NEWS: Remember Darfur?

POLITICS: Remember Darfur?

I have become increasingly frustrated with the news media the past few weeks. Discussions ranging from how much is spent in Iraq to the sexual acrobatics of a certain congressman while important; have become seriously overshadowed in my mind by the exploits of a single African country. To my amazement, not a single word of protest was raised or even uttered this past Friday when top UN officials suggested that efforts to pressure Sudan to allow UN peacekeepers in their country should be abandoned.

Their alternative is to strengthen the 7,000 African Union troops (AMIS) that are already in the country, but which by all accounts have proved useless in stemming the tide of violence against the non-Arab tribes of Darfur [1][2][3]. The reality is that ever since the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) was signed in May things have gotten much worse including air raids by the Sudanese military. Consequently, AMIS which was going to abandon it's deployment this month has been extended till December 31, 2006. What then?

Our current diplomatic stance is unacceptable, and neither is the UN's. From the time al-Bashir implemented his military coup d'etat in 1989, over 2.5 million people have died in struggles against their government. Bush, as early as 2004, declared the Sudanese action in Darfur genocide, and included it in a 2003 list of terror sponsor states. Yet nothing has effectively been done in defense of the innocent Dafuris.


Villages that have been destroyed and subsequently displaced in Darfur

What have we done since the violence escalated? Well, Bush named a special envoy to Sudan. Condoleezza Rice has made a bunch of empty threats. The US has talked about a bunch of alternatives, and blamed the situation on other countries. Why is it all talk and no action? Sudan doesn't have enough oil? Please, please, prove me wrong Mr. Bush. I thought you said, "never again"?

If you'd like to contact your representative or learn more contact Save Darfur, or to see how supportive they've been see Darfur Scores. Thank you for your time and patience.


...just an example-for your viewing pleasure

[Side note: Both sides involved in the conflict are Muslims which begs the question why are we dealing in generalities and terms like ‘islamofascism’ when it is clear that the real problem is poverty and the lack of the ability to petition authority. Both issues worth discussing are undeniably the cause of the rebellion in the first place.]

No point in spreading democracy if there isn't any oil there.

I like your article, I agree.

My question is, when was the last time this country got involved in a conflict without strong economic reasons to be there?

Anderson Cooper's show is doing a special on Darfur this week along with war going on in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in which an estimated three million lives have been lost but gets even less press.

If the conflict isn't in the Middle East no one seems to care. During Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon roughly 1,200 Lebanese civilians died. That is roughly the same number of people who die every day in Darfur and Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Well done, especially with the inclusion of all those source links. Thanks.

The UN needs to do more, and we need to support the UN in doing that. That's what it comes down to.

OPERATION Allied Force a.k.a. the Kosovo War in 1999. It was back when we were the good guys, had actual alliances (besides the UK), and the President was worth half a crap, so it's kinda hard to recall.

The problem is the United States doesn't have the forces to do this. We could pull it off with a draft but try selling that idea.

The simple answer is that other countries need to step up and do something.

You're right, after Iraq and our other commitments around the world, we don't have the manpower or equipment to commit to any major military action. Thank god too, because if we did, I'm pretty sure we would be in Iran.

hadess said:
The simple answer is that other countries need to step up and do something.


Germany, Spain, Italy, France. However, Europe has not been that great leading military forces in the past 20-30 years (compared with the U.S.), but out of all of them, I think France would be best suited to lead.

Yes. The problem is terrible, and it needs to be addressed. But the UN would rather spend time trying to fix things that haven't managed to ever fix, and stop gap measures then actually saving lives.

The other countries in the UN? They don't want to do anything, because it's not their problem. And they have the best scapegoat ever in the United States; because everyone wants the United States to be the world's policeman, but doesn't want us to be the world's policeman,

And so things won't be changing anytime soon, and that sucks.

I wish that there were not links to articles that say otherwise. I do agree that the President was worth half a crap(however he misfired on Rwanda), but there was this pipeline..It was really important, still is actually:

(We begin with something that isn't opinion)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Caspian/Background.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4577497.stm

That considered, some opinion pieces:

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0215-05.htm
http://www.balkanalysis.com/?p=488
http://www.serbia-info.com/news/2001-02/16/22419.html

There might have been a footnote in The Economist at the time, but it was a long time ago.

Okay, so how about before that?

There is oil though, it's one of the problems. The Sudanese government has signed deals to sell it to China. Sudan knows that the UN will only go so far before China vetoes the "unnecessarily aggressive actions against a Sudanese government which has pledged to resolve the situation", or some such bullshit.

Iraq means they know the US and UK are tied up. Clearly there are a number of things which can be done, it's just hard to see what will be done reaching the level of significant military intervention.

There are a whole bunch of aspects I left out for the purpose of brevity, but one thing I would like to mention is that China and Russia have major clout with Sudan. With the latest passing of the UNSC resolution to deploy 20,000 troops they are obviously not going to go out of their way to stop the effort, but at the same time they haven't implimented any active pressure on Sudan to allow the troops into the country.

Also, if you check the State Department link in the story you can see who some of the major exporters to Sudan are: funny thing is the majority of them are on our friends list. Also, if you look at the 'alternatives' link you'll see many possible choices that are viable and cheap that could be implemented, which aren't. One is a no fly zone, right now the Janjaweed and Popular Defense Forces are getting a lot of tactical support from the Sudanese airforce. Start flying some of our planes around there and let them know that we are not going to allow them to bomb innocent civilians. I mean shit, this is Sudan not Iraq, we couldn't effectively put an end to the air capabilities in a single day. But even with the US suggesting all this it's all bullshit unless they are willing to put diplomatic muscle behind it, which right now they are not. And it's just going to get worse unless someone calls out Sudan on their bullshit.

Another thing that's very curious to me, and there might be a simple answer to it, but the US had detained Sudan's new deputry foreign minister who previously headed the Popular Defense Forces in their attacks on innocent civilians. Many people believe that he is one of 51 people on a United Nations International Criminal Court list for possible war crime prosecution. So why didn't we detain him indefinately like all the other so called terrorists?

And quagmirething, yes there's oil, but check out the stats...

They're only exporting 6.9 billion a year, and I believe a little less than half is in the form of oil or petroleum products, and they're also importing in kind.

I agree, it really sucks. If you really want to get mad, go read up on Zimbabwe

The simple answer is the executive branch of the US no longer supports the prosecution of "war crimes" because they would all go to jail either now or in the future. After the invasion of Iraq the US also pulled support for the ICC for the same reasons.

Fuck, you got me there.

But, I have to say that "strong" economic reasons was not the major reason we got involved in Kosovo. I think there is a big difference between Kosovo and Iraq. There was an actual genocide going on there. There were no weapons of mass destruction worth a crap in Iraq. In fact, Bush changed the whole reasoning of the war from WMDs to spreading democracy (and fighting terrorism over there instead of over here, if you want to believe that lie). You can point out economic reasons behind a lot of wars. We have economic interests in a hell of a out of countries? Hell, WWII pulled us out of the depression and helped make us the economic world power we are today.

I mean, say North Korea went ahead and nuked Japan? Are we (as in the western world as a whole, not just the US) going to bomb them back for economic reasons? (Because those defense/missle shield contractor stocks will skyrocket)

One more thing and I'll shut up, with hostilities ending in the south a Sudanese Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has been set up. The new government and constitution recognize the south as effectively 30 percent of the government. Couldn't we also approach them diplomatically? That is have bilateral talks with the southern government to put pressure on Khartoum. I haven't even seen any comment on this anywhere. It seems like it could just be added to an array of diplomatic pressure points which should eventually force Sudan to break on the UNMIS issue.

Pfft...don't those ninnies know about "staying the course" and "Strengthening their resolve"?

I don't believe it's simply about the numbers. China has a long term policy of opposing interventions which are against the will of the local government, they tend to abstain when they have no interest and don't fear the setting of a precedent. Countries which make deals directly with China are putting themselves under the Chinese umbrella at the UN, something a number of African nations have done. So 3 billion in oil or 30 billion doesn't make much difference.

There is oil in Darfur!

In fact, oil may be the reason so many countries are unwilling to do jack shit about this tragedy.

If anything, it's surprising that people aren't getting involved to gain access to the oil that's there.

Maybe you should look into this a bit more before making the "oil" comments.

So what you're saying is oil has nothing to do with it, which is kinda the point people were making (i.e. not enough oil). Or maybe we're confusing two different issues.

Also, it's very nice of China to abstain, but we are in the beginning of creating a truly global community. China being a superpower must play an active role and start giving a fuck. They've had MFN for way too long they might be getting a little to comfortable. They must prove that they are willing to intervene when innocents are being slaughtered by the tens of thousands, if not millions regardless of what their tendency has been in the past. Simply, they need to become a responsible super power or else risk losing legitimacy.

[edited to add last paragraph]

I agree. But what can one do, hm? A quarter of the world is Chinese. I have a feeling that Beijing is also creating a truly global community - one with Chinese interests at heart. Quite a lot like America, really.

There are differences, of course; e.g. the Chinese have numbers on their side.

(What do you mean, that's not democratic?!)

is THIS your paper on the sudan?!

Yet, there was an actual genocide going on in Rwanda and we knew about it also. We didn't give two shits about them.

The United States hasn't gotten involved because there is no real gain for us. Basic realism - in the world of international politics, if you don't benefit from it, don't get involved. Oil is highly overrated - we don't get major oil from Iraq, and we wouldn't get major oil from Sudan. We receive most of our oil from Mexico and Venezuela. The only reason you could use the oil argument in Iraq is that Hussein had been trying to convert the currency in which oil is bought - making it more expensive for us. Taking out Hussein would give US the power of WHAT currency oil is bought in, and therefore, a BENEFIT to us.

What the administration has failed to see is, by getting involved in Darfur, they WOULD benefit. THEN they could say how they invade countries to HELP, not to ... do whatever it is we've done in Iraq.

Also, I hate to say this, but at least this time around the United States has stepped up and ADMITTED that what is going on in Darfur, Sudan is genocide. The United Nations has STILL failed to do this.

oh yea, awesome article ;D