Features

mburbank · #1

I'm just about the last person to favor a robust military force, but I have come to believe we need troops on the groud with authorization to act in Sudan. We need to put them between the peoplke of Darfur and the Janjaweed and we need to try to stop the genocide.

Why are we still talking about sanctions and waiting on the U.N.? As a country we have shown we have the stomach for unilateral action, so why not here?

Right now our soldiers are dying in Iraq trying to set up a democracy. Why we went is questionable, if we should have gone at all is questionable and wether what we are doing is worth dieing for is questionable. In Iraq at this point it's hard to say if we've made things better or worse.

None of those things are questionable in Darfur.

I'm not looking for the typical 'they have no oil' 'they're black' response, lthough I think those things do factor in. I'm looking to see if anyone here can see any moral or strategic reason to continue to let this happen.

Ant10708 · #2

Doesn't Sudan have oil?

KevinTheOmnivore · #3

Well, I wouldn't say it's cuz they're black and they have no oil, but they are in Africa, and they have no strategic purpose for us. Same deal with Rawanda.

Also, while we haven't gone all G.I. Joe and nuked the janjaweed, our government has been pretty aggressive in this. Retiring US ambassador to the UN, Jon Danforth, has probably been the most vocal critic against what's going on there. Colin Powell, up until his last date in the State Department, was heavily involved in negotiations. Republicans and Democrats alike have been all over this in Congress, and a House committee (led by actor Don Cheadle apparently) just returned from Africa, confirming that while they did have that supposedly "historic" north/south peace compact, genocide is still going on in Darfur.

The word "genocide" also has a a lot to do with it, I think. The administration was very hesitant at first to call Darfur genocide, and with good cause perhaps. Sudan is the kind of area that once you go in there, you may never leave. Once you fight off the bad guys, then what? You still now have thousands of refugees who have had their villages destroyed and their livestock either killed or stolen. You're also surrounded by nations, not to sound parochial, that are filled with muslims that hate you. It would get played up as another "occupation," and it would thus give every ultra-leftist Chomsky snob in the country an excuse to sympathize with the next big jihad against America (sorry, had to get that in there

).

With all that said, despite the fears of a Somalia-like situation, I think that either the killings will stop, or we will send troops there ultimately. I think Bush's inaugural speech, with all the chatter of ending tyranny and "standing with oppressed peoples of the world" or whatever, it'll be hard to ignore their suffering.

Ant10708 · #4

Sudan does have oil. They trade it mostly to China.

KevinTheOmnivore · #5

Okay, thank you.

Ant10708 · #6

Most recent news from Sudan

Military observers will again try to investigate reports that Sudan's air force has bombed a town in the Darfur region, in violation of the ceasefire.

Sudanese soldiers turned away African Union monitors from the town of Shangil Tobaya on Thursday, saying it was not safe, an AU official told the BBC.

About 100 people, mostly women and children, are believed to have been killed in the air raid.

Some 70,000 people have been killed in the two-year conflict.

A further two million people have fled their homes, mostly black Africans, who accuse pro-government Arab militias of committing atrocities.

The Sudanese government denies backing the Janjaweed militias, and blames rebels for starting the conflict.

'Reprehensible'

Human rights group Amnesty International has urged the Sudan government to either charge or release four men it says have been held in a hole in the ground in South Darfur for the past six weeks.

It says they have been flogged and beaten with sticks and gun-butts by soldiers and militiamen. A fifth man has died from his injuries, Amnesty says.

We wouldn't want to put our troops in harm's way
Baba Gana Kingibe
Head of AU mission in Sudan
The air raid, which some fear signals an upsurge in fighting, has been condemned by the UK.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said it was a "reprehensible" attack.

"The majority of the victims were women and children. We are extremely concerned," a spokeswoman for the UN envoy to Sudan, Jan Pronk, told the BBC.

The rebels do not have an air force and AU officials have hinted that the government was responsible.

The government has accused rebels of launching attacks in the area around Shangil Tobaya, on the border between North and South Darfur.

A United States official said all sides were involved in the latest fighting.

"All the parties, the government of Sudan, the militias that are allied with the government and the rebels, are to blame for this increase in violence," said state department spokesman Richard Boucher.

Q&A: Darfur conflict

The head of the AU mission in Sudan, Baba Gana Kingibe, denied that the monitors were ineffective if they could only operate in areas which the government said was safe.

"The AU troops are monitoring compliance with a ceasefire, they are not a peace enforcement operation," he told the BBC's World Today programme.

"We wouldn't want to put our troops in harm's way."

AU monitors are also investigating reports that 100 more people were killed in a raid by Janjaweed militias in the nearby village of Hamada last week.

Some 9,000 people have fled the area, a UN official said.

The AU has some 1,400 troops and military observers in Darfur, and Mr Kingibe said he hoped they would be increased to 3,200 next month.

Sealed list

A UN investigation on whether genocide has been committed in Darfur has been completed and is expected to be made public next week.

Darfur refugees
The latest fighting has produced more refugees, the UN says
This may include a sealed list of those accused of war crimes.

The US has said that genocide is being committed and has again started to lobby for a UN resolution threatening sanctions against Sudan.

Previous attempts to threaten sanctions have been blocked by China, which has oil interests in Sudan, and Russia, which has sold arms to the government, according to lobby group Human Rights Watch.

Two rebels group took up arms in 2003, accusing the Arab government of neglecting Darfur.

The rebels have since split into four factions and peace talks with the government have made little progress.

mburbank · #7

I just think that if we were ever to be in the business of uniltarel military actions, it ought to be over something like this. If I were of service age, I would concider signing on for that. I would not try to prevent my children signing on for something like that.

Negotiation and diplomacy are very good things. Measured responce is a very good thing. But if we as a nation are ever, under any circumstances going to be 'muscular' and 'preemptive' these are the circumstances we should be involved in.

KevinTheOmnivore · #8

I agree. I dunno, give it time. The janjaweed are dirty moslems, right? I'm sure the president can sexify that and turn them into a mortal threat for us to vanquish.

This sounds crass, but what is the public opinion on Darfur? Any polling numbers? Does the rest of the country feel the way we do, or is American Idol on tonight....?

KevinTheOmnivore · #9

Answered my own question. http://www.pollingreport.com/sudan.htm
[/url]

mburbank · #10

Thanks. I wish they'd ask "If no one else will, should the US go it alone?". I'd like to see the numbers on that.

But yeah, W will make it sexy, I think you're right. And I'll be glad he's doing it and then it wil turn out he had some bizarre alterior motive like setting up a launchpad for space based nuclear missiles or testing a bio weapon and fuck it all up into a huge nightmare.

I am in one testy, cranky, mood today.

ScruU2wice · #11

I was talking to this kid that though we went into Iraq to get rid of Sudan

Ant10708 · #12

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

Thanks. I wish they'd ask "If no one else will, should the US go it alone?". I'd like to see the numbers on that.

Are we going alone for real or do we have the Phillipines pitching in 5 soldiers?

Aren't there already like a thousand troops from the AU in Sudan? What are they doing? Or are they there just to watch?

Ant10708 · #13

US convinced of Darfur 'genocide'
A girl drinks water in Darfur refugee camp
About two million people have been forced to flee their homes in Darfur
The US is standing by its claim that Sudan is committing genocide in the Darfur region, despite a UN report stopping short of using the term.

Washington called for the United Nations to set up a special court to try those accused of war crimes in the conflict in Sudan.

It also urged the Security Council to consider imposing sanctions on Sudan.

The report said the Council should refer the case to the International Criminal Court, a move the US opposed.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the Security Council had to take action and hold suspected war criminals in Sudan accountable.

"Such grave crimes cannot be committed with impunity. That would be a terrible betrayal of the victims, and of potential future victims in Darfur and elsewhere," he said.

Defining genocide
Have Your Say

Sudan rejected the report as unfair and incorrect, while Darfur rebel groups said it did not go far enough.

Meanwhile, the African Union, which is in charge of monitoring a shaky ceasefire between the govenment and the rebels, says some of its observers were shot at on Monday while investigating a bombing that the UN blames on Sudan's government.

Court rift

The report - prepared by a five-member UN-appointed commission - said the Sudanese government "has not pursued a policy of genocide" although "in some instances individuals, including government officials, may commit acts with genocidal intent".

The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the government should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes

UN report on Darfur
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Download and install the reader here

It pointed to "killing of civilians, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur".

But US state department spokesman Richard Boucher took issue, saying: "We stand by the conclusion that we reached [in September 2004] that genocide had been occurring in Darfur."

The report named, in secret, alleged war criminals it said should go before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Mr Boucher said the UN and the African Union should set up a tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania.

He also called for the deployment of UN peacekeepers to Sudan and targeted sanctions against the government there.

BBC state department correspondent Jonathan Beale says the US will discuss these proposals with Council members in the coming days but it is likely to be out of step with a number of key allies who believe the ICC should now become involved.

The US does not recognise the ICC, which it fears could be used for politically motivated prosecutions of US soldiers and diplomats.

Human cost

More than 70,000 people have been killed in the two-year conflict that has exacerbated a humanitarian crisis in Darfur and some two million have fled their homes.

Many of the refugees, mostly non-Arabs, say that militiamen backed by security forces have ridden into their villages on horses and camels, slaughtering the men, raping the women and stealing whatever they can find.

The Sudan government denies backing the Janjaweed militia and blames the violence on rebels who took up arms in February 2003.

adept_ninja · #14

Quote:

A girl drinks water in Darfur refugee camp

Abcdxxxx · #15

I agree Burbank, but I'm cynical enough to think that the US can't do right even when we're doing right anymore, and if we ever did try to stop REAL acts of genocide, the uproar would be twice it's going to be when we make moves to invade Iran.

What if we relocate the UNRWA to Darfur instead?

Oh but yes I think it's long overdue to be talking about Rwanda and Sudan in extreme terms like this.