Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[Colin Parkinson]

Sorry my bad, doing math without coffee is a crime...... :-[

 

[Edward Campbell]

Sorry my bad, doing math without coffee is a crime...... :-[

Sorry, I should have put a 'smiley' up there; I'm not trying to be a smart-ass.

I do not want to detract from your very valid point that Canadians, person-for-person, are doing much more than the Europeans.  Canada's new government needs to get off its new arse and tell the world.

 

[Avor]

What do you all think of the situation in Sudan? What do you think oughta be done?

We should get together with our international friends, and go old school on Sudan. You know, roll in the tanks, bomb the crap outa them, and shoot anybody who even looks at your the wrong way. Then when's it's all over, stick a flag in the ground, draw a line in the map and dare anybody to do something about it.

I'm not kidding, Sudan has failed Daefur, ethnic cleansing, rampaging warlords, famine, screw that. I honestly think we should role in, carve Darfur out of Sudan, and fix it.


But that's just my personal opinion  :

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

I'm not kidding, Sudan has failed Daefur, ethnic cleansing, rampaging warlords, famine, screw that. I honestly think we should role in, carve Darfur out of Sudan, and fix it.
...

We - the big “we” comprising the West and the Arabs – have been ”fixing” Africa for a couple of thousand years.  Africa is the only place on the globe which, despite millennia of ”fixing” keeps sinking deeper and deeper into whatever black holes can be found – social, political, economic, pandemic, you name it.

What makes you think “we” can, now, suddenly, magically, ”fix” Darfur?

 

[a_majoor]

Sad to say, but the only way to ensure a long term "positive" outcome involves doing what we are already doing in Afghanistan and our American bretheren are doing in Iraq: a form of enlightened colonialism in the form of regime change and nation building.

Should "we" ever be so foolish as to undertake those missions in the Sudan, you can scroll to back issues of Canadian and American MSM vehicles and simply substitute "Sudan" for "Afghanistan" or "Iraq". A few minor details may have to be changed, such as substituting the "Brutal African summer" for the "Brutal Afghan winter", but a simpls cut and paste program will do.

My sarcasm meter is on high right now, because you and I both know that actual action on our part is ALWAYS greeted with cries of "It can't (shouldn't) be done" by the nay sayers, defeatists and lefty fellow travellers.

When Canada finishes the job in Afghanistan in ten or so years, we can look at the state of the Forces, the national piggy bank and our collective national interest to see if there is a compelling Canadian reason to enter Dafur........

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We - the big “we” comprising the West and the Arabs – have been ”fixing” Africa for a couple of thousand years.  Africa is the only place on the globe which, despite millennia of ”fixing” keeps sinking deeper and deeper into whatever black holes can be found – social, political, economic, pandemic, you name it.

What makes you think “we” can, now, suddenly, magically, ”fix” Darfur?

Well a couple of the ex-British Colonies are still doing OK, Kenya, SA, Tanizina

 

[MarkOttawa]

A guest-post at Daimnation!

Darfur: Who's helping...
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009085.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[FascistLibertarian]

It is really depressing that this threat has been going on for so long

My personal suggestion (and I make no claim to be an expert)
1) No fly zone over the country (with exceptions for passanger planes etc)
The US could set this up within a week if they really wanted to.
2) Western countries should provid the logistical help and funding.
ie I think a CF company strength deployment working for logistical purposes would be much more helpful than if we say sent special forces or a battalion of reg force infantry (not that we could at present)
3) We need responsible Muslim countries to provide the boots on the ground.

Here is the root problem as I see it: Democracy does not work in ethnically/religiously/racially diverse countries which have been created by external forces as a minority will have the power and does not wish to give it up.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is an opinion piece by Gerald Caplan – a well known talking head and one of the Canadian left’s great and good:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=6ff40ce4-800b-4f14-a9b2-87f841ddcc82

Shaking hands with another devil

Gerald Caplan, National Post
Published: Thursday, March 29, 2007

Terrible crimes often create terrible dilemmas. In 1994, for instance, Canadian General Romeo Dallaire had to negotiate in Rwanda with men he knew were organizing one of history's worst genocides. Negotiations are now going on with the leaders of North Korea, and the world is holding its breath praying that the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), the child-molesters of northern Uganda, will return to the bargaining table. There are increasing calls to open talks with elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Dallaire wanted to kill Rwanda's militant Hutu ringleaders, Bush wanted to take out North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, many want the LRA leaders to be tried by the International Criminal Court, and Stephen Harper vows never to trust the Taliban. But in every case, "jaw jaw," as Churchill described it, was deemed a better option than war war. Better to get a deal, stop the horrors being perpetrated, even if it meant granting impunity to monsters.

Does this theory explain why the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have been playing footsie with the Sudanese government of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for the past three years? Does the international community believe that he'll eventually rue his ways and end his vicious attack on the Darfur region of his country? If so, when do we finally admit that this strategy has failed?

Recall that it was these same five permanent members of the Security Council that repeatedly refused General Dallaire's pleas for more troops to end the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. As a direct result, as many as a million defenceless Tutsi were killed.

The council recently passed its seventh resolution calling on the government of Sudan to halt the attacks it's been organizing on the people of Darfur. U.S. President George W. Bush has formally accused the al-Bashir government of committing genocide. The conflict has gone on now since late 2003. Every resolution threatens that the "international community" will intervene in some ill-defined way to stop the carnage -- so long as the Sudanese government agrees. Similarly, the failed peace treaty that was drawn up after excruciatingly long negotiations last year was negotiated between the Darfur rebels and the al-Bashir government. "Who else can you negotiate with?" defenders of this jaw-jaw strategy will ask. Yet as everyone involved knows, Sudan's government has lied about every commitment it's ever made and has openly shown its contempt for world opinion on every possible occasion.

Darfur is hardly al-Bashir's first great crime against humanity. As head of his country's government for the past 18 years, he led a brutal war against southern Sudan that many also labelled a genocide -- two genocides in a single presidency, perhaps a world record. An agreement was finally reached in the south, after years of torture, rape, and mass murder by Sudanese troops financed by oil revenues from the south. Yet Sudan's government has already violated that agreement. So why is al-Bashir still being treated as a party that needs to be accommodated? Enough is enough.

It's crystal clear that al-Bashir has no intention of stopping his war against Darfur. And that, apparently, is perfectly alright with the Security Council. Behind all the powder-puff resolutions and the Monty Pythonesque threats to pass even more useless resolutions, each member has its own good reasons of national self-interest not to alienate al-Bashir's government. The Chinese need his oil. The Russians want to continue selling him fighter planes. And the United States is working closely with him on counter-terrorism issues -- even while accusing his government of perpetrating a genocide.

Why is Canada not speaking up to decry the shameful opportunism and cynicism of the UN's permanent five?

Someone may want to remind these governments of the late February ruling by the World Court on the Bosnian genocide of 1995. The court ruled that the Serbian government of Slobodan Milosevic had violated the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and was guilty of failing to prevent or stop the killing at Srebrenica. Milosevic is now dead, of course. But the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council are very much alive, actively betraying their responsibility to protect endangered civilians. How will the World Court judge them as they continue to allow the travesty in Darfur to continue?

- Gerald Caplan writes frequently on genocide and genocide prevention.

© National Post 200

I have no doubt that this: ” Why is Canada not speaking up to decry the shameful opportunism and cynicism of the UN's permanent five?” is a true cri de cœur.  The problem is that he has no answers.

If one believes, as I do, as I suspect Caplan does, too, that every preventable human death is a tragedy then what is one to do?  We can send money – but there are so many tragedies that we become immune (and poor).  We can call for some sort of action by somebody else – which is what Caplan is doing here – but that’s actually counter-productive because it is just more of the jaw-jawing which Caplan decries in the permanent five; he’s a guilty as they.

Caplan gets the answer: jaw-jawing fails us in our responsibility to protect.  Logically it is time for war.  Surely there are some crimes against humanity which are so vile that we must invade, kill then perpetrators and string their bodies up in their city squares pour encourager les autres.  I would be happy to see someone say, at long last, “To hell with the Treaty of Westphalia and its outdated ideas of sovereignty.  Here we come, Mr. al-Bashir; you are dead – we don’t need a trial – consider yourself tried and convicted by your own actions.  All that remains is the destruction of your regime and your public hanging.”

I would be proud if Canada would say that, and, then, do something about it.  But Canada will not; Gerald Caplan and his fellow travellers saw to that when they applauded from the safe sidelines which Trudeau and Chrétien emasculated our military and while Mulroney failed to reverse Trudeau’s acts of policy vandalism.

It is time for Caplan to stop jaw-jawing about the problem and start talking about the solution: more Canadian sailors, soldiers and aviators, more equipment and a steely resolve to use them to exercise our responsibility protect.

Or, more likely, Caplan will say, “Well, really, you see, it’s someone else’s responsibility – people like Tony Blair and George Bush.” 

 

[MarkOttawa]

More bloviating from Softy Lloyd and Allan (he's no) Rock:

Six things Canada should do
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=9f4b639a-e45b-4a4a-bed4-5fbab8b97ff1&p=2

Less than fourteen, at least.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

Just a little update on the Sudan situation:

Sudan agrees to U.N.-African Darfur force: Saudi Thu Mar 29, 3:09 PM ET



RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia said on Thursday Sudan had agreed to a joint U.N.-African Union force in Darfur after a meeting with United Nations, African and Saudi officials on the sidelines of an Arab summit.

"Sudan has now agreed for the U.N. to provide logistical support to help African forces," Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said at a news conference.

"This means there will be some non-African forces there and this is a breakthrough that never happened before and we hope it leads immediately to a solution to the humanitarian tragedy in Darfur as soon as possible."

The announcement follows a meeting on Wednesday of Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Arab League chief Amr Moussa, Saudi King Abdullah and Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki, who heads East African body, the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD).

Bashir told Arab leaders at the summit's opening on Wednesday the United Nations could have a role in providing logistical support for African troops.

Bashir has long resisted the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers to Sudan's western Darfur region, where the United States says a genocide of the local population has taken place through government support for nomadic militia groups.

A U.N. plan foresaw a small force of U.N. military and civilian forces moving into Darfur, followed in the second phase by about 2,500 more U.N. troops, and finally by another 10,000 soldiers to form a hybrid force.

Experts estimate that 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million have fled their homes since conflict flared in 2003 when rebel groups took up arms against the government, accusing it of neglect. Khartoum says 9,000 people have died and denies the genocide allegations.
Sudan, which has been accused of hindering aid to Darfur, signed an agreement with the United Nations this week to boost humanitarian work in the region.

 

[armyvern]

Cougarshark please edit your post to include the link and ref to the original source.

Thanks

The Army.ca Staff

 

[CougarKing]

Here is the link to the original source for the above article, from Yahoo! News article that quoted a Reuters report:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070329/wl_nm/darfur_sudan_force_dc

I'm sorry, but my "edit" function seems to be disabled.

 

[armyvern]

Ahh...

Sorry, yes it would be.

Vielen Dank
Thanks for the link.

The Army.ca Staff

 

[TCBF]

Here is the root problem as I see it: Democracy does not work in ethnically/religiously/racially diverse countries which have been created by external forces as a minority will have the power and does not wish to give it up.

- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  Liberty is a well armed lanb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin

 

[MarkOttawa]

Sen. Dallaire still wants Canada, in some miraculous fashion, to punch above its weight:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=ca10701d-3d86-489b-a5cb-1a1888d9bc4c

While armed intervention by Canada against Sudan's will is not feasible [that's a profound truth - MC], there are numerous steps Canada might undertake, and for which concerned Canadians should push. As a minimum, we must:

- Take a dynamic lead on the issue. Despite Canada's unfortunate inability to send troops at the moment, Canada's Prime Minister should personally raise the issue with his counterparts at every occasion. Notably, he should press the German Chancellor to put Darfur on the agenda at the upcoming G8 Summit in Germany.

- Establish a no-fly zone over Darfur. Prime Minister Harper should press other Western leaders, especially from the U.S. and U.K., to iron out the details of this crucial step. Canada could contribute CF-18s to enforce this zone [emphasis added], significantly reducing the Sudanese Air Force's ability to harm Darfurians and improving the humanitarian effort in the area. The international community has threatened to enforce a no-fly zone on numerous occasions, so the establishment of one now would boost their badly-damaged credibility.

- Rapidly deploy a UN Mission to Chad and the Central African Republic to restore stability in these countries and prevent the conflict from spreading to the entire region through a mix of military force, humanitarian aid and planning for a regional solution.

- Significantly increase funding to the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) and the massive humanitarian effort, above and beyond the $61-million recently pledged by the Canadian government which simply maintains the unconscionable status quo. The Canadian military can also send trainers, advisors, logisticians and personal and technical equipment to reinforce AMIS's capability [does the Senator really think the Sudanese government would permit that, even if we could do it?  Remember the very hard time we had getting them to let the Grizzlies in]. Darfurian lives can be saved and suffering prevented if Canada and others boost their resources.

- Increase Canada's capacity to work on the issue. With its expertise in human rights law and practice, Canada should be a leader in the global commitment to address this crisis. To do this, we must increase our commitment of staff at Foreign Affairs Canada, at the Canadian Mission to the UN and at the embassy in Khartoum...

See "The Grizzly road to Darfur":
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005238.html

Now for the current reality:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/03/asia/AS-GEN-China-Sudan-Military.php

China, criticized for its support for Sudan, will boost its military and other cooperation with the African country, state media reported.

China buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil and sells it weapons and military aircraft, but has been criticized for not using its influence to do more to stop the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region.

Xinhua News Agency reported late Monday that the countries had vowed "to boost military exchanges and cooperation in various sectors" during a visit by Sudan's Joint Chief of Staff Haj Ahmed El Gaili.

"Military relations between China and Sudan have developed smoothly," Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan was quoted as saying, adding "China is willing to further develop cooperation between the two militaries in every sphere."

Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said the two sides "exchanged ideas on the Darfur issue" and called for a solution by political means.

He said they talked about a plan proposed by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan last year.

"We hope [hah!] the Sudanese side can show further flexibility on the implementation of the Annan program," said Qin, adding there were no details on whether weapons sales were discussed.

The United Nations and Sudan agreed in November on a plan backed by Annan for the incremental deployment of a joint African Union-U.N. force of 20,000 peacekeepers, but Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has since backed off the deal, saying he only would allow a larger AU force with technical and logistical support from the United Nations...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Now, see Mark, if we hadn't pulled Talisman out of Sudan, allowing China to buy up the Talisman leases and thus gain influence, we could be telling Talisman to pull out now and thus influencing Sudan's policies just the way the Chinese are now......or would the Chinese just buy up the leases we release now thereby undoing our influence and gaining new influence for themselves, as well as oil and a market for weapons keeping at least some of their labour force in jobs.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill: Didn't Talisman end up in Afstan?  You know it's all about oil there too.
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/ledev1a.htm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[HeatRoca]

Intresting comments. The UK should be more involved seen as how sudan use to be a british coloney and gained independence in the late 50s. anyways back to the topic i think the african union should exercise its powers and sudan more military forces to sudan until the sudanese government stops attacks on civilians and racial and religious prosection to black africans and other ethnic groups in southern sudan.. Also the sudanese army is not a strong fighting force it could easly be taken out

 

[Edward Campbell]

Intresting comments. The UK should be more involved seen as how sudan use to be a british coloney and gained independence in the late 50s. anyways back to the topic i think the african union should exercise its powers and sudan more military forces to sudan until the sudanese government stops attacks on civilians and racial and religious prosection to black africans and other ethnic groups in southern sudan.. Also the sudanese army is not a strong fighting force it could easly be taken out

I think the AU has very little power to exercise in the first place.

Second: it lacks the political will to exercise what little power it has.  This (like everything else) is, after all, the fault of colonialism.

Third: even if there was sufficient power and some will, the AU lacks the C3 and logistical wherewithall to manage an exercise of power.

If there is going to be a solution to Darfur, the world will have to look past the AU.

I still say: "Send India!"