Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[MarkOttawa]

U.S. seeks resolution that would extend peacekeeping in southern Sudan to push Darfur force
AP, April 24
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070424-0055-un-sudan.html

The United States sought to use a U.N. resolution that would extend the U.N. peacekeeping mission in southern Sudan to press for the deployment of 20,000 U.N. troops in Darfur.

But the strategy is likely to face difficulties from Security Council members who want to keep two operations separate.

Meanwhile the United States and Britain have almost completed another proposal calling for sanctions against Sudan if the country doesn't agree to the U.N. force for Darfur.

The push for new sanctions was announced after a confidential U.N. report charged that Sudan's government has been flying arms and heavy military equipment into Darfur in violation of Security Council resolutions and is impeding peace efforts by using aircraft with U.N. markings.

The United Nations has 12,700 troops in southern Sudan, where they are monitoring a 2005 peace deal that ended a 21-year civil war between the mostly Muslim north and the Christian and animist south.

The U.N. chief has recommended extending the mission another six months, but on Monday the United States circulated a draft resolution that authorizes the troops to stay just three more months – until July 31.

The U.S. proposal also expresses the council's intention to deploy 20,000 U.N. peacekeepers to reinforce the struggling African Union force in Darfur...

The United Nations has 12,700 troops in southern Sudan, where they are monitoring a 2005 peace deal that ended a 21-year civil war between the mostly Muslim north and the Christian and animist south.

The U.N. chief has recommended extending the mission another six months, but on Monday the United States circulated a draft resolution that authorizes the troops to stay just three more months – until July 31.

The U.S. proposal also expresses the council's intention to deploy 20,000 U.N. peacekeepers to reinforce the struggling African Union force in Darfur...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[career_radio-checker]

So maybe Canada can't go in.  But many other nations have the ability and should.  When human rights are being neglected equally or worse than those in countries such as Afghanistan, WE as a whole, as human beings, have a duty and obligation to intervene to ensure that they are protected.  

The British foreign policy marched to similar tune in the 19th century. We (and most certainly Africa) know it as imperialism, but the British justified it as 'civilizing' these despotic countries. Time expired is right, this stuff happens you just have to let it go. We may see it as 'protecting the human rights of a targeted people' but I guarantee you that the Africans will just see the 'white man' coming back to Africa with bigger guns. Africa is on its own now, and the best way to solve African problems is with African solutions and African troops. Of course we can support a mission financially and logistically, but that's it.

 

[Quag]

I couldn't furthur disagree from you CRC.  First off, what does human rights have anything to do with Imperialism.  I'm sick and tired of the Imperialism arguments.  Wake up world, we are an Imperialistic and Capitalistic world, and its not changing.  But that has nothing to do with human rights.  While the human rights may be violated due to imperialistic ways, it doesn't excuse the wrongs that are being committed.  And no, we still have a duty under the human condition to intervene.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Quag: If human rights are the deciding factor, why do not "we" (whoever we may be) intervene in Chechnya?  Or Tibet?  Or the DPRK?  Or Kashmir?  Or Sri Lanka?  Or Zimbabwe?  Or...All, of course, without UN Security Council authorization.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Quag]

Well in my personal opinion (as skewed as it might be), that is the million dollar question.  If you read my post before it, I realize that Canada and other countries cannot logistically intervene, however there are other countries that should.  If nothing else, Canada should acknowlege the fact that there are massive violations of human rights occuring in these countries and call for UN and other international support.  Just my two cents...throw it out or tear it up but I'm not changing my stance here.

 

[Quag]

I should add that I do realize that Canada has acknowledged, just added the point for emphasis, to make the point.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The same sort of analysis applies to all those in Canada demanding action:

Next stop Darfur?
http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20070604-104906-1235r

Joseph Biden wants the United States to intervene with military force to stop the genocide that he and George W. Bush say is going on in Darfur.
   
"We should enforce a no-fly zone, impose multilateral sanctions through the U.N., lead negotiations among all the parties for a lasting peace settlement, find the forces for a peacekeeping mission and, if necessary, commit U.S. troops on the ground," he said in a statement.

Mr. Biden is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a candidate for president, and he deserves to be taken seriously. My questions for him: How many U.S. troops would you put "on the ground"? For how long? What is your strategy for winning? And do you have an exit strategy absent victory?
   
These are questions that many people, including Mr. Biden, have asked quite reasonably about Mr. Bush's decision to intervene with military force in Iraq.
   
Mr. Biden acknowledges there are "logistical obstacles and humanitarian concerns involved in this approach." No kidding. Darfur is far distant from U.S. bases or the open sea, it has little physical infrastructure, and the Sudanese government and some indigenous peoples would likely be hostile.
   
Russ Feingold, Mr. Biden's colleague in the Senate who thought about running for president but decided not to, takes another view. He reacts positively to Mr. Bush's "long overdue" strengthening of sanctions on the Sudanese government, but in his view it is not enough.
   
"In order for the initiatives announced today to be effective," he says, "the administration must redouble its diplomatic efforts at the United Nations, and in particular with reluctant Security Council members, to ensure these initiatives are complemented by similar multilateral measures. This administration must work in concert with the international community if targeted sanctions and economic pressure are to have any meaningful impact in reversing the humanitarian crisis and ending the genocide in Sudan."
 
My questions for him: Why do you suppose that redoubled diplomatic efforts will do anything to persuade China, which buys oil from Sudan, to cooperate? What do you do if it continues to be impossible to get the Security Council to authorize sanctions [emphasis added]? What steps are you prepared to take to enforce sanctions?
   
Mr. Biden at least realizes that in a less-than-perfect world, with many evil persons doing evil things, military action is sometimes necessary to stop them. Mr. Feingold seems to assume diplomatic suasion is all that is needed, at least for now. But their two different approaches have two things in common.
   
One is that it is better to intervene where we don't have major security interests than where we do [emphasis added]. Mr. Feingold opposed from the beginning our intervention in Iraq, and Mr. Biden, who voted for the Iraq war resolution, now wants us to move toward withdrawing. Yet Iraq is in a critical part of the world for us, and a speedy withdrawal from Iraq would be, as the Iraq Study Group concluded, a terrible blow to our national interest.
   
Any intervention in Darfur, through sanctions or military force, would be strictly humanitarian, like our interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. We had few national security interests there -- local civil wars were unable to embroil Europe in crisis. But Bill Clinton decided to intervene militarily, and most Democrats supported him. They approved our intervention there precisely because it was humanitarian and not in pursuit of security interests...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

The same sort of analysis applies to all those in Canada demanding action:

Next stop Darfur?
http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20070604-104906-1235r

Mark
Ottawa

Probably.  It and the Horn of Africa.  But only after Agence France Presse declares victory in Iraq.  (See this....http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/56384/post-574914.html#msg574914)

The Republicans will then have successfully completed an unpopular war against one enemy while the Democrats get to launch a popular war against the same enemy.  And the Army stays employed.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Sudan and UN reach new peacekeeping deal for Darfur
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/18/africa/18nations.php

Let's see what in fact happens, though on the surface this looks like progress:

The United Nations Security Council and the Sudanese government on Sunday hammered out the major details of a proposal to send more than 20,000 peacekeeping troops to Darfur, clearing the way for a joint force with the African Union, which will be led and paid for by the United Nations.

After a two-hour meeting with senior Sudanese officials in Khartoum, the delegation from the Security Council announced at a news conference there that it had reached an agreement for the force to be under United Nations command, though its day-to-day operations would be run by the African Union [? emphasis added]. The issue had been a sticking point for countries that might contribute troops to the operation but balked at being under African Union command.

After meeting with Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, and foreign minister, Lam Akol, the Security Council ambassadors said at the news conference that senior Sudanese officials had made an unconditional commitment to the new force.

"I can tell you that the foreign minister told us in no uncertain terms that the government of Sudan accepted the hybrid operation without any conditionality," said Dumisani Kumalo, South Africa's ambassador to the United Nations. "The president himself just confirmed the same thing to us."

The statement appeared to lay to rest momentarily concerns that Sudan would insist that only African troops be allowed to serve in the peacekeeping force, which will shore up a beleaguered African Union force of 7,000 troops struggling to maintain order in the lawless region...

The new force is not expected to be sent until next year [emphasis added], but when it does it will face chaos in Darfur and an even more complicated military and political environment than at the start of the conflict. The rebel groups are fractured, tribal militias fight among themselves and there is no currently recognized cease-fire.

Emyr Jones Parry, Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, said reaching a new cease-fire agreement and new negotiations for a political deal to end the conflict were paramount. "There isn't going to be an enduring peace unless there is a political settlement," Jones Parry said.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GAP]

Climate change behind Darfur killing: Ban Ki-moon
Washington, AFP: 
Article Link

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. 

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column published on Saturday.

UN statistics showed that rainfall declined some 40 per cent over the past two decades, he said, as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons.

"This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming," the South Korean diplomat wrote.

"It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought," Ban said in the Washington daily.

When Darfur's land was rich, he said, black farmers welcomed Arab herders and shared their water, he said
More on link

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

Canada can't sustain another major operation. Or correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Your not wrong, figure that you will need a 4 to 1 ratio for a long term deployment, 3 to 1 for a short term. That's 3-4 guys for each guy on the ground. so a 1,000 man strong force requires a 3-4,000 man miltary to sustain it.

 

[MarkOttawa]

An update:

The real situation (June 21):

Sudan denies acceptance of UN command of hybrid force in Darfur
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article22472

June 19, 2007 (KHARTOUM) — Sudanese President Omer al-Bashir has denied the acceptance of deploying a hybrid peacekeeping force commanded by the United Nations in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, local media reported on Tuesday.

The Alwan daily quoted Bashir as saying that the hybrid force to be deployed by the UN and the African Union (AU) in Darfur will be commanded by African and its troops would mainly come from African countries [emphasis added].

"The agreement signed by Sudan with the AU Peace and Security Council stipulates appointment of an African commander for the troops in Darfur," al-Bashir told a meeting of local political leaders in Medani, the capital of Gezira State in central Sudan.

He disclosed that a Nigerian general had been chosen for the post, adding that only technical and civilian personnel could be sent by non-African countries to join the peacekeeping force according to the agreement.

A delegation of the UN Security Council announced following their meetings with Sudanese officials in Khartoum last Sunday that they had reached an agreement for the hybrid force to be under UN command [emphasis added].

After meetings with Bashir and Foreign Minister Lam Akol, some members of the UN delegation said that Sudanese officials had made an unconditional commitment to the new force.

At a two-day meeting in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa last week, the AU, the UN and Sudan reached an agreement on the deployment of the hybrid peacekeeping force in Darfur.

The Sudanese government has said that it is up to the UN now to adopt a resolution to finance the 20,000-strong force.

(Xinhua)

The diplomatic front (June 26):

Little Visible Progress on Darfur at International Conference
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/world/africa/26darfur.html

PARIS, June 25 — They came, they met, they agreed that more must be done, but a gathering here aimed at solving the crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region ended Monday with little visible progress...

...there was no announcement of which countries would contribute soldiers, nor was there any signal that China had softened its resistance to levying sanctions on Sudan [emphasis added], a measure that would require Chinese acquiescence to win approval from the Security Council. China is a staunch ally of Sudan and major buyer of its oil...

A realistic appraisal of the situation:

Platitudes won't save Darfur
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=0030f3a1-b076-4f7c-a1ed-07ddee63fe2b

On the weekend, following an international conference in Paris on the Darfur crisis, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the world cannot "continue to sit by" while thousands more are killed and millions displaced from the troubled Sudanese region. She called on the world's powers to "redouble" their efforts to end the genocide there...

Since the Western powers are unwilling to invade Darfur, or even to send in a peacemaking force without the approval of the Sudanese government [emphasis added--that would effectively be an invasion too - MC], they need the co-operation of the Khartoum regime or the intervention of the African Union (AU) to bring relative peace. But the Sudanese government was not invited to the Paris talks and the AU boycotted them because it has been adamant since the crisis began that no non-African nations should intervene...

...There is already an agreement on an international peacekeeping force in place between Khartoum and the UN. It was worked out nearly two months ago.

However, both sides now blame the other for the fact it has not been implemented. And there is no end in sight to the impasse.

The West could pressure China -- Sudan's strongest ally -- to stop sheltering it at the UN Security Council. China has used the threat of its veto at the UN to deflect stronger measures against Sudan because it has oil China wants.

But Ms. Rice's own State Department is reluctant to force China's hand on Darfur because what it really wants is China's influence with the North Koreans to stop Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program -- a direct security threat to the U.S., unlike Darfur.

We are not advocating a Western-led invasion of Darfur. But short of military intervention, all the summits and high-sounding promises in the world probably cannot do anything to end the massacre. And since the G8 leaders stated plainly at their meeting in Germany earlier this month, "we underline that there is no military solution to the conflict in Darfur," there are few options of real substance left [emphasis added]...

And a mindless, meaningless threat in the best Canadian diplomatic tradition:

Ottawa warns Sudan to keep vow on Darfur force 
Will consider imposing sanctions if troops aren't allowed to deploy
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/229347

Canada will consider imposing sanctions on Sudan if it refuses to allow a United Nations-backed military force to stop the bloodshed in Darfur, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay says.

MacKay, in Paris for an international conference on Darfur, said "there are appropriate actions that can be taken" if President Omar al-Bashir refuses to let a joint African Union-UN force deploy in the country to stop four years of killing by mostly Arab janjaweed militias. Those consequences include economic sanctions that have been approved by the UN Security Council, he said.

Canada's response to the meetings was in line with the U.S. [trust the Star to bring that up], which warned that Sudan has a history of backtracking on its promises...

MacKay said that despite the absence of firm accomplishments coming out of the one-day summit organized by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, there is reason to hope a new approach, if not a breakthrough, could be on the horizon. He said Russia and China, both of which hold economic sway with Sudan, are "more engaged than we've seen previously [come on now, Mr MacKay]."..

That'll really set them quaking in their Guccis in Khartoum.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well a threat is better than a stern disappointment which is what PMPM would have said.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Colin P: Mr Martin actually would have said it was "unacceptable" :
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/weinreb040805.htm

But our current foreign minister also uses this terribly harsh condemnation (a favourite of his department)--see last para here:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/weinreb040805.htm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Perhaps reality is sinking in here as well; even the Left seems divided as to what to do:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/06/butting-heads-over-darfur.html

26 June 2007
Butting Heads over Darfur

It may come as a surprise to some that NGOs that fly under the umbrella of "Aid Groups" are in the midths of a dispute with Human Rights groups over how to deal with the Darfur crisis. The squabble isn't trivial ... in fact, it is centered around a fundamental question; Does one use a hammer or a carress to save Darfur?

David Reiff offers an impartial analysis:

    Generally, humanitarian aid groups see nothing wrong with advocacy organizations like Save Darfur campaigning to mobilize world public opinion about the plight of the Darfurians (though some of the mainline relief NGOs, notably Doctors Without Borders, have disputed the assertion that what's going on in Darfur is, in fact, genocide). But they are quick to point out that human-rights activists do not remain on the ground in Darfur and do not have the burden of looking after the immediate needs of the refugees and the internally displaced. To the relief groups, the chief danger of an outside military intervention is that, to paraphrase that infamous remark by the American officer in Vietnam, the interveners will destroy Darfur in order to save it.

    Pro-intervention advocates in the human-rights community, in contrast, tend to take the view that relief workers are being too cautious. They point out that the same anxieties were voiced by many aid groups during the Bosnian war and in the run-up to the war in Afghanistan, and that, given Khartoum's refusal to curb its murderous surrogates in Darfur, outside military intervention is the only viable solution both practically and morally. In their view, allowing the current political and military situation to continue so that humanitarian aid can be dispensed may have short-term benefits, but it condemns the Darfurians to a future of endless human destruction. Far from helping, they argue, relief without intervention amounts to keeping people alive now so [that] the Sudanese government forces can kill them later — a Band-Aid on a cancer, as some activists put it.

    There is no question that both sides believe they are acting morally. And, in fairness, it should be noted that there are some in the humanitarian aid community who do favor outside intervention, even if they have been reluctant to voice this view publicly.


What a world ... it's bad enough that "right" and "left" can't talk to each other long enough to save Darfur ... it's even worse when the self proclaimed "do gooders" can't even agree among themselves.

In the end, it's entirely possible that nobody will save the hapless victims of Darfur until someone, somewhere, calls in the cavalry and the real professional fixers, NATO Troops, come and clean up everyone’s mess.

Posted by Paul at 9:43 AM   

 

[3rd Herd]

The Usual Disclaimer:
From www.kelownadailycourier.ca
World
EU planning to send 3,000 peacekeepers to Chad to help refugees from Darfur
By The Canadian Press
Monday, July 23, 2007

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - European Union countries agreed Monday to start planning for a possible 3,000-member peacekeeping mission to Chad to help provide security and aid to tens of thousands of refugees fleeing the conflict in neighbouring Darfur.

A meeting of EU foreign ministers said any mission had to be backed by the United Nations "with a clearly defined exit strategy" and in co-operation with the African Union, neighbouring countries and humanitarian aid groups.

Monday’s green-light will allow EU experts to gather information and data on what countries could provide forces for the mission and allow the United Nations in New York to start drafting a resolution for it.

Amnesty International appealed to the EU countries to act fast. The London-based rights group said 170,000 refugees from Darfur have fled into Chad because of violence and abuse "carried out by janjaweed militia and rebel movements."

The four-year conflict between Sudan’s ethnic African rebels and its pro-government janjaweed militia has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced 2.5 million in Darfur.

Several EU countries, led by Germany and including the Netherlands, Estonia and Greece, have expressed reservations about sending troops to Chad, said diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

But French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, supported by Britain and Sweden, is eager to push ahead with planning, which could lead to a final EU decision on sending troops before the end of the year.

Chadian President Idriss Deby last week said he supported an interim EU peacekeeping force.

A 7,000-member African Union force has been unable to stop the fighting in Darfur. The conflict there has spilled into the Central African Republic as well as Chad. Both countries have also faced attacks from rebels inside their borders.

The UN Security Council is considering a 26,000-member "hybrid" African Union-UN peacekeeping force for Darfur; the interim EU operation would be a companion effort. The mission would eventually hand over to a UN-African Union peacekeeping force.http://www.chroniclejournal.com/includes/datafiles/CP_print.php?id=55517&title=EU%20planning%20to%20send%203,000%20peacekeepers%20to%20Chad%20to%20help%20refugees%20from%20Darfur

 

[MarkOttawa]

That EU force will sure help in Darfur.  Talk about avoiding an issue in order to feel good--Taliban Jack would be proud.

Meanwhile the "hybrid" AU/UN force for Darfur is still a mirage:
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article22962

July 21, 2007 (KHARTOUM) — The Sudanese government warned the UN Security Council from adopting a resolution on the UN-AU hybrid force without its approval.

Sudan’s permanent representative to the UN, Ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem said in press statements that his government submitted a list of its reservations on the proposed text of the resolution.

The UN Security Council (UNSC) is working on a resolution authorizing up to 26,000 troops and police in Darfur.

But several council members and Sudan expressed reservations on some parts of the resolution particularly the threat of further measures" if any of the parties "fail to fulfill their commitments or cooperate fully."

The Sudanese government objected to the mandate allowing the force to “use all necessary means” to protect civilians.

Abdalhaleem said that the proposed text “brings back the same controversial issues that caused disagreement between Khartoum and some UNSC members”.

Sudan’s envoy said that the text of the resolution places the force under the UN command against the will of Khartoum which insists on the “African nature of the force”.

Abdalhaleem cautioned that unless Sudan’s concerns are adressed the resolution will "have the same fate as resolution 1706".

On Friday a State Department official, speaking to Sudan Tribune on condition of anonymity said that the US wants a resolution that clearly provides for “U.N. command and control with a single chain of command and a Chapter VII authority to use all means to protect civilians”.

“Our position on this is not negotiable” the official added.

It is not clear how the differences between UNSC and Khartoum can be bridged...

Anyway it's all black propaganda by the Bush/Blair axis:
http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnB268062.html

Most of Darfur is now secure and peaceful, and the region's negative image is due to "black propaganda" spread by the United States and Britain, senior Sudanese officials said on Sunday.

Following a tour of Darfur's three war-ravaged states, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir rejected foreign intervention [emphasis added] in the four-year conflict, in which international experts say 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million more displaced...

"There has been a lot of black propaganda about Darfur and Sudan, lies, hypocrisy, speaking about racial cleansing," said Interior Minister Zubeir Bashir Taha.

"The Bush-Blair axis has been responsible for this black propaganda and we'd like to show them this is not the case."..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So that means we can cut off all the aid to Africa......... :

 

[brihard]

All the usual disclaimers...




http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/31/darfur-force.html

Link to security council draft resolution

Security Council approves peacekeeping force in Darfur

The UN Security Council has approved a plan to send just under 20,000 peacekeeping troops to Darfur who will be authorized to use force in the troubled region.

The force — a hybrid of UN soldiers and African Union troops —would be under the command of both the United Nations and the AU.

It will consist of up to 19,555 military personnel, including 360 military observers and liaison officers. As well, 3,772 police personnel and 19 police units of up to 140 personnel each will be deployed.

The conflict in the region has claimed the lives of more than 200,000 people and forced millions to live as refugees since it began in 2003.

According to the proposed resolution, the force will be allowed "to take the necessary action" to protect its personnel, support the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement and protect civilians.

The CBC's Neil Herland said that means the peacekeepers will have the right to "shoot and kill anyone who tries to harm civilians and anyone who tries to harm the mission itself."

The resolution sets a clear timeline, with the first command centre to be set up in Darfur for October. The first peacekeepers are set to hit the ground in December.
Activists 'clamouring for' operation: Ban

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called it a "historic and unprecedented operation" that will send "a clear and powerful signal" of help to the people of Darfur.

"This is something that activists have been clamouring for," Herland reported. "They've demanded the United Nations Security Council intervene in this case and it's literaly taken four years for this to finally happen."

Herland said one of the main reasons UN intervention has been delayed is that China has been reluctant to intervene in what it views as a domestic affair. China has veto power on the security council.

But their stance appeared to change after activists began urging people to boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics over their unwillingness to get involved.

The UN and western governments had pressed Sudan for months to accept a plan for a large joint force of 20,000 UN and AU peacekeepers to replace the overwhelmed 7,000-strong African force now in Darfur.

Sudan initially accepted the hybrid peacekeeping plan in November but then backtracked, before finally agreeing earlier this month.