Should troops be sent into the Sudan to stop the genocides there or should sanctions be put into place first?

Blair is considering sending British troops, the Sudan government don't seem happy with this, well they wouldn't, would they?
As their fingerprints are all over this crisis.

Sanctions never work. Only military intervention will stop the genocide and by the time the UN gets around to doing anything militarily about it everybody will be dead or be starving refugees.

The UN is worthless in cases like this.

"The UN is worthless in cases like this."

Hush now! They were brilliant in Rwanda!

Signed,

The Hutus

Even more reason hgiving the UN some rwal teeth, like e.g. the discanbed Gurkha regiments, and put them under control of the security council, so that the UN doesn´t have to go begging with lots of countries until they get the troops.

Jan

Even more reason for giving the UN some real teeth, like e.g. the disbanded Gurkha regiments, and put them under control of the security council, so that the UN doesn´t have to go begging with lots of countries until they get the troops.

Jan

[Edited 2004-07-23 18:37:53]

And here we are again.........
The Sudanese government is evil, the rebels are the good guys.

I am wondering how long it takes many of you here to define who is the cow boy and who is the indian.

Anyone been there ? or just watching the news and building up a very substantiated opinion ?

I think the UN should do something. They should send troops, and give them the power and authority to do what ever necessary to protect themselves and the victims of the crisis. And leave the politicking and PC crap out.

The UN is only as good as it's members, and the more powerful the member, the more they can screw things up, usually for domestic political reasons.

It's not about good or bad guys anyway in Sudan, more about those caught in the middle.

"The Sudanese government is evil, the rebels are the good guys."

They're both absolute shit; but the government happens to be the one chopping the rebels into bits right now, which does not need to be happening while the world watches it happen.

The UN should stay out of it.

We should rely on the good will of the Sudanese people to solve this crisis themselves. Only Sudanese people can stop Sudanese from killing each other.

Why should foreigner's lives be put at risk to save Sudanese from other Sudanese?

"We should rely on the good will of the Sudanese people to solve this crisis themselves. Only Sudanese people can stop Sudanese from killing each other.
"

Fair enough, and in most cases I'd agree, but in every conflict in Africa, an ounce of prevention can have a phenomenal impact.

Fair enough, and in most cases I'd agree, but in every conflict in Africa, an ounce of prevention can have a phenomenal impact.

How would you feel if that ounce of prevention involved giving your own life (or your son's) to save Sudanese? When you commit foreign troops to solve other people's conflicts, you are risking lives.

I simply think that Sudan should solve its own problems. And if we all believe in the general "goodness" of people, then we will have faith that the "good" people in Sudan will solve this crisis on their own.

"How would you feel if that ounce of prevention involved giving your own life (or your son's) to save Sudanese? When you commit foreign troops to solve other people's conflicts, you are risking lives."

Simple thing: Not joining the military will keep everyone from giving his life for a cause he doesn't believe in. Unless people get drafted and sent to war after a week of training, of course.

"I simply think that Sudan should solve its own problems. And if we all believe in the general "goodness" of people, then we will have faith that the "good" people in Sudan will solve this crisis on their own."

Just like the good people in Iraq should have solved their "Saddam problem" on their own, right? After all, the Janjaweed militia is only killing people like Saddam killed the Kurds - the difference being that their weapons are good old AK-47 instead of gas.  

We're talking about Sudan, not Iraq Aloges. If you are unduly concerned about Sudanese genocide, then you are free to become a mercenary and do your part to stop it. Whining on anet will not stop it.

The onus should be on Sudanese people to stop this genocide, not Westerners.

How can you be so double-tongued? The genocide in Sudan doesn't bother you one bit, but you have no problem with the war in Iraq, for which one justification was a genocide against the Kurds.

How are the people in Darfur less worth intervention than the Kurds?

"If you are unduly concerned about Sudanese genocide, then you are free to become a mercenary and do your part to stop it."

That one doesn't work in my case. Check http://www.afs.org/ if you want to know what I do for peace - I don't need to go anywhere and kill people to try to improve one or two things. Is that too difficult to grasp? I guess so.

"Whining on anet will not stop it."

Instead of explaining your point, you just say "go fight those who you don't like and stop the whining". I have an opinion, just like you, and a forum is a place to talk about opinions. Say what you think, bitch about things that annoy you, but don't tell others to shut up.

The genocide in Sudan doesn't bother you one bit,

I never said it didn't bother me, but don't you agree it should be stopped immediately by the Sudanese themselves? Barring that, what about their neighbours? Perhaps Kenya, Uganda, Egypt & Somalia can resolve this regional conflict if Sudan can't.

Wy is it automatically assumed that Western nations should step in and prevent/resolve genocide in all 4 corners of the world?

"I never said it didn't bother me,"

but the "let them solve it on their own" attitude sounded like that.

"but don't you agree it should be stopped immediately by the Sudanese themselves?"

The problem is that the Sudanese government is supporting the Janjaweed, and the people in Darfur are unable to defend themselves. If it weren't for the Sudanese government, all of this wouldn't be happening. The "solution" that government favours is either killing or expelling the people in Darfur (anyone know a shorter term?).

"Barring that, what about their neighbours? Perhaps Kenya, Uganda, Egypt & Somalia can resolve this regional conflict if Sudan can't."

Look at the "Democratic Republic of the Congo"   and Rwanda, its eastern neighbour, for a fine example of "solutions" some African governments offer their neighbouring countries. To think that economic aid paid for many of the weapons used by the Rwandans to secure the natural resources in the DRC makes me nothing short of furious.

"Wy is it automatically assumed that Western nations should step in and prevent/resolve genocide in all 4 corners of the world?"

Theoretically, it would indeed be best if all nations solved their own problems, without killing people and without civil wars. In today's reality, when governments are trying to solve their nations' problems by killing people (like Saddam, Milosevic and now the Sudanese), should other nations just let them proceed? A genocide is a genocide and should be stopped by those who say they defend human rights, freedom and democracy - which are the "Western nations".
The expulsion of the Armenians was a genocide, Hitler's concentration camps were a genocide, Stalin's "resettlements" were often genocides, the Chinese "cultural revolution" was a "class"-based genocide, Saddam gassing the Kurds was a genocide, Milosevic's "ethnic cleansing" was a genocide, and the Janjaweed are committing a genocide. Now that there might be a chance to stop a genocide while it's already happening, you think it should not be taken?

Wy is it automatically assumed that Western nations should step in and prevent/resolve genocide in all 4 corners of the world?

How about "Because no-one else is doing it"?

True, YYZ717, you're absolutely right that it would be best if the Sudanese would solve their own problems. But considering the fact that the Sudanese are actually the ones that created the problem, I have my doubts that such a solution will be reached before one side of the conflict is either dead or out of the country.

The UN needs teeth - but so far quite a few of the security council members have shied away from even calling this a genocide - because calling it a genocide would require them to do something... as long as it's "just" a domestic conflict, everyone can continue to sit at the sidelines, hold big speeches about how bad the situation is and that something should be done - and afterwards go back home and not think about Sudan anymore.

And I seriously doubt that that will improve anything.

Regards,
Frank

"The genocide in Sudan doesn't bother you one bit, but you have no problem with the war in Iraq, for which one justification was a genocide against the Kurds.

How are the people in Darfur less worth intervention than the Kurds?"

Please.
No one gave a damn about the Kurds. This newly found concern for the Kurds trumpeted by the lying thuggish right wing in the US was purely a step-in once the much bally-hooed WMDs were never found. If we were so concerned about the Kurds, then we wouldn't have been in bed with Saddam Hussein while he was slaughtering Kurds back in the 80s.

The people in Darfur are worth less intervention than the Kurds because they do not live in a nation sitting on a bazillion barrels of oil.

Western nations - like all nations - act out of self-interest. The civil war in Bosnia had ramifications within Europe. Thus, NATO and the US reacted. The war in Rwanda was seen merely as a bunch of Africans, so black they were almost blue, fighting among themselves with nary an effect on the interests of the West. Somehow I dont think that the good folks of Peoria can either relate to- or care - about these people. Iraq as we all know is sitting on the lifeline of modern economies: oil; Sudan is just a big pile of sand.

Its not that hard to figure out.

As the nations with the real weapons, I feel that NATO should go in there and deal with it. Letting the Sudanese "solve the problem themselves" will only result in more killing. Perhaps it's time to throw the government into chaois and stop the genocide. The UN proved what it's worth in Rwanda. We also need to carefully consider WHY there are violent rebels and HOW they got weapons. Neither the government nor the rebels are "good", which is why we need to go in there and help the people. That's my $.02.

What is going on in Sudan is a very very old story.
It is the story of a "nation" in the thirld world, where religious beliefs and appartenance to a clan/tribe are the deciding factors of who runs it and who remains in slavery.

As always, all sides have their helping and funding friends and there are always weapons merchants willing to cash in.
If preventing clashes to degenerate would be the right thing to do, it should have been done 20 years ago, at least. Nobody (or very few) cared back then.
Tens (or hundreds) of thousands are buried since and now suddenly the West
cries wolf.

The UN should have the means to put a halt to all hostilities, that should include a permanent and solid task force with its own transport and logistics capabilities, and establish a demarcation zone. Next would be working out an agreement between parties, and if not achievable, leave it to an international court.
Guess that some behind the scene do not like the idea...

"As always, all sides have their helping and funding friends and there are always weapons merchants willing to cash in.
If preventing clashes to degenerate would be the right thing to do, it should have been done 20 years ago, at least. Nobody (or very few) cared back then.
Tens (or hundreds) of thousands are buried since and now suddenly the West
cries wolf."

Thats because this is 20 years on. You cannot have genocide, turning around and stating that just because it hasnt been stopped before it shouldnt be stopped now is appalling.

I think the arab world needs to play a role, after all Sudan is a aprt arab country, it is Arabs who are doing the massacring and Sudan is reported to have Al Queada elements. To send in troops into another country which has arabs onto top of iraq and afghanistan is going to cause issues.

The UN has a knack for screwing this crap up, they should keep their little blue noses out of it and let the problem work itself out.

Since the UN will send troops anyway, because they love going where they aren't welcomed I just hope they send someone other than US troops. Let the entire third world start hating someone other than the US for doing what the UN says.

"I just hope they send someone other than US troops. Let the entire third world start hating someone other than the US for doing what the UN says."

You clearly have no clue what the makeup of the UN forces are. They are not predominantly American. Countries like India and Pakistan, Germany and Italy make up a large contingent of UN forces.

This is one instance where UN troops SHOULD be sent.

Go Canada, I think you misread my post.

I said it is been going on for 20 years and the "civilized" world had that much to stop the fighting, it is very late to cry wolf.
But the soonest the UN gets the green light and the means, the better it is.

Do not count on the Arab league or the Organization of African Unity to raise a finger.

Head of UK land forces, Sir Mike Jackson (about as different a person as you can get from his more famous namesake) has told Blair that 5000 British troops could be deployed quickly.
So, the forces are there, at least initially for securing ground and protecting aid efforts, so now the politics.
This could be a problem, as of course for some it will be imperialism never mind the suffering on the ground, because the troops cannot realistically be sent without a UN mandate.
But if your some embezzling, oppressive, tin pot ruler, you need to play the 'imperialism' card in public, anyway if such types are bleeding their nations dry the last thing they want to do is set a precedent allowing foreign troops in.
If, a big if admittedly, the troops go, there will be dangers, it's a lawless place after all, but the militias and other elements causing all the mayhem would be well advised to stay away, they won't be dealing with some poorly trained Blue Helmets put there by an unprepared nation to get brownie points in the UN.
Blair will be keen though, after all, UK forces ended a murderous campaign in Sierra Leone in 2000 by rebels and various gangsters.

GDB,

Correct and decidedly such a move would be welcomed by anyone caring for the poor souls stuck in the middle.
Professional soldiers with a clear (and as little restrictive as possible) mandate is what is needed. The ball is in NY, I suppose an emergency meeting and subsequent decision cannot take weeks.

Sierra Leone was a good and recent example of a successful operation.

I think it would be highly symbolic and appropriate for an all-African UN contingent to halt this genocide, if the UN must get involved.

Imagine that. Africans solving African problems. What a concept.

"Africans solving African problems. What a concept."

Unfortunately, it's also a pipe dream.

The biggest problem with the traditional blue helmets is that they don´t get the right gear and training to do their job. Often enough both sides (which are reqwuired to agree for a deployment of blue helmets) in a conflict insist that the bluehelmets should only carry light weapons for "personal defense" as not to look too martialic and "provoke". Often they get also blocked by diplomats, who see their way of neociations as the only one and don´t want the military to "make facts". This was the problem with the Dutch UN forces in Sebrenica in Bosnia (I talked to some Dutch soldiers who´ve been there. They got sent with the order to protect the refugees, but were only allowed to bring a few .50 cal machine guns as their heaviest weapons. Then they had to face tanks and while their commander´s request for reenforcement was debated by the diplomats, Sebrenica was overrun.
Rwanda was similar, the small Belgian force wasn´t enough to stop the rioters, an urgent request for reinforcements was denied, the local commander had to decide between a withdrawal or extermination of his unit.
The German Bundeswehr faced a dilema dealing with violent demonstrators armed with torches, stones and steel bars in Kosovo a few months ago. First, the soldiers are not trained in police style anti riot tactics. Secondly, tear gas, though used by the police, is considered under the rules of war as a chemical weapon, and the German military are not allowed to use and WMDs (it is federal crime in Germany). So the commander had only the choice of either letting the demonstartors pass, torching Serb houses, or opening life fire, which, against demonstrators not armed with fire arms, would have earned him the mame "butcher of Kosovo".
The rioters knew it, if there would have been one or two of them armed with guns, then the commander would have been justified to let his soldiers open fire (as had happened before).
Don´t blame the blue helmets, they have to operate under many constraints.
If you send blue helmets to Sudan, both the rebels and the government will have to agree. Since both sides still hope for a final victory (no matter how their own population suffers, wasn´t there oil or gas discovered recently in Sudan?), they will insist on a minimaly armed UN force just to show to the world that they are "for peace". In reality they will just regroup, rearm and wait for an opportunity to take advantage.

Jan

I do not know what is the real situation in Sudan. I also think that the history had proved to us that rumours like this have to be tested by the international community. Moreover, I do not know if the UN troops have the capability to deliver the truth to us. If the allegations are true (and in a case like this we have to assume so) the international troops have to intervene.In the worst case Sudan's inner matters will be interfered. Otherwise thousands of lives will be saved.

You pointed out perfectly that what is required is a UN sanctioned force, not so much a UN force in the traditional sense.

If the British Army's leading general has told the Prime Minister that he has 5000 troops, not only able to deal with sensitive situations and provide aid, but also quite capable of looking after themselves, then only diplomatic and political issues could keep them from going.

On a more cynical note, Blair could use raising his stock worldwide, not just in Washington (with the current US administration, Blair being favoured by GWB and co is pure political poison for him domestically).

Maybe before always claiming that they do all this kind of work, some in the US might want to research the main contributors to these sort of operations, while the US does contribute, they may be surprised by what they find.
And consider why previous attempts to provide protection have been either partially successful at best, or total failures.

LY7E7
Shalom,
No assumptions to be made here. As I said the war of secession in Sudan is running for a good two decades.

Back at the end of the 80's a partition (Sudan / South Sudan) was even semi-officially accepted, up to the point that the International Telecommunications Union (a branch of the UN) issued specific call signs for South Sudan.
Several Western countries' helped the South, through NGOs as folding screens. Main transit place for the "aid": Nairobi.

While it is not the first time that "world media" wrote or said something about it, it is only now that it brings it really in the spotlight, and only now that "world opinion" starts being sensitive.

Intra-Sudanese negotiations have taken place innumerable times, and invariably there is no will to reach a compromise.
Without foreign intervention they will continue until they are running out of soldiers or until the governmental forces and militia take a firm grip on the South. In both cases the result will be very deadly.

True that Sudan is a sovereign country, so only the society of Nations may take the decision to interfere on humanitarian grounds, even if Khartum is not willing to agree.
Another option, admirably human, is kindly suggested by Captoveur: let the problem work itself out.

Concerning dividing Sudan into two countries, the Organisation of African Unity is strictly against any change of todays borders (and they were grumbling when Erithrea split off Ethopia) because they think it will open a can of worms all over the contuinent, with arbitrary borders drawn by the old colonial powers.

Jan

MD11
You are right and the OAU is right in its assessment of opening a can of worms. (image)

The geopolitical divisions in Africa are the results of a century of colonialism.
None of the powers took care of local factors when they drew borders, only territory (and its resources) mattered.
However, the 4 to 6 decades of independence can only be seen as a transition period before Africans take really their destiny into their own hands, according to divisions they will determine, along the lines they will define.
Ethnicity and tribal links are much much stronger than national sentiment in most if not all places.
Many national entities are senseless (Sudan is one of them, DRC is another) and if they have not erupted yet they are ripe to do so.
Remember Senegal, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Nigeria (esp. Biafra), Ethiopia/Erithrea, Angola, Mozambique, Congo, DR Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Chad, Western Sahara, the list is long and not exhaustive.

Sudan is only one of many hot spots. The OUA (and the UN) are fighting a lost battle, they are actually only delaying the general process.

Sorry, we can't be bothered with genocide, we're too busy condemning Israel for building a wall that prevents the murder of its civilians.

Warmest Regards,
The UN

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

Check this link. I remembered having read something about Sudan having oil fields. Acc. to this map it looks as if the oil fields are in a contested area. It looks like the government doesn´t want to have the south split off with the oil fields, while on the other handd the people from the south don´t want to have the revenue taken away by the government from the north. It looks a bit like the Kongo / Katanga conflict of 1965.

Jan

Hey Jcs17,

Your Prez is a peaceloving man. Why doesn't he do anything about this crisis?
Or is he to busy looking like a Saint after "liberating" the Iraqi people?

Re: I think it would be highly symbolic and appropriate for an all-African UN contingent to halt this genocide, if the UN must get involved.

Won't EVERRRR happen - only one country in Africa has the defence and mobility resources to mount such an operation - South Africa. They are already involved in the DRC, and would certainly not want to get involved single-handedly in the Sudan as well, which is a very long way from home.

I sincerely hope the UK commits troops as early as possible, ideally with a UN mandate. It would do some good for the country as a whole to feel they are helping solve international crisis' rather than aiding and abetting them.

And JCS17 - how about if Israel committed some troops to UN peacekeeping operations instead of employing them in real-estate re-development projects in the Gaza strip.

I have a better solution, instead of the EU just sitting back and bitching about the US, why not have the EU actually do something about it? Let's not forget these are Europe's old stomping grounds as well. Isn't there some highly vaunted new Franco-German-Belgian rapid reaction force out there just waiting to show the world the "proper" use of force in cases just like these? Countries like the US and the UK act when they feel it's right...whether they are right or wrong. Today most Europeans think we are wrong on Iraq and the US in particular is depised for it. So here's your big chance Europe! Show us your leadership ability for once instead of your usual penchant for just siting back and criticizing what the US does or doesn't do. I think we can all agree that flashing fancy UN resolutions and hand-wringing doesn't accomplish anything whatsoever, it simply emboldens the maniacs because they know that unless the US or the UK gets into it then they're at total liberty to carry out their plans for death and destruction.

"The geopolitical divisions in Africa are the results of a century of colonialism.
None of the powers took care of local factors when they drew borders, only territory (and its resources) mattered."

That is the most tired, short sighted argument. Follow that to the logical conclusion; what would happen if every ethnic and tribal division created its own borders? It would infinitely worse than it is right now. The truth is, civilized people don't cut each other up because they are a different tribe/ethnicity/whatever. Every country on earth is created with borders that don't necessarily follow ethnic/tribal lines; the idea that a border can do such a thing is assinine. Colonialism had varying effects on the current state of Africa but it is far overdramatized by the African apologists. The relative success of certain African countries can be attributed to Britain's involvement, whereas the demise of others can be attributed to Belgium and Portugal's knack for raping countries and leaving them to die.

Yyz, the West arguably caused the problems in Sudan. Bear in mind the Anglo-Egyptian rule didn't end until 1955. Only 14 years later it was Nimeri's reign and there was another coup in 85. All this stems from instability caused by the West.

Sorry, we can't be bothered with genocide, we're too busy condemning Israel for building a wall that prevents the murder of its civilians.

Warmest Regards,
The UN

Excuse me, the US is the one trying to get sanctions (through the UN (!)) on Sudan. The UN is only as good as its members, the biggest and most powerful of which is your country.

"the West arguably caused the problems in Sudan. Bear in mind the Anglo-Egyptian rule didn't end until 1955. "

Is Egypt considered the West? India was relieved of Anglo rule 8 years prior and has done far better than the Sudan, and it's population makeup is much more complex and fractious than the Sudanese population.

Britain is considered to be in the West, surely. A lot of the problems in the world can be traced back to colonialism.

Just like in the mid '90s, UN troops could help to stop the loss of life in the Sudan. In the mid '90s they stalled and never sent any troops- another reason why I don't trust the UN as much as I should.

Just a mere late $.02 worth, but I would not lose any sleep over anything that the UN did, except I would be very happy if the U.S. was mostly disenvolved. I think some of our British and Canadian neighbors wouldn't be too displeased if their respective countries were disenvolved also. It is becoming aggravating to try (eventually, wrongully or righfully, as many 20/20 hindsight armchair quarterbacks expouse various tomes on morality) and actually help some folks with nary a chance of reasonable success because of the myriad of local histories, and frankly, little resolve to 'upgrade' their internal societies Although I'm pretty sure I'll be dead within the next decade or so, I wouldn't have much problem betting the younger folks who will still be alive in 2020 or thereabouts, that if you are still discussing on A.net similar topics, not much will have changed. I, of course, hope that I am very wrong and would lose such a bet. I don't want to sound like a defeatest, however from my personal observations (and I'm mostly referring to the U.S.), it seems that 'we' are playing against an increasingly-stacked deck. Again, I hope I'm wrong and that more mature minds will conquer in the future, but for right now at least, I hope 'we' can keep our noses out of it. Regards..Jack

Maverick,
Another shining pearl of a post from you. It seems obvious you do not have a clue about Africa and Africans but still you cannot avoid to parade on the bridge.

Colonialism had varying effects on the current state of Africa but it is far overdramatized by the African apologists
The truth is, civilized people don't cut each other up because they are a different tribe/ethnicity/whatever

In your present state of mind, you are a lost case.

For the US, there are unfortunate precedents, Lebanon in the early eighties, Somalia a decade later.
Both were rushed and ill-defined operations, as these things usually are.

After the gory detail of Somalia on TV screens, no way any US president, of whatever political colour, would rush to put troops into Rwanda six months after the 'Blackhawk Down' debacle.

With Sudan, the additional factor of it being a former Bin Laden stamping ground, so he'll still have assets there, which you don't want if you are meant to be providing aid, as well as that unfortunate episode of the Tomahawk missiles hitting what was said to be a chemical weapons facility, but most people now think really was a benign drug facility, as claimed at the time.
Foreign troops, especially US ones, won't be a welcome sight for many Sudanese.

All that is needed is short term protection for aid efforts and possibly safe zones, though the EU Rapid Reaction Force is sort of a reality, it is at present only really geared up to operate within the European continent, that will change in time, and Sudan is within the deployment capabilities now, as we are not talking about a major all arms formation.

Of course, that's if the Sudan government allows it, if they don't then try getting the UN to clear toppling them, which would need some US support, won't happen as the organization of African Unity would veto it.

So maybe the use of severe sanctions, or the threat of them, to force them to allow UN aid and protection in.
Again, guess who'd likely vote 'no' on this?

This means that the rather lazy retort of 'why don't the EU do this one' does
not really mean anything, as the political and diplomatic limitations I've described above apply as much to the US as to the EU.

Most UN operations are done with consent, grudging or not, with the local government of that area, they are the ones that do the real peacekeeping, sometimes like in Cyprus for decades, largely successfully.
They don't make the headlines.
Taking this a stage further, to maybe operate without local government consent, to make in the minds of many 'relevant', would need a big change of attitudes by a lot of people, in the EU, US and outside these sphere's of influence.

"In your present state of mind, you are a lost case."

Why? Just about every country has been a colony of someone at one point or another, and all have had varying degrees of success. Colonialism leaves profound effects on the culture and civilization that it leaves behind, but it is far to easy to blame colonialism on current problems.

"It seems obvious you do not have a clue about Africa and Africans but still you cannot avoid to parade on the bridge."

Please, enlighten me.