Posted on 07/11/2006 6:42:46 AM PDT by BerlinStrausbaugh
The world seems to be turning away from the refugees of Darfur — but the United Nations has a duty to act.
A COUNTDOWN of less than 90 days has begun until the vulnerable people of Darfur are abandoned by world leaders who cannot make a decision — whether to protect them or leave them at the mercy of a Government that has killed at least a quarter of a million and driven millions more from their land. The scene is set for the world’s worst humanitarian crisis to tip from bad to worse.
The head of the African Union mission to Darfur, Baba Gana Kingibe, has said it is willing to hold the fort in Darfur until the end of the year. But if there is no date soon for the UN to deploy troops in Darfur, then the African Union mission will not wait; the 7,000 African soldiers will be pulled out on September 30.
For the past three years the Government of Sudan has supported its proxy, the Janjaweed Arab militia, to perform a brutal genocidal operation closely backed by Sudanese forces. Darfur Africans cannot farm for fear of attack. No harvests mean that more than three million are dependent on international food aid. In the absence of the African Union and with no certainty that the UN will protect them, a few million hungry people will predictably turn to the only forces showing an interest in their survival — one of several rebel factions.
The Government of Sudan has probably calculated that, by playing for time, the rebel groups will attempt to provide protection for their own people. An escalation of fighting will prevent access for aid agencies and the media, and Khartoum will have the excuse it needs for a resumption of air attacks on Darfuris.
The Janjaweed leaders have had time to reflect that they have not achieved their mission to rid Darfur of black Africans. The onslaught by the mounted militia three years ago led to thousands of villages being burnt. Their aim of destroying the Darfuris will be easier now that two million people are congregated into refugee camps because they will argue that, as the camps are recruitment grounds for rebels, they are legitimate targets.
Neutralisation of the Janjaweed is a key rebel demand — indeed the Government of Sudan has been responsible for disarming them for two years. But Khartoum’s broken promises leave a legacy of mistrust. By giving the Janjaweed free rein, the Government goads the rebels into not taking peace seriously. Furthermore, many rebels are not satisfied that the peace agreement reverses the underlying problems in Darfur.
Genocide is the extreme end of a process that starts with social, political and economic exclusion of a group from society. The Darfur peace agreement still deprives Darfur Africans of significant political representation, thereby maintaining their exclusion. It is hardly a wonder, then, that two of the three rebel factions have not signed up to it, and that the third is threatening to pull out unless the UN deploys in Darfur.
The UN Secretary-General is visibly frustrated, especially with the powerful nations of the world. “A certain political will is required for action — and I don’t think we have that kind of political will,” Kofi Annan stated last week at the African Union summit in Gambia. Political will may only be induced if the public demand that their leaders protect Darfur.
After Iraq, there is a fear of deploying forces in another Muslim nation, even though this would be a humanitarian intervention with no agenda other than protecting people from genocide. However, if we dither much longer, there will be charges that vulnerable Muslims in Darfur are being neglected just as the Muslims in Bosnia were abandoned a decade ago.
The UN estimates that 17,000 troops are required to provide security and, even if they can be found, will take six months to become operational. Denmark, while president of the UN Security Council last month, showed leadership and offered troops for Darfur. Other countries should now follow. The 7,000 African soldiers already on the ground will be needed. Even though Britain is overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, it should offer assistance.
The success of a UN mission will be judged first on whether food aid reaches those who need it; secondly on whether rape and violence ends; and finally by a reversal of the ethnic cleansing, returning people to villages in safety.
To achieve this, the mission must have a strong enough mandate. Most peace-support operations are under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This will allow them to disarm and, if necessary, engage the Janjaweed. It would be preferable, and in everyone’s interests, for the Sudanese Government to co-operate. So far though, Khartoum has categorically rejected UN intervention, calling it colonial invasion. Sudan cannot have it both ways: they have not stopped the violence, yet they don’t want an outside force to do it.
At the World Summit in September 2005, leaders declared that “The international community . . . has the responsibility . . . to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” They also stated: “We are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner . . . should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations.”
Peaceful means are clearly inadequate and the national authorities in Sudan are manifestly failing to protect their populations. With time ticking toward a disaster that could dwarf the 1994 carnage in Rwanda, the UN Security Council must fulfil its duty and exercise its authority to sanction the deployment of a protection force, with or without Sudan’s consent.
Which they were happy to do.
I thought some Hollywood-head took care of this mess.............
The United States will never do anything about the Sudan.
1. Democrats will do nothing because victims are Christians and the main aggressors are Muslim Arabs.
2. Republicans will do nothing militarily because of the drubbing they are now taking from the press and Democrats for freeing 25 million people in Iraq.
"Ask yourself: What would I have said had I been there more than 60 years ago, had I seen 11 million children, women, men - Jews and others - being herded into Hitler's gas chambers or fed into his ovens? What would I have done?"
I would have sent them guns and taught them how to use them. The German WWII army was never larger than 3 million soldiers.
Regards,
2banana
This shows the bankruptcy of the UN. We cannot get anything through the UN Security Council because China and other members of the UNSC, have economic interests with the sudanese. Financial considerations seem to trump humanitarian or genocidal issues almost every time. There is genocide going on in Darfur and the UN will not do anything seriously about it. If the US doesn't act unilaterally, the genocide more than likely will continue.
The UN is too busy screwing up the world and, especially, the United States.
They're lining their pockets with money and living like royalty.
I think it only fair that the UN be moved out of the United States and into a third world country where the fat paychecks they receive could help that local economy and much of their "goodness" would rub off on the local ruling potentates.
Zimbabwe would be a great choice.
History is repeating itself in the Sudan.
The British Ignored it too back in the 1860's, to their everlasting shame and damnation. Once they finally reacted, it was too little too late and were presented with disaster after disaster until they finally pulled their heads out of their ****'s.
sorry, may not have been the 1860's, 1800's tho.
Why don't the people
of Sudan solve this themselves?
That is, why don't they
fight for their freedom
and either kill everyone
that's oppressing them
or all die trying?
Either way, the problem's solved
and solved on their own.
The United States should be ashamed. What are we doing? We have force and we have pull. How are we using it? Hitler could have done no worse than these people. We regret not helping the jews. We will be forever damned for repeating history.
Shameful at best. Criminal at worst.
Quote from above poster
">do anything about the Sudan
Why don't the people
of Sudan solve this themselves?
That is, why don't they
fight for their freedom
and either kill everyone
that's oppressing them
or all die trying?
Either way, the problem's solved
and solved on their own."
Perhaps you sould REWORD that
>do anything about the JEWS
Why don't the JEWS solve this themselves?
That is, why don't they
fight for their freedom
and either kill everyone
that's oppressing them
or all die trying?
Either way, the problem's solved
and solved on their own.
[laughs] Where'd that come from?
Excuse me, Adolf, (Abdul?),
but I don't hear Jews
begging the UN
for troops. And I don't hear Jews
blaming the whole world
for making their mess.
(Hell, it's the rest of the world
forever begging
Israel to show
"restraint" that prolongs their mess.)
It's a Sudan thread.
Your bizarre attempt
to convolute the issue
says stuff about you.
Seriously though, I thank you for posting it. I was just commenting on the headline that seems to be 40+ years out of date.
The people of the Sudan ARE solving it by themselves by preying on weak and outgunned sections of their society. Their solution is to kill all the Christian men by day and rape all their women by night.
The problem is a government that is content to let the factions who want to do this have fun.
The sections being preyed upon don't have the weapons, support, manpower, or food enough to stand up to the others. And there is oil land near at hand. No one except those who dislike genocide done against those who don't have the means to stand up for themselves care. They go through the motions of making cease fires, but it's more to keep the international community off their backs a bit and help smooth the money flow.
And it is young muslim men doing this to non-muslims, so the Islamic community doesn't say a word...
There is an object lesson here: don't let your enemies outgun you.
I haven't been there,
but my cynical thoughts are
both the north and south
tribes people involved
are neither really Muslims
nor Christians, rather
"simply" African
tribes people politically
lumped in Western groups
("Muslim" or "Christian")
for political reasons.
My cynical guess
is I wouldn't want
the Muslims nor the Christians
as my inlaws, and,
frankly, the whole globe
would continue to spin if
they all disappeared.
If half disappear,
that's a real politick step
geopolitics
should take in stride and
go tisk-tisk about but not
get worked up about.
In the 30's and
40's, however, the Jews
were not tribes people
driven by hatreds
and the real politick of
the Holocaust made
geopolitics
much more complicated and
demanded action.
You do know that the people of Darfur are overwhelmingly (95%) Muslim, right? The Islamic community in Darfur is obviously against the genocide in Darfur. As are the Muslims in Chad, Uganda, Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon, Mali, Senegal, etc.
The problem is a government that is content to let the factions who want to do this have fun.
The problem is that the government has been illicitly supplying the Janjaweed militias with weapons and tacitly encouraging their genocidal killing.
if that is the case, what are we saying "never again" to when we say "never again"?
40's, however, the Jews
were not tribes people
driven by hatreds
Of course they weren't. The Germans were driven by hatreds. They Jews were killed by them.
Never again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.