Darfur: Why we haven't stopped it.

[Pure]

MEANWHILE IN DARFUR ...
So How Come We Haven't Stopped It?

By John Prendergast
Washington Post

Sunday, November 19, 2006; Page B01

Early in his first term, President Bush received a National Security Council memo outlining the world's inaction regarding the genocide in Rwanda. In what may have been a burst of indignation and bravado, the president wrote in the margin of the memo, "Not on my watch."

Five years later, and nearly four years into what Bush himself has repeatedly called genocide, the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region is intensifying without a meaningful response from the White House. Perhaps Harvard professor Samantha Power's tongue-in-cheek theory is correct: The memo was inadvertently placed on top of the president's wristwatch, and he didn't want it to happen again. But if Bush's expressions of concern for the victims in Darfur are genuine, then why isn't his administration taking real action?


The answer is one of the great untold stories of this young century, one in which human rights principles clash with post-9/11 counterterrorism imperatives. During my visits to Darfur in the past few months, I've heard testimony from Darfurians that villages are still burned to the ground, women are still gang-raped by Janjaweed militias and civilians are still terrorized by the Sudanese air force's bombings. As Darfur descends further into hell, all signs explaining the United States' pathetic response point to one man: Osama bin Laden.

In the early 1990s, bin Laden lived in Sudan, the guest of the very regime responsible for the Darfur atrocities. At the time, bin Laden's main local interlocutor was an official named Salah Abdallah Gosh. After 9/11, however, Gosh became a more active counterterrorism partner: detaining terrorism suspects and turning them over to the United States; expelling Islamic extremists; and raiding suspected terrorists' homes and handing evidence to the FBI. Gosh's current job as head of security for the government also gives him a lead role in the regime's counterinsurgency strategy, which relies on the Janjaweed militias to destroy non-Arab villages in Darfur.

The deepening intelligence-sharing relationship between Washington and Khartoum blunted any U.S. response to the state-sponsored violence that exploded in Darfur in 2003 and 2004. U.S. officials have told my colleague Colin Thomas-Jensen and me that access to Gosh's information would be jeopardized if the Bush administration confronted Khartoum on Darfur.

And since 2001, the administration had been pursuing a peace deal between southern Sudanese rebels and the regime in Khartoum -- a deal aimed at placating U.S. Christian groups that had long demanded action on behalf of Christian minorities in southern Sudan. The administration didn't want to undermine that process by hammering Khartoum over Darfur.

The people of Darfur never had a chance.

The term "genocide" became a point of contention in the 2004 presidential campaign, with Democratic candidate John F. Kerry and a united Congress calling on Bush to use it. Finally, on Sept. 9, 2004, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility -- and genocide may still be occurring."

Powell continued: "[N]o new action is dictated by this determination. We have been doing everything we can to get the Sudanese government to act responsibly."

Everything? The U.N. convention on genocide -- which the United States signed in 1948 and ratified 40 years later -- requires signatories to seek to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.

But instead of being tried for war crimes, Gosh was flown to Langley last year to be debriefed by CIA officials. As a U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times, "The agency's view was that the Sudanese are helping us on terrorism and it was proud to bring him over. They didn't care about the political implications."

In the eyes of many intelligence officials, Gosh and other Sudanese informants have become more valuable for U.S. counterterrorism objectives over the past six months because of the unfolding political upheaval in Somalia. The CIA has long pursued al-Qaeda affiliates implicated in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa.

To this end, Washington began secretly funding warlords in Somalia to pursue terrorism suspects. But this strategy backfired: Somali Islamists have taken control of much of southern Somalia, with hard-liners protecting al-Qaeda affiliates. Many leading Somali Islamists have ties to Gosh, a fact Khartoum exploits to strengthen counterterrorism links with Washington.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

We who?

 

[rgraham666]

I'm assuming that by 'we' you're talking about the U.S. If you're talking about the West or the UN, you'd still be talking about the U.S. for the most part as it's the only nation with the transport to get a peace making force there.

Also, a force can't be placed in Somalia without UN approval or the acquiescence of the Somalia government. The former is unlikely and the latter impossible. And another illegal invasion of an Islamic country is not a good idea in my opinion.

To top it off, most of the U.S. forces are currently caught in Iraq. The U.S. hasn't the forces required to interfere. Other nations of the U.N. might, but with the possible exception of Russia, don't have the transport.

It's a hideous situation, but history is full of hideous situations.

 

[oggbashan]

Projection of power has limits

As the Royal Navy understood in the 19th Century, military power can only be applied as far as it can reach. In the 19th Century that was the extreme range of a naval gun from water deep enough to float a ship.

The Royal Navy had river gunboats that could project power hundreds of miles up rivers from the estuary. What they could not do was attack a landlocked target with no navigable rivers.

The same is true today for landlocked areas surrounded by unfriendly or neutral countries. The US could not attack Switzerland or Nepal without freedom of passage through other countries. That freedom is very unlikely to be granted because it would be an effective declaration of war by the neighbouring country.

Darfur is literally unreachable by Western armaments except by airstrikes passing over other countries. Conducting airstrikes over a neutral country is not possible except by declaring war on the neutral. That is politically impractical. Even if airstrikes were feasible, how do you distinguish between goodies being persecuted but defending themselves and baddies conducting a massacre. From the air, people carrying Kalashnikovs look remarkably similar. Do you drop leaflets asking them to wave their arms if they are Janjaweed?

The only way Darfur can be solved is on the ground with soldiers acceptable to the legitimate government of the country and those soldiers must have strong rules of engagement. Since the government of the country is suspected of being compromised over Darfur, they are unlikely to find any proposals acceptable. Would either side in the US Civil War have agreed to a peacekeeping force of Brits keeping them apart?

Og

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I'm assuming that by 'we' you're talking about the U.S. If you're talking about the West or the UN, you'd still be talking about the U.S. for the most part as it's the only nation with the transport to get a peace making force there.

Also, a force can't be placed in Somalia without UN approval or the acquiescence of the Somalia government. The former is unlikely and the latter impossible. And another illegal invasion of an Islamic country is not a good idea in my opinion.

To top it off, most of the U.S. forces are currently caught in Iraq. The U.S. hasn't the forces required to interfere. Other nations of the U.N. might, but with the possible exception of Russia, don't have the transport.

It's a hideous situation, but history is full of hideous situations.

Why is it that the US is cursed for toppling a cruel despot and trying to restore order in Iraq, and also cursed for not doing the same here? Since the neighboring nation of Chad is so involved, with refugees there from Darfur, and the Janjaweed even attacking Chadian villages, the major nation that should be involved is France. See this link:
http://www.photius.com/countries/ch...tional_security_the_french_military_~863.html

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

As the Royal Navy understood in the 19th Century, military power can only be applied as far as it can reach. In the 19th Century that was the extreme range of a naval gun from water deep enough to float a ship.

The Royal Navy had river gunboats that could project power hundreds of miles up rivers from the estuary. What they could not do was attack a landlocked target with no navigable rivers.

The same is true today for landlocked areas surrounded by unfriendly or neutral countries. The US could not attack Switzerland or Nepal without freedom of passage through other countries. That freedom is very unlikely to be granted because it would be an effective declaration of war by the neighbouring country.

Darfur is literally unreachable by Western armaments except by airstrikes passing over other countries. Conducting airstrikes over a neutral country is not possible except by declaring war on the neutral. That is politically impractical. Even if airstrikes were feasible, how do you distinguish between goodies being persecuted but defending themselves and baddies conducting a massacre. From the air, people carrying Kalashnikovs look remarkably similar. Do you drop leaflets asking them to wave their arms if they are Janjaweed?

The only way Darfur can be solved is on the ground with soldiers acceptable to the legitimate government of the country and those soldiers must have strong rules of engagement. Since the government of the country is suspected of being compromised over Darfur, they are unlikely to find any proposals acceptable. Would either side in the US Civil War have agreed to a peacekeeping force of Brits keeping them apart?

Og

Darfur is a part of Sudan, although it probably shouldn't be, and Sudan is not landlocked. They have a coastline on the Red Sea. Any military action against the Janjaweed would amount to action against the government of Sudan.

 

[rgraham666]

Why is it that the US is cursed for toppling a cruel despot and trying to restore order in Iraq, and also cursed for not doing the same here?

Because the invasion was illegal! As illegal as when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

And I did not curse the U.S. for not interfering with Darfur. If they pushed the UN to act on it and contribute forces to the peace keeping effort I would applaud it.

But it has to be legal under international law. If we continue down the path to the old ways, the law of the jungle, it will end the way it did the last time, with a World War. And all the major combatants will have WMD.

Eighty million people died in the last world war. Care to hazard a guess how many will die in the next?

"This organization is created to keep you from going to hell. It isn't created to take you to heaven." - Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Republican senator and U.S. delegate to the UN, 1955

 

[Pure]

funny how the 'landlocked' issue was barely raised for Afghanistan.

 

[cloudy]

Why is it that the US is cursed for toppling a cruel despot and trying to restore order in Iraq, and also cursed for not doing the same here? Since the neighboring nation of Chad is so involved, with refugees there from Darfur, and the Janjaweed even attacking Chadian villages, the major nation that should be involved is France. See this link:
http://www.photius.com/countries/ch...tional_security_the_french_military_~863.html

"Restoring order"?

BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!






ahem.....I'm alright.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Because the invasion was illegal! As illegal as when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

And I did not curse the U.S. for not interfering with Darfur. If they pushed the UN to act on it and contribute forces to the peace keeping effort I would applaud it.

But it has to be legal under international law. If we continue down the path to the old ways, the law of the jungle, it will end the way it did the last time, with a World War. And all the major combatants will have WMD.

Eighty million people died in the last world war. Care to hazard a guess how many will die in the next?

"This organization is created to keep you from going to hell. It isn't created to take you to heaven." - Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Republican senator and U.S. delegate to the UN, 1955

You know as well as I do that the UN will do nothing but dither about it and wring their hands in chagrin. What about the invasion of Afghanistan? Was that legal? I don't know if it was sanctioned by anybody, but it might have been considered to be self-defense.

France can do something about it. They have an air base in Chad and a defense treaty with Chad, and the fighting and genocide spills over into Chad. Supposedly they have treaties with neighboring countries allowing them to fliy over them to supply and replace their troops in Chad.

 

[rgraham666]

You know as well as I do that the UN will do nothing but dither about it and wring their hands in chagrin. What about the invasion of Afghanistan? Was that legal? I don't know if it was sanctioned by anybody, but it might have been considered to be self-defense.

France can do something about it. They have an air base in Chad and a defense treaty with Chad, and the fighting and genocide spills over into Chad. Supposedly they have treaties with neighboring countries allowing them to fliy over them to supply and replace their troops in Chad.

Yes, the invasion of Afghanistan was legal. The UN authourized it. Because what Afghanistan did was illegal. It allowed Al Qaeda to train there, formulate their plans for 9/11 there. This was an unprovoked aggression against a sovereign nation and that is not allowed under international law.

Without the UN 's OK no act of aggression by one nation against another is legal.

And as sad as the situation is Somalia is a sovereign nation. So the UN cannot act unless authourized by its members. And so far as I know no one, including any permanent members of the Security Council, are making much of a fuss so far.

That's the way the world currently works. I don't always like it. But things like Darfur happened before the UN. And things like WWII have not happened since.

The world with the existence of international law isn't perfect. But it's a damn sight better than the alternative.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Yes, the invasion of Afghanistan was legal. The UN authourized it. Because what Afghanistan did was illegal. It allowed Al Qaeda to train there, formulate their plans for 9/11 there. This was an unprovoked aggression against a sovereign nation and that is not allowed under international law.

Without the UN 's OK no act of aggression by one nation against another is legal.

And as sad as the situation is Somalia is a sovereign nation. So the UN cannot act unless authourized by its members. And so far as I know no one, including any permanent members of the Security Council, are making much of a fuss so far.

That's the way the world currently works. I don't always like it. But things like Darfur happened before the UN. And things like WWII have not happened since.

The world with the existence of international law isn't perfect. But it's a damn sight better than the alternative.

First, I am going to assume you mean Sudan, rather than Somalia, which is another problem.

I don't really favor the idea of the US getting involved anyhow, what with Iraq and Afghanistan still going on. France is another matter, though. I think we can all agree that the Janjaweed are under the control of the Sudanese government. I think we can also agree that their incursions into Chad and their destruction of Chadian villages are aggression. With the mutual defense treaty they have with Chad and other former French colonies, they are honor bound to defend the Chadians. What happens after that is anybody's guess.

 

[elsol]

How about this...

Because they ain't killing white people... so is all good.

Mind you.. the fact that brown-like people are killing other brown-like people is what some would call a win-win situation.

And then there's... "Nothing of value here... so who gives a shit!"

Possibly added to... "We're a little busy way up here trying to stop a potential culture-cidal civil war we kinda-sorta started in Iraq and are a little hard fought to put down in a place where there's actually something we want... namely oil."

 

[oggbashan]

funny how the 'landlocked' issue was barely raised for Afghanistan.

Because the forces involved were given free access through neighbouring countries, under clandestine duress perhaps, but in theory 'free'.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

Darfur is a part of Sudan, although it probably shouldn't be, and Sudan is not landlocked. They have a coastline on the Red Sea. Any military action against the Janjaweed would amount to action against the government of Sudan.

Exactly. To get at the Janjaweed the rest of Sudan has to be crossed WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SUDANESE GOVERNMENT. Darfur is landlocked within Sudan.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

First, I am going to assume you mean Sudan, rather than Somalia, which is another problem.

I don't really favor the idea of the US getting involved anyhow, what with Iraq and Afghanistan still going on. France is another matter, though. I think we can all agree that the Janjaweed are under the control of the Sudanese government. I think we can also agree that their incursions into Chad and their destruction of Chadian villages are aggression. With the mutual defense treaty they have with Chad and other former French colonies, they are honor bound to defend the Chadians. What happens after that is anybody's guess.

Oop. Sudan, you're right. Sorry.

However France can't interfere legally either. It could help Chad if the Chad government asked for help. It can't legally interfere in Sudan.

 

[Liar]

Why is it that the US is cursed for toppling a cruel despot and trying to restore order in Iraq, and also cursed for not doing the same here? Since the neighboring nation of Chad is so involved, with refugees there from Darfur, and the Janjaweed even attacking Chadian villages, the major nation that should be involved is France. See this link:
http://www.photius.com/countries/ch...tional_security_the_french_military_~863.html

Funny, I've not seen much cursing against the US for toppling a cruel despot and trying to restore order in Iraq.

It's the blatant lying about the reasons for said toppling, and the complete failure in restoring order, that gets people's panties in a bunch.

If the US (or anybody else) goes to the UN and says "Hey look, we need to barge into Darfur now, or we're gonna have a big-ass Rwanda style genocide and a humanitarian catastrophuck on our conscience", I'm all for it. International law aside. It's probably still illegal to barge in. But damn.

That's not quite the candor that the Iraq issue was dealt with, now was it?

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Funny, I've not seen much cursing against the US for toppling a cruel despot and trying to restore order in Iraq.

It's the blatant lying about the reasons for said toppling, and the complete failure in restoring order, that gets people's panties in a bunch.

If the US (or anybody else) goes to the UN and says "Hey look, we need to barge into Darfur now, or we're gonna have a big-ass Rwanda style genocide and a humanitarian catastrophuck on our conscience", I'm all for it. International law aside. It's probably still illegal to barge in. But damn.

That's not quite the candor that the Iraq issue was dealt with, now was it?

I have read and heard a great deal of criticism of the US and UK and other nations for going into Iraq in the first place. The stated objective was "regime change" which has been accomplished. Restoring order is much more difficult, and should be the responsbility of the Iraqis, with Anglo-American help.

Darfur is not a nation. It is a region of Sudan that borders on Chad. If a French force were to intercept an incursion into Chad by the Janjaweed, and pursue them back into Sudan, they would be justified in doing so. They already have the legal justification for intercepting the militias, and I believe some other African nations do also.

I have some doubt that French forces would be capable of doing this, by the way. They have the military capability but I don't think they have the balls.

 

[oggbashan]

I have some doubt that French forces would be capable of doing this, by the way. They have the military capability but I don't think they have the balls.

French forces are probably the most effective Western forces in Africa. They take casualties as peacekeepers year on year and are good at what they do.

The absence of 'balls' as you put it, is not with the professional French soldiers, but with the politicians and particularly with the UN. All soldiers from democracies operate within political constraints. Those constraints are set by politicians.

There is some justification for the French forces claiming that they were not defeated by Germany in 1940 but by their own politicans' surrender when the French Army was still capable of resisting and repelling the Nazi invasion. The French politicians decisions through the 1920s and 1930s on the Maginot Line because it was cheaper and would save soldiers lives was contrary to the experience of the end of WWI when armoured vehicles had brought mobility back to the battlefield. IF the politicans had completed their logic and extended the Maginot Line to face their ally Belgium - then their theory of fixed defence might have had a fair trial. Half a defence is worse than none.

Og

 

[Liar]

I have read and heard a great deal of criticism of the US and UK and other nations for going into Iraq in the first place. The stated objective was "regime change" which has been accomplished.

The stated side effect may have been regime change but the stated objective was to eliminate a threat to the US, in the shape of a WMD-wielding al-quaeda supporter.


Anyway... about Darfur, Chad and France. Since I'm not fully updated...what's France's part in this? They have a non committing treaty, as i've understood it Has Chad requested help during this conflict, and has France granted it?

 

[rgraham666]

Regime change in Iraq was the ostensible reason. It made the war easier to sell in the U.S.

The real reason was to show the world that the U.S. was now in charge and this is what happens to people who get in the way.

Most people in the U.S., even after 9/11, would have told the administration 'no' if the administration had let the real reason out. 'Realpolitik' doesn't play well in the States. Wars have to have moral reasons there.

'Regime change' was 'moral' and could be sold to the U.S. public. An unprovoked attack in pursuit of an imperial goal could not.

 

[oggbashan]

The stated side effect may have been regime change but the stated objective was to eliminate a threat to the US, in the shape of a WMD-wielding al-quaeda supporter.


Anyway... about Darfur, Chad and France. Since I'm not fully updated...what's France's part in this? They have a non committing treaty, as i've understood it Has Chad requested help during this conflict, and has France granted it?

France has peacekeeping forces in Chad - by agreement with the government of Chad. Some of the refugees from Darfur have fled into Chad. Chad does not have the resources to meet their needs. The Chad army aided by the French try to stop incursions from Darfur/Sudan and also try to stop the rebel fighters who are anti-Sudan's government and anti-Janjaweed from using Chad as a base.

Og

PS. Saddam was an opponent of Al-Queda and on their death list...

 

[Pure]

apparently there is some basis in international law for intervening.
this debate was published by the BBC. the case against going into Darfur is the familiar 'dirty hands' one.

Last Updated: Friday, 27 October 2006, 08:16 GMT 09:16 UK


Gamal Nkrumah and Eric Reeves debated Darfur's complex issues
Gamal Nkrumah, the foreign editor of leading Egyptian newspaper, Al-Ahram, and Eric Reeves, professor at Smith College (Massachusetts) and a Sudan researcher and analyst, debate what action the international community should take over the worsening conflict and humanitarian crisis in Sudan's Darfur region.


Eric Reeves, Massachusetts, US
In the face of rapidly accelerating genocidal destruction in Darfur, and given the ongoing collapse of humanitarian operations in vast areas of this devastated region, the international community should issue an ultimatum to the National Islamic Front (National Congress Party) regime in Khartoum: Immediately accept the robust force stipulated in UN Security Council Resolution 1706 (31 August, 2006) or face non-consensual deployment of the forces required to protect civilians and humanitarians.



Gamal Nkrumah, Cairo, Egypt
The phrase "international community" is often used as a euphemism for the United States and other Western powers' political agendas. Non-consensual deployment of foreign, non-African troops, is a non-starter.

It is an act of aggression that infringes on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sudan.


About 7,000 African Union troops are deployed in Darfur

As stipulated by Resolution 1706, the deployment of foreign peacekeeping troops must have prior and explicit approval of the Sudanese authorities. Previous US-led military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq have aggravated the situation in the respective countries. The worse scenario is for Darfur to denigrate further into an Iraqi or Afghan quagmire.

The only way forward is to strengthen the African Union peacekeeping contingency in Darfur in both financial and logistical terms.



Eric Reeves, Massachusetts, US
The international community, as represented in Resolution 1706, has implicitly but clearly recognised the radical inability of the African Union force in Darfur.



No conceivable augmentation of the AU can possibly staunch the flow of genocidal violence in Darfur, protect the more than four million conflict-affected persons in this vast region (including eastern Chad), or provide the protection necessary for the humanitarian operations upon which this desperate population depends - operations that are now collapsing ("in free fall" was how they were described by UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland a month ago).

Although 1706 "invites" Khartoum's consent, it does not require it.

While 1706 explicitly guarantees the Sudan's national sovereignty, it was passed under Chapter VII authority and confers enforcement authority upon a deploying force. What is required is not Khartoum's consent but the international will to accept unambiguously the "responsibility to protect" civilians threatened by genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity - a responsibility unanimously accepted by the UN at its World Summit in September 2005 and explicitly reaffirmed by the unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1674 (April 2006).


Gamal Nkrumah, Cairo, Egypt

More than two million people have been displaced during the conflict

The international community would serve the interests of the people of Darfur if wealthier countries - oil-rich Gulf Arab, Western and Japan - treble humanitarian relief assistance, development aid and step up medical and relief supplies in the short term.

In the longer term, trade and development aid, including investments in medical and educational services, would be vital.

Also of paramount importance is improved logistical and financial support for African Union peacekeepers in Darfur.


Eric Reeves, Massachusetts, US
There can be no doubt that when violence finally ends, the people of Darfur - particularly the targeted non-Arab or African tribal populations - will need immense financial resources to rebuild their lives and communities after three-and-a-half years of genocidal destruction orchestrated by the Khartoum regime.



This destruction has included the burning of thousands of villages, deliberate poisoning of water wells with human and animal corpses, destruction of food- and seed-stocks, and looting of cattle (representing generations of wealth).

But while international assistance will be required, most of this reconstruction financing should come from Khartoum, which is overwhelmingly responsible for the deliberate, ethnically-targeted destruction of lives and livelihoods throughout Darfur.

International mechanisms, with effective enforcement mechanism, should be devised so that Sudan's massive oil revenues (Sudan is now the third largest oil producer in Africa) are directed equitably and efficiently to Darfur.

Other international aid will be required; but the genocidaires must be forced to accept responsibility for the economically devastating consequences of their brutality and savage conduct of the war.



Gamal Nkrumah, Cairo, Egypt
The flurry of diplomatic activity concerning Darfur shows that Sudan is already attracting world attention. British international cooperation minister Hilary Benn and US Sudan envoy Andrew Natsios's recent trips to Sudan, for example.


It is Sudan's oil, like Iraq's oil, which fuels American interest in Sudan



Moreover, it is oil which is strengthening Sudan's international position. UN Security Council permanent member China, for example, which imports 6% of its oil from Sudan, will veto any anti-Sudan sanctions.

The Sudanese authorities capitalise upon Chinese support.



Eric Reeves, Massachusetts, US
Critical to understanding the issues of oil development and revenues in Sudan is the country's geography: all current oil development, exploration, and production occurs in southern Sudan or along the traditional North/South border.

There is no evidence of oil in Darfur

Eric Reeves
Sudan researcher and analyst

Moreover, the concession rights for oil development are virtually all sewn up by Asian companies and TotalFinaElf of France. The effort to suggest that oil interests in Darfur - where there is no present oil production or exploration - are what lie behind Western diplomacy is deeply misleading.

In fact, there is no credible evidence that Darfur has significant oil reserves.

As has been suggested, what is of real significance is that China, Khartoum's primary diplomatic ally at the UN, dominates the two major producing consortia in southern Sudan and southern Kordofan province.

If we want to understand why the National Islamic Front (National Congress Party) feels so emboldened in defying the international community, and in pursuing its genocidal counter-insurgency warfare in Darfur, we should look not to Western but to Chinese oil interests.



Gamal Nkrumah, Cairo, Egypt
Chad, Darfur's neighbour to the immediate West has huge oil reserves, there is no doubt that there are oil reserves in Darfur itself. The Chinese and TotalFinaElf of France know all too well that the potential for exploiting Darfur's oil in commercial quantities is tremendous.

The US is most concerned about the Chinese, other Asian and French monopoly of Sudanese oil.

Darfur is of great strategic importance it straddles Libya, Egypt, Chad, and the Central African Republic.

Sudan has accepted African Union peacekeeping troops in Darfur. So it is best for all concerned if AU troops are deployed to keep the peace in Darfur.

The AU troops, however, must have financial and logistical support from the UN and Western powers as well as oil-rich Gulf Arab countries. Only then will peace prevail in Darfur.



Eric Reeves, Massachusetts, US
There is no evidence of oil in Darfur.

Reserves in more westerly parts of Chad tell us nothing about Darfur; there is no geologic evidence, no seismic data - nothing that indicates there is oil in Darfur.

But there is a terrifyingly great deal of evidence about the scale of human destruction that will ensue if we do not respond urgently to the acute lack of human security.


Four million people have been affected by the conflict in Darfur

With or without Khartoum's consent, the international community must uphold its "responsibility to protect civilians" in Darfur - civilians not simply unprotected by the National Islamic Front/National Congress regime - but targets of an ongoing genocidal campaign orchestrated in Khartoum.

Such "responsibility to protect" supersedes claims of national sovereignty. This principle was the explicit conclusion of the UN World Summit Outcome Document, paragraph 139, unanimously adopted in September 2005.

The AU is simply incapable of being transformed into a force that can take up this responsibility with sufficient urgency; it cannot possibly become the force contemplated in UN Security Council Resolution 1706.

To pretend otherwise is the treat with a scandalous moral carelessness the lives of more than four million conflict-affected Darfuris.



Gamal Nkrumah, Cairo, Egypt
The interests of the US should not be confused with the interests of the international community. It is clear that the aggression against Iraq was a pretext to control the vast oil reserves of that country.

The US must stay out of Darfur

Gamal Nkrumah
Al-Ahram Foreign Editor


Western pressure fails to move Sudan

Human rights and democratisation had nothing to do with the Bush administration's aims.

Abu Ghraib and numerous other atrocities committed against the people of Iraq clearly demonstrated that the US is not interested in the welfare of the people of Iraq. Neither is the Bush administration interested in the welfare of the people of Darfur.

The main goal of the Bush administration, with its extensive oil interests, is to challenge Chinese oil interests and economic clout in Sudan.

The so-called "international peacekeeping force" is a euphemism for foreign military intervention which is destined to have disastrous repercussions for the people of Darfur and Sudan as a whole.

The US must stay out of Darfur.



Eric Reeves, Massachusetts, US
To invoke Iraq and Abu Ghraib when the issue clearly is saving lives in Darfur is disingenuous.

That Iraq was a terribly misconceived debacle that will haunt US foreign policy for years could not be clearer; but this doesn't diminish in the slightest the extraordinarily urgent need for international protection of the more than four million human beings the UN estimates are affected by genocidal conflict in Darfur and eastern Chad.

Just as urgent is the protection of those aid operations upon which this vast population grows increasingly dependent: humanitarian access shrinks almost daily, with many hundreds of thousands of Darfuris completely beyond the reach of food and medical assistance, living without adequate clean water or shelter.

Khartoum continues its large military offensives in North and West Darfur, and in such a context the African Union force currently deployed, even if augmented, is simply incapable of providing protection to the civilian and humanitarian populations.

UN Security Council Resolution 1706, which Khartoum defiantly rejects, provides an appropriate international force of 22,500 troops and civilian police, as well as a strong civilian protection mandate.

This force must deploy with or without Khartoum's consent, with whatever additional forces are required if consent is denied.

The alternative is to watch from afar as - in the words of UN humanitarian aid chief Jan Egeland, "the lives of hundreds of thousands could be needlessly lost."



Gamal Nkrumah, Cairo, Egypt
The ongoing aggression of the Sudanese authorities against innocent civilians is deplorable. However, a Western, US and Nato-led military intervention to end the Darfur crisis would have the opposite and extremely negative impact on a volatile region.

Co-operation between Arabs and indigenous non-Arab communities is the only way forward

Gamal Nkrumah
Al-Ahram Foreign Editor

The fighting in Darfur cannot be seen in isolation of the wider regional context.

The arid Sahel region of Africa, and Darfur is very much a part of the Sahel, has witnessed a scramble over meagre resources especially between nomadic, mainly but not exclusively, Arab tribes and pastoralists with non-Arab agriculturalists, and has become endemic in the area.

The crisis-ridden region of the Sahel is a political powder-keg.

Western intervention would exacerbate matters.

In Niger ethnic Arabs, known as the Mahamid, have recently been threatened with deportation. In neighbouring Chad, the authorities have accused Khartoum of supporting the armed opposition groups including the Union of forces for Democracy and Development.

The only way forward is to strengthen the AU forces by logistical and financial support on a massive scale.

Oil-rich Arab countries, Western nations and Asian trade partners of Khartoum must step up aid and trade with Sudan in order to reinvigorate the Sudanese economy, and especially the Darfur economy shattered by years of war.

The international community must multiply humanitarian and development assistance to Darfur instead of sending in troops and instigating more fighting.

Peace must prevail in Darfur and the entire Sahel region.

Co-operation between Arabs and indigenous non-Arab communities is the only way forward, but it must be buttressed with international development aid.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[rgraham666]

I think Mr. Nkruma is dreaming in Technicolor if he thinks Khartoum will allow one cent of international aid to go to Darfur.

A few years ago the magazine Foreign Policy had an issue with a number of columns under the heading, The Most Dangerous Ideas.

One of these ideas was Anti-Americanism, the idea that people were automatically opposed to anything the U.S. did simply because it was the U.S.

I see Mr. Nkruma as an example of this idea. Sigh.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

French forces are probably the most effective Western forces in Africa. They take casualties as peacekeepers year on year and are good at what they do.

The absence of 'balls' as you put it, is not with the professional French soldiers, but with the politicians and particularly with the UN. All soldiers from democracies operate within political constraints. Those constraints are set by politicians.

There is some justification for the French forces claiming that they were not defeated by Germany in 1940 but by their own politicans' surrender when the French Army was still capable of resisting and repelling the Nazi invasion. The French politicians decisions through the 1920s and 1930s on the Maginot Line because it was cheaper and would save soldiers lives was contrary to the experience of the end of WWI when armoured vehicles had brought mobility back to the battlefield. IF the politicans had completed their logic and extended the Maginot Line to face their ally Belgium - then their theory of fixed defence might have had a fair trial. Half a defence is worse than none.

Og

After reading about their bravery in WW1 and other places, I will never say anything negative about French soldiers. I was referring to their government.