Friday, September 22. 2006
Darfur: Finally some Transatlantic Cooperation to Discuss "the Next Steps"?
Posted by Joerg Wolf in Transatlantic Relations on Friday, September 22. 2006
"Britain called on Friday for world leaders to prepare a summit on easing the humanitarian crisis in Sudan's violence-torn Darfur region." writes Reuters: "International leaders should be ready to meet soon to consider next steps," a spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters, adding that no agenda or date had yet been set for such a meeting. He did not elaborate on what "next steps" meant but Blair has suggested a carrot and stick approach that included incentives for Sudan if it allows U.N. troops into Darfur.Organising a meeting of world leaders is not much, but better than the constant calls for the United Nations to "do something."
The United States and Denmark host a meeting on Darfur in New York on Friday as the government in Khartoum continues to refuse any U.N force into its western region to stop fighting that has killed an estimated 200,000 people and displaced 2.5 million. (...)
U.N. human rights monitors on Friday accused Sudan's army of dropping bombs on villages in North Darfur, killing and injuring civilians, and driving hundreds of people from their homes. They also reported continuing rapes and sexual violence against women by military or militia known as Janjaweed around camps for the displaced in South Darfur.
Related posts in the Atlantic Review: Rallies to help Darfur across the United States. And in Germany? and Why is Abu Ghraib a cover story again, but not Darfur? and Europe's Moral Outrage.
This is a(nother) encouraging sign. I wonder what Tony means by "international leaders"? Egypt's Mubarak backtracked on his promise to assist with getting UN troops into Darfur before he could get back home after the 61st UN General Assembly Meeting. He stopped off in Khartoum for hugs and kisses with his good buddy President Omar al-Bashir and to declare that Egypt's government supports the position of the Sudan on the troops issue.
If Tony and the EU along with the U.S. government can finally get the Russians and the Chinese onboard by convincing them to stop doing business with the Khartoum regime if it does not respect the UN resolution 1706, then we might get somewhere. Unfortunately the governments of Russia and China will continue to delay any meaningful action on Darfur as long as Khartoum can keep the oil and money flowing. Reduce or stop the flows of capital and oil and the GoS will have to cooperate or risk collapse.
I'm for dropping the hammer on the sucker (al-Bashir) myself, Jihad or no Jihad. There has to be a point where the international community and the UN draws the line, and acts of genocide against one's own people should be it.
The United States is considering an Africa Command
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HI21Aa01.html
I hope we go for it.
AFCOMM? Everyone knows the most important part of a new Pentagon initiative is the cool new nonsense word...
Well, the problem in Darfur is twofold: first you've got to stop the "military" genocidal attacks. That can only be done by military intervention. No two ways about it: you've got to send troops and you've got to send a lot of them, and they ought to know what they're doing.
Second: you need to think about what happens after military action. Iraq has shown us that you need a very elaborate plan for that. And you didn't have the humanitarian catastrophe there that you have in Darfur.
On the military side the Americans don't seem to want to contribute more than a token force (and logistic support), so it's up to the Europeans to do something. There are several possibilities: the Brits have their Desert Rats, the French their Foreign Legion 13eme DBLE in Djibouti, the Germans have fast mechanized units who'd be prepared for peacekeeping in the desert, Eurocorps has combat experience from Afghanistan.... I don't think there is a lack of desert-trained troops if all the European states manage to put a joint operation together for a change.
But after the military thingie comes the humanitarian problem. That's where the Europeans can really shine: THW, anybody? Médecins sans frontiéres, you name it, the Europeans have got it.
And after that, of course, we will have a potential "Iraq quagmire" situation of the highest order: we will need to institute some kind of political solution to the whole mess. That will be the hardest part.
Das kann ja noch heiter werden ;-).
As for the US African command: do they really want to call it the "Africa Corps" (it says so on the link Chris provided) :-D?
A new US Afrikakorps?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika_Korps[/url]
I don't think the SuperEuros ;-) can do it.
I don't see any country having the military ressources for a major long-term committment. Only a temporary improvement of the situation.
No fly zone, protecting refugee camps etc. That's it.
I don't think anybody has the will to do regime change in Khartoum. Danger of ethnic cleansing in reverse. Quagmire etc.
Stop bluffing about troops, go back to negotiating tables, says Alex de Waal, fellow of the Global Equity Initiative at Harvard University, advisor to the African Union, author of the book Darfur: A Short History of a Long War.".
In interview with DEMOCRACY NOW:
ALEX DE WAAL: I think the key thing to bear in mind is that the solution to Darfur is a political solution. No solution can be imposed by any amount of arm twisting, any amount of bluster, any amount of military force. Even if we sent 100,000 NATO troops, we would not be able to impose a solution. The solution has to come through political negotiation. And that, unfortunately, is a very slow process."
Interview continues:
[url]http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/2006/09/darfur-interview-with-alex-de-waal.html[/url]
International Crisis Group
John Prendergast in The Philadelphia Inquirer
14 September 2006
"The Bush White House has made 10 grievous mistakes that have only made matters worse."
[url]http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4378[/url]
Blair apparently wants to discuss carrots and sticks. Let's see. Khartoum has called our bluff. We don't have sticks. We must have plenty of carrots for Khartoum, don't we?
US is busy in Iraq, Europe is busy in Afghanistan, Balkans, Congo, Lebanon and transforming the Cold War armies to modern armies.
The only realistic course of action that I see is to bribe Khartoum to let a stronger African Union peacekeeping force in. US and Europe provide logistical and financial support to the African Union.
And we send the best mediators to the Darfur peace talks. Any CEO willing to do some pro Bono work?
Is Angelina Jolie still on maternity leave? Can we draft Halle Bery?
Well, the problem with getting a negotiation solution is there are too many factions, and most of them are out of control. Plus a few of the factions are breaking up within themselves (infighting within the SLA is the prime example of that). As De Waal stated, they already tried the negotiation approach. There will always be one or another faction that will ignore treaties when it suits its goals. Also, when I said "military solution", what I meant was protection of civilians. You don't have to invade the whole country for that, you might concentrate on Darfur proper, try to stake out humanitarian safe zones where the civilians can go for protection (in the cities, for example, in Al Fashir and Niyala). Then you build up infrastructure for these zones. And all of that doesn't mean there can't still be negotiation.
The problem with the proposed UN intervention is that a. it's not big enough. 20.000 soldiers and police units will probably not be sufficient to deter action from the Sudanese government and/or the diverse rebel groups. b. Khartoum is never going to agree to UN troop presence on sudanese soil anyway, especially since they have backing by the Arabian League for that. So there is only one way to go: send troops into Darfur through Tchad, protect the cities. If you do that you have to be prepared to take on the sudanese army AND the rebels. The EU can do that, but it will be a major commitment of troops and logistics. If the US want to join in the fun, fair enough. Better still if the EU gets backing from NATO and the UN. The latter is pretty dubious, since Russia and China don't seem to want to play along.
The problem with this whole thing is that there is indeed a time constraint. People are dying in Darfur, daily. I'm all for diplomatic action, but De Waal himself stated quite clearly that negotiation will take a lot of time and the people in Darfur don't have that time.
> Well, the problem with getting a negotiation solution is
> there are too many factions, and most of them are out of
> control.
Sure, but that will happen when pursueing a military solution as well.
De Waal and others said that many mistakes were made during the last negotiations.
> try to stake
> out humanitarian safe zones where the civilians can go for
> protection (in the cities, for example, in Al Fashir and
> Niyala). Then you build up infrastructure for these zones.
> And all of that doesn't mean there can't still be negotiation.
Sounds good. I agree. We need both: More troops and back to the negotiating table.
Though, as you said, the UN mandate for 20.000 soldiers and police units probably not sufficient, especially if Khartoum is against deployment and these troops have to invade via Chad and take on the sudanese army AND the rebels.
I doubt whether the EU can be persuaded to do that. Everybody seems to be afraid of another Iraq. (It does not matter whether such a scenario is likely or not, Iraq is such a discouraging metaphor for politicians and opinionmakers.)
[u][url=http://atlanticreview.org/archives/401-NATOs-Difficulties-to-Get-More-Troops-for-Afghanistan.html]NATO does not have enough combat troops in Afghanistan and the European countries are not willing (or capable) to send any more (Poland is the exception)[/url][/u] but here we are talking about sending combat troops into Darfur... I don't think that is realistic.
> The problem with this whole thing is that there is indeed a
> time constraint. People are dying in Darfur, daily. I'm all
> for diplomatic action, but De Waal himself stated quite
> clearly that negotiation will take a lot of time and the
> people in Darfur don't have that time.
Yes, we have no f***ing time. It's absof***inglutely frustrating/maddening/heart-wrenching.
However, we don't want to make matters worse for the long-term either, which could easily happen if NATO or the EU fights the Sudanese military without enough troops and a post-war plan. Then the humanitarian disaster and civil war gets worse etc.
And De Waal also said: "Are we really going to send an army to Darfur to invade against the wishes of the Sudan government, to face the military resistance of the Sudan government and its militias? And the answer, frankly, is no. (...) So, let's recognize that posturing and wielding a bigger stick, frankly, is not going to work. The bluff of that has been called. Let's get back to a discussion."
Is the African Union willing to fight the Sudanese military and the rebels?
So far all I heard was that they were complaining about a lack of funding from the West.
I have not heard anything on whether they are willing to fight or not.
Does anybody know?
What I also was told is that the African Union is not impartial. And that this was one of the many reasons, why they were supposed to get replaced by UN troops.
Though, what countries are willing and capable to send troops to Darfur? That seem to the same countries, who are now part of the AU forces in Darfur...
The US has basically ruled out sending any significant number of troops. I don't think the EU will send a significant number of troops either. (By significant I mean at least 10,000 troops)
No, they are not allowed to interfere with Janjaweed. Can you believe it? They are not under Article 7. All they can do is 'observe.' Why bother having them there at all, for crying out loud.
I also forgot to add that China is also in Darfur, so we would be fighting them as well. Nice, eh? I hate this.
Well, the bluff might have been called, but it's not like the EU couldn't do it. I'm not a military expert, but I'm convinced that if the EU (and I mean ALL of the EU, not just the biggies Britain, France, Germany) pulled together they could do it. BTW, this is just another reason why the EU defense initiative should be pushed and pushed and pushed.
You do have a point though when you say that the political will for intervention in Darfur is missing in the EU, just as in the US. Well, like I said, the EU will have to get off its duff for that one. Or else nobody is going to do it. Negotiations hin oder her (sorry for the Denglish ;-)) we'll be morally responsible for sitting on the sidelines and watching a genocide happen.
I agree. We will be (or: are already) responsible for letting "Never Again" happen again.
Perhaps you should explain that "Never Again" bit for the American posters around here:
"Never Again" ("Nie Wieder") was a slogan used a lot in post-war Germany to say that there should never be a genocide like the Holocaust again.
I'm not sure, but I think it came from another slogan, "Nie wieder Krieg" ("No more war"), and that was the basic slogan of the pacifist movements in Germany after WWI (oh yes, there were pacifists in Germany at that time; not a lot of them but they were there).
Just FYI :-).
You are right, but I did not want to make this reference to the Holocaust explicit, since the Holocaust was much different yade,yade,yade. And people get hit for making the wrong comparisons etc..."Genocide" might be a too simplistic view of Darfur, say some...yade, yade,yade.
Fortunately (or unfortunately) the phrase "Never Again" is used a lot in the US these days.
[u][url=http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2005/03/never.html]Here is good animation by Mark Fiore. Funny and sad [/url][/u]
Council of Foreign Relations publication: [u][url=http://www.cfr.org/publication/7402/]"Giving Meaning to 'Never Again'"[/url][/u]
The New Republic starts an article with this: [u][url=https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20060515&s=editorial051506]"Never again? What nonsense. Again and again is more like it. In Darfur, we are witnessing a genocide again, and again "[/url][/u]
USATODAY: [u][url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-03-01-darfur-edit_x.htm]"Never again' — again"[/url][/u]
Google has 300,000 hits for the search: [u][url=http://www.google.de/search?hs=EQu&hl=de&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Ade%3Aofficial&q=%22Never+Again%22+Darfur&btnG=Suche&meta=lr%3D]"Never Again" Darfur[/url][/u]
Pretty frustrating. I guess, two years ago, people were saying "Never again", when they heard of Darfur.
Now most folks are disillusioned and say "Never Again happens again and again"
"Never Again" should be a more powerful call-to-arms in Germany than in other countries.
Of course, you are right "Never Again" usually meant "No more war", but often it was also meant in the sense "Never again another Auschwitz". And Auschwitz stands for the Holocuast.
Preventing genocide should have been a lesson from history. Doing something about Darfur is a better way to honor the victims of the Holocaust than to give speeches about the Holocaust and have minutes of silence every so often.
And *you* will probably blame it on Bush. Not you personally - but many Europeans will.
Dear brothers at the Atlantic Review,
For what it is worth, I would give my life (am giving?) to cause people to see what I am trying to say in the following. Why? Seeing or not seeing the following is the difference between life and death, for Darfur and for us.
Sorry if this is too personal. This is genocide. Let’s stop screwing around. As I watch the global activity (discussion) reagarding Darfur, I can’t help but see myself years ago, standing around with a bunch of guys, huffing and puffing about all the wonderful exploits we were going to have with this or that beautiful girl. And about all I did was talk. I just never did the work it would have taken to make me an attractive target for many of those girs. Consequently, most of the sex I got, was in my own head. I’m not the only one that has been here.
Finally, in this preamble, it seems to me that the single biggest problem that England had at the start of WWIII was getting the US in the war. So it is with Darfur. The single biggest problem is getting we citizens off of our blogs and into the streets, doing whatever we need to to raise the will, the unmistakable popular mandate – registered in committed, sacrificial action – that pays the price of governmental action. STRATEGY, finesse, is NOT the problem. Paying the price, RAISING THE WILL is the problem.
Please forgive me republishing below what I posted yesterday in the Washinton Post. I just don’t have a better contribution to you, than I did to them. And this is exactly the contribution I want to make to you here. Jay.
WE ARE TALKING DARFUR TO DEATH
From a Washington Post online discussion: Our Question
Posted at 12:10 AM ET, 09/22/2006
Should regional solidarity be allowed to trump human rights needs? What could be done to pull away support from the Sudanese regime and enable UN troops to enter?
Jay's Response:
This question, the one you have posed above, and those like it (the only kind in the news) are central to why the genocide is not ending!!! YOU ARE CAUSING THE DEATH OF 4 million with such questions. Why? Because such questions are a profound distraction from the problem!!!! Don't blow me off yet. Hear me. Please.
Harvard's Samantha Power's "Problem from Hell," my reading of it anyway: THE BATTLE TO STOP GENOCIDE HAS ALWAYS BEEN LOST ON THE FIELD OF US PUBLIC OPINION... THE US PEOPLE HAVE NEVER STOOD UP!!!! Duh!!! And questions like this (yours above) continue to distract attention from SOLVING THIS PROBLEM - getting us to stand up! We are not standing up! Instead, we are sitting around our computer screens, sipping our Starbuck's in smug complacency, enjoying playing "State Department," or "UN" in conversations like this.... Doesn't anyone else think of the M word in this context? What we need to do is get off of our butts, and get our bodies, get our "skin in the game!" No?
We the people, press, activist community have NO MORAL RIGHT TO BE TELLING ANYONE WHAT TO DO, UNTIL WE STEP UP TO THE PLATE! Sure, we have the legal right, the constitutional right. So what? MORAL RIGHT. Lipservice is what we are paying so far! Who currently is paying more than lip service? Who is fighting with the real commitment that we've seen before: Civil Rights movement, Suffrage, stopping Vietnam war.... Ok, Eric Reeve, Samantha did, maybe John Prendergast did, probably a dozen others are now, BUT NO ONE CAN SEE IT!
I am reminded, to my horror, of All Quiet on the Western Front - of the townspeople fanning the flame so that OTHERS could go get slaughtered in a hopeless WWI.
Make no mistake, I THINK WE-THE-PEOPLE, THE CITIZENS OF THE WORLD SHOULD BE GIVING OUR LIVES if that is what it takes TO ESTABLISH OUR POLITICAL MANDATE LOUD ENOUGH, AND FAST ENOUGH to execute BOTH aspects posed by your question: Maximal political pressure (targeted sanctions, ICC, travel restrictions AND Troops on the ground now (with or WITHOUT Bashir's acceptance) AND solemn, explicit proclamation to the world, NOW, that THE WEST WILL NOT TOUCH CHINA'S PREFERENTIAL ACCESS TO SUDAN OIL. Duh. But BOTH will happen - Bashir's acquiesce AND troops on the ground - and they will happen instantly that we pay the price - we the people of the US and world. The policy options are NOT why Darfuries are dying. LACK OF WILL ON THE PART OF WE THE PEOPLE is why they are dying. It is so obvious.
In summary? We, including we in this dialog, are guys in bar Monday Morning Quarterbacking - at the expense of 4,000,000 being exterminated in Darfur. We are spectators, Monday Quarterbacks. WE NEED TO GET ON THE FIELD OF PLAY WITH OUR BODIES.
Gentlemen and ladies of the press, in the name of God, point the finger at we-the-people. PLEASE. Help us wake up and get us out of the stands as spectators, and onto the playing field. Please. We are headed toward extermination rates of 25,000 per week (six 911's per week.)
Jay McGinleyDARFUR VIGIL DAY 119 (currently in NYC); 56 DAYS HUNGER STRIKE since July 4, 2006 (water only) www.standwithdarfurwhitehouseii.blogspot.com
Let my ask a question that intentionally aims to provoke/inspire/deflect the current discussion and also relates to a previous thread about what to advocate for Darfur.
What role do we - bloggers, civil society and so on - have in this whole project?
Are blogging about this subject the easy way out - an intellectual exercise to make us sleep with the comforting thought of having taken Darfur into consideration?
How long will we keep citing experts and politicians, and when will the civil society start organising? Could one imagine a GlobalDayforDarfur once a week untill a satisfictional solution is found?
I am definately in the category that tends to talk the talk, but have a harder time doing the walk. Have do I end that, and actually start doing something more than just doing online escapism? Advice are most welcome!
Best regards,
Andreas - The Oslo Blog
ps. I do admit that this post have an intention of being dramatic to hightlight my point...
I understand your frustration, but I am glad to let you know that the big news organizations are reading what we are writing. We can make a huge difference, as long as we write about Darfur on a regular basis.
I have a friend who wrote a book (not about this), and he was famous before he wrote it. The news was coming from his blog! Don't give up hope, dear. I know it seems like we're getting nowhere, but we are making people open their eyes.
Now all we have to do is get them to keep them opened...
Hi Jorg,
First I would like to point out just what is happening at this time. The Janjaweed, whom are the militia of the government and include al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, are committing this genocide to take over the land and implement Sharia law across the whole country.
We have to remember that we are fighting a WW. No? I'm very sorry to inform you, but war has been declared not by us but by them. So if you don't want to believe we are at war? That is fine. They are. With us. Wherever we are.
Number two: We need to rescue these people! I do not care about the governments anymore. What is wrong with us going over there? They do it all the time in Arab countries?! (I know. We follow the rules. So tell me, what are the rules the terrorists are fighting by?)
These people deserve our help. They cannot wait for months. If enough of us went over there to stand up to the Janjaweed, the world would have to take notice.
Are you aware that the AU is not under Article 7? They can only observe. That's right. They can't do diddly. Are we going to sit here and debate, or are we going to take action?
I'm sorry, but I've been on this for years now. I'm tired of waiting for others to do what I know needs to be done.
Also, as was said prior, we do need a plan for afterward. There are 3 major groups in Darfur, there is the Janjaweed which will stand War Crimes trials, and there is the tender peace agreement between the North and South Darfur.
I say, "If we win, we write the Constitution." Just like MacCarthur and Churchhill did. Don't fight any war unless you are going to win totally. (We would also be protecting the people in the shelters and other innocent people.)
I know it's all jumbled, but that is a rough draft. Just throwing some thoughts out there. Does anyone remember the War between the Wars? (Spain) Sort of like that, only this time we win!
I am sorry Rosemary,
But there are definately not three parts... To mention a few:
The different and now splitting branches of JEM - Muslim africans
SLA - ever fragmenting into several small branches
Janjeweed - Which is not a coherent force
The Chadian rebel groups
The unruly rebel groups in the South
The LRA in Uganda, also influencing the conflict
Then you have Al-Qaeda (minor problem)
And then you have the rebel movements in the East of Sudan, who are just waiting to see if rebel-activity is a way to influence in Sudan.
To go in a build a new sudan will be to open Pandoras Box.
I believe in a intervention, but with the very specific purpose of ensuring delivery of aid and a stopping on attacks on civilians. THIS IS A SHORT TERM SOLUTION! With no continuing dialogue adressing the underlaying political, economic and social problems of the entire country - we will be stuck in Sudan for the next 100 years.
Roselyn, I do admire your will to help. But I just want to point out, that these people needed our help also three years ago. And ten years ago.
I have published a little more on the recent top-level meeting two days ago.
http://www.akiaby.dk/?p=298
Andreas - The Oslo Blog (www.akiaby.dk)
Alex de Waal is strongly criticized by Gérard Prunier, a French Africanist, who wrote about the genocide in Rwanda and in Darfur. To summarize his criticism in Atlanti Review style:
"Alex de Waal's article on openDemocracy ("Darfur's fragile peace", 5 July 2006) is a case in point. It is well-intentioned - but unfortunately it bears very little relation to the reality in Darfur - then or now. In essence, de Waal's argument is that the Darfur Peace Agreement - signed by the Sudanese government and the faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement led by Minni Arkoy Minnawi - represents a progressive solution to the crisis in Darfur; but that, at the time of writing, the agreement "is stalling".
It is relevant that Alex de Waal was a principal advisor to the negotiating teams in Abuja, and had vigorously defended the provisions of the DPA [Darfur Peace Agreement] as a "historic opportunity" which should not be missed - since not signing this text would open the door to renewed violence in the province. [...]
Alex De Waal cites the example of the Botswanan contingent of Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, which was supposedly able to control the Baardheere (Bardera) region in 1993 because it had "asked the clan elders what their problems were and worked collaboratively to solve them". As a means of persuading the reader of the appropriateness of his prognosis, this is less than effective: what remains in Baardheere today of the Botswanan peacemaking process?
What is wrong with such an approach is the lack of historical and political frameworks. The present Darfur horror is neither an ethnic mess due to "ancient tribal hatreds" (a favourite Sudanese regime explanation); nor an unfortunate by-product of drought and desertification (a sometime de Waalian perspective); nor even a plot by sworn enemies of the Khartoum regime (even if the presence of Abdallah Khalil among the Darfur insurgents lends a minimum of credibility to the accusation). The Darfur conflict is a historically and politically logical situation which will not be tamed by optimistic peacemaking recipes.
[...]
[b]What, then, is to be done? In the real world, the options are grim. It is possible to let things run their course and see the ethnic cleansing result in several thousand casualties more. This is still the most likely probability, given the incapacity of the international community to think beyond a ritualistic wail for a UN force to be deployed (which, even were it to be deployed, is unlikely to be effective).[/b]
Another option would be to accept the fact that a major historical process is at work in a key corner of the continent and that it can be brought to a close only by the Sudanese themselves, not by foreigners. The ensuing logic of intervention would be to take sides in favour or against some of the actors in the conflict. This would in turn involve a clear, realistic judgment of their political character.
[url=http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/darfur_conflict_3909.jsp]Open Democracy[/url]
Hi Brigitte,
Nice to see some qualified criticism of De Waal.
However, I am exstremely worried about your idea of "letting the parties fight it out". Because in my eyes that is the logical consequence of your answer in my eyes. That is not only against humanitarian principles, it also neglects the fact that we -the west- contributed to the mess in the first place.
The Oslo Blog - www.akiaby.dk
That was Gérard Prunier's idea. Not mine. I am sorry I forgot the quotation marks.
Just curious: How did we contribute to the mess?
I also believe an intervention to deliver aid and stop the attacks on refugee camps is a must, even if it will be ineffective. Negotiations are for the long term.
Even this short term mission could be very dangerous and turn into a mess. That is the reason, why not a single European or North American country has offered to send any troops as part of UNMIS. Right?
I just read the Prunier-article, and Immediatly posted it on my website. Thanks for the link!
We contributed to the mess ever since colonisation, but furthermore in the peace-negotiations in the North/South conflict. Being obsessed with a peace-agreement we forgot the East and West in the equation.
Your last question is a somewhat yes. There are a few western troops in UMIS. Denmark has at least 7 :-)
Andreas - The Oslo Blog - www.akiaby.dk
UN resolution nr 1593 is the key to solving the crisis of Darfur. This resolution will never be implemented, as it seems to be, unless UNSC resolution 1706 has been implemented. This resolution will never be implemented as long as international community is looking for a permission from the Sudanese dictators to let UN peacekeeping force in Darfur.
2 approaches seem inevitable to save at least some Darfuri lives. Either international community decide to send UN peacekeeping force to Darfur regardless of the consent of the Sudan, or international community is reday to provide some logistics and capabilities to the Darfuri movements so that they can rescue some lives which are under intense bombardment the very moment these words are being written.
Wow! I am really impressed with all of the concern and ideas and participation in this dialogue about the Darfur Crisis. You see Jürgen, Atlantic Review readers really do care about what is going on down in Sudan.
@ the pro-military solution folks...
It is clear to almost everyone involved with the civilians on the ground in Darfur and with the GoS that a non-Sudanese security force is needed to protect these people from attacks by their own government and the various militias. So let's not kid ourselves on this important point.
The EU countries are not anywhere close to committing troops for peacekeeping duties in Darfur other than humanitarian and logistic support people. In addition, the European public's support for military intervention in Sudan is hovering somewhere around ZERO. Do not even entertain the idea of European troops getting involved with desert warfare down in the Sahara and the Sahel; as very, very few countries in Europe have forces that are well-trained and equipped to handle this type of combat. Afghanistan and Iraq are good examples of how difficult these type of operations can be. The forces based at present in Djibouti are overwhelmingly U.S. soldiers, with a few other country's soldiers throw in to make it sound like a "coalition". I think that the French have had some forces in Chad for awhile in order to protect French interests in the region.
@ the negotiated settlement folks:
Many of us are familiar with Alex de Wahl's recent interview (Hat Tip: Jörg via a previous post) and this very knowledgable man makes some good arguments, as does John Prendergast and Eric Reeves and Samantha Power and many other experts on the crisis. But the Khartoum regime and Omar al-Bahsir have never really honored any settlements and agreements in the past (bloody wars and conflicts in Southern Sudan, the Nuba Mountains, etc. etc.) and they have no intention of honoring any agreements or UN resolutions now or in the future. So let's not kid ourselves about this either. The "rebels" in Darfur are not much better than the GoS, if at all.
As is the case in the South of Sudan right now, UN peacekeepers and outside assistance (intervention) by some key UN member states will be necessary to stop the violence in Darfur and help those people rebuild their lives and livelihoods. Of course the African Union has an important role to play in all of this, and I believe they have contributed a great deal already considering their limitations and will continue to be important players in making peace in Sudan. If only the Arab League member countries would make even half the effort that the AU under the leadership of Nigeria's President Obasanjo has made in helping to resolve this crisis and contribute money and troops... this will probably never happen. The Arab League is an important part of the problem in Darfur and across the Sudan. President Omar al-Bashir is their man in Khartoum, doing the Arab League's bidding in this part of Africa. Ask Mubarak or Moussa, they'll tell you so (from their deathbeds, maybe).
So, British PM Tony Blair calling together world leaders to come up with a united stand and plan of action for the crisis in Darfur ain't a bad idea if it brings some much needed results quickly. Whatever they decide upon in London, it will have to be a combination of the Hammer and the Stick with a few extra dollars thrown in for Bashir if he promises to be a good boy and go along with the program.
@ those who think that Americans don't care about Darfur:
Don't ever underestimate the will or commitment or intelligence of the American people. If there was any one nation that I would count on as being front-and-center in helping to find a solution to the present crisis in Darfur, it would be mine, the United States of America.
Name me 5 key political or civic leaders from Europe or Asia or any other region of the world that have been as committed to researching the problems behind the conflict, getting the word out before the world, and earnestly working hard to find solutions to this crisis as members of the U.S. Congress and the present White House administration, the American press and media networks, the U.S. business community, the religious community, U.S.-based NGO and humanitarian organizations, and the general American public have been.
Most readers from Europe cannot do it, because they don't exist in your country. There were less than a thousand participants in the Global Day for Darfur Rally in London last week. Don't ask how many showed up to the Berlin rally or the rallies from Madrid to Moscow as the press and TV news in Europe basically overlooked these low-attendance events. If I am wrong, please show me some evidence.
Yet in comparison today there are 10's of thousands of people marching in the streets of Manchester protesting against PM Tony Blair at the annual Labour Party Conference. The national priorities of these protestors in Britain are very clear for all to see. It has nothing to do with ethics and morals and human rights for all people on Earth, does it?
Dear brothers and sisters of Atlantic Review.
This is my first chance to check into the dialog for 18 hours now. Wow. This is the highest level of, the most promising level of dialog I remember witnessing on Darfur, anywhere.
Other threads here seem to share my desire for us to take action beyond writing. Make no mistake, writing, blogging, analyzing have a place IN EVERY STRUGGLE. BUT, SO DO FEET ON THE STREET! And, there is no chance that history will write that "people did not TALK / blog / write enough about Darfur." My hope now, ALL OF MY HOPE NOW at this stage is for feet on the street.
I have thought about little else for 4 months now. I've been focussing for most of that time, through my Vigil and Hunger Strike on the currently mobilized, morbidly timid and cowardly "activist" community for Darfur. My attempt has been to try to infuse them with a sense of reality, urgency and passion that they have desperately lacked. And I feel that I have had an impact. BUT THEY HAVE RADICALIZED AS MUCH AS THEY ARE GOING TO!
NOW, we must focus away from them. A new organizing force must emerge now. Or Darfur is dead. YOU, will you do it/cause it to be done,or try? This is what must be done, unless mercifully, YOU or someone puts forth another idea.
OCTOBER 5th STAND (Students Taking Action for Darfur) is organizing a 1 day (Oh my God, YES, ONE WHOLE DAY!!!!!!!!!!!) (Yes, I am outraged) WORLDWIDE FAST!
OK, LET'S TURN IT INTO THE START, T-H-E S-T-A-R-T of a worldwide FAST, that we stay on until the GENOCIDE IS ENDING. Please, please think about this. Is that too radicle. Is that an OVERREACTION TO GENOCIDE? YES, we would almost certainly fail in the attempt. YES, if we failed the effort might fail. SO WHAT!?!?!? As your uniquely brilliant and helpful Alfred Adler said, "Courage is doing what needs to be, whether or not you know you will succeed."
STUPID IDEA? Two responses. 1. "If at first the idea is not absurd, it has no hope," Albert Einstein; 2. GIVE ME A BETTER IDEA. I'll run with it, even if you don't. I'm going to do something, my best shot. This global Fast idea is my best so far.
OUR YARDSTICK FOR MEASUREING SUCH IDEAS MUST NOT BE "WILL IT WORK." THIS IS THE QUESTION OF BYSTANDERS. THE QUESTION OF THE COMMITTED HUMANE BEING IS, "WHAT IS MY BEST SHOT, MY BEST CHANCE IN THIS SITUATION, TO SAVE AS MUCH OF MY DARFUR FAMILY AS POSSIBLE."
For more on this idea:
http://standwithdarfurwhitehouseii.blogspot.com/2006/09/darfur-urgent-what-would-rachel-corrie.html
Your brother, Jay
Jay McGinleyDARFUR VIGIL DAY 121(currently in NYC); 56 DAYS HUNGER STRIKE since July 4, 2006 (water only) www.standwithdarfurwhitehouseii.blogspot.com
Thank you, Jay! How nice it is to see you. Well, read you anyway. I received some e-mails saying this was only the beginning from [url=http://www.savedarfur.com/]Save Darfur[/url], but it did not seem too promising. Maybe? Could be...
Would you like another interview? Let me know. I would like to interview you on how the Sept. 5, 9, and 17th rallies went. Thanks.
"Never think that a small group of committed people cannnot change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has," Margaret Mead.
This just in from TIME Magazine online:
Sunday, Sep. 24, 2006
How to Save Darfur
By PETER BEINART
Genocide comes at inconvenient times. In 1994, the Clinton Administration was reeling from Somalia--a country it had fled after the deaths of 18 U.S. troops. So America watched as Rwanda's genocidaires murdered nearly 1 million people in 100 days. And then everyone began feeling bad. Bill Clinton flew to Rwanda to apologize. After reading an article about the genocide, George W. Bush reportedly scribbled, "Not on my watch!"
In hindsight, stopping genocide is easy. But in Darfur, where it is happening now, stopping genocide is brutally hard. A contingent of 7,000 African Union peacekeepers currently patrol the Texas-size chunk of western Sudan where government-backed militias are busy exterminating the non-Arab population. The African soldiers are decent and brave, but they are engaged in a sham. The militias menace villagers in front of the peacekeepers' eyes; Sudan's government steals the fuel they need to fly their planes. In the words of U.N. envoy Jan Pronk, "The people on the ground are just laughing."
In spite of a Security Council resolution approving a larger, tougher U.N. peacekeeping force, the government of Sudan refuses to allow Blue Helmets on its soil. When the Bush Administration sent its Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs to Sudan's capital, Khartoum, to persuade President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to admit the U.N. force, it was two days before he would even meet with her. Al-Bashir has a rather different plan for solving the problem: just before the Security Council vote, he launched a military offensive aimed at cleansing Darfur once and for all. The U.N. is warning of "a man-made catastrophe of an unprecedented scale."
There's only one way to save Darfur: tell Sudan it can either accept the U.N. force or face war against the world's most powerful military alliance. Though the U.N. can't fight its way into Darfur, NATO can. If it does, al-Bashir could end up following Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and Liberia's Charles Taylor to a war-crimes trial at the Hague. Confronted with that prospect, al-Bashir might conclude that a U.N. peacekeeping force isn't so bad.
Unfortunately, genocidal dictators are generally not impressed by tough talk. Milosevic didn't abandon Bosnia until NATO bombed him for two weeks. He didn't abandon Kosovo until NATO began planning a ground invasion. No one knows al-Bashir's breaking point. To find it, NATO must first impose a no-fly zone over Darfur so Sudanese MiGs can't keep assisting Arab militias from the air. That's doable. A congressional expert estimates that it would require 12 to 18 fighter jets, probably French and American, based in neighboring Chad. If shooting down a few Sudanese planes (and thus eliminating much of the Sudanese air force) didn't make al-Bashir relent, NATO would probably have to bomb Khartoum. And while doing so, it would have to begin preparations for a ground invasion.
Read the complete article over at the TIME.com website before it becomes Premium content and you have to pay for access.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1538646,00.html
Note also that the African Union Peace and Security Council has announced from its HQ in Addis Ababa that it will increase its troop strength in Darfur to 11,000 soldiers and "operate under new rules of engagement" to better protect civilians. Reuters, the NY Times, and the Boston Globe have more on the story. Looks like things are heating up nicely back in Khartoum. It's about time.
Contact Us
ar-team AT atlanticreview.org
We are available for interviews, and appreciate feedback and suggestions.
Subscribe and Follow
You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW,
a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis.
More about us.
Follow Atlantic Review on
Facebook or on
Twitter.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter.
Sponsor
SUPPORT THIS SITE
or 
:Blogroll
Hot Topics
Afghanistan
Anti-Americanism
Economics
Iran
Iraq
Merkel
Polls
Terrorism
Click here for the full list of all topics.
There is a great article over at Atlantic Review about Darfur, Sudan. The comments are even more active! It is well worth your attention, unless, of course, you would like to be remembered as one of those good Germans who saw what was happening but d... Comments ()
Tracked: Sep 25, 00:21