Darfur?

[NATO AIR]

A few quick points if I may

France indeed has economic interests in Sudan that normally would preclude them taking a stand on the issue. However, in the past year, French foreign policy has become more pragmatic and more in line with US aims (i.e. on Iran, North Korea and Darfur). Thus, France supports the ICC warrants, France supports a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur, etc etc.
France is especially concerned now because of the aims Sudan seems to have on the Francophone nation of Chad, which the Sudanese regime seems intent on destablizing in order to finish the job of killing and maiming rebellious tribes in Darfur.

The US does not need to invade Darfur or Sudan.

A no-fly zone led by a small USAF/NATO contingent and based out of Chad could eliminate the aerial bombing and strafing of villages.

A special ops mission to capture leading Janjaweed leaders (this is not an urban hell hole like Mogadishu, but a vast desert where many of them are out in the open) and bring them before the ICC would also be highly useful.

A US diplomatic effort to get all the tribes together would do wonders for hopes for peace or stability of some sort. Most of the tribes want this madness to end, its the regime and a few extremist tribes that are continuing the killing.

Leaving it to the UN invites further disaster. We have a moral obligation to address some of the worst crimes that unfold on this Earth. How else could we live with ourselves and answer to God in the end?

Proponents of greater involvement are not asking for war or invasion, but for a limited, well-calibrated campaign to capture/kill some baddies and help push peace and stability.

I have become privy to and on one occasion witnessed the heroic attempts of Navy and Army doctors and medics to set up a field clinic in Chad to help refugees, as well as drunk many beers with marines and soliders like GunnyL who feel something should be done. War and violence is not to be taken lightly but there is at some point a limit to what a normal human being can bear to watch and be aware of without reacting.

 

[theim]

Another war?

Tell me how you're going to get out before you get in.

Kill the bad guys. Get on plane. Fly. Questions?

 

[sorenmk2]

Proponents of greater involvement are not asking for war or invasion, but for a limited, well-calibrated campaign to capture/kill some baddies and help push peace and stability.

Sounds very nice and neat doesn't it? Sounds like Kosovo was supposed to be. Clinton said we'd be there one year. Remember that? What is it now, 11 years? I don't trust the Euros to do anything they think they can get some other sucker to do for them.

We have way too much on our plate now, so just tell me how you are going to get us out before you get us in.

 

[NATO AIR]

Proponents of greater involvement are not asking for war or invasion, but for a limited, well-calibrated campaign to capture/kill some baddies and help push peace and stability.

Sounds very nice and neat doesn't it? Sounds like Kosovo was supposed to be. Clinton said we'd be there one year. Remember that? What is it now, 11 years? I don't trust the Euros to do anything they think they can get some other sucker to do for them.

We have way too much on our plate now, so just tell me how you are going to get us out before you get us in.

The US is eventually going to learn the long-forgotten art of the punitive expedition. Dar Fur would be an ideal place to start.

 

[Semper Fi]

Sure seems to be a lot of Marines around here. I got out in 1971. Semper Fi, Jarheads.

Not a Marine yet...still gotta finish high school.

 

[sorenmk2]

Proponents of greater involvement are not asking for war or invasion, but for a limited, well-calibrated campaign to capture/kill some baddies and help push peace and stability.

Again, that sounds like the fairy tale we were told before Kosovo.

What US national interest is at stake in Darfur? There is none. We do not have a legit reason to intervene in Sudan. Humanitarian reasons are not enough. There is no end to the the world's distress. Are we to cure all of them, chase off all the bad guys? I think not.

Someone mentioned that France has strong ties to the region. If so they are more than capable of doing whatever they think is in their interest to do. Leave them to do it. When they have failed perhaps it will teach them humility.

 

[CSM]

Another war?

Tell me how you're going to get out before you get in.

Hmmm...the US doesn't ever have an exit strategy. The last time we had one of those was after the invasion of Mexico. We still have troops in every other location in the world we ever fought in. The one exceptionis VietNam, but then we "lost" that one didn't we.

 

[sorenmk2]

HGood points, Top. Our forces are strong but we shouldn't fritter them away in every backwater on the globe. I think more of the men and women of this nation who serve than that that they should reduced to world's garbage collectors. We didn't make the mess in Darfur and we are not obligated to clean it up. Moralising about humanitarian interests is not enought of a justification. As stretched as we are right now and with a possible action against the Iranian nuclear plants in the cards, Darfur would be a foolish diversion that would gain us nothing of value in my opinion.

 

[CSM]

HGood points, Top. Our forces are strong but we shouldn't fritter them away in every backwater on the globe. I think more of the men and women of this nation who serve than that that they should reduced to world's garbage collectors. We didn't make the mess in Darfur and we are not obligated to clean it up. Moralising about humanitarian interests is not enought of a justification. As stretched as we are right now and with a possible action against the Iranian nuclear plants in the cards, Darfur would be a foolish diversion that would gain us nothing of value in my opinion.

The real issue, in my opinion, is that the average US citizen has no "backbone". They are much like the guy who stands outside a house on fire, hearing people within screaming. They are the first to yell "Somebody do something!" and fail to do anything themselves. They are the first to criticize the fireman who saves the mother instead of the child from the burning house. They are the first to protest the fire department for its incompetence in letting the house burn down and they are the first to criticize the government for not passing legislation that outlaws combustible houses. They are the first at all that stuff, but the last to throw a bucket of water on the fire.

Sometimes I sincerely believe that the people of the US get exactly what they deserve.

 

[dilloduck]

The real issue, in my opinion, is that the average US citizen has no "backbone". They are much like the guy who stands outside a house on fire, hearing people within screaming. They are the first to yell "Somebody do something!" and fail to do anything themselves. They are the first to criticize the fireman who saves the mother instead of the child from the burning house. They are the first to protest the fire department for its incompetence in letting the house burn down and they are the first to criticize the government for not passing legislation that outlaws combustible houses. They are the first at all that stuff, but the last to throw a bucket of water on the fire.

Sometimes I sincerely believe that the people of the US get exactly what they deserve.

Agreed--by and large the majority of Americans will avoid risky confrontation. Pretty soon there will be no corner to back into. Bitching on blogs or analyzing the "situation" doesn't get much done but I guess it makes us feel better.

 

[nosarcasm]

If you are referring to my post, I did not state "it's all France's fault." I am however moer than willing to put down France's neocolonialism at any and every opportunity.

They opposed is invading Iraq why? Because they had under-the-table deals with Saddam that would be jeopardized by the invasion, and basically went out the window when we did.

France has financial interests in Sudan, that would be jeopardized by action against the current government. So, France is willing to turn a blind eye to genocide for financial gain, and thwart any UN effort to intervene.

That doesn't make it "all France's fault." It's primarily the fault of, and being carried out by a typical extremist Islamic government against people who stand in their way and don't believe what they tell them they should.

France financial interest in any African country can't be that huge. Trade with Africa is so small its hardly a reason to ignore genocide.

As far as I followed the situation the African Union AU has a force in Sudan and wants the "colonial powers" (France and the US) not there.

But the AU force is badly equipped and except the SA forces not really functioning. But the anti western sentiment keeps them continuing their effort alone.

Since France is busy in Kongo they are not gung ho to go in their alone either and upsetting the other African governments.

Thats why I blame South Africa for blocking more effective steps to limit the genocide there.

Your blame it on France routine is lame and shows me you are not well informed.

 

[GotZoom]

France financial interest in any African country can't be that huge. Trade with Africa is so small its hardly a reason to ignore genocide.

As far as I followed the situation the African Union AU has a force in Sudan and wants the "colonial powers" (France and the US) not there.

But the AU force is badly equipped and except the SA forces not really functioning. But the anti western sentiment keeps them continuing their effort alone.

Since France is busy in Kongo they are not gung ho to go in their alone either and upsetting the other African governments.

Thats why I blame South Africa for blocking more effective steps to limit the genocide there.

Your blame it on France routine is lame and shows me you are not well informed.

I'm siding with Gunny on this one. And yes, it does pay to be informed.

You might want to practice what you preach.
----

It's easy to be cynical about the commission's hedging on the question of genocide. Under the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention, an unambiguous declaration of genocide by the commission would have put the United Nations in a position of having to do something to punish and prevent the widespread and systematic crimes in Darfur.

As it stands now, the Security Council faces no such obligation under international law. Sure, the United States will introduce a new resolution on Darfur, one that may call for measures including sanctions against Sudan's oil industry, an assets freeze and travel ban targeting government and janjaweed leaders, and enforcement of a no-fly zone over western Sudan. But you can bet that a resolution with any teeth to it will meet firm resistance in the council--much of it from veto-wielding permanent members Russia and China. France may play an obstructionist role, too.

As this sorry spectacle unfolds in the coming days and weeks, it will be useful to remind ourselves that these three countries not only are blocking meaningful action against the Sudanese government, they've actually aided and abetted Khartoum in its cleansing of certain ethnic groups from Darfur.

Here's how:

China: The Chinese have been Sudan's principal arms supplier over the past decade, furnishing Khartoum with an abundance of tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenades.

China also is heavily invested in Sudan's oil industry and depends on the country's oil fields to supply the Chinese industrial dragon with a sizable portion of the energy it needs to keep growing.

Not surprisingly, Sudan's weapons purchases are funded largely by the revenues that its oil industry generates.

Russia: According to a November report by Amnesty International, the Sudanese government imported four MiG fighter jets from Russia in December 2003 and January 2004. Khartoum was expected to have imported a total of 12 new Russian MiGs by the end of last year.

These purchases coincided with the use of MiGs against civilians in Darfur. When I met with refugees from Darfur in September, several told me their villages had been attacked by MiGs in late 2003 and early last year. Human-rights groups also have cited the use of MiGs in raids on Darfur villages.

The Russians, too, have ties to Sudan's oil industry. Last summer, as the crisis in Darfur continued to worsen, a Russian company inked a deal to build an oil pipeline in Sudan.

France: The Amnesty report found that the French have sold large quantities of bombs, grenades, ammo, and other military items to Sudan in recent years.

The French corporation Total holds the rights to an oil concession in southern Sudan.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/022005/02122005/1664733

 

[nosarcasm]

I'm siding with Gunny on this one. And yes, it does pay to be informed.

You might want to practice what you preach.

You start.

It's easy to be cynical about the commission's hedging on the question of genocide. Under the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention, an unambiguous declaration of genocide by the commission would have put the United Nations in a position of having to do something to punish and prevent the widespread and systematic crimes in Darfur.

Congress declared it a genocide that should do for us. Bush condemned the "genocide".

As it stands now, the Security Council faces no such obligation under international law. Sure, the United States will introduce a new resolution on Darfur, one that may call for measures including sanctions against Sudan's oil industry, an assets freeze and travel ban targeting government and janjaweed leaders, and enforcement of a no-fly zone over western Sudan. But you can bet that a resolution with any teeth to it will meet firm resistance in the council--much of it from veto-wielding permanent members Russia and China. France may play an obstructionist role, too.

There is no evidence for this supposedly French veto. Just this newspaper riding the Republican hate train against France.

Instead you could make the argument as well against the US as Hitchens did
And what on earth was I thinking when I employed that "carrot and stick" cliché a couple of paragraphs above? Carrots there have been. Only the other day, according to the New York Times, the Bush administration granted a waiver to the sanctions ostensibly in place against the Khartoum government in order to allow it to spend $530,000 on a lobbyist in Washington. Well, one would not want to deny a government indicted for genocide the right to make its case. That would hardly be fair. Meanwhile, the State Department has upgraded Sudan's status on the chart that shows "cooperation" in the matter of slave-trafficking. Apparently, you can be on this list and still be awarded points for good behavior. A hundred-plus congressmen recently signed a statement accusing the administration of "appeasement," which seems the only appropriate word for it.

And I don;'t think the US tries to appease them, But this argument is a superficial as your accusations against France.



The Wall Street Journal also only sees problems with Russia and China.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006463

irst, when former Secretary of State Colin Powell famously called what was happening in Darfur "genocide," he said we were already doing all we could to counter it. In the six months since he and President Bush used the term, however, not one punitive measure has been imposed on the orchestrator of the atrocities--the Sudanese regime. And as the African Union (AU) struggles to deploy 2,000 troops to Darfur, a region the size of France, the French government recently announced that it will deploy 41,000 police in Paris if it is chosen as the Olympics site for 2012. Doing all we can?

Second, U.S. officials say that if they pressure the regime any harder, it would implode and the consequences would be grave. Graver than what this administration has called genocide? Regardless, this is specious, as the regime is one of the strongest governments in Africa and in no danger of collapse.

Third, U.S. officials have said since the beginning of the Darfur war that they needed to first focus on nailing a deal between the regime in Khartoum and southern-based rebels, which would in turn have immediate and positive impacts on the situation in Darfur. This approach led Khartoum to delay signing until the beginning of this year; since then the situation in Darfur has only deteriorated.

Fourth, the U.S. has repeatedly said, to its credit, that justice must be done for the crimes that have been committed in Darfur. But it has sliced the legs out from under that sentiment by opposing referral of the Darfur case to the International Criminal Court, the ideal locus for timely and cost-effective accountability.

Fifth, the U.S. has said that the Darfurian rebels, not the government, have recently been the biggest obstacle to forward movement. Evidence of continued government aerial bombing and Janjaweed raping has largely silenced this excuse.

Sixth, U.S. officials say the deployment of the AU troops is all that is needed. But AU monitors in Darfur themselves say they are largely spectators in the face of continuing atrocities, and every Darfurian we talked to on the ground believes a much larger force with a much stronger mandate is needed to truly protect civilians.

Seventh, the U.S. and its fellow donor nations focus mostly in their public statements on how much emergency aid is being provided, not saying that these are just humanitarian band-aids being applied over gaping human rights wounds.

Eighth, the U.S. often argues that it cannot do more because China and Russia will veto more potent multilateral action on Darfur. But no one has tested this threat. It is time to play diplomatic chicken with Beijing and Moscow. The U.S. and U.K. should press for a vote on a strong U.N. Resolution with real consequences and dare anyone to support crimes against humanity by vetoing it.

Ninth, the U.S. has argued that constructive engagement needs to be employed with Khartoum, rather than a punitive and isolationist approach. However, tough policy has a proven track record with the Sudanese regime: In the 1990s, the Security Council briefly punished Sudan for its support of terrorism, and the regime quickly changed its behavior. Despite this evidence the Security Council has dithered over the past two years to sanction the regime as the crisis in Darfur has intensified. This week's move by the U.S. to repackage a resolution it's tabled since mid-February will only delay action in Darfur further.

Tenth, and most insidiously, the U.S. is arguing that the circumstances in Darfur are actually getting better. Facing increased incidences of rape and pillage, continuing aerial attacks, and, worst, a credible threat of famine, most Darfurians would beg to differ.

So what is the real reason why the U.S. has not responded as it should have? The truth is that combating crimes against humanity is simply not considered a national security issue. We don't want to burn our leverage on Sudan in the face of issues such as Iraq, Iran and Syria.

The only antidote to this searing truth--the only way the U.S. will take the kind of leadership necessary to end the horrors for Fatima and her people--is for there to be a political cost to inaction. As American citizens increasingly raise their voices and write their letters about Darfur, the temperature has indeed risen. But not enough. We need to make it a little warmer, a little more uncomfortable for those politicians who would look away. Just a few more degrees. Just a few more thousand letters. It is, frankly, that simple.

Well the Wall Street Journal is hardly lefty anti American.




What happened and why I blame SA and other African nations for blocking more action:

The African Union brokered peace talks in Nigeria have failed to make much progress though agreement has been reached on banning military flights in Darfur and on humanitarian aid.

Some 3,000 African Union troops have slowly been deployed in Darfur on a very limited mandate. The number is expected to rise to as many as 12,000 with the west pledging logistical and financial support. Khartoum is resisting allowing them to beef up their powers to disarm combatants.

The Africans want to keep the Europeans and Americans out, nobody wants to fall into the colonialism trap.

In conclusion, time to retract your anti France rant.

 

[GotZoom]

Nope..won't do it.

Also from the WSJ Opinion Page:

The greatest irony here is that for more than a year the U.S. had been virtually alone in trying to get the Security Council to take tougher action on Darfur. France and China, which have extensive oil interests in Sudan, weren't interested, nor was Russia, which didn't want to jeopardize its arms trade. A U.S. proposal to set up (and pay for) an African-run war-crimes court met with tepid interest in African capitals after Paris made it clear that the move would come at the price of European aid and trade.

The ICC referral was thought up by France, which jumped at the chance to shift the focus away from its own Darfur abdication and embarrass the U.S. At the last minute, however, Britain replaced France as the resolution's sponsor when France couldn't swallow a provision exempting U.S. citizens from prosecution in any Sudan case to come before the Court. Never mind that France itself has exercised its option under the treaty that established the ICC to exempt French citizens from any prosecution for seven years.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006525

 

[nosarcasm]

It still doesnt say that France blockaded action against genocide, just the
usual what to do, Europeans pitching the ICC.

But fair enough I offer a draw.



In my interpretation and according to my friend in SA the Africans are opposed to a Western Intervention in Dafur. They would prefer to sent in their own troops and not kick out the Sudan government. Some of them fear that the precedent could mean the end for dictatorships ( or independence in their leftist mind) all over Africa.

The US didnt press the issue because with the bad press from Iraq they are not willing to risk their reputation for Darfur.

The other Europeans like usual dont want to spend money or troops.

So the two possible actors are France and the US. Maybe the Brits but
because of the whole colonialism issue quite unlikely.

That are my conclusion from following it for some times. Maybe my bias
makes me not see reality. Who knows.

 

[GotZoom]

It still doesnt say that France blockaded action against genocide, just the
usual what to do, Europeans pitching the ICC.

But fair enough I offer a draw.



In my interpretation and according to my friend in SA the Africans are opposed to a Western Intervention in Dafur. They would prefer to sent in their own troops and not kick out the Sudan government. Some of them fear that the precedent could mean the end for dictatorships ( or independence in their leftist mind) all over Africa.

The US didnt press the issue because with the bad press from Iraq they are not willing to risk their reputation for Darfur.

The other Europeans like usual dont want to spend money or troops.

So the two possible actors are France and the US. Maybe the Brits but
because of the whole colonialism issue quite unlikely.

That are my conclusion from following it for some times. Maybe my bias
makes me not see reality. Who knows.

 

[NATO AIR]

This argument, while casually interesting, lacks a basic fact that renders it mute.

The ruling government of Chad, a Francophone client of France, is increasingly under pressure from Khartoum-backed rebels who are in open rebellion against it. Sudan, emboldened by the irresponsible misleadership of the Bush administration, the inaction of everyone remotely capable of intervening and the support of China and Russia, is destablizing Chad and preparing to rush for the kill this summer/fall by backing the rebels with even more force and support.

Even with its problems in Cote De Ivorie and at home, it is highly unlikely France will sit back and let a government like Khartoum take over its client and former colony.

A Bush administration that wasn't totally incompetent on African policy (and for that matter, foreign policy in general) would take heed and use the threat of French intervention to their advantage in working towards an end to the conflict and ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and increasingly, Chad.

 

[sorenmk2]

Again, what compelling US national interest is at stake in Dardur? Making Chad safe for French colonialism is not a compelling US national interest. No one yet has been able to answer this basic question nor has anyone been able to offer a workeable exit plan if we do get involved in yet another war.

 

[NATO AIR]

Again, what compelling US national interest is at stake in Dardur? Making Chad safe for French colonialism is not a compelling US national interest. No one yet has been able to answer this basic question nor has anyone been able to offer a workeable exit plan if we do get involved in yet another war.

Dar Fur threatens the stability of the entire region, moreso, it threatens the stability of Africa's largest basket case of a country, Sudan. Millions will die if we don't stop the violence in Dar Fur, because insurgencies will mount in eastern Sudan and again in Southern Sudan, and I promise you dear friend, when the next north-south war begins, it will be the US supporting the South (for the oil there, the fact that many of them are Christians, and the fact that jihad will be a real, frightening reality there) and China supporting the North.

The holy wars raging across Africa will make the Middle East look like a cupcake. Our oil supplies are going to be endangered in Nigeria, in Sudan, etc etc.

The compelling reason is thus; America has to stop acting like a firefighter and more like a cop. A firefighter runs around putting out fires, sometimes saving the house, sometimes not. Sometimes we can respond to a crisis (like Libya developing nukes, or Pakistan and India ready to fight a nuclear war), and we save the day. Sometimes we respond to a crisis (like nukes in N. Korea & Iran, oppression in Uzbekistan) and we fail, miserably, or it continues to burn, and things seem to only get worse.

We have to act more like a cop on the beat, akin to the role the US Navy plays, a deterrent value more meaningful than any speech Bush, Clinton or Bush Sr. ever made. We keep the peace this way, without deploying peacekeepers or spending outrageous sums.

If we start to address smaller crises like Dar Fur before they become even larger disasters, we can save countless lives, tens of billions of our dollars and even a few hundred or thousand American lives.

 

[sorenmk2]

You still haven't identified a compelling US national interest at stake in Darfur or anywhere in Africa for that matter. When that fool Carter allowed the Americans to be held hostage inTeheran for over 400 days, that was a compelling US national interest. Japs bombing Pearl Harbor was a compelling US national interest. Ending slavery was a compelling US national interest. Stopping the British from pressing American seamen and interferring with our trade in 1812 was a compelling US national interest. You havent identified a compelling us national interest in Darfur. You seem to have taken the intersts of a fading European colonial power, those of various crusadiing NGOs, the UN Secretariat and assumed that they are US national interests when clearly they are not.

In my opinion the US armed forces should only be committed to battle to defend the true interests of the United States, not to advance humanitarian dreams or the political or commercial interests of any other power. The US should persue a policy of non-intervention in the Third World.