Sudan Crisis: World needs to do something

[Pangloss]

And they've been so effective, haven't they.

[Sisyphus]

And they've been so effective, haven't they.

 

Results are mixed, depending largely on force commitment and mission parameters. But what's your point? Peacekeeping is impossible and therefore pointless? They would receive more criticism if they were more successful? Certainly more aggressive peacekeeping (peace imposing?) with more muscle behind it tends to be more effective, as in the Balkans. The only criticisms I remember from that was that it was all an elaborate plot to distract Americans from Bill Clinton's sex life.

 

EDIT: Interesting research on Wikipedia: "The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of March 2007 were Pakistan (10,173), Bangladesh (9,675), India (9,471), Nepal (3,626), Jordan (3,564), Uruguay (2,583), Italy (2,539),Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa"

 

Does anyone else think that's an odd list? I don't really know much about the way the UN in particular does this kind of thing. Can anyone shed some light?

[Pangloss]

Peacekeeping in its current methodology is more or less impossible and largely pointless, yes. We never really apply significant pressure and we don't have the guts+unity to do what might actually work in many if not most situations. For example, if we really applied an actual blockade to North Korea, stopping everything from food to video games for Il Presidente at the border, they'd ship every scrap of nuclear material into our hands overnight.

 

I don't blame the French, mind you. I think we're making progress and the "UN Era" will ultimately be seen as a step forward. It's just a matter of finding more unity and... growing a pair.

[Skye]

Certainly more aggressive peacekeeping (peace imposing?) with more muscle behind it tends to be more effective, as in the Balkans

Peace enforcement is the term you're looking for.

Does anyone else think that's an odd list? I don't really know much about the way the UN in particular does this kind of thing. Can anyone shed some light?

From what I remember, the UN pays a fee to the countries that contribute to peacekeeping duties, and for some countries this is greater than the costs involved, so it is actually profitable.

[JohnB]

From what I remember, the UN pays a fee to the countries that contribute to peacekeeping duties, and for some countries this is greater than the costs involved, so it is actually profitable.

True. From what I've read the amount can be around $1,500 per head. where it gets bad is that the governments concerned pocket the cash and don't actually pay their troopers.

 

WRT Darfour, IIRC the African Union put forward a plan about a year ago. They would provide ground troops to go in and protect the camps under a UN mandate. They asked the West to provide air support for the troops, a Carrier offshore was deemed to suffice. The offer was turned down.

 

On the upside (and a very small up it is ) some have been able to get out. I've met a number of Sudanese refugees now living and working in Oz. It's bad there, really, really bad. You can see it in their eyes.

[ParanoiA]

From what I remember, the UN pays a fee to the countries that contribute to peacekeeping duties, and for some countries this is greater than the costs involved, so it is actually profitable.

 

You're kidding right? So how is that different than warring for oil? Interesting how profit is a PC motivator for everyone else. Granted, they're not "warring" per se, but they're using military force to exact order. Same thing we're doing in Iraq, after the regime extermination.

[Phi for All]

The New York Times has this article on a confidential UN report that Sudan is flying arms into Darfur using military planes painted to look like United Nations aircraft. How many slaps to the face can the UN take?

[Sisyphus]

You're kidding right? So how is that different than warring for oil? Interesting how profit is a PC motivator for everyone else.

 

It smells pretty bad to me, too, but it's not really the same as "warring for oil." It's being "a mercenary for a good cause," which I can see distinguishing from, well, being a mercenary and not caring whether the cause is good or bad. Come on, wasn't Seven Samurai a good movie?

[ParanoiA]

It smells pretty bad to me, too, but it's not really the same as "warring for oil." It's being "a mercenary for a good cause," which I can see distinguishing from, well, being a mercenary and not caring whether the cause is good or bad. Come on, wasn't Seven Samurai a good movie?

 

Personally, I see nothing evil in fighting for profit. Profit is the means by which we "hunt and gather". You see money, I see meat and medicine.

 

But, I had to say something considering all the negativity toward the US and the idea that oil is a poor excuse for war. It's not exactly the stuff comic book heroes are made of, but preservation of life takes many forms...

[Haezed]

Today's news:

 

WASHINGTON (Thomson Financial) - US President George Bush gave Sudan one 'last chance' to live up to agreements aimed at ending what he called 'genocide' in Darfur or face tougher US sanctions and other punishments.

 

Britain said London and Washington would reach out Thursday to other UN Security Council members to craft new UN punitive measures, but veto-wielders China and Russia, as well as South Africa, immediately shot down the plan.

 

Bush, in a speech at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, signaled impatience with UN efforts to quell the violence and criticized Sudan's rebel groups -- but saved his sharpest words for Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir.

 

'The time for promises is over, president Beshir must act,' said the US president. 'If president Beshir does not meet his obligations, the United States will act.'

 

The US president said he was 'looking at what steps the international community can take to deny Sudan's government the ability to fly its military aircraft over Darfur.'

[Phi for All]

What are China and Russia looking for in all of this? Make them a better offer and it sounds like we're close to realizing a true international consensus.

[Sisyphus]

Well I'm glad our government is finally willing to acknowledge what's happening, at least...

[Haezed]

Well I'm glad our government is finally willing to acknowledge what's happening, at least...

 

 

I think the problem has always been China and Russia, not our government.

 

Clooney, as well as other Save Darfur leaders, also agrees that the Bush administration has done more for Darfur than any other government. A quick review of American policy on Darfur over the last three years in fact shows a major effort on Bush’s part.

 

The U.S. is the largest, single international donor to Sudan, providing more than 86 percent of the food distributed by the World Food Program, and more than $1.3 billion to fund humanitarian aid, reconstruction efforts, and peacekeeping needs in Darfur, as well as other parts of Sudan. The administration has employed nearly every possible tool of diplomacy to press for an end to the violence there. It has raised awareness through speeches, public forums, and repeated, high-level trips (for instance, by the secretary of State, the undersecretary of State, the deputy and various assistant secretaries of State) to the refugee camps that Clooney visited for the first time just last month. The Bush Administration has enforced unilateral oil sanctions against Sudan, and has sought more stringent measures at the U.N. Security Council, only to be stymied by China, Russia, and Algeria—all staunch defenders of Khartoum. It voted for U.N. prosecution of war crimes against various Sudanese militants, and has given assistance to the seven thousand African Union peace keepers now in Darfur. It has worked behind the scenes to press for a successful conclusion to the ongoing peace talks.

 

Where Clooney and the Bush administration part company is over current tactics. Specifically, Clooney faults Bush for not having forced an end to the genocide. Perhaps Clooney can be excused for his simplistic conception of foreign affairs and diplomacy, but things are not so straightforward as he would have us believe.

 

The genocide could be ended tomorrow by the United States military. But nobody, least of all Clooney, is suggesting sending in the Marines (despite some of the cheap remarks, seemingly to the contrary, made by Clooney at the Washington rally). It could also be ended by NATO (an idea that was recently floated by theWhite House), but bin Laden’s tape last week explicitly calling for a “long-term war against the crusader thieves in Western Sudan” has dampened enthusiasm for that idea. The African Union forces that are currently in Darfur are almost universally discounted as small and ineffective.

 

So when Clooney urges a “multi-national” peace keeping force going into Darfur, he must be envisioning a large and powerful army legitimized by the inclusion of troops from other Muslim and Arab nations and sanctioned by the United Nations’ Security Council. And Bush would then have to be blamed for failing to persuade the Arab League and China to vote against their own economic interests in order to defend the human rights of insignificant, impoverished African tribes against the oil-rich Khartoum regime.

 

Never before has either China or the Arab League based its foreign policy on altruism. It would be remarkable if these dictatorships suddenly sacrificed self-interest in order to defend human rights that they routinely disregard within their own borders. It was the presence of China and various distinguished members of the Arab League on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights that discredited that body and caused it to be disbanded earlier this year. For this group, “never again” has no meaning. Clooney’s “solution” is preposterous.

 

Here we have China and Russia barring sanctions against Darfur.

 

Here we have China, Russia and some Muslim states objecting to a UN report blaming Sudan for continuing war crimes.

 

The irony is that this lack of action really is about oil.

[Sisyphus]

I think the problem has always been China and Russia,

 

The main problem has been China and Russia, no argument there. Which is why I'm glad the U.S. is being more aggressive. There has been a certain amount of downplaying over the past few years which is all I meant by "finally." For example, Bush has only started publicly talking about it, whatever is going on behind the scenes. Weird, since Congress was talking about it pretty early on.

[Phi for All]

The main problem has been China and Russia, no argument there. Which is why I'm glad the U.S. is being more aggressive. There has been a certain amount of downplaying over the past few years which is all I meant by "finally."

What do China and Russia get from Sudan?

For example, Bush has only started publicly talking about it, whatever is going on behind the scenes. Weird, since Congress was talking about it pretty early on.

Diction lessons take time. "Darfur" is tough to say with a Texas twang.

 

Bush certainly has good people around him to listen to regarding the Sudan situation and it sounds like he is listening. I'm certainly happy about that.

[Haezed]

The main problem has been China and Russia, no argument there. Which is why I'm glad the U.S. is being more aggressive. There has been a certain amount of downplaying over the past few years which is all I meant by "finally." For example, Bush has only started publicly talking about it, whatever is going on behind the scenes. Weird, since Congress was talking about it pretty early on.

 

You know, the more I think about this the more I think you are right. GWB should have been far more aggressive in publically addressing this issue. Here the US is getting kicked in the teeth in international public opinion for a war brought for painfully altrusitic reasons and China is obstructing the redress of genocide.

 

Hundreds of thousands displaced, over a million displaced from their homes and China & Russia are standing up for Sudan because of oil? And we are accused of fighting for oil?

 

GWB should have made this a central issue to point out the sheer hypocrisy.

[pharmacol]

No oen cares cos USA and nato busy killing Muslims and imposing kuffur on the Muslims. So Sudan will ahve to wait a little while.

 

Dont worry about Civilians. USA will use the iraqi and Afghani Model of killing whole villages if they cant kill the taliban and throwing chemical weaopons (white phopsherous ) on the Muslim on north like in falujja

 

General Clark said Sudans on the USA hit list,

 

But they didnt expect a wiping such resistance in afghanistan and iraq.

[Pangloss]

What is "kuffur"?