Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[McG]

Oh and McG.. I don't see how you can get that out of Pugnaciou's post. He just mentioned another incident where a UN worker was murdered in Africa.

Then why is it relevant to this thread on the Sudan?

He was pointing out how even if you're in the UN a lot of the Militias in Africa are savages who don't give a crap about you or your organization. These ones in Sudan are undoubtly the same way, considering all the ethnic cleansing and such.

Do you see what you've just written?  You suggest that the quote does not paint all Africans the same, but then justify it being in the thread because it provides a picture of Africans.  You cannot have it both ways.

 

[SFontaine]

No..

Militias in Africa are savages

I do believe I said Militias in Africa. Not average Africans.

 

[winchable]

Alright lads I'd say it's safe to say that you both have good intentions even if you aren't wording it right, and I doubt either of you thinks all Africans are savage, but further debating who is and isn't a racist is another flamewar we won't be needing and not the subject of this thread.

 

[Pugnacious]

McG you are overthinking your imagination, and underthinking the context of the post. So If your trying to imply something about me by reading your own imagination into my posts then I suggest you not waist your time.

SFontaine summed up what I was trying to say very nicely. ;D

But to add IMHO Sudan is a very risky place to do "peacekeeping", as is anywhere the value of human life is considered just above dirt, and the countryside is full of armed militia/bandits that do not care where you come from, or what colour helmet you wear.

I wish good health and safety to our CF that are about to do such dangerious work.

Cheers!
P.

 

[291er]

SFontaine
It's not propaganda against Bush, it's a matter of fact.  Bush may not be a religious nut, but that is his main reason for backing this particular civil war in Africa.  I don't know where I read it, I read a lot of material on Sudan on a daily basis, and these facts have been reiterated numerous times.
Jimmy Carter also tried to broker a deal between the GoS and SPLM/A in the nineties.  Let's not turn this into a Bush bashing session....it was simply a fact...I make it a point to be well informed on the Sudan...

 

[devil39]

I think Canada should send "peacekeepers"  

I think the US should send "nationbuilders".   Have any of those?   Phase IV of the current operation could probably have benefited from a little more pre-planning.   Then again, I only did my staff training in Canada.

Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map argues that the US should have more nationbuilding ability and start deploying them.  

Have you read the book?   Your time might be better spent as a US Army Major, reading at the strategic level as opposed to trolling on a Canadian Army forum.

I would hope that as a moderator and US Army Major, you might refrain from trolling (and I do believe your comment was a troll).   If it was not a troll, then you have my most sincere apologies.   You may PM me for a civil discussion and a contrite apology if required.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/Opinion/home.html
Was been a bad century, wasn't it.?

 

[Yard Ape]

McG you are overthinking your imagination, and underthinking the context of the post. So If your trying to imply something about me by reading your own imagination into my posts then I suggest you not waist your time.

SFontaine summed up what I was trying to say very nicely.

Pugnacious,
I won't call you racist, because that is not what you are.  However, your gerneralizations show you to be ignorant of the conflict & of Africa.  McG was right to call you on it as what you have done is no different that describing Montreal inorder to prepare Europeans for a trip to Chicago.  Worse, you speak with a level of authority you do not seem to have, have provided irrelevant/innacurate information, and have drawn conclusions that can not be argued in the context of this particular country.

Your vague reference to a militiaman shooting a peacekeeper in the back is wrong.  "A soldier from the Ivorian national armed forces FANCI fired unprovoked on a French military vehicle, shooting one of its occupants in the back.  The perpetrator of this isolated incident was immediately taken down by other FANCI soldiers in the area." (He was not Militia, he was a soldier.  He was acting on his own & clearly the other soldiers from his country were not the random savages you've suggested.  Here is where you first heard of this: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18212

Next lets look at the Ivory Coast, DRC, Rawanda, Sierra Leon, and Liberia.  It seems that these are the countries that we want to compare with Sudan.  There is one problem here though.  Ethnically, culturally, and religiously these countries are very different.  Most of Africa is Christian (or rather Christion based but incorporating much traditional spritualism.  I understand Hati to be much the same).  Sudan has an Islamic majority.  That Islamic Majority also holds the power & controls the money in that country.  Did you know it has been Arabs chasing black Christians from thier villages in the South? 

You wanted to know which part of Africa was so wealthy.  Fact is that there is a wealth of natural resources that are often the source of the conflicts.  Coruption keeps much of the wealth from the average citizen in many contries.  The DRC has gold, diamonds, uranium, etc.  Sudan has oil (but I do not belive they do much drilling).  There is money over there, but it may only be held by those in power.

 

[Pugnacious]

"Pugnacious,
I won't call you racist, because that is not what you are."

P: Yes but you where not the one implying this in the first place. 
But I'm glad you understand I am not a racist...one less person I have to "educate" when I meet them.

"However, your gerneralizations show you to be ignorant of the conflict & of Africa.   McG was right to call you on it as what you have done is no different that describing Montreal inorder to prepare Europeans for a trip to Chicago."  

P: With all due respect you also don't have a clue. I am VERY aware of the conflict in Africa.
Besides which I wasn't aware that a full historical essay was requested to make a simple comment on this topic.

My whole point was it is going to be a dangerious place for peacekeepers, and that I hope they keep their heads down, and watch their backs. People are carving each other up down there...not a warm fuzzy place IMHO. I have this info first hand.

"Worse, you speak with a level of authority you do not seem to have, have provided irrelevant/innacurate information, and have drawn conclusions that can not be argued in the context of this particular country."

P: Level of authority?  Why is this needed for a conversation here?
Also you know nothing of me, or my family background, and trust me you and McG would feel pretty silly right now if you did.

Don't worry I'll go away from this topic, and leave the conversation to the engineers...who for some reason have all the exclusive answers to world problems.

Cheers!
P.

 

[karpovage]

Sure, send in the Marines, send in the U.S. "peacekeepers" again. Nation build. Regime change. Call on us once again. We are the world police. We can fix all of the world problems.

Quite frankly, bottom line is that my bottom line as a U.S. taxpayer can't afford to fix the world's problems anymore. Especially when we do not gain an ounce of respect for it. We are the most generous nation in the world giving billions in foreign aid, sacrificing our military personnel, increasing our deficits, etc, etc, ALL this for a dysfunctional United Nations who should be taking the lead role.

Why NOW should American boys and girls go into an African tribe and stop them from killing each other when our own cities cannot stop gang members from killing each other? We cannot fix our own internal crime, murder and drugs so why should we spend billions more to save the rest of the world? Let alone the political fallout of the arrogant America "invading" another nation.

Sure humanitarian missions like Somalia made everyone feel good (until CLinton changed the mission). But humanitarian missions NOW will be labelled as pre-emptive invasions by the U.S.

I don't have a clue how to stop Africans from massacreing each other. Hell, they haven't figured it out over thousands of years themselves. Why do you think more dead AMericans being dragged through the streets would solve this problem?

 

[291er]

News from the Darfur front........the rebels (Sudanese Liberation Army, not to be confused with the SPLA in the South) and the JEM (Justice and Equality Movement) walked out of the peace talks on 17 July.  Khartoum (GoS) said it "demonstrated the rebels' lack of commitment to peace".  The rebels claimed that "By refusing to accept our demands the government in Khartoum is saying that it is not prepared to discuss the disarmament of the Janjaweed who are conducting ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Africans in Sudan".  The rebels' six demands are:

- The Sudanese government to disarm the militias, or Janjaweed;
- Janjaweed members in police departments and the armed forces to be dismissed and brought to justice;
- No government obstruction of humanitarian aid;
- Government investigations of human rights violations

Then yesterday a Sudanese court convicted 10 "Janjaweed" militiamen for looting and killing in the Darfur region.  They are sentenced to amputation and 6 years in jail.  This is important because it has traditionally been the belief that these very "Janjaweed" Arab militias have been funded and reinforced by Khartoum.  There has been several accounts of air support provided by the Govt.  Hind attack helicopters are'nt very mistakable I suppose.  Just ask the mujahideen.  This could be perceived as a step in the right direction by the GoS however, seems kind of hypocritical though.  This may be a product of Pres Bashir's promise to Sec.Gen Annan two weeks ago that he would disarm the Janjaweed, begin political talks with the rebels, and provide access for international aid agencies as well as send police to Darfur to protect civilians.

 

[Goober]

Sure, send in the Marines, send in the U.S. "peacekeepers" again. Nation build. Regime change. Call on us once again. We are the world police. We can fix all of the world problems.

Quite frankly, bottom line is that my bottom line as a U.S. taxpayer can't afford to fix the world's problems anymore. Especially when we do not gain an ounce of respect for it...

I'm sorry but exactly what problems were fixed by the US?

 

[291er]

Just an FYI Karpovage
George W Bush is one of the main driving forces behind the push for peace in the Sudan, predominantly because of the miniscule Christian population there that is being ousted by Islamists.  If he wants to make it his personal agenda, then yes, he should provide some troops to back up his foreign policy.  The United Nations IS taking a lead role on this mission, but you can hardly blame them for not helping the USA out, afterall, you guys pretty much told them to bugger off when it came to Iraq.......au contraire, the US foreign policy far from solves all the world's problems, in fact they are quite apt at making more of them, and leaving it for the Canadian "peacekeepers" to sort out.  True that as a US taxpayer, you do pay a lot to extend your foreign policy, maybe your country should think of having its own "Regime Change" before they worry about other countries'.  And although the US does deploy a lot of it's forces for peacekeeping, etc., try being in the Canadian Army, we go to these missions underequipped, in some cases outgunned, we have a public which is more concerned with free Health care than pumping some much needed funds into an already cash-strapped Forces. 

 

[Yard Ape]

Also you know nothing of me, or my family background, and trust me you and McG would feel pretty silly right now if you did.

Well, I am confident you are not the NDHQ desk officer for Africa.   Otherwise I might loose sleep on the possibility that the guys we have deployed to that continent would have to put up with bad decisions based on an incorrect recolection of unrelated/irrelevnant events that happened on the other side of the continent.

I am VERY aware of the conflict in Africa. (I assume you wanted to say "in Sudan.")

...

... I have this info first hand.

Then surprise me.   You've made comments, announced that certain realities are especially true to Sudan, and then look to the DRC & Ivory Coast to prove it.  

The tactical & operational situation in Sudan is unique to Sudan.   Geography (rivers, lakes, jungles, roads, deserts, cities, etc) is not a constant across Africa and it will play a major factor in defining the situation.   The society (religion, population density, distribution of wealth) is another major factor.   But what really matters is showing trends (not things that happened once somewhere, but reocurring acts in the mission area).   If you do feel the need to look at trends in another country, then at least identify what geographic or cultural factor contributed to the trend & show that factor to be common to Sudan.

 

[291er]

I am 100% sure that he is not the Africa Desk Officer at NDCC.....and you are completely right, Sudan is unique, you can't generalize it with all the conflicts in Africa.  Different people, different reasons for fighting.  And as someone who watchs the trends and the conflicts there "religiously", I consider myself quite well informed on the subject....as does the desk officer.

 

[Yard Ape]

EU wants UN sanctions for Sudan
Associated Press 
http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040726.wsuda0726/BNStory/International/

Brussels â ” European Union foreign ministers agreed Monday to push for United Nations sanctions against Sudan if the country does not move to end the conflict in the Darfur region.

In a statement citing their â Å“grave concern, the EU ministers said they were â Å“alarmed by reports of massive human rights violationsâ ? perpetrated by Arab militias, â Å“including systematic rape of women.â ?

â Å“The risk is very high for a potential catastrophe,â ? EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said.

The foreign ministers said they â Å“expect the government of Sudan to ensure that these violations stop with immediate effectâ ? or the EU would take â Å“appropriate further steps.â ?

While not using the word â Å“sanctions,â ? EU officials said the 25-member bloc would â Å“likelyâ ? push for such a move by the UN Security Council.

The violence began 15 months ago when two rebel groups from Darfur's African tribes took up arms in a struggle over land and resources with Arab countrymen. Arab militias known as Janjaweed then began a brutal campaign to drive out the black Africans.

As many as 30,000 people, most of them black Africans, have been killed and more than one million people have fled their homes. Some 2.2 million are in urgent need of food or medical attention.

The 25-nation European Union, the United States and humanitarian groups have accused the Sudanese government of backing the militias â ” an accusation that it denies.

Last week, the U.S. Congress declared that the atrocities amounted to genocide, and urged the Bush administration to do the same. A UN convention obligates the international community to prevent and punish acts it has declared as genocide.

Backing its threat of sanctions, the EU said it was preparing â Å“a list of Janjeweed leaders responsible for breaches and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and those guiding and supporting them.â ?

The EU said the Sudanese government â Å“will be pressed to arrest these persons or suspend them form office and to bring them to justice.â ?

The 25 foreign ministers also urged Sudan to admit more aid workers to provide emergency food and shelter.

The United Nations plans to send a peacekeeping mission by the end of 2004 to Darfur, a region the size of Iraq with a population of 6.7 million.

 

[Guardian]

Hooray! UN sanctions. Just like pre-2003 Iraq, North Korea, the former Yugoslavia - we know how well sanctions will probably work.

To play devil's advocate against myself, though, short of sending in troops we probably have no other alternative. So here's hoping (against hope and past experience) that the sanctions actually work. Because the chance of them working is probably better than the chance of the West sending in troops.

Thoughts?

 

[Kirkhill]

Sanctions allow our politicians to convince their constituents (at least enough of them to get elected) that they are doing something while delaying the inevitable, necessary and, unfortunately, costly intervention.

In the meantime they are squandering an opportunity and setting themselves up for trouble in the longer term, if not failure.

If they act when a crisis breaks out and chooses a side then when the intervene they can count of the support of at least part of the population, possibly a majority in some cases, for some period of time.  Long enough for the locals to decide if the intervention was a good thing or a bad thing.

On the other hand, if they hide behind sanctions, as they did in Iraq, they will create an entire population that is resentful and has to be won over.  At the time that we cross the border the reaction is not "Thank God you're  here" but "It's about bl**dy time, what took you so long".  They are not going to cut any slack while attempts are made to pick up the pieces and sort out the mess.

Sanctions are an unproductive and cowardly implement of war. The word is diplomatic speak for siege or embargo, both considered justifiable "cases for war", that allow the besieged entity to defend itself by all means at its disposal.

Sometimes such a strategy may be defensible in the short term, buying time until intervention is possible but it can't be a long term solution.

Sanctions, embargo and siege never hurt the ruling classes, seldom hurt the military but always hurt the young, the old and the sick as well, disproportionately, the female.  You are not going to make many friends by telling a potential fighter that you had to starve his children, his parents and his wife in order to save him.

 

[291er]

Sanctions won't do anything to help this situation.  The Govt of Sudan is very adament in its flat out denial that anything is even happening over in Darfur.  Of course, they're not supplying the Janjaweed, rag-tag Arab militias regulary have close air support and Hind attack choppers.
The GoS could care less what the West thinks of it, for years it has been claiming that Sudan has not been committing any human rights violations.  Executing USAID workers, claiming they are spies and feeding the SPLA with intelligence via a non0existent radio and executing them without a trial.  I just read Don Petterson's book "Inside Sudan", he was the last US Ambassador in Khartoum.  Pres El-Bashir is not interested in diplomatics, nor does he really care about sanctions or what the rest of the world thinks of him, his main concern is his own personal status.  What more could you expect of a man who was put into power by a coup?
I think the only way to stop these Janjaweed will be troops, but it is by far not the best choice.  A group calling itself Mohammed's Army has vowed to fight any troops sent to Western Sudan, trying to make it look like this will become another Iraq.  Unfortunately the only way you can make these ppl comply is with force.....

 

[Yard Ape]

Any hints that a US involvment could draw 'mujahadeen' from bordering nations to the north and east?