November 16, 2004

Security in Darfur, Sudan a "Farce," according to Amnesty International. "Three or four rounds of negotiations have not resulted in an agreement that worked, so why should this time be any different?" 70,000 deaths since March. When will and what should the world do about Darfur, Sudan?
posted by shawnj 20 years ago
  • aw, shit.
  • What should we do? As with most trouble spots in the world today, inventing a time machine so we could go back and actually do something before it was too late would be nice. Failing that, I think we should argue about the definition of genocide a bit. /despairing bitterness
  • US policy If you're white, it's genocide and you get a free trip to the Hague. If you're black, it's an "internal problem" and you're on your own.
  • It's only Africa, for God's sake! It's not like it's anywhere important. Now, can I get back to watching "The Young and the Restless", please? /Sarcasm, in case you were wondering.
  • Well, the UN has declared a genocide in Darfur: is the EU powerless to intervene? While I am no fan of the US's shortsighted and hypocritical policies in Africa, there's more than one country on this planet capable of helping out. There's no reason in the world that France and Germany can't get involved in Darfur, is there?
  • Well, there is the history to consider. Both France and Germany helped cause the problems in Africa. Not to mention France's "peackeeping" efforts in the Ivory Coast, which might put any sane victim off requesting their help. It would be nice for Africa to be able to handle this kind of thing themselves (as it would have been nice for Europe to possess the will to handle Kosovo alone), but they're (we're) not there yet. If Dubya is into spreading freedom around the world, let him prove it.
  • I understand the sentiment, but as much criticism as the US gotten for doing (ostensibly) exactly that, and in light of our previous failures in Africa (to wit: Somalia), and the fact that our armed forces are a little busy right now elsewhere, I'm doubtful that the US will get actively involved in the Sudan, oil or no. I don't think that Europe's colonial history ought to put them off intervening in the Sudan. The likelihood is that the US military is going to be busy in the middle east for several years to come, and I feel this is an opportunity for Europe to take a larger role on the world stage, above the immediate need for some sort of remedying the situation.
  • The problem with having African forces do the job is that they require vast amounts of aid and logistics from the Western countries while providing a hit-and-miss job. And getting France to do anything in Sudan is against their national interests (they're sucking on the Sudanese crude teat along with China and Canada). The problem with sending any Europeans in there is that, at least in prior peacekeeping missions, they generate more animosity than they stop. Such was the case of the Belgians in Rwanda. Ultimately, in my opinion, the responsibility to do something in Sudan falls upon the five veto nations. They talk a good game ("Never again!"), but their reluctance to do anything in Sudan is destabilizing the region further. We don't need a repeat of the Congo War in Chad or Sudan. One ignored 3 million casualty war is enough for my lifetime.
  • I think the European view is that it's up the the UN, and that Europe will dig in with everyone else (except the United States, who don't take part much after Somalia). As is the case in a great many conflict areas at the moment.
  • And the problem with the UN seems to be one of talking a good game but being reluctant to take action in a meaningful way. How many times have we heard of the deployment of UN peacekeepers without a mandate to act decisively when the situation warrants? The UN does itself no favors this way. While there are many in the US who feel that an ineffectual UN is the best UN, it is situations like this one where the that ineffectuality, although politically convenient, results in gridlock and ultimately suffering. There are a LOT of countries in the world that are not the US, and no real reason why the UN can't take decisive, pragmatic action in regions that desperately need it. If the rest of world would free itself from the vagaries of US foreign policy, the best course would be to make US involvement superfluous, and that means being willing to take action, even if it might be unpopular.
  • What the African Union needs from the rest of the world is support, not troops. The UN needs to put REAL sanctions on Sudan or countries like the US and the EU-3 need to put their own sanctions on them. I don't know where Bush's $200 million for African humanitarian aid went, but since humanitarians aren't allowed in Darfur anymore, maybe we could throw some of that (and more) to the AU. In fact, countries should just start hurling money and 'munitions at the AU. Maybe the AU's not ready to solve a problem of this magnitude, but it's better than sitting around waiting for the security council to decide if it maybe wants to loosly imply that, if they're in the right mood, they could possibly impose sanctions, and that'll show 'em.
  • Sanctions won't work, seriously. The Janjaweed already have their weapons, and Sudan has an ample supply to funnel to them when they get low. Add to that the piss-poor border security on all of Sudan's borders, and what you're left with is a situation where sanctions will do little but symbolize the blindness that the UN has toward effectively stopping genocide.
  • Yet sanctions, food, guns and cash have proven time and again to make matters worse in Africa, not better. Sanctions don't seem to help,and make things worse for the already-suffering populace; food gets hoarded by the governments we're trying to sway, and used by them as a weapon against the aforementioned suffering populace; the last thing Africa needs is more guns, and the world has been throwing giant bags of money at Africa for decades, to no avail. It seems to me that if ever there was a place where direct UN intervention might do some real good, it is Africa.
  • I promise to preview first from now on. No, really, I mean it this time.
  • It's okay, Fes. I enjoy your imput.
  • trampnews: The sad fact is that hurling money at the AU is no sure thing, either. They could take the stance Zimbabwe's neighbours have, for example (no matter what horrible things Mugabe does, it's pissing off whites, so it must be cool).
  • I was going to suggest they pretend to find huge oil fields to peak the interest of the US, but the real thing hasn't worked out so well for Nigeria. Maybe Africa as a whole would have been better off without the ironic curse of natural resources.
  • rodgerd: Since the AU has already sent troops to Darfur, I think it's safe to assume they're not taking this lying down. It's also safe to say that they need money and weapons, because apparently there's also a dispute about the meaninig of ceasefire. Alex: Nicaragua's oil is used for gas heating, not car fuel. See, we don't mind freezing as long as we can do it in a Hummer.
  • (weeps.) Darfur has also slipped out of the headlines. So what can we in the US do? Send emails to Bush, Cheney, Rice and our senators representatives? I do that often, and hope it has some effect, but I wonder how many responses it takes to trigger some concern on their part. If it aint in the news, do many people care?
  • the Wikipedia has a summary on the events in Sudan. Looks as though the US has left it to the UN to deal with the problem.
  • mnftiu
  • A huge underground lake has been found in Sudan's Darfur region, scientists say, which they believe could help end the conflict in the arid region. The team used radar data to find the ancient lake, which was 30,750 km2 - the size of Lake Erie in North America - the 10th largest lake in the world.
  • Wow, finally some good news. Thanks, smt.
  • Ditto.
  • Kinda like being punched in the stomach: A vast underground lake that scientists hoped could help to end violence in Sudan's Darfur region probably dried up thousands of years ago, an expert says. "This lake was at the bottom of a broad watershed feeding the Nile above Khartoum," he said. "This watershed is completely dry today on the southern border of Egypt, Libya and north-western border of Sudan - one of the worst areas in the world." Not definitive, but nonetheless... disheartening news after the initial reports.