Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[Monsoon]

Here is an interesting graphic that demonstrates why the separation of South Sudan, assuming the vote is carried, will not bring peace:

The border and the ownership of the oil and gas fields are in dispute. But it is a fact that the pipelines all run North to Port Sudan.

An agreement has already been put in place governing continued revenue-sharing for oil that flows out through the pipeline, regardless of the result of the referendum. The Southern government has already concluded an agreement with a foreign developer to build a pipeline from Heglig south through Kenya to the port of Mombassa; it's expected to be complete in a year or so (compare to the on-going planning fiasco around Canada's various efforts to build pipelines; the third world will save us all).

Of course none of the various journalist "experts" in the South Sudan have troubled themselves with the limited research required to discover this, and prefer to just speculate that it will be a problem. No doubt their insight exceeds that of the millions of people actually living in and governing the region.

 

[57Chevy]

South Sudan eyes landslide to secede:

JUBA, Sudan — Organizers of south Sudan's landmark independence vote were collating the remaining preliminary results Thursday, poised to return a landslide for secession after reaching the simple majority required on just 60 per cent of the ballot.

The final verdict that will set the mainly Christian, African south on the road to recognition as the world's newest state in July is not expected until next month.

But figures gathered by AFP from state and county referendum officials around the south showed that 2,224,857 votes for separation from the mainly Muslim, Arab north had already been returned by Wednesday evening.

That comfortably exceeded the simple majority of 1.89 million votes needed on the 96-per cent turnout of the 3,932,588 registered voters.

In some areas, the vote for partitioning Africa's and the Arab world's largest nation was almost unanimous in a region still ravaged by a devastating 1983-2005 civil war.

article continues....

Read more

                                    (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[GAP]

Canadian military likely headed to Sudan: Ex-diplomat
Article Link
By Ian Elliot, QMI Agency  January 23, 2011

KINGSTON, Ont. – A former Canadian diplomat to Africa said Canada’s next military deployment will likely be in war-torn Sudan.

John Schram — who was Canada's ambassador to Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Sudan from 1998 to 2002 — said now that Sudan has completed a referendum, big issues are being raised, and the fractured country will need international support to bring some measure of calm.

Those issues include negotiations on frontiers and oil rights and revenues between country's north and south, a second referendum in the oil-rich Abyei region and the ongoing peacekeeping/peacemaking effort to support the emerging state.

The Canadian military's presence in Afghanistan has prepared it for such a mission, he said.

“We’re going to come under pressure from the Americans who have been in the lead all along,” said Schram, who is a senior fellow in international relations at Queen’s University and who spent almost four decades on the Africa file for the federal department of external affairs.

“However, we also have a skeptical public and a non-interventionist government and there’s a sense of weariness and reluctance to do what the Americans want us to do,” he said. “After Afghanistan, do Canadians have the stomach for another nation-building program?”

Schram thinks Canada's soldiers do. He believes that among the rank and file, although their equipment has been chewed up in the harsh Afghan climate and they are tired and overstretched, there is a belief that Task Force Afghanistan is not a single mission, but the establishment of a permanent expeditionary force always on a mission overseas.

There is already a contingent of nearly 40 military officers in the Sudan monitoring the situation and reporting back to the Canadian government. Such contingents nearly always precede a military intervention to provide intelligence and logistics support.

Even top-level military officers will quietly admit the era of traditional blue-helmet United Nations peacekeeping is over, and never really worked that well, anyhow, Schram said.

Sudan, or any future deployment, will likely be by troops who are armed and with rules of engagement, allowing them to engage the enemy, not stand between warring factions with good intentions and no ammunition, Schram said.

He said a Sudan mission would likely look like Afghanistan, where the military supports and protects vulnerable towns and areas while assisting in reconstruction and negotiations.

Schram said Canada cannot ignore an international effort in Sudan if it wants to maintain its role on the international stage.

But he laments that Sudan, from the genocide in Darfur to the border skirmishes and ineffective national government, is often ignored in Canada.

“With Sudan, we don’t really talk about it all that much. You don’t really hear about what Canada has done there, yet it has been one of our major foreign-aid efforts over the years,” he said.
More on link

 

[Edward Campbell]

Canadian military likely headed to Sudan: Ex-diplomat
Article Link
By Ian Elliot, QMI Agency  January 23, 2011

KINGSTON, Ont. – A former Canadian diplomat to Africa said Canada’s next military deployment will likely be in war-torn Sudan.

John Schram — who was Canada's ambassador to Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Sudan from 1998 to 2002 — said now that Sudan has completed a referendum, big issues are being raised, and the fractured country will need international support to bring some measure of calm.

Those issues include negotiations on frontiers and oil rights and revenues between country's north and south, a second referendum in the oil-rich Abyei region and the ongoing peacekeeping/peacemaking effort to support the emerging state.

The Canadian military's presence in Afghanistan has prepared it for such a mission, he said.

“We’re going to come under pressure from the Americans who have been in the lead all along,” said Schram, who is a senior fellow in international relations at Queen’s University and who spent almost four decades on the Africa file for the federal department of external affairs.

“However, we also have a skeptical public and a non-interventionist government and there’s a sense of weariness and reluctance to do what the Americans want us to do,” he said. “After Afghanistan, do Canadians have the stomach for another nation-building program?”

Schram thinks Canada's soldiers do. He believes that among the rank and file, although their equipment has been chewed up in the harsh Afghan climate and they are tired and overstretched, there is a belief that Task Force Afghanistan is not a single mission, but the establishment of a permanent expeditionary force always on a mission overseas.

There is already a contingent of nearly 40 military officers in the Sudan monitoring the situation and reporting back to the Canadian government. Such contingents nearly always precede a military intervention to provide intelligence and logistics support.

Even top-level military officers will quietly admit the era of traditional blue-helmet United Nations peacekeeping is over, and never really worked that well, anyhow, Schram said.

Sudan, or any future deployment, will likely be by troops who are armed and with rules of engagement, allowing them to engage the enemy, not stand between warring factions with good intentions and no ammunition, Schram said.

He said a Sudan mission would likely look like Afghanistan, where the military supports and protects vulnerable towns and areas while assisting in reconstruction and negotiations.

Schram said Canada cannot ignore an international effort in Sudan if it wants to maintain its role on the international stage.

But he laments that Sudan, from the genocide in Darfur to the border skirmishes and ineffective national government, is often ignored in Canada.

“With Sudan, we don’t really talk about it all that much. You don’t really hear about what Canada has done there, yet it has been one of our major foreign-aid efforts over the years,” he said.
More on link

I'm afraid that John Schram is right: we might well be headed for Sudan. I hope that, if he's right about us going, he is also right about the nature of the mission: no baby-blue beret wearing, ineffectual UN peacekeepers. I doubt that a US led, essentially Western mission can or will be able to succeed. Maybe with better political and military leadership (Australian? Chinese? Indian? South African?) there might be a chance of success. But, my sense is that Canadians (and Americans, Australians and Brits, too) have little to no patience with "nation building" because, as Thucydides has suggested, real "national building" doesn't begin until the young women who are attending those schools we just built graduate from university (with MAs and PhDs) and take leadership roles in business and government. Our fellow citizens want instant gratification and no casualties and, above all, no cost.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The following is about Congo, but just as relevant to Sudan:

The mad demand to send the CF…somewhere
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?cat=33

Some very wise words from Louis Delvoie in the current issue (p. 28) of On Track, the magazine of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute:

    "What Next for the Canadian Forces? Not the Congo

    With the end of Canada’s involvement in combat operations in Afghanistan now in sight, the media have begun to publish articles speculating on where the Canadian Forces might next be deployed. Without saying so explicitly, these articles seem to suggest that because Canada now has a well-trained, well equipped and battle hardened army, that army should be sent abroad somewhere once it has finished its Afghan mission. This is rather curious reasoning. It tends to ignore the fact that the Canadian Forces exist to protect and promote the security and interests of Canada and Canadians. In the absence of any threat to that security or those interests, the Canadian Forces should remain in their barracks against the day when such a threat may emerge. To deploy them abroad simply because of their capabilities is sheer nonsense.

    This line of argument is, of course, totally lost on proponents of the so-called human security agenda who advocate using the Canadian Forces to defend civilian populations at risk in civil war situations around the world, even in the absence of any discernible Canadian interest..."

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

Having crossed paths with Schram several times over the past few years, his significant amount of time in Africa has definitely coloured his views. Very few topics cannot be turned to "we need to be in Africa.....now!"
Perhaps this time he's right.

The stars may be aligning, regarding troop/equipment availability, but I also agree with E.R. Campbell that domestic politics will likely scuttle the mission. To our desire for instant gratification, no casualties, and no cost, I would add the inane babbling of electoral posturing from our various political "leaders."

 

[CougarKing]

an update:

link

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - South Sudan voted overwhelmingly to declare its independence in final results of a referendum made public on Monday, opening the door to Africa's newest state and a fresh period of uncertainty for the fractured region.

A total of 98.83 percent of voters from Sudan's oil-producing south chose to secede from the north in last month's referendum, according to a video display of the vote seen by Reuters at the venue of the announcement.

The referendum is the climax of a 2005 north-south peace accord that set out to end Africa's longest civil war and instill democracy in a country that straddles the continent's Arab-sub Saharan divide.

(Reporting by Opheera McDoom, writing by Andrew Heavens, editing by Michael Roddy)

 

[Northalbertan]

I tend to agree with the statement that our political leadership is unlikely to endorse another foreign mission.  The big bugaboo with our current government is Arctic Sovereignty.  I think it is much more likely that this is where we are likely to see our defense dollars spent.