Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[geo]

(3rd.... it's Will Robinson)

 

[Armymatters]

I respect the heck out of Romeo Dallaire for what he has done under the circumstances when he was in Rwanda. What is happening in Darfur is similar to what has happened in Rwanda, and Dallaire is pretty much the best person we have to review our plans.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Not so sure a go now???

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Coyright Act (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409).

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/13/oconnor060413.html

Canadian military won't be taking on new assignments: defence minister
CBC News Online, Last Updated Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:52:09 EDT

''Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says the military won't be taking on any additional overseas commitments in the near future, in spite of recent discussions over whether Canada should be more involved in the Darfur region of Sudan.

"I have apprehension of how we do this commitment, take on other commitments, transform and regenerate the armed forces at the same time," O'Connor said Thursday. "We can maintain the commitment in Afghanistan into the future if the government chooses to do so, but we will be greatly challenged to take on any substantial commitment anywhere else offshore."

O'Connor told reporters at CFB Petawawa that the Conservative government will limit overseas military operations to Afghanistan, and that Canada's military needs to be rebuilt, which requires the work of top personnel.

O'Connor said the priority is to improve the military through recruitment and training. Prime Minister Stephen Harper echoed that sentiment on Thursday.

"There's no doubt that the current size of the Kandahar mission has put a significant strain on the military," he said. "We're committed to building up the forces. that's something that will happen over time."

Harper has said the military will stay in Afghanistan after the February deadline, but it's not clear how many troops will be kept on.

(...)

 

[Edward Campbell]

In today’s Globe and Mail Sen. Romeo Dallaire discards his decades of military service and judgment to launch a totally partisan (Canadian) political crusade advocating Canadian military participation (through SHIRBIG, at last) in Sudan.

Dallaire is wrong, dangerously (to the lives of Canadians) wrong.

There is no room for Western forces in Sudan.

The Americans (Powell and Rice) are right: what is happening in Sudan is the beginning of genocide.  It is racially motivated genocide to boot.  Arab Muslims are trying to wipe our black African Muslims and animists.  The issue is race, not religion.

If it is a genocide then doesn’t the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) require Canada to act?

Leaving aside the fact (and it is a fact) thatR2P is just about the dumbest thing the UN did since the nonsensical, farcical UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights* and is equally valid, R2P does not provide any justification in international (law and) custom for its position.  China, rightfully, opposes it and all its potential consequences.

Sudan is fast becoming a Chinese protectorate and we, all of us in the West, should turn the entire problem over to the Chinese.

A genocide, a crime against humanity, is underway.  Something does need to be done but we, the West, have not the means to do much and not doing enough may do more harm than good.

China has the ways and means to sort out Sudan.  It might, probably would be the best thing to happen to that poor, sad country since 1956 (when the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan condominium was disbanded).

Canada has a major, long term and vital commitment in Central Asia.  Canada should increase its commitment to Afghanistan – by adding tactical air forces and increasing the strength of its army combat forces – and it should sign on for the long term: decades, not just a few months or years.

Prime Minister Harper: Senator Dallaire is wrong; dangerously wrong.  Tell Canadians that and tell them why and tell them what diplomatic actions Canada will take to get the right people to do the right thing.

Senator Dallaire’s article follows; it is reproduced under the Fir Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060505.wxcodarfur05/BNStory/specialComment/home

There's no time to wait

ROMÉO DALLAIRE

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Is the Canadian government trying to step quietly away from the tragedy unfolding in Darfur? It seems so, despite urging by youth and community groups, NGOs and parliamentarians of all political stripes that Canada step up its role in the area, where an estimated 180,000 people have been killed and millions displaced to camps where conditions are appalling. Two years ago, with Rwanda still fresh in our minds, we did not answer the call to protect millions of Darfurians being "ethnically cleansed" in their villages and homes.

Despite all the signs that the violence in Darfur now is escalating, the only significant action taken by the new Canadian government has been the disbandment of Canada's Special Advisory Team on Sudan (SATS).

The non-partisan work carried out by SATS, whose members included Senator Mobina Jaffer, Ambassador Robert Fowler and me, was an important signal to the Canadian public and the international community that Canada was serious about supporting the pursuit of peace, security and development in Africa.

Now, Canada has relegated its response to the crisis in Sudan to a departmental level -- an abrupt, backward step whose significance is not lost upon the international community nor upon those who seek to sow discord in the region.

The situation in Darfur has reached a critical juncture. After two long years of negotiations between the rebel groups and the government of Sudan, the soon-to-be-signed peace agreement promises to be a significant step forward. But the ray of hope it represents is clouded by Sudan's tumultuous history and faltering international commitment.

The people of Sudan have known little peace in their lifetimes. A civil war ravaged the south for 21 years, leaving an entire generation to know only refugee and displaced-persons camps as their homes. While a peace deal signed last year officially ended this conflict, its implementation has been halting and slow. Violence continues and there is little or no infrastructure to support the return of displaced persons looking to start their lives over.

Since 2003, Darfur, in the West of Sudan, has been the site of unimaginable human suffering. Despite a so-called ceasefire signed in April of 2004, violence continues to plague the region. Humanitarian conditions are frightening, with bandits stealing supplies and driving aid workers out of areas where help is most desperately needed. Women and girls suffer horrifying sexual and gender-based violence. The government and the rebels continue to violate the ceasefire, with the government's proxy militias, the janjaweed, the worst offenders.

The United Nations and the African Union are currently in the planning phase for transferring the Darfur mission to an urgently needed UN mandate. We must ensure the force is mandated appropriately under the UN's Chapter 7 provision enabling it to enforce the Darfur peace agreement, protect civilians and take pro-active measures to prevent breaches of the agreement.

The concept of operations must revolve around a highly skilled and fully equipped, core ground force that is supported by approximately 20,000 troops -- two battle groups for each of Darfur's eight subregions.

The UN Multinational Stand-by High Readiness Brigade for United Nations Operations, or SHIRBRIG, is the ideal core force for the task. This multinational brigade-size force of about 4,000 troops was created to provide a rapid deployment capability of up to six months. Canada is one of a dozen Western powers that have signed on as a full participant to SHIRBRIG, a Danish initiative. It provides a highly trained force with operational experience, efficient command and control, and credible deterrent capabilities when needed.

SHIRBRIG's signatory countries must provide equipment such as command and control, armoured personnel carriers, unmanned aerial vehicles and air defence systems, which would make SHIRBRIG the force commander's reserve or the "force de frappe". This core force must be supported by a large observation capability, the bulk of which should be provided by developing countries from the region and abroad.

The African character of the force must be retained through its commander if the force is to be legitimate in the eyes of the population and the government of Sudan. The 7,000 African Union forces currently deployed in the region should be integrated into the UN force, providing much needed experience and sensitivity to the nuances of the land and its people. Simply put, the transition from AU to UN must be done in a spirit of reinforcement rather than a takeover.

Last July, I called for the planning of a UN transition to start immediately, but neither the UN nor the AU was ready. We know it takes between six and nine months to get a force in the field when there is little infrastructure to rely upon, and up to a year for the force to be at full capacity. The urgency of the current situation means delay and indecision would be fatal.

Canada must play a lead role as a resolute middle power to ensure that there is sufficient political will to enforce the peace treaty and see this mission through. It is critical that Canada exert concerted political energy to head off Russian and Chinese vetoes in the UN Security Council. Similarly, Canada must persuade the government of Sudan to grant entry and free movement to this Chapter 7 mandated UN force.

Finally, Canada must demonstrate its commitment to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine it has endorsed by supporting the United Nations in this mission -- by providing not only resources and expertise but, most importantly, boots on the ground. A reinforced battle group of approximately 1,500 soldiers, with a sizable transport capability for return and humanitarian support, should be Canada's contribution to a robust UN mission to bring peace and stability to the region.

We Canadians pride ourselves on our history of peacekeeping and our dedication to multilateralism, but we are currently ranked 50th in contributions to UN missions. We continue to refuse UN leadership jobs for our senior officers, robbing them of the opportunity to gain command experience. Many in the international community are asking whether we have given up and pulled out of peacekeeping. This trend must be reversed and our role clarified.

The atrocities being committed in Darfur, and the inhuman conditions in which people live, are beyond our comprehension here in the Western world. When we hear references to three million people being homeless and subjected to continual violence, it becomes almost abstract. But these are three million souls, humans equal in every way to you and me.

It is time we in Canada started to live up to our high-minded rhetoric and make a comprehensive and long-term commitment to protecting these besieged and destitute individuals.
Senator Roméo Dallaire is a retired lieutenant-general and former commander of the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda.

Dallaire fails to mention that just a year ago he agreed that Canada could not and should not send military forces to Sudan; but that was then and his Liberals were in power and this is now and his party is on the ‘outs’ – he is playing partisan politics with the lives of Canadian soldiers.  For shame!

----------

*  See the last dozen or so 'rights' in the Universal Declaration.  Is anyone in his or her right mind really ready to send Canadians to fight and die for two weeks of paid vacation?  What rubbish!  And to think that (ignorant) Canadian school teachers tell impressionable youngsters that the UN Declaration is a good thing, about which Canada should be pride.  Nonsense.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Edward Campbell: You might like to look at these guest-posts at "Daimnation!" (and the internal links):

"Darfur: Sen Roméo Dallaire is in cloud cuckoo-land"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006419.html

"Darfur: More Canadian lunacy; international callousness"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006360.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Centurian1985]

Canadian involvement in Sudan would be a ticking political time-bomb waiting to happen.  It would pit the Canadian government (and other western countries) against the Sudanese Muslim government with the Sudanese government able to play the 'anti-Muslim card' at any time they chose to. 

 

[Britney Spears]

Couple of points:

1) Despite what the Western media tries to portray it as, BOTH sides of the Darfur conflict are largely black in skintone and Muslim in religion. Christians and Animists are certainly disadvantaged and persecuted in other parts of Sudan, but they do not live in Darfur. "Arab" in Sudan is a class descriptor, used to describe wealthy coastal sedentary peoples as opposed to nomaidc pastoralists in the interior and has little to do with skintone or race, although the warring factions are largely divided along tribal and ethnic lines.  <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict>Wikipedia cite, more independent sources availible upon request</a>

Although the large majority of resultant refugees are non-Arab black Africans fleeing Arab Janjaweed attacks, [3] there are also Arab victims and non-Arab perpetrators. In addition, both sides are largely black in skin tone, and the distinction between "Arab" and "non-Arab" common in Western media is heavily disputed by many people, including the Sudanese government. Moreover, these labels have been criticized for describing the conflict as one of purely racial motivations, where some experts instead attribute the causes to competition between farmers and nomadic cattle-herders who compete for scarce resources.
...
The true division in Darfur is between ethnic groups, split between herders and farmers, and the tribes gave themselves the label of "African" or "Arab" based on what language its members speak and whether they work the soil or herd livestock. Also, if they attain a certain level of wealth, they call themselves Arab.

2) China?!

If I'm not mistaken, The complete extent of Chinese experience in overseas intervention has been 1 engineer bn in Lebanon under UNFIL, another in the Congo also under the UN(MONUC?) mission, and 1 engineer bn with some light inf force protection in Cambodia (UNAMIC?) in the early 90s, plus some odds and ends police and mil observers. All of these, perhaps except Haiti, would have been complete coffee tours for us. They're about in the same league as Norway or Italy in terms of foreign intervention capability. The Chinese have no troops in Sudan and I can't see any way they can get any there any time soon. "Chinese protecterate?" The Chinese goverment might have some economic leverage in Khartoum, through the state oil company, but no more than the US or UK. I think if we were not in Afghanistan already WE would be able to mount a much more effective intervention than China can possibly dream of in the near future.

 

[Centurian1985]

Ref Sudan, the level of extremism in the government is defined by their attempts to implement Sharia law throughout the entire country, not just in the capital.  This was a key point in the last agreement between the government and Christian insurgents in the east and south of the country (that eventually failed due to the death of the Christian faction leader).  The dispute between the government and the 'Animists' (as they have been labelled) in the west (Darfur) is seen as a seperate issue, which as you pointed out is reportedly due to race not religion. 

Britney, Ref China, not all missions are UN-sanctioned; missions by China have occurred in many other countries besides those two, especially through a military 'advisory' or observation capacity. 

 

[Britney Spears]

Britney, Ref China, not all missions are UN-sanctioned; missions by China have occurred in many other countries besides those two, especially through a military 'advisory' or observation capacity.

So does Sweden, and Bangladesh, who have probably done more. This board has collectively more experience in operations overseas in adverse conditions than the Chinese do.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Chinese have the silver,
Khartoum has the gold
(black that is).

And Beijing has the veto.
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006315.html

All she wrote.  Unless a scheme can be presented that protects Chinese interests whatever happens to the current Khartoum regime.

We have to recognize that Beijing could not care less (even if we think we do) to dead people in Africa--or anywhere else.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[DG-41]

he is playing partisan politics with the lives of Canadian soldiers.

I could not possibly disagree more. To accuse Gen. Dalliare of playing partisan politics is beyond the pale.

DG

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

If Dallaire thinks we can send any meaningful contribution in the way of troops, how can I put this delicately.  He's still sufferning the effects of PTSD.

 

[paracowboy]

To accuse Gen. Dalliare of playing partisan politics is beyond the pale.

then he should probably stop doing it.

 

[Infantry_wannabe]

I wonder why Dallaire would possibly want to send Canadian troops to Darfur, other than for simple Liberal partisan politics. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he watched hundreds of thousands of people killed with no response from the international community...No, certainly not.

Despite his severe post-traumatic stress and suicide attempts he has suddenly forgotten all of that and decided to play petty partisan politics with human life? I find the smugness of some of you appalling. No matter what some of your experiences are, I guarantee none of you have the lives of 900,000 people on your conscience. Walk a mile in the man's shoes before you s--t on someone who has served the country and humanity so strongly. He did what he could when he had no support from the UN, from the international community, or even really his own country. For those of you who think he made bad decisions, as in an earlier post, I'm sure you could have done much better in your infinite wisdom. I hope you never have to feel such responsibility.

Regards.

 

[a_majoor]

The previous posters were just pointing out Gen Dallaire seemed to be "against" the idea when the Liberals were in power, but now seems to be "for" it now that the Conservatives are in power.

In military, logistical or strategic terms (i.e. affecting Canada's national interest), please point out the changes that took place after Prime Minister Harper was sworn in that makes Dafur either desirable or doable. Since, except for who is sitting in the Prime Minister's chair, nothing has changed, then the charge of playing partisan politics does seem very justified.

 

[Kirkhill]

Justified or not, is it necessary?

Like many of you I don't think Darfur is doable.  At the same time I am willing to accept that others may see movements on the ground amongst the warring parties that might give them cause to believe that things have changed.  I don't know enough to know one way or the other.

I do know that Infantry_wannabe has a point.  General Dallaire is carrying more demons than any of us can begin to imagine.  That alone earns him the benefit of the doubt as far as I am concerned.

We can disagree on the course of action and even disagree on the appreciation. I think we can also allow people to change their mind as situations change.  Do we have to go looking for motives other than the ones the man expressed?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Justified or not, is it necessary?
...

I think so or I would not have said it.

I have expressed myself before, here in Army.ca, on Dallaire and his misfortunes (including being badly used and abused by his military and political masters) and the former government’s exploiting his sympathetic celebrity status by e.g. musing, publicly, making him governor general and, eventually, appointing him to the Senate.  I’ll summarize: I know Dallaire well enough to stop for a very brief chat when, now and again, we bump into one another – we were colleagues in Ottawa something like 25 years ago.  I admire him as a gifted trainer of troops – especially aspiring officers; I think he and Roche Carrier made CMR an outstanding small university back in the early ‘90s and a model for what military colleges could and should be.  I think his assignment to Rwanda was a mistake – one made, in part, because ‘they’ wanted a Francophone Lew MacKenzie.  I argued for leaving him alone to battle his demons – which I agree he has.

Romeo Dallaire decided, for his own good reasons, which I do not challenge, to enter the fray of public life.  He put aside any claims on our sympathy when he decided to trade on his rank and reputation for political purposes.  What else (beyond being a political forum) is the Senate of Canada?

His views on Darfur are of interest precisely because he was a lieutenant general and the victim of Rwanda; that’s what gives him credibility.  I continue to contend that is trading on his past for partisan political purposes, as a-majoor said nothing has changed except the occupant of 24 Sussex Drive.  I think it is good politics, especially good Québec politics, for the Liberals to attack the Tories on Darfur but, ‘good’ or not, Dallaire’s article is part and parcel of a partisan political debate so I repeat: “…he is playing partisan politics with the lives of Canadian soldiers.”

He begins his article with: “Is the Canadian government trying to step quietly away from the tragedy unfolding in Darfur? It seems so, despite urging by youth and community groups, NGOs and parliamentarians …”  That’s partisan, so it is necessary to call him on it.

 

[DG-41]

I admire him as a gifted trainer of troops – especially aspiring officers; I think he and Roche Carrier made CMR an outstanding small university back in the early ‘90s and a model for what military colleges could and should be.

I'm one of them: CMR 87-91

There are few officers from whom I have learned so much, and he is of VERY few who I would follow anywhere, unhestatingly, without question, because I trust his judgement and his ethics.

Nobody is pefect, and not every decsion he has made has been the right one - but he also faces his mistakes and admits them unflinchingly - and he learns from them and attempts to teach others the lessons he learned from his own mistakes. I trust that.

If Romeo Dallaire comes to me and says "I think Darfur is doable, and I need you to go" - then Darfur is doable, and I will drop everything and go.

To accuse him of playing partian politcs with the lives of soldiers is unspeakable.

DG

 

[paracowboy]

To accuse him of playing partian politcs with the lives of soldiers is unspeakable.

If he stopped doing it, we would stop speaking of it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Couple of points:

1) Despite what the Western media tries to portray it as, BOTH sides of the Darfur conflict are largely black in skintone and Muslim in religion. Christians and Animists are certainly disadvantaged and persecuted in other parts of Sudan, but they do not live in Darfur. "Arab" in Sudan is a class descriptor, used to describe wealthy coastal sedentary peoples as opposed to nomaidc pastoralists in the interior and has little to do with skintone or race, although the warring factions are largely divided along tribal and ethnic lines.  <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict>Wikipedia cite, more independent sources availible upon request</a>
...

Quite right; thanks for clarifying that.  I would quibble, slightly, with 'coastal' - I think the rich, settled Sudnaese live in both the coastal and Nile basin regions.