusations, saying the charges are politically motivated.

The conflict has been exploited by rebels from Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic, and ethnic violence mirroring attacks in Darfur has travelled beyond Sudan's borders into both Chad and Central African Republic in recent weeks.

With files from The Associated Press

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061117/darfur_peacekeeper_061117/20061117?hub=World

 

[MarkOttawa]

MCG: Too many "ifs", esp.

Sudanese diplomats said Thursday they needed to consult with their superiors [my emphasis] in Khartoum before giving unreserved support to the plan.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[warspite]

And the light is green....
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/22/sudan-darfur.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

Warspite: Not really; see:

Darfur update: Don't believe any headlines saying major breakthrough
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008497.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[warspite]

Warspite: Not really; see:


Darfur update: Don't believe any headlines saying major breakthrough

Lesson learned