Does the world even care about Darfur?

Notice the handle on the last post "F the UN"

I can see how the moderator figured this thread was just going to degenerate into personal attacks. I can see how a poster might want to contrast Iraq, bring it into the discussion, but a handle like "f the UN" just ups the ante a bit, and leads things down a different path.

wejo,

Thanks for giving it one more try. As you said, it may degenerate, which makes me reluctant to waste braincells posting on it, but here goes.

The issue of the UN and its efficacy in preventing genocide: Yes, the UN has a fairly poor track record in this regard, as it does on many security issues. But one has to step back and envision a world without the UN. Some have said that if the UN were abolished tomorrow, it would have be recreated in short order. The international system is essentially anarchical (the Westphalian state system where actual sovereignty stops at internationally recognized borders). The UN, therefore, is not an independent entity with sovereign authority, but more of a forum for collabaration. It has as much authority as a member states grant it.

Darfur is a tough problem. If one were to look to recent history for an analogy, I would suggest the Somalia experience in the 1990s. President G.W. Bush decided to intervene unilaterally for no other reason than to protect innocent Somalis caught in the civil war. The mission was meant to be extremely limited - just ensure UN and other aid could be delivered to the population. The U.S. moved quickly with willing partners, hoping to transition to a UN force. There was no functioning government in Somalia that could say no (different than Sudan today). The initial mission (UNITAF) was fairly successful under Ambassador Oakley's leadership. But, by the time UNOSOM took over, it was going badly. It is nearly impossible to intervene under a Right to Protect context without getting pulled into the politics. Once you intervene to protect, you have a moral obligation to stay until the cause of the problem is addressed and resolved. That's where it gets tricky.

I am no expert but doesn't Sudan have oil. I thought China has oil contracts with Sudan and they will prevent the UN from doing much since China will probably do its thing to prevent the govt from being removed to protect their contracts.

Doesn't the US recognize it as a genocide and the UN haven't called it a genocide (or if they did they did pretty late in the game).

I suggest you read " A problem from Hell" by Samantha Powers to shed a little light/insight on your question.

Ask Kofi Annan.

I wanted to respond to Pete, who said that there is no intervention in Darfur because no one's interests are at stake there.

I think that is right on. I recently read some interesting articles on post-Cold War world order that suggested that crisis (sp?) such as in Somalia or Darfur are much more likely to be ignored now than during the Cold War. The article argued that, during the Cold War, any political instability would draw the attention of the US and USSR. Because both countries were looking to get ahead in any way possible, they would become involved instable countries. Once the two powers were involved, war wasn't really a viable option any more because it would lead to a global war.

Now, with the hegemonic US, powerful nations no longer have incentives (except, of course, their morals) to intervene. I'm not really sure on how one could recreate the previous world order (or one that simulated the same incentives), but it seems as though there needs to be a mechanism to create political incentives for intervention in politically unimportant countries.

new orleans must remain a CHOCOLATE city according to Mayor Nagin (sp?)

don't rebuild it, MOVE IT

The problem with this viewpoint is that it doesn't exlain sizeable and costly US and international interventions in Haiti, Somalia, East Timor and the Balkans. There was no national interest at stake when the U.S. under Bush I decided to execute a humanitarian intervention in Somalia in 1992. Remember, although this intervention (called UNITAF but authorized by UNSCR 794) was the first Chapter VII UN intervention ever. No Chapter VII intervention was ever agreed to during the Cold War.

i agree. but how about the ethnic cleansing happening here in the US? with the onlsaught of illegal immigration (thanks to clintons open door policy, and bush's door off the hinges policy, illegals swarm into this country like ants at a picnic.

if a male, who happens to be white, holding judeo-christian values is seen/ considered the ultimate disgrace and the great satan by much of the world and much of the US. too bad its that person who created the world's biggest super-power, the US.

check out the book:

Civil War 2, by thomas Chittum

"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

-George Washington

Here's a question. How many forces would be needed in Darfur? Is the US military the only option for doing this unilaterally? (Or could say Canada just send over a bunch of forces on its own, say).

It seems like the problem is people talk about the UN coming in or NATO for that mtter, but that involves a ton of countries coming to consensus to send in troops (the more countries involved the harder to come to agreement) or in practicality the US military bringing in the manpower and other countries providing support.

I think Chinese petroleum companese do a lot of business in Sudan but regardless of this fact, I've never heard of China doing a humanitarian intervention. The Russians don't seem to do them either (just going down the military's that might have the power to go it alone). So does that mean it's a no go unless the US gets involved?

Look at Somlia, the Ethiopians, just ran over that place (although I understand ethiopia has a very strong army). Now perhaps it would require more force to maintain order long term but how many forces would be needed in the Sudan? It's easy to talk about going in there in the abstract, but what does it require in terms of forces (it must be a decent amount of troops and $$$$ or someone could have done it a long time ago).

As much as I would like the US to intervene in Darfur, my best guess based on history is that, we would be painted as hypocrites for stopping an Islamic genocide perpetrated on Christians, while ignoring Israel's blatant intrusions into Lebanon and Palestine. At least, that's what Jimmy Carter would have everyone believe. The US is in a no win situation, and the rest of the world doesn't care. Where is Russia and China? Where is NATO? Again, not enough potential reward for the risk involved. For which the US will conveniently take the blame.

I'll try to answer these questions:

# of forces required:

- Probably 25-30K with a Chapter VII or comparable (peace enforcement) mandate to do it right. Currently the AU mission has 7,000 troops on the ground in Darfur operating in (I think) 7 or 8 sectors. Some of the African contributing militaries are fairly competent and well behaved (South Africa, Nigeria) and some are horrible. The AU force has no peace enforcement mandate. They are essentially observers who patrol outside their encampments during the day and lock down at night. They can only use force in self defense. They are poorly resourced and funded.

- The AU itself was very reluctant to concede that a bigger, better funded UN force is necessary. Darfur is the first AU mission and they really don't want to admit failure. There is a strong sentiment in Addis that Africans need to solve African problems. If a UN force ever does get into Darfur, many of the African troops will remain and just be rehatted under UN command.

- The U.S. is not the only country who can provide troops. In fact, the AU would prefer to keep the troop contribution largely African, using NATO countries largely for logistical, financial, and air support. People are concerned that a U.S. or western presence on the ground could become a Jihadi lightening rod.

- No one can send forces right now because the Sudanese government has not agreed to a UN force and the UN is unable to get a UNSCR with a Chapter VII mandate. Thus, there is no international legal authorization for UN intervention. The issue is not troop contributors - there are plenty of countries that will pony up. The issue is getting a peace enforcement mandate. The DPA is essentially defunct. The militias need to be forced to disarm and comply.

China:

- The Chinese have been essentially non players in international peacekeeping, although that's starting to change. They have signed numerous deals with the Sudanese goverfnment concerning oil concessions in the south of Sudan and military equipment for the Sudanese armed forces.

Ethiopia:

- Ethiopia's intervention in Somalia was probably illegal under international law, however a couple things to bear in mind. First, the internationally recognized government in Somalia was the TFG (holed up in Baidoa), not the Islamic Courts Union (ICU). Ethiopia's claim is that they intervened on behalf of the TFG. Also, Ethiopia claimed the ICU was a direct threat to their sovereignty, therefore they intervened under Article 51 of the UN Charter (Right to Self Defense). The U.S., in part, used the same rationale in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

- Sudan is a different story because the government in Khartoum is the internationally recognized government and a formal member of the African Union. African countries are luke warm about supporting a UNSCR that authorizes a CH VII intervention into a fellow AU state because almost every African nation has its own internal ethnic problems. No one wants to set a precedent for uninvited intervention.

Not another liberal schmuck wrote:

As much as I would like the US to intervene in Darfur, my best guess based on history is that, we would be painted as hypocrites for stopping an Islamic genocide perpetrated on Christians, while ignoring Israel's blatant intrusions into Lebanon and Palestine. At least, that's what Jimmy Carter would have everyone believe. The US is in a no win situation, and the rest of the world doesn't care. Where is Russia and China? Where is NATO? Again, not enough potential reward for the risk involved. For which the US will conveniently take the blame.

Most of the Fir and Zarghawa people in Darfur are not Christian. They are Muslim too. Or animist. The Christians in Sudan are largely in the south (different war).

The Darfur conflict is largely ethnic, not religious. The Fir and Zarghawa are black Africans. The Sudanese government is dominated by Arabs. Arabs in Sudan largely view black African Muslims as not being true, pure Muslims because they mix animist traditions in with the faith. The Janjaweed are Arab nomadic tribes used to 'cleanse' Darfur of black Africans.

RunDaddy wrote:

- No one can send forces right now because the Sudanese government has not agreed to a UN force and the UN is unable to get a UNSCR with a Chapter VII mandate. Thus, there is no international legal authorization for UN intervention. The issue is not troop contributors - there are plenty of countries that will pony up. The issue is getting a peace enforcement mandate. The DPA is essentially defunct. The militias need to be forced to disarm and comply.

It's a genocide. Seems to be enough reason for me. I think it shows the problem that getting the UN to agree on anything is. Plus with Security Council Members having a veto, you can't do anything that offends 5 countries. So in essence the UN agrees to almost nothing involving the use of force. So saying something dosn't have UN approval doesn't necessarily mean its a bad thing. Serbia was a NATO intervention not UN (and my friend from Yugoslavia was upset we bombed his country so there are two sides to the coin).

So are the AU troops doing really anything productive? I don't understand the point of them being there if they can't intervene.

As for Sudan being an internationlly recognized government and not wanting to intervene, I think that is a bad argument. Nazi Germany was an official government. Just because you are the official government does not make you good or bad. At some point, absolute morality comes into play. Sure the African countries don't want to set the precedent of outsiders intervening militarily but genocide is genocide. I assume if you come in and stop the genocide, the government has to go?

wejo wrote:At some point, absolute morality comes into play.

Whose morality? Yours? Mine? Idid Amin's? Pat Buchanan's?

wejo, there's no such thing as absolute morality.. What's perfectly acceptable to one person will, without doubt, offend some others.

On Nazi Germany, nobody intervened until Hitler had been "appeased" past the polite limit. Sudan is an internal affair. You say genocide, they say internal housekeeping.

I would like to add much more, but gotta go for a meeting. Don't delete the thread, OK?

it depends how you define..... wrote:

Similarly, no oil in Darfur. And of course, very few whites. No reason for the US to go to the mat for them. But it might be good for a sound bite in a speech.....

No oil in Darfur? Why do you think people are being ruthlessly slaughtered or removed from their homeland? The Chinese goverment has no problem importing this oil either.

Exactly. Sudan has plenty of oil. Isn't it so utterly ironic that all of the fanatical theocratic Islamic regimes sit on top of the blood that greases the world economy? This has nothing to do with the US. Like it or not, if the US sneezes, the world still catches a cold. Globalization is happening, progress is happening, and the world is becoming inextricably linked. No matter how you ultimately think foreign policy should be conducted, there is no easy, diplomatic solution.

And the biggest hypocrisy of all is that these fanatical Muslims resent Westernization (aka globalization and progress), but they sure don't have any problem exploiting Western technology to pull oil out of the ground and to conduct terror attacks around the world, technology without which they would be utterly helpless.

wejo wrote:

So are the AU troops doing really anything productive? I don't understand the point of them being there if they can't intervene.

So they can be seen as doing something without really doing something?

No country is really going to want to 'do something' because that would entail putting their own troops in harms way. They'll take casualties, retaliate in some fashion and get dragged into a bigger mess. Most of these AU troops are not as highly trained or equipped as regular forces from Western nations.

I assume if you come in and stop the genocide, the government has to go?

This still though doesn't really answer the question of how do you 'stop the genocide'. It's a nice idea in theory, but what exactly does it take in terms of manpower, equipment and logistics to separate and disarm various warring factions/militias/government forces?

it depends how you define..... wrote:

I love the fact that it was mentioned now - how many years too late to really staunch much of the harm...

The US still doesn't care that Turkey denies the Ottoman Empire's genocide of the Armenians before WWI. Turkey is now a very valuable ally and Armenia means nothing, so no action. Can you imagine the US cozying up to a country that denied the Holocaust publicly and vehemently?!?!?

Similarly, no oil in Darfur. And of course, very few whites. No reason for the US to go to the mat for them. But it might be good for a sound bite in a speech.....

Not sure why the rest of the world is so silent as well. Very sad.

Don't forget the denial of the Russian Holocaust. Most people have never heard of it because the children and grandchildren of the perps actually control most of what goes into textbooks today. Look up Lazar Kaganovich, and look into his reasons for doing it. The victims were all whites, and that was the intention. So the argument about 'whites' being few in Darfur doesn't cut it. It's all about who is 'supposed' to be regarded as victims, who is supposed to get special treatment, who is supposed to be allowed to hide behind problems from the past they no longer encounter today.