Dafur - "never again" and the world is watching...

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:34 pm

The world's worst humanitarian crisis is unfoldning in Dafur, the UN proclaimed last summer. 1.6 million people have fled their homes. 70 000 have been killed. The black population is driven out from their villages with torture, rape and mass killings, to face starvation in refugee camps.

Various human rights groups and the US has stated that a genocide is going on. The UN is investigating whether a genocide is going on or not (if it is, the UN is obliged to take action). The EU "condemns" but does nothing.

Today, there was a raid in the El-Geer refugee camp, by the Sudanese militia. The militia threw tear gas granades into the camp, beat people and eventually forced to flee the camp.

This happens less than 24 hours after the goverment and the rebels signed a cease-fire treaty that among other agreements also included aid workers to have unrestricted access to refugee camps. This is of utter humanitarian importance since about 1/3 of Dafur's population is now in need of basic survival aid. However, today's attack on the El-Geer camp . UN peacekeeping forces were "evacuated for security reasons", and AU forces "did not have mandate to act".

This sounds awfully familar.

ObsidianReturns · Post by **ObsidianReturns** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:40 pm

Agreed, but what can be done?
People cry out for governments of the first world to do something, and yet we cripple our militaries.
Trade sanctions? What great trade do have with any third world nation?
Nothing beyond raw resources, which we can either make ourselves, or exploit from another poor country.

The only way to stop these atrocities is to present a bigger stick than anything the militia bush armies of thugs and brigands could ever possibly wield.
Does it take a lot? Yes. it requires a professional, DISCIPLINED army. One that has sufficient leave from the UN to intecede and protect people.
Which the UN is notorious in not giving. Tell me, what is the point of a UN security force that serves as observers? All it does is send home soldiers who suffer from terrible post traumatic stress disorders brought about by having the power to stop it, but not the laws.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:58 pm

Nothing can be done as far as I see, my post was merely a complaint at the UN and at the membership states for not to putting more pressure on the UN to act more.

Trade sanctions against developing countries only increases the humanitarian problems. A UN peacekeeping force that has mandate to intercede, and does so. I know the UN has the power, but I cannot understand what stops it acting more efficiently and why it must take such a tremendous amount of time. The UN has still not decided whether this is a genocide or not, although it's been going on since last year.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:59 pm

The advantage of the UN is never ceasing dialog. The disadvantage is the manner in which selfish national interests gets in the way time and again of success. Sudan would be one crisis that's much further along to resolution if China had not secured numerous oil agreements recently with the Sudanese government. That can be the only reason why China resolutely continues to back what amounts to a morally bankrupt regime, in the face of almost universal condemnation.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:02 pm

Individual nations has far to much power to stop action UN action, and the exclusive veto-club of the Security council should IMO be reorganised or disappear.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:10 pm

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Individual nations has far to much power to stop action UN action, and the exclusive veto-club of the Security council should IMO be reorganised or disappear.[/QUOTE]

No question, CE. For one thing, the Security Council as it stands is an antiquated concept. It was established under the all-too-typical notion that the same powers will always remain in charge and with the same kinds of governments, despite an entire world history that proves otherwise. The very idea that certain nations deserve a permanant seat and an automatic veto I find ludicrous, and a killer to any serious consideration of many important issues. Dafur is blocked by China; Palestine is blocked by the US; Chechnya is blocked by Russia.

Unfortunately, it's not likely that the nations which have secured such power to themselves will ever willingly give it up.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:42 am

Didn't a variety of African nations state that this was strictly an 'African problem with an African solution' during a recent summit meeting involving Egypt, Libya and other surrounding countries. It seems that international forces are not wanted in the region, a shame when you consider that the same was said about Zimbabwe by the likes of South Africa. If there was oil or western interests at stake we might of seen a different reaction months ago but thats only my opinion.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:13 am

I cringe when I think of foreign troops (UN sanctioned or not) going in to such a complex, chaotic situation. Looking at it from a military perspective, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. The "enemy" is never clearly identified, the objectives often vague and non-specific...military forces need clear-cut, definite objectives. The past shows us what happens to "peacekeeping" forces..."military aid"...and so on. To be blunt, the purpose of a military force is to break things, not to mop floors and serve as targets for insurgents disguised as innocent civilians.

I think it would be a big mistake to respond to this situation militarily. African nations should deal with this as they have already stated. If they need non-military assistance of some sort, I think the rest of the world should be willing to help as much as possible.

ObsidianReturns · Post by **ObsidianReturns** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:04 am

Agreed Chanak, for the most part. It is an extraordinarily complex military situation, one that I wouldn't walk into without a good deal of support.
Like you say, a military is best at breaking things up, not picking up the pieces.
IMO, the militaries should be there only to keep aid agencies safe, and keep the local militias from slaughtering and terrorizing.
Mediciens sans frontiers, the red cross, WHO are all being forced to pull out of conflict regions, because their personnal are not safe. This is something professional armies can do. Defending a static position is something we are very good at. It's less dangerous and expensive, and provides a fortified base of operations from which patrols can be safely mounted.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:14 am

@Obsidian: I agree with military protection for aid centers and workers other countries might send there. Using foreign military as a police force, though...not a good idea. While I believe that a police action is needed, it needs to be done by Africans, and composed of Africans. I am also against sending "military advisors" to assist...that was the way the U.S. became entangled in Vietnam. As always, I am for the soldier, and hold a dim view of politicians.