The Future of the Sudan

[Kscott]

The Sudanese government on Sunday accepted a peace plan for the Darfur region that requires it to disarm Janjaweed militias before rebels lay down their weapons in what diplomats said was a major breakthrough.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa...eut/index.html


Seems like we may finally be moving to peace in Sudan, an ethinic war that has killed more than 2 million people. This is great news as seing just this year the war was begining to spread to Chad. Unfortunatly I havent paid enough attention to know what changed things, but it seems peace is atleast in progress. A very good article :original:

[Farnan]

I'm thinking its a smokescreen. To "disarm" the Janjaweed the Sudanese government will probably have to move in its army. A perfect way to deploy troops for an offensive without alerting the international community. Then while "disarming" the Janjaweed I'm predicting this army will be attacked by "rebels." Perfect excuse to launch the offensive.

Do you think this guy is really going to cave to international pressure as the international community doesn't do anything but sit on their butts and complain about the US?

[Kscott]

Yes that is a very real possibility, but im an optimist

[Sétanta]

I'm thinking its a smokescreen. To "disarm" the Janjaweed the Sudanese government will probably have to move in its army. A perfect way to deploy troops for an offensive without alerting the international community. Then while "disarming" the Janjaweed I'm predicting this army will be attacked by "rebels." Perfect excuse to launch the offensive.

Do you think this guy is really going to cave to international pressure as the international community doesn't do anything but sit on their butts and complain about the US?

Thats a probable result.

But we can still hope for the best.

[orange slice]

i bet it will still go on for awile, you can't stop people changning there minds on killing people, there will probably be some killings here in there still. War will always go on.

[Farnan]

Well I'm just thinking that this isn't the first time people have used diplomatic actions as a smokescreen to buy time to manuevour troops and set up offenses.

[Carach]

Well I'm just thinking that this isn't the first time people have used diplomatic actions as a smokescreen to buy time to manuevour troops and set up offenses.

yes indeed, people have used the tactic many times before.

Things dontchange overnight. but we can hope eh?

[MaximiIian]

If there is any country the United States should "intervene" in, it is Sudan. What the hell happened to humanitarianism, has it just dissappeared from first-world countries?

[danzig]

If there is any country the United States should "intervene" in, it is Sudan. What the hell happened to humanitarianism, has it just dissappeared from first-world countries?

I love this argument, people only want us to intervene when they think its important as tragic as Sudan's genocide is as an American Ill have to say no thanks we pass. We'll just get drawn into it, critized for it (hell we were for Bosnia, another 'justifable' intervenation) and become targets for it. Im sure Europe can intervene here if its so important.

[gigagaia]

I love this argument, people only want us to intervene when they think its important as tragic as Sudan's genocide is as an American Ill have to say no thanks we pass. We'll just get drawn into it, critized for it (hell we were for Bosnia, another 'justifable' intervenation) and become targets for it. Im sure Europe can intervene here if its so important.

Why don't you think that it is tragic, exactly? I mean, you imply here that Europe thinks it is and if they do, they should act. So why isn't it tragic enough for you to act, to save the lives of possibly millions of people who are being killed, mutilated, raped and tortured because of who they are.

I love the moral nature of this argument, however, and what is even better, is that often the US does not have to do much. They simply have to bring up the issue at the UN and suggest a UN-sanctioned action, and not threaten to veto resolutions calling for action (like they did in Rwanda). If it fails due to vetos from Russia/China (the chances of the UK vetoing such an aciton is almost 0, and France low), at least you were doing your best, and perhaps can legitimately call for action. All you need to do is lead the charge in the call for action. Get some middle- or great powers involved, like Canada and Britain. Or even better, fund and support the AU in an intervention. You don't have to send your own soldiers if you really don't believe in that kind of thing. But the least you could do is support the cause through leadership.

This, I am very sad to say however, has nothing to do with being critisized by the international community, and all about an attitude that can be summed up with one familiar phrase "it is a far away land of which we know little." If it isn't happening on our shores, it isn't happening at all. And that is very sad. Not only are events in the world tied together much more closely than we all think, it distresses me as a Canadian who respects my friends and neighbours, that these same people have the capactiy for such moral detachment. If you were a leading state in prevention, spending a much larger percentage on your budget funding UN peace-building initiatives and social development in Africa, that would be one thing. But the US is also the most indebted state in the World to the UN. (was, until recently) I agree that the UN doesn't always do what you want it to, and sometimes has its deep-rooted problems. But the only chance that you have given it, is right at the start. And so here you stand, not willing to prevent, not willing to protect. What are you willing to do?
I was watching a BBC documentry on the Sudan the other day, and they were itnerviewing an American military officer who was there as a peacekeeper and observer. He said near the end that he was ashamed to be from a western nation, when some Sudanese were overjoyed that the Americans and he world had arrived to save them. That village was later destroyed, and most of the population killed.

CAPTION: CAPTAIN BRIAN STEIDLE African Union Monitor
FERGAL KEANE
Did you feel a sense of shame, that you and the rest of international community were standing by while these people were dying?

BRIAN STEIDLE
Sure I did. I stood in, I was in one village once, village of Izban, where we were investigating a bombing by the Sudanese government. And I stood there and they introduced every one of the team members. And when they introduced me, Brian, as an American, the entire village that was standing there in front of us stood up and applauded me, because they thought that they were safe, that now America has come here, to their village, to save them. And I wasn't able to do anything. And still we haven't done enough.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ma/4654093.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...an/default.stm

During the lead up to the Iraq war, many supporters dismissed concerns of lost legitimacy and moral stature as unimportant and not really relevant. I remember so many times, people telling me that what the world thinks of you matters for nothing (although politicians would disagree with you on that). Why start worrying about criticism now, in a situation that would likely gain you a lot of support in large circles of the western world?

I'm not saying that many other states shouldn't be to blame, but merely saying that as a state who wants to be the moral leader of the world, your actions often speak louder than your presidential addresses. That you, on the one hand claim to be the purveyors of democracy and liberty, and on the other express callous regard with statemensts such as the one you just posted for the sufferings of millions of Africans as their governments massacre them. As the world leader, you have, at the very least, moral power to incite most of the western world, and large parts of the rest of the world to action, and ideally, you have the power to stop these things directly, and then get the UN involved, through support and more funding, in sorting out the long-term issues that genocide and ethnic cleansing causes.

[danzig]

Why don't you think that it is tragic, exactly? I mean, you imply here that Europe thinks it is and if they do, they should act. So why isn't it tragic enough for you to act, to save the lives of possibly millions of people who are being killed, mutilated, raped and tortured because of who they are.

I do think it is tragic as I said but I object to people who seem to think we shouldnt only intervene when they think it is worth it, regardless of the situtation we often take alot of heat for doing this even when it is justified like it was in Bosnia, Somalia and would be in Sudan. We are the world's villian because of intervention whether it be morally justified ones or not and we need to step away from that because all it does is bring us trouble. That is why I said let Europe deal with it because Im tired of my country engaging in what is pretty much a thankless job.

I love the moral nature of this argument, however, and what is even better, is that often the US does not have to do much. They simply have to bring up the issue at the UN and suggest a UN-sanctioned action, and not threaten to veto resolutions calling for action (like they did in Rwanda). If it fails due to vetos from Russia/China (the chances of the UK vetoing such an aciton is almost 0, and France low), at least you were doing your best, and perhaps can legitimately call for action. All you need to do is lead the charge in the call for action. Get some middle- or great powers involved, like Canada and Britain. Or even better, fund and support the AU in an intervention. You don't have to send your own soldiers if you really don't believe in that kind of thing. But the least you could do is support the cause through leadership.

Tired of my country leading sorry I realized past few months Im definately developing a more isolationist view when it comes to this sort of thing. Hell best thing for world would be a couple of decades of no US leading the charge on these sorts of things to see what happens.

[gigagaia]

I do think it is tragic as I said but I object to people who seem to think we shouldnt only intervene when they think it is worth it, regardless of the situtation we often take alot of heat for doing this even when it is justified like it was in Bosnia, Somalia and would be in Sudan. We are the world's villian because of intervention whether it be morally justified ones or not and we need to step away from that because all it does is bring us trouble. That is why I said let Europe deal with it because Im tired of my country engaging in what is pretty much a thankless job.

Tired of my country leading sorry I realized past few months Im definately developing a more isolationist view when it comes to this sort of thing. Hell best thing for world would be a couple of decades of no US leading the charge on these sorts of things to see what happens.

Two questions to that:

1. What, then, about Iraq? What justifies that on humanitarian grounds (As Bush claimed was a guiding purpose of the war)? Why was Iraq any more deserving than Sudan?
2. And so, in teaching the world a lesson or keeping to yourselves, you would have millions die?

Your role as a superpower carries with it signifigant responsibilities to world leadership. Unless you are willing to massively cut your military budget, withdraw from places like Iraq and Afghanistan and Resign your seat at the UN security council (with it's veto). You cannot simply isolate yourself from this international community it is too intriniscally linked at the most basic levels for you to be lucky enough to put up barriers and go on living happy and well.

[Kscott]

I agree Hasburg. Someone dared tell me rape rooms were a reason to invade Iraq. Sick? Of course, but the Sudan has bleed far to much, not to mention now Chad. I have come to the conclusion nobody cares about Africa. I mean, how many hear even know about the Great African War?(not your fault, flaw of the media.)

[{nF}remix]

I agree Hasburg. Someone dared tell me rape rooms were a reason to invade Iraq. Sick? Of course, but the Sudan has bleed far to much, not to mention now Chad. I have come to the conclusion nobody cares about Africa. I mean, how many hear even know about the Great African War?(not your fault, flaw of the media.)

please tell, for Wikipedia has failed me

[Mangalore]

please tell, for Wikipedia has failed me

The civil wars in Kongo/Zaire, the largest central african nation turnt into dozens of foreign interventions by neighboring countries and thus a hidden war that cost millions of lives since the fall of the last dictator and none cares (it is only now that a limited EU force is willing to protect elections, but when the fighting raged none cared). The troubling part is that Kongo is the largest exporteur of Coltan and other raw materials important for high tech industries so there should have been some interest to pacify the region but it seems getting the stuff from warlords cheaper was more important.

Not sure about Darfur, ´hopefully something comes off it but I fear not. Africa is still suffering from artificially drawn borders.

[Sétanta]

I agree Hasburg. Someone dared tell me rape rooms were a reason to invade Iraq. Sick? Of course, but the Sudan has bleed far to much, not to mention now Chad. I have come to the conclusion nobody cares about Africa. I mean, how many hear even know about the Great African War?(not your fault, flaw of the media.)

The fact that nobody cares about Africa is that these genocides were allowed to happen in the first place.

This is one problem that absolutely makes me sick whenever I think about it. For all the Western Nations talk about Africa, their incredible lack of action ****es me off like nothing else.

[MaximiIian]

I mean, how many hear even know about the Great African War?(not your fault, flaw of the media.)

First and Second Congo War, you mean?
And, yeah, **** is screwy. I mean, it took how long for the powers of the world to intervene in Rwanda in '92?

[{nF}remix]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa...eut/index.html


Seems like we may finally be moving to peace in Sudan, an ethinic war that has killed more than 2 million people. This is great news as seing just this year the war was begining to spread to Chad. Unfortunatly I havent paid enough attention to know what changed things, but it seems peace is atleast in progress. A very good article :original:

hopefully its true, if you look at this thread http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49087

Sudan Supported rebels recently assaulted the Chadian capital

[The Alcotroll]

According to the Guardian , the whole thing has fallen apart:

Hopes for a breakthrough in peace talks on the Darfur conflict were dashed last night when two of the main rebel groups refused to sign a proposed agreement only hours before a deadline expired .

[Ahiga]

I think it goes beyond africa. I think we simply as a whole do not care about genocide. We did not enter WW2 to help the jews, we did not enter Rwanda or the Congo Wars and, though this is uneducated in guessing, I would assume the balkan's were dealt with simply because europe was freaked out about having a conflict so close to it's borders, after so long a period of peace.

Had it been happening in the caucassus, we might not have intervened.