- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,260
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is a useful survey, tacked on to a story about South Sudan, from the Globe’s resident African correspondent:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/africa/africa-poised-to-give-birth-to-new-nation-south-sudan/article1586194/
A huge share of the seemingly never-ending strife in Africa is ethnically based and results from the artificial colonial era boundaries. I have been told by people who were "in the loop" at the time, that was, circa 1960, during the Congo crisis, a small window of opportunity to redraw those boundaries and a few Canadians, from that “golden age” of Canadian diplomacy, apparently tried to convince the UN and the Africans to seize the issue, but they failed and we are, 50 years later, where we are.
A few home truths:
• “Sorting out Africa” is something that only the Africans, themselves, can do.
• It (“sorting out Africa”) is likely to be a long, bloody process.
• The United Nations, acting through a very small handful of countries (China, Egypt, India and South Africa, primarily) can, indeed should, “help” with the sorting out. Western countries, Canada included, have little to offer beyond moral support and money.
• Despite having nothing much to offer, we, Canada and, specifically the CF, are likely to get sucked in because we, the people in the West, are, properly, horrified at the confluence of poverty, violence and innocent, hungry but oh so telegenic black children.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/africa/africa-poised-to-give-birth-to-new-nation-south-sudan/article1586194/
Africa poised to give birth to new nation, South Sudan
Imminent arrival of newest sovereign country is first real challenge to Africa’s artificial colonial borders half a century after the era’s demise
Geoffrey York
Juba, Sudan — From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published on Monday, May. 31, 2010
All day, the tanker trucks rumble up to the White Nile. Young men pump filthy water into the tanks, add a dash of chlorine, and then the trucks rumble off to deliver the tainted water to the mud huts of southern Sudan’s biggest city. As soon as they leave, more trucks take their place.
With water sloshing out of their tanks, the trucks roar past a pipe that was installed years ago to fill the tankers with treated water from the municipal system. The pipe is broken and abandoned.
An estimated 80 to 90 per cent of Juba’s household water is taken from the polluted waters of the White Nile, not far from places where foul waste is dumped into the river. As a result, this fast-growing city of a million people is left vulnerable to cholera and other diseases. Cholera outbreaks have erupted almost every year since 2006.
Southern Sudan is one of the poorest and hungriest places in the world, racked by tribal violence, with rates of child malnutrition and maternal mortality that rank among the worst on the planet. Yet a year from now, this desperate region is likely to become the world’s newest sovereign country.
Half a century after the colonial era ended, the imminent birth of a new nation in South Sudan is the first real challenge to Africa’s artificial colonial borders. Those borders, drawn up in the 19th century by European officials with no knowledge of Africa’s realities, are still fuelling the wars and conflicts of today. They shape Africa’s future, too, by hampering trade and economic growth.
But by acting as midwife to the birth of a new nation, is the world repeating the same mistakes that it made 50 years ago? Will this “baby nation” be able to swim in the seas of independence?
New borders will not fix Africa’s problems. The splitting of Sudan, promoted for strategic reasons by Washington, will fuel a fresh set of conflicts along the new border. It will create a fragile new country, landlocked and impoverished, with a heavy dependence on foreign aid – just like many of the fledgling countries of half a century ago.
Much of modern Africa is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Seventeen nations, a third of the continent, became independent in 1960. But there is an equally significant anniversary this year: the 125th anniversary of the Berlin Conference, which carved up Africa among the European powers. The decisions of that meeting – the climax of the notorious “Scramble for Africa” – continue to distort Africa to this day.
As the historian Martin Meredith has documented, the colonial boundaries cut randomly through 190 cultural or ethnic groups that had existed for centuries. Nearly half of these borders were geometric lines that were easy to draw, yet had no connection to reality on the ground. Hundreds of diverse ethnic groups were lumped together or torn apart. Some 250 ethnic groups were thrown together in Nigeria alone. Around 10,000 polities – including monarchies, chiefdoms, empires and other societies – were suddenly amalgamated into 40 European colonies or protectorates.
“We have been giving away mountains and rivers and lakes to each other, only hindered by the small impediment that we never knew exactly where they were,” British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury admitted as the colonial powers grabbed as much as they could.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, these colonial inventions were abruptly given their independence. Ethnic groups, often hand-picked by European powers to administer their colonies, were soon battling for dominance. “Those arbitrary boundaries carried the seeds of much subsequent destruction, notably the terrible national/ethnic wars that have plagued Africa,” said Gerald Caplan, the Canadian activist and author of The Betrayal of Africa. “Sudan is a perfect example, Nigeria another.”
The colonial legacy also paralyzed the economic development of these nations. Because of the colonial borders, 15 of the new nations were landlocked – a heavy barrier to their growth. Most of the new African nations were still oriented to their former colonial masters in Europe, which continued to extract their resources. Even today, only 8 per cent of their trade is within Africa.
The borders have ensured that Africans are still too disconnected from each other. “We have 53 little countries and we are intentionally determined not to communicate and trade and move goods between each other,” said Mo Ibrahim, the billionaire mobile-phone entrepreneur who has become one of Africa’s most influential business leaders.
Sudan was a classic example of the illogical colonial borders. Its two halves had been administered separately, yet they were joined together at independence in 1956. The north was largely Arabic-speaking and Islamic, while the southerners were black tribes of diverse languages who followed traditional religions and Christianity. The northerners, who had often raided the south for slaves, dominated the government of the new country and aggressively promoted Islam in the south. The resentments soon erupted into rebellions and wars that killed millions of people until a peace agreement was finally reached in 2005.
The new nation of South Sudan, almost certain to be born after a referendum on independence in January, would be only the second created in Africa since the end of colonialism (the first was Eritrea). It will become yet another landlocked aid-dependent African nation.
In some of its villages, nearly half of all children are malnourished – the highest rate in the world. An estimated 85 per cent of all health and education services are provided by foreign aid agencies, not by the government. Clashes between tribes and clans killed about 2,500 people last year, and hundreds more have been killed this year. Nearly 400,000 people were forced to flee their homes because of violence last year – twice as many as the year before.
“Simply declaring southern Sudan an independent state will not bring peace and stability,” Mr. Caplan said. “This will be a frail new state indeed. The south is left with deep ethnic divisions and divisive borders that are a recipe for big future trouble.”
Southern Sudan has received $7-billion in oil revenue since the 2005 peace agreement. But corruption has siphoned off much of this money, and the government has given the largest part of its budget to its military and security forces. “The armed forces are way bigger than they should be, and way bigger than anticipated,” said Peter Crowley, director of Unicef’s program in southern Sudan.
In the capital, Juba, there is no electricity grid, no industry, and scarcely any water treatment. Most people live in mud huts, shacks, tents or other temporary dwellings. When the contaminated water from the White Nile is pumped into the tanker trucks, the workers add a bit of chlorine from a jug, but they admit they’re not sure how much to add. Families must pay up to $4 for a barrel of this tainted water. International agencies such as Unicef have been obliged to provide emergency water supplies to prevent more cholera outbreaks.
The independence of southern Sudan will create a new military ally for the United States, but it won’t end the illiteracy, malnutrition, maternal deaths, or disease outbreaks. If the impoverished people of southern Sudan don’t see improvement in their lives, the peace pledges could be jeopardized and the tribal violence could escalate.
“Unless people are able to feel the benefits of peace … the potential of a return to conflict is going to be greater,” Mr. Crowley said. “Why fight to preserve a peace that’s not bringing you any benefit?”
A huge share of the seemingly never-ending strife in Africa is ethnically based and results from the artificial colonial era boundaries. I have been told by people who were "in the loop" at the time, that was, circa 1960, during the Congo crisis, a small window of opportunity to redraw those boundaries and a few Canadians, from that “golden age” of Canadian diplomacy, apparently tried to convince the UN and the Africans to seize the issue, but they failed and we are, 50 years later, where we are.
A few home truths:
• “Sorting out Africa” is something that only the Africans, themselves, can do.
• It (“sorting out Africa”) is likely to be a long, bloody process.
• The United Nations, acting through a very small handful of countries (China, Egypt, India and South Africa, primarily) can, indeed should, “help” with the sorting out. Western countries, Canada included, have little to offer beyond moral support and money.
• Despite having nothing much to offer, we, Canada and, specifically the CF, are likely to get sucked in because we, the people in the West, are, properly, horrified at the confluence of poverty, violence and innocent, hungry but oh so telegenic black children.
And another former SPLA commander has thrown his hat into the ring that is the falling apart of Southern Sudan. A Colonel Gatluak (or Galwak) GAI in Unity state (apparently no relation to Brigadier General John GAI that was originally linked to George ATHOR, but who has since been "unlinked") is now on side with the aforementioned George ATHOR and David YAUYAU, kicking up dust and fighting their former comrades as SSud sinks into chaos. And all this just as the rains are closing in (early rains hitting Malakal, and Juba at the beginning of rainy season) and maneuvers are getting more difficult.
The SPLM/Government of South Sudan is trying to imply that this is all being set up by the NCP and Bashir, while the rebels themselves are saying this is all about the rigged elections. There's even rumours on the wind that this is being set up by those within the SPLM who aren't totally onboard with Salva KIIR's plans for SSud.
Interesting times. . . not in the good sense.
The SPLM/Government of South Sudan is trying to imply that this is all being set up by the NCP and Bashir, while the rebels themselves are saying this is all about the rigged elections. There's even rumours on the wind that this is being set up by those within the SPLM who aren't totally onboard with Salva KIIR's plans for SSud.
Interesting times. . . not in the good sense.
While I can agree to a certain extant with the sentiments, and I can certainly understand them, I have to respectfully disagree that Canada and other western nations have nothing to offer.E.R. Campbell said:
We have a lot we can offer, and need to offer, if the circumstances provide us the opportunity.
While at some point in the future, I believe Africans will be solving African problems, there is still a long way to go until they are in that position. Do we absent ourselves from the task of helping because we fear that we will somehow appear to be shouldering “the white man’s burden?”
The African Union is a step forward from the OAU. It is trying very hard to deal with African problems. In some ways, it is meeting the task. In others, it falls short. In Sudan, specifically, it is not helping. The AU was one of the organizations that considered the elections good enough. One of the comments heard consistently in UNAMID is that the AU Mission in Sudan is good at making the UN look efficient. And I’m afraid there’s nothing to disprove that notion.
As mentors and support, Canada and other western nations can help the AU and its missions to grow, to improve, and to become solutions to African problems. I would rather we do that than to toss them into the pool, hope they swim, and when they don’t throw up our hands and say Africans must solve African problems.
If our help is needed, and the conditions are right (which is another matter entirely, and the main reason I can’t envision ever supporting extensive Canadian commitments to UNMIS or UNAMID), Canada should step up and do what it can.
Just some more "Southern Sudan is totally frakked" news: it seems that Colonel Gatluak (or Galwak) GAI--the renegade ex-SPLA ex-Southern Sudan Police Service militia leader duking it out with the SPLA in Unity State--was a supporter of Angelina Teny, who got screwed out of the Unity State governorship due to some dubious (if some reports are to be believed, flagrantly so) tactics by the SPLM. Teny happens to be the wife of SPLM VP Riek Machar. Riek Machar used to lead a militia opposed to the SPLM and funded from Khartoum.
Is that less than 6 degrees of separation between armed opposition in Southern Sudan and Bashir in Khartoum?
Oh, yes, this is going to get interesting--though not in a good way. Any bets on if Southern Sudan actually makes it to the self-determination referendum before becoming a failed state?
Is that less than 6 degrees of separation between armed opposition in Southern Sudan and Bashir in Khartoum?
Oh, yes, this is going to get interesting--though not in a good way. Any bets on if Southern Sudan actually makes it to the self-determination referendum before becoming a failed state?
Once again reinforcing the fact that Darfur is not exactly the garden spot of Sudan, local independent Radio Dabanga has put the butcher's bill for the tribal violence in the region at over 400. Could mean June will eclipse May as the worse killing in over two years. Add to that, SAF is pretty much out to destroy JEM after driving them out of Jebel Moon, and that UNAMID seems to have been targeted again (3 dead Rwandan PFKs from "unknown" gumen), looks like things are heating up just as Sudan is falling apart.
In other news Col GAI is threatening to attack Bentiu, the capital of Unity State. In this case, I agree with the SPLA, that this is a lot of bluster. Gen ATHOR made the same threats against Bor and absolutely nothing happened. With the rainy season now in full force over the south, I don't think we'll see much more fighting until the rainy season is over.
Oh, this is going to be a fun referendum. Stay safe, anyone over there with UNMIS and UNAMID.
In other news Col GAI is threatening to attack Bentiu, the capital of Unity State. In this case, I agree with the SPLA, that this is a lot of bluster. Gen ATHOR made the same threats against Bor and absolutely nothing happened. With the rainy season now in full force over the south, I don't think we'll see much more fighting until the rainy season is over.
Oh, this is going to be a fun referendum. Stay safe, anyone over there with UNMIS and UNAMID.
Khartoum is claiming to have closed the border with Libya. Of course they did.
JEM, making a whole lot of sense for the first time in a while, basically said the Sudanese Armed Forces don't have the manpower for that. Which, of course, they don't.
Khartoum is saying this is about rebels and banditry, but we all know it's all about Khalil Ibrahim, the leader of JEM now trapped in Libya (no passport, and where else to go?). Libya won't hand him over, even though the National Intelligence and Security Service said he was due any day. Those days all ticked by, and no Ibrahim.
It's common knowledge Libya wants more influence in the region. It has mentioned that it could host the Darfur peace process and would be a more fair broker than Qatar--the present host.
Also to consider is that JEM lost its major supporter, Chad.
JEM needs a patron.
Libya wants influence.
Khartoum is trying to close its borders.
Anyone else getting ideas?
JEM, making a whole lot of sense for the first time in a while, basically said the Sudanese Armed Forces don't have the manpower for that. Which, of course, they don't.
Khartoum is saying this is about rebels and banditry, but we all know it's all about Khalil Ibrahim, the leader of JEM now trapped in Libya (no passport, and where else to go?). Libya won't hand him over, even though the National Intelligence and Security Service said he was due any day. Those days all ticked by, and no Ibrahim.
It's common knowledge Libya wants more influence in the region. It has mentioned that it could host the Darfur peace process and would be a more fair broker than Qatar--the present host.
Also to consider is that JEM lost its major supporter, Chad.
JEM needs a patron.
Libya wants influence.
Khartoum is trying to close its borders.
Anyone else getting ideas?
Just one more compelling reason to never step foot in the Sudan....................
Jimmy Carter racing guinea worm to its death; Remote and wild Sudan disease's last stronghold
Article Link
By: Maggie Fick, The Associated Press Posted: 25/12/2010
ABUYONG, Sudan - Lily pads and purple flowers dot one corner of the watering hole. Bright green algae covers another. Two women collect water in plastic jugs while a cattle herder bathes nearby.
Samuel Makoy is not interested in the bucolic scenery, though. He has an epidemic to quash.
Makoy points out to the women the fingernail-length worm-like creatures whose tails flick back and forth. Then a pond-side health lesson begins on a spaghetti-like worm that has haunted humans for centuries.
This fight against the guinea worm is a battle former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has waged for more than two decades in some of the poorest countries on earth. It is a battle he's almost won.
In the 1950s the 3-foot(0.9-meter)-long guinea worm ravaged the bodies of an estimated 50 million people, forcing victims through months of pain while the worm exited through a swollen blister on the leg, making it impossible for them to tend to cows or harvest crops. By 1986, the number dropped to 3.5 million. Last year only 3,190 cases were reported.
Today the worm is even closer to being wiped out. Fewer than 1,700 cases have been found this year in only four countries — Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali and Sudan, where more than 95 per cent of the cases are. The worm's near-eradication is thanks in large part to the efforts of Carter and his foundation.
~~~~
But Carter staff members say ending the disease in Southern Sudan may prove the most difficult, because of how remote the remaining endemic areas are and the fact that the worm is found in semi-nomadic pastoralists who have little education and low sanitation standards.
Another complicating factor: Southern Sudan is scheduled to hold an independence referendum Jan. 9, a vote that is likely to lead to separation from the Khartoum-based north. The process has been peaceful so far, but any conflict that arises would derail eradication efforts.
As Carter put it: "War and good health are incompatible."
"There's no way we can go into an area that is at war," he said.
Although the Carter Center has been fighting guinea worm in Sudan since 1994, its efforts only made significant headway following the signing of a 2005 peace deal that ended two decades of north-south civil war.
The 20 years of fighting prevented the Carter Center and other authorities like the World Health Organization from conducting a comprehensive assessment of guinea worm here until 2006. Since then, eradication programs have reduced the number of yearly cases by about 90 per cent.
More on link
Jimmy Carter racing guinea worm to its death; Remote and wild Sudan disease's last stronghold
Article Link
By: Maggie Fick, The Associated Press Posted: 25/12/2010
ABUYONG, Sudan - Lily pads and purple flowers dot one corner of the watering hole. Bright green algae covers another. Two women collect water in plastic jugs while a cattle herder bathes nearby.
Samuel Makoy is not interested in the bucolic scenery, though. He has an epidemic to quash.
Makoy points out to the women the fingernail-length worm-like creatures whose tails flick back and forth. Then a pond-side health lesson begins on a spaghetti-like worm that has haunted humans for centuries.
This fight against the guinea worm is a battle former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has waged for more than two decades in some of the poorest countries on earth. It is a battle he's almost won.
In the 1950s the 3-foot(0.9-meter)-long guinea worm ravaged the bodies of an estimated 50 million people, forcing victims through months of pain while the worm exited through a swollen blister on the leg, making it impossible for them to tend to cows or harvest crops. By 1986, the number dropped to 3.5 million. Last year only 3,190 cases were reported.
Today the worm is even closer to being wiped out. Fewer than 1,700 cases have been found this year in only four countries — Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali and Sudan, where more than 95 per cent of the cases are. The worm's near-eradication is thanks in large part to the efforts of Carter and his foundation.
~~~~
But Carter staff members say ending the disease in Southern Sudan may prove the most difficult, because of how remote the remaining endemic areas are and the fact that the worm is found in semi-nomadic pastoralists who have little education and low sanitation standards.
Another complicating factor: Southern Sudan is scheduled to hold an independence referendum Jan. 9, a vote that is likely to lead to separation from the Khartoum-based north. The process has been peaceful so far, but any conflict that arises would derail eradication efforts.
As Carter put it: "War and good health are incompatible."
"There's no way we can go into an area that is at war," he said.
Although the Carter Center has been fighting guinea worm in Sudan since 1994, its efforts only made significant headway following the signing of a 2005 peace deal that ended two decades of north-south civil war.
The 20 years of fighting prevented the Carter Center and other authorities like the World Health Organization from conducting a comprehensive assessment of guinea worm here until 2006. Since then, eradication programs have reduced the number of yearly cases by about 90 per cent.
More on link
Once again a small town in Southern Sudan will be on the world stage.
A small town called Ayod that was once an epicentre of a famine that struck the region in 1993 could now be in the epicenter of a secessionist vote that will directly effect Chinese, American relations as well as potentially the stability of the Horn of Africa.
After the wholesale rape and war of Christians on Muslims, tribes on tribes, PDF on Janjaweed, blacks on Arabs, and of course the civilian population always being the worst off in any war.....
Sudan is on the verge of peace...
Sudan also teeters on genocide.
Canadian Forces and the Canadian government response to the January 9th, 2011 referendum on South Sudan independence.
]http://mcplpaulfranklin.blogspot.com/2011/01/do-we-sit-by-this-time-and-watch.html[url][/url]
A small town called Ayod that was once an epicentre of a famine that struck the region in 1993 could now be in the epicenter of a secessionist vote that will directly effect Chinese, American relations as well as potentially the stability of the Horn of Africa.
After the wholesale rape and war of Christians on Muslims, tribes on tribes, PDF on Janjaweed, blacks on Arabs, and of course the civilian population always being the worst off in any war.....
Sudan is on the verge of peace...
Sudan also teeters on genocide.
Canadian Forces and the Canadian government response to the January 9th, 2011 referendum on South Sudan independence.
]http://mcplpaulfranklin.blogspot.com/2011/01/do-we-sit-by-this-time-and-watch.html[url][/url]
1.3 trillion in oil reserves in Southern Sudan..... what will China do?
Peace or genocide?
Once again a small town in Southern Sudan will be on the world stage.
A small town called Ayod that was once an epicentre of a famine that struck the region in 1993 could now be in the epicenter of a secessionist vote that will directly effect Chinese, American relations as well as potentially the stability of the Horn of Africa.
After the wholesale rape and war of Christians on Muslims, tribes on tribes, PDF on Janjaweed, blacks on Arabs, and of course the civilian population always being the worst off in any war.....
Sudan is on the verge of peace...
Sudan also teeters on genocide.
Evil has been done on both sides.
This is now the time for reconciliation and moving forward....
Canadian-funded helicopters were used in 2007 to evacuate Nigerian AMIS peacekeepers, wounded when their camp was attacked by rebels.(Photo: Stuart Price / Albany Associates)
On January 9th the people of the south Sudan will have an opportunity to vote on succession from the north, effectively splitting Africa's largest country in two.
Are we in the west prepared for the outcome?
Of course nothing as simple as pure hatred, there is in fact many reasons and one is the location of oil reserves in the area that could be the southern Sudan. The south has the oil and the transportation and the refinery equipment is located in the north. This has funded a genocide in Darfur and wholesale slaughter of villages, towns and provinces. Not surprisingly the oil minister is a supporter of Sudanese unity. Most of the oil is recovered by Chinese companies and they have a direct influence and desire for a unity outcome. We are entering an era of a true oil cold war between Beijing and the West.
This time its actually about the oil, $1.3 trillion in oil reserves
"Beijing has "a vested interest in the continuation of a low level of insecurity. It keeps the other major investors out," charged the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) in a 2002 report. The report argued that China welcomes the absence of real peace in Sudan as enhancing its business opportunities, whatever the cost to southern Sudanese civilians: "There is [on the part of the Chinese] an almost total disregard for the human rights implications of their investments."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p01s08-woaf.html
Omar Hassan al-Bahsir, Sudan president with the charges being "genocide by killing, genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm and genocide by deliberately inflicting on each target group conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction", as well as seven counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. ICC 2010.
There are currently 26 000 UN/ African union troops in the region and all with the mandate of ensuring the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (Naivasha Agreement) between the government of the Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement on January 9, 2005 in Nairobi, Kenya.
The Government of Southern Sudan was created by the rebels to develop a constitution and if the referendum on succession is successful to create a new country in Africa.
So what can we do in the west? Support any Sudanese missions in your country. Read and study web sites and information about the referendum. Read the history and support companies that will do business with the South.
Ensure that African issues and especially this African issue does not fall into the history books as another mistake... like Rwanda, like Uganda, like the Congo....
Help Africans help themselves.
ttp://mcplpaulfranklin.blogspot.com/2011/01/do-we-sit-by-this-time-and-watch.html
Peace or genocide?
Once again a small town in Southern Sudan will be on the world stage.
A small town called Ayod that was once an epicentre of a famine that struck the region in 1993 could now be in the epicenter of a secessionist vote that will directly effect Chinese, American relations as well as potentially the stability of the Horn of Africa.
After the wholesale rape and war of Christians on Muslims, tribes on tribes, PDF on Janjaweed, blacks on Arabs, and of course the civilian population always being the worst off in any war.....
Sudan is on the verge of peace...
Sudan also teeters on genocide.
Evil has been done on both sides.
This is now the time for reconciliation and moving forward....
Canadian-funded helicopters were used in 2007 to evacuate Nigerian AMIS peacekeepers, wounded when their camp was attacked by rebels.(Photo: Stuart Price / Albany Associates)
On January 9th the people of the south Sudan will have an opportunity to vote on succession from the north, effectively splitting Africa's largest country in two.
Are we in the west prepared for the outcome?
Of course nothing as simple as pure hatred, there is in fact many reasons and one is the location of oil reserves in the area that could be the southern Sudan. The south has the oil and the transportation and the refinery equipment is located in the north. This has funded a genocide in Darfur and wholesale slaughter of villages, towns and provinces. Not surprisingly the oil minister is a supporter of Sudanese unity. Most of the oil is recovered by Chinese companies and they have a direct influence and desire for a unity outcome. We are entering an era of a true oil cold war between Beijing and the West.
This time its actually about the oil, $1.3 trillion in oil reserves
"Beijing has "a vested interest in the continuation of a low level of insecurity. It keeps the other major investors out," charged the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) in a 2002 report. The report argued that China welcomes the absence of real peace in Sudan as enhancing its business opportunities, whatever the cost to southern Sudanese civilians: "There is [on the part of the Chinese] an almost total disregard for the human rights implications of their investments."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p01s08-woaf.html
Omar Hassan al-Bahsir, Sudan president with the charges being "genocide by killing, genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm and genocide by deliberately inflicting on each target group conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction", as well as seven counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. ICC 2010.
There are currently 26 000 UN/ African union troops in the region and all with the mandate of ensuring the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (Naivasha Agreement) between the government of the Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement on January 9, 2005 in Nairobi, Kenya.
The Government of Southern Sudan was created by the rebels to develop a constitution and if the referendum on succession is successful to create a new country in Africa.
So what can we do in the west? Support any Sudanese missions in your country. Read and study web sites and information about the referendum. Read the history and support companies that will do business with the South.
Ensure that African issues and especially this African issue does not fall into the history books as another mistake... like Rwanda, like Uganda, like the Congo....
Help Africans help themselves.
ttp://mcplpaulfranklin.blogspot.com/2011/01/do-we-sit-by-this-time-and-watch.html
There are any number of countries in equally dire straits.
If we're to commit ourselves to a new mission, we need to ask several things:
Do we have the resources to do it?
Will we be part of a larger mission composed of a coalition with the will, means, and credibility to get the job done?
Would we be part of a coalition with the legitimacy to intervene, and under what mandate?
Could the actual mission be accomplished, or would we be getting sucked into a perpetual conflict?
And most importantly, are there any other missions that fit the same criteria that stand a better chance of success and which better serve our national interests?
With all the countries going to shit, IMO, we need to make sure we commit ourselves to achievable missions with realistic goals, and where we will have the necessary support. I'd rather see us get in on the 'front end' of an emergent conflict that we might actually be able to stop, or in a low intensity one where a relatively small commitment of military resources could get more done.
If we're going to commit to Sudan, we'd best be serious about it, and we're best not be going it alone amongst the major Western powers.
If we're to commit ourselves to a new mission, we need to ask several things:
Do we have the resources to do it?
Will we be part of a larger mission composed of a coalition with the will, means, and credibility to get the job done?
Would we be part of a coalition with the legitimacy to intervene, and under what mandate?
Could the actual mission be accomplished, or would we be getting sucked into a perpetual conflict?
And most importantly, are there any other missions that fit the same criteria that stand a better chance of success and which better serve our national interests?
With all the countries going to shit, IMO, we need to make sure we commit ourselves to achievable missions with realistic goals, and where we will have the necessary support. I'd rather see us get in on the 'front end' of an emergent conflict that we might actually be able to stop, or in a low intensity one where a relatively small commitment of military resources could get more done.
If we're going to commit to Sudan, we'd best be serious about it, and we're best not be going it alone amongst the major Western powers.
I think since we already have such a large contingent of equipment... although few boots on the ground.
The mandate of the mission in Sudan is supposed to be over in 2012 as they discuss the outcome of the referendum.
I suggest that this mission may be the right one due to the large oil deposits the historical war crimes committed and the fact that a free and independent Southern Sudan could act as a buffer state between Congo and Somalia.
I personally like the idea of helping equip the African union and the Un mission with high tech equipment that will ensure the peacekeepers are better armed than the "bad guys".
[/url]http://unmis.unmissions.org/[/url]
UN web site on the Sudan
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/po-mp/missions-curr-cour-eng.htm
The Grizzlys have preformed adequatly but the mission needed better protection and one of the cool things they have done is to purchase the South African built MRAP Gila.
http://www.armedforces-int.com/article/mrap-vehicles.html
The mandate of the mission in Sudan is supposed to be over in 2012 as they discuss the outcome of the referendum.
I suggest that this mission may be the right one due to the large oil deposits the historical war crimes committed and the fact that a free and independent Southern Sudan could act as a buffer state between Congo and Somalia.
I personally like the idea of helping equip the African union and the Un mission with high tech equipment that will ensure the peacekeepers are better armed than the "bad guys".
[/url]http://unmis.unmissions.org/[/url]
UN web site on the Sudan
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/po-mp/missions-curr-cour-eng.htm
The Grizzlys have preformed adequatly but the mission needed better protection and one of the cool things they have done is to purchase the South African built MRAP Gila.
http://www.armedforces-int.com/article/mrap-vehicles.html
- Reaction score
- 4,653
- Points
- 1,160
What kind of equipment do we have there again? Oh yeah, obsolete Grizzlies. We're not going anywhere without LAVIIIs now-adays. That means a big airlift capability just to start a mission that we're not allowed to be on because we're not from the African Union.
Gucci kit will only go so far. What is really needed amongst many of the AU militaries is more professional soldiers in the ranks, and a greater logistical and command, control, and comms capability.
If you consider that a newly separated element of Sudan would be either 'free' or 'independent', you really need to read up more on Africa's wars.
The first real breakthrough is when you realize how artifical and porous the borders are. Then you need to realize that the conflicts are fought often for barely any good reason at all, and that the axes of the conflicts (tribal, ethnic, etc) are substantially different from anything we're used to considering. The concept of a 'buffer state' is much harder to apply in Africa since A) the conception of a 'state' and the way in which we apply the term is dubious there, and B) the existence of a supposedly sovereign nation doesn't necessarily prevent fighters from moving through territory or staging out of it. I refer you back to the artificiality of Africa's borders.
I share your concerns of genocide, but realistically that's something that's happening in a lot of places, and will probably happen in more. Again, if we have limited resources (we do), what is the greatest good that can be done with them?
If you consider that a newly separated element of Sudan would be either 'free' or 'independent', you really need to read up more on Africa's wars.
The first real breakthrough is when you realize how artifical and porous the borders are. Then you need to realize that the conflicts are fought often for barely any good reason at all, and that the axes of the conflicts (tribal, ethnic, etc) are substantially different from anything we're used to considering. The concept of a 'buffer state' is much harder to apply in Africa since A) the conception of a 'state' and the way in which we apply the term is dubious there, and B) the existence of a supposedly sovereign nation doesn't necessarily prevent fighters from moving through territory or staging out of it. I refer you back to the artificiality of Africa's borders.
I share your concerns of genocide, but realistically that's something that's happening in a lot of places, and will probably happen in more. Again, if we have limited resources (we do), what is the greatest good that can be done with them?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Why should Canadians feel the need to do anything?
That may seem a harsh attitude, but isn't this what the AU forces were designed to do?
That may seem a harsh attitude, but isn't this what the AU forces were designed to do?
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 103
- Points
- 710
ptepaul said:
OK Paul
Some good points have already been brought up. I think you are being very naive. First of, Sudan has categorically said that it did not want Western troops in country. It was all it could do that the UN was able to put UN troops in the Sudan made up of African Union troops. Just because we have 'donated' equipment to the Sudan, does not mean that it is a good idea for us to send troops there. That whole region is a series of 'failed States' and we really do not need to get involved in some 'feel good' mission that is not going to result in any improvement, even in the long term. 'Feel Good' missions are a disaster. Our Government feels good for a few months, as do the Canadian Public. Then when no progress is seen, and it will not be seen in these 'failed States', the Canadian Public show their fickle side and call for the "Troops to Come Home".
You are doing nothing more than proposing "Feel Good" missions with little real thought as to whether or not they are actually going to benefit anyone. "Feel Good" does not cut it for very long.
I am just proposing a question... what do you do when the vultures wait.
Bashir is a vulture, China is as well....
Sure the borders are pourous but a Kenya in disarry a Rwanda that falls back into anarchy all effects us.
The equipment needs to be manned by good quality troops and I know that RCMP is striving to teach the Sudan police services....
Is it worth it?
Does death and destruction in Africa mean we should do nothing?
We could have said that about Afghanistan and yet thats the very thing we did say prior to 9/11.
Central Asia, the Horn of Africa and Canada have little in common and yet a stable central asia and a stable africa is important even if we only give token gestures.
Canadian Talisman energy (out of Calgary) was accused by the Harker mission in 2000, which admonished Talisman for not doing enough to stop human rights abuses by other groups, but did not find that Talisman had actively aided in any atrocities. So Canada does have some blood on its hand..... Talisman has since divested its investments in Sudan in 2003.
The negative pressure on Talisman caused the divesture and by some accounts from some NGO's that by having western businessess leave the area the companies that remain have little political or ethical pressure to address issues that come up.
Bashir is a vulture, China is as well....
Sure the borders are pourous but a Kenya in disarry a Rwanda that falls back into anarchy all effects us.
The equipment needs to be manned by good quality troops and I know that RCMP is striving to teach the Sudan police services....
Is it worth it?
Does death and destruction in Africa mean we should do nothing?
We could have said that about Afghanistan and yet thats the very thing we did say prior to 9/11.
Central Asia, the Horn of Africa and Canada have little in common and yet a stable central asia and a stable africa is important even if we only give token gestures.
Canadian Talisman energy (out of Calgary) was accused by the Harker mission in 2000, which admonished Talisman for not doing enough to stop human rights abuses by other groups, but did not find that Talisman had actively aided in any atrocities. So Canada does have some blood on its hand..... Talisman has since divested its investments in Sudan in 2003.
The negative pressure on Talisman caused the divesture and by some accounts from some NGO's that by having western businessess leave the area the companies that remain have little political or ethical pressure to address issues that come up.
- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,260
ptepaul said:
Me too:
1. How is Sudan "worse" or more in need than, say, Congo or Ivory Coast?
2. How do we - whichever "we" you chose - intervene without the (currently unavailable) approval of the government in Khartoum?
3. While we are on that subject: Who is "we?" Does the UN have the military capacity to mount an opposed invasion of a sovereign nation? Is it clear to you (because it is not to me) that the AU troops already in place will stay and fight as part of an opposed UN invasion force?
4. Why should we, or anyone, intervene? Does the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine really go that far? (Hint: many scholars, including several Canadians, say "No! R2P does not give the UN a 'right' to invade a sovereign state.") Beyond R2P: Do we really want to go around interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states? What happens when someone decides that we, Canada, needs some sorting out? Isn't sauce for the goose sauce for the gander, too?
5. Who will pay ... oh well, ptepaul, those are enough questions for today; but I have many more if you can answer these few.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The more pressing question is how do events in the Sudan affect Canada's national interests?
Afghanistan is at the intersection of several nations/civilizations, many of whom are nuclear armed (Pakistan, India, China, Russia at one remove [the 'Stans]), so ensuring stability there may also damp out instability from spreading through the region. Afghanistan was also used as a training and recruiting base for the AQ to mount attacks on the west, including ones which killed Canadian citizens, something we should not allow. These are pretty compelling reasons since Canada's national interests require a secure and stable international order to encourage Canadian trade and keep our citizens safe.
If you are looking for a compelling flash point which should be engaging our full attention, I suggest you shift your focus south to Mexico, where drug cartels and rampant corruption are creating a failed State very close to us, with lots of social, economic and security issues for Canada should Mexico fail.
Afghanistan is at the intersection of several nations/civilizations, many of whom are nuclear armed (Pakistan, India, China, Russia at one remove [the 'Stans]), so ensuring stability there may also damp out instability from spreading through the region. Afghanistan was also used as a training and recruiting base for the AQ to mount attacks on the west, including ones which killed Canadian citizens, something we should not allow. These are pretty compelling reasons since Canada's national interests require a secure and stable international order to encourage Canadian trade and keep our citizens safe.
If you are looking for a compelling flash point which should be engaging our full attention, I suggest you shift your focus south to Mexico, where drug cartels and rampant corruption are creating a failed State very close to us, with lots of social, economic and security issues for Canada should Mexico fail.
1. Congo and Ivory Coast are not worse or better they are what a modern Africa still is... primitive.
But the Congo and the Ivory Coast don't have the oil reserves a ICC indicted war criminal in the north... Chinese exploration companies chomping on the bit.
2. I have never said intervene I am simply posing the question of what do we do when genocide starts?
What will our response be? Light battalion to secure key areas and southern Sundanese government ministry's?
3. as part of the UN mission in Sudan the WE that I am refering is to not just the nations that provide money, logistical, equipment and training support but to all countries.... what is the moral authority to interfer when genocide starts? Should we interfer?
4. Actually under the Genocide Convention signed in 1948 nations have a right to use military force to protect a population.
The policy of 'anticipatory self-defense'
Rather than a violation of the loosely defined "rules" of international warfare, Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq was, in hindsight, justifiable under the policy of "anticipatory self-defense" established in 1837 by American politician Daniel Webster. Under the policy of anticipatory self-defense, any nation facing a threat considered to be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation," is considered justified in launching an attack before actually being attacked itself.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa091011a.htm
"UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan pointed out last year, “when it comes to laws … we are blessed with what amounts to an international bill of human rights, among which are impressive norms to protect the weakest among us, including victims of conflict and persecution.”
Genocide Convention, signed in 1948. It commits all governments to act to prevent and punish acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and other crimes against humanity. In September 2005, at the UN World Summit, 150 leaders from across the globe reaffirmed that “responsibility to protect,” using all necessary means, including, where appropriate, military force."
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol20no2/202-protecting-civilians.html
5. Who pays for it?
We have to not balance human life with a pocket book.
As for what is good is good for the gander an anticipated invasion of Canada due to precieved injustices is not in the cards... we are talking about genocide... if Canadian government and military and police force were exterminating a certain section of the population and we as Canadians could not stop it then international force is justified and to be expected.
But the Congo and the Ivory Coast don't have the oil reserves a ICC indicted war criminal in the north... Chinese exploration companies chomping on the bit.
2. I have never said intervene I am simply posing the question of what do we do when genocide starts?
What will our response be? Light battalion to secure key areas and southern Sundanese government ministry's?
3. as part of the UN mission in Sudan the WE that I am refering is to not just the nations that provide money, logistical, equipment and training support but to all countries.... what is the moral authority to interfer when genocide starts? Should we interfer?
4. Actually under the Genocide Convention signed in 1948 nations have a right to use military force to protect a population.
The policy of 'anticipatory self-defense'
Rather than a violation of the loosely defined "rules" of international warfare, Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq was, in hindsight, justifiable under the policy of "anticipatory self-defense" established in 1837 by American politician Daniel Webster. Under the policy of anticipatory self-defense, any nation facing a threat considered to be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation," is considered justified in launching an attack before actually being attacked itself.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa091011a.htm
"UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan pointed out last year, “when it comes to laws … we are blessed with what amounts to an international bill of human rights, among which are impressive norms to protect the weakest among us, including victims of conflict and persecution.”
Genocide Convention, signed in 1948. It commits all governments to act to prevent and punish acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and other crimes against humanity. In September 2005, at the UN World Summit, 150 leaders from across the globe reaffirmed that “responsibility to protect,” using all necessary means, including, where appropriate, military force."
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol20no2/202-protecting-civilians.html
5. Who pays for it?
We have to not balance human life with a pocket book.
As for what is good is good for the gander an anticipated invasion of Canada due to precieved injustices is not in the cards... we are talking about genocide... if Canadian government and military and police force were exterminating a certain section of the population and we as Canadians could not stop it then international force is justified and to be expected.
Similar threads
