Will We Really Let The Sudan Suffer?

Politics International Politics
41

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Here’s a question for Fred and Tigerman:

If it’s true that George Bush is doing more to help in Sudan than Kofi Annan, is that because Dubya is a more compassionate person?[/quote]

Then why aren’t the EU and UN doing anything?

Well, assuming (not agreeing) Bush’s sole reason for helping in the Sudan is political, what then is the EU and UN excuse for not helping?

There is no proof that Bush lied. And in three of the four most important polls, Bush leads Kerry this week.

I believe it as much as I believe Democratic politicians really care about the plight of the poor in the US… i.e., It seems to me that the only reason Democratic politicians care about and defend social programs that have proven to be failures, such as welfare, are that such failed programs boost their popularity among an ignorant portion of our populace that is sometimes prone to slaughtering each other.

42

butcher boy’s correct. I was wrong. Darfur is a muslim-on-muslim conflict. I’ve been following this issue on the BBC since last month and the first reports I read there identified the victims as animist and Christian.

spook

43

MT:

I never said that Bush was a great humanitarian. I believe that he has true convictions which I cannot say for Clinton or Kerry or the UN or the French etc. unless you count personal greed and corruption as convictions.

My point is that we acted in Iraq for strategic reasons and we did so in Afghanistan but considering that both of these had extensive humanitarian benefits I have to wonder why the Left is so opposed to these two actions? Does the Left not have an understanding of what it espouses any more. I never said we should go into these conflicts ONLY for humanitarian reasons but given that these two nations have benefited what’s the big beef from the Left?

I am wary (that is me personally) about risking American lives for failed states like Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan or Haiti unless there are pressing strategic interests at stake. I notice that the Left does not film bodies returning home from these “policing” ventures. I am sure that some have died in Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti but do we see the big media productions of these things? Do we hear about abuse from UN and European forces in these regions. Sometimes but never in the grand Abu Ghraib scale. Why not? Because most of the media agreed with these efforts but did not agree with Iraq and it taints their coverage.

44

Well it seems that the US and the UNSC maybe about to sing off the same hymn sheet on this one, at least according to Colin Powell.

[quote]US Secretary of State Colin Powell has warned Sudan to end attacks by Arab militia in Darfur which are accused of creating a humanitarian crisis.
The UN Security Council could act if violence continued in the region where about one million people have fled their homes, he said in Khartoum. [/quote]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3849593.stm

spook

I cheated a little bit. My dad’s been doing mission surgery there for a few years and I know they prefer him not to come during Ramadan. Not eating all day doesn’t go well with his Scottish ‘I’m going to be in the operating theatre 12hrs a day seven days a week even if it kills the staff’ attitude. My work ethic is sadly at the other extreme. :wink:

45

butcher boy,

The UNSC could have acted in Iraq many times during the 12 years that Saddam’s regime was in continuous noncompliance with the 17 UNSC resolutions against Iraq.

Let’s hope for the sake of the poor Sudanese that the UNSC acts a bit more quickly and decisevely and effectively, this time.

46

Tigerman:

I agree 100 percent, even if Mother Theresa and Rascal don’t care about the Sudanese. BUT this time, it must be a universal effort. We should expect to contribute a share of the troops but not the vast majority. Let France and Germany and Belgium and India and China and Russia and Bangladesh ALL send troops and contribute money. It is clear that all of these nations are keen to play more of a policeman’s role. I say give it to them. Let them put their money where their mouths are. What do you think Rascal? Mother Theresa. After all, you are the ones who claim to be interested and consumed by innocent civilian deaths, wailing women, screaming children, barking dogs, meowing kittens and chirping birds. So where are you? What’s your plan? Where’s your concern? hahahahahaha

47

Mother Terrasa wrote:

Absolutely.

Trouble is, the US and the EU are in a round about way using Sudan in the same way as people are on this forum.

Very sad.

48

[quote=“Jasper”]… the US and the EU are in a round about way using Sudan in the same way as people are on this forum.

Very sad.[/quote]

Explain.

49

Jasper the US has sent US$200 million dollars and the EU US$10 million. We have troops in Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. etc. all on peacekeeping assignments. What about Europe? A few French in Cote d’Ivoire, a few more in Congo, and even some in Haiti, and the British are in Sierra Leone and Iraq and Afghanistan but what about the rest? Germany has 80 million people nearly 30 percent of America’s population. So where is its similar level of commitment. France has 60 which is 22.5 percent of America’s, where is its level of commitment. Japan has 120 million which is nearly 40 percent of America’s population and where are its troops. China has 4 times the American population while Indian is 3.5 times bigger but where or where are their troops. We can bitch all we want amongst ourselves but given America’s frequent and generous contributions, shouldn’t we wonder why others cannot even do something small and minor like this? Where’s the UN leadership that posters like Rascal seem to crave? Where oh where is it? Where was it in Rwanda? Congo? Afghanistan before?

AND we stopped the civil war that had been raging for 21 years in the south. What have the Europeans done? Hmmm?

50

[quote=“fred smith”]
AND we stopped the civil war that had been raging for 21 years in the south. What have the Europeans done? Hmmm?[/quote]

I just wonder where the SPLA got all those M16’s from? I just wonder How much being supplied with these weapons emboldened John Garang to fight for independence for the south when he had already been given a high degree of autonomy? I believe you are correct in saying Europe did not do much much to prevent the civil war in which over two million people died directly or as the result of war-induced famine but neither did the United States. However, whereas Europe did nothing, the United States perpetuated the war by choosing it as a proxy to fight what it perceived to be a hard-line Islamic government in Khartoum. However, pre-9/11, Sudan had already expelled Osama bin laden and had provided British and US Intelligence agencies with valuable information regarding his whereabouts. That help is only now being appreciated. In return for aid and recognition (recently taken off the A-list of countries that sponsor terrorism), Khartoum and the SPLA were pushed together and compelled to do a deal. No more arms to the SPLA in return for Khartoum’s return to the 1983 accord granting autonomy to the largely Animist and in small part Christian south and no reprisals. It saves face for the west/SPLA and Khartoum embarks on the road to acceptability…easy. However, between 1983 and 2004, over two million people were killed and atrocities committed by both government and SPLA troops, child soldiers abounded on both sides and the death from war-induced famine and disease is staggering. All the while, nice new M16’s just kept on rolling in. No, Europe did not stop the civil war but it most certainly didn’t keep it going to play a dirty little war at somebody else’s expense. And for what? Have a guess? That’s right, it’s the same old story…oil.

51

Broon Ale:

That is your interpretation. I would suggest that you back up your assertions with proof. Got anything on this Sudan conflict and how the USA was responsible for stoking it? And try to avoid anything from zmag.org and world socialist workers. I stopped reading them after the last predictions of 7 million refugees in Afghanistan (2 million have returned) and 2 million refugees OR MORE!!! in Iraq (1.5 million have returned).

So what do you have? Hmmm?

52

I believe Japan has constitutional issue regarding the use of it’s troops overseas.

[quote]
So where are you? What’s your plan? Where’s your concern? hahahahahaha[/quote]

now you would have to accept that this turn of phrase you have suggests (maybe incorrectly) that you’re interest in Sudan has more to do with scoring points against Europe etc than it does with concern for the plight of the Sudanese.

53

I erred slightly in my chronology: Washington backed Nimeiry up to 1985 supplying him with US$1.5 billion in aid in 1983 which was used by Nimeiry to arm against Libya. Nimeiry became reckless and funnelled some of this into waging war in the South. As his problems mounted and despite an attempt to bail him out by Reagan to the tune of US$67 million, Nimeiry was ousted in an uprising by the army in 1985 and after elections Sadiq al-Mahdi became president. However he turned a blind eye to the suffering in the South and as the government in Khartoum became increasingly Islamic, the US armed the SPLA in earnest, hoping that the SPLA would hasten the downfall of Sadiq and Sudan could again become a major CIA base for operations against Ghaddafi. So, it transpires that since 1983, the US has played an integral part in perpetuationg Sudan’s Civil War on both sides, first by arming Nimeiry and using the Sudan as a base for covert operations against Libya and African countries allied to the then USSR and then, when those priveleges are about to be lost, switching sides and backing the SPLA against and Islamic regime in Khartoum. This was a proxy war waged by the United States as it sought to use, and once lost, regain a foothold in Africa to combat communist influence in the horn of Africa (Mengistu’s Ethiopia).

Don’t deny this Fred, the US has a lot of blood on its hands in Sudan, and though Europe did not do anything to stop it, its hand are most definitely cleaner.

54

I’d join a [color=blue]Coalition of the Willing to Stop This[/color] in a heartbeat. Trouble is, the only Coalition around is the usual [color=blue]Coalition of the Willing to Watch and Do Nothing[/color]:

"An increasingly dire situation in Darfur in western Sudan has devolved into the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, according to international observers. Human Rights Watch reports that more than 1 million people have been displaced from their homes and are living in disease-ridden camps. Another 110,000 have fled to neighboring Chad. Hundreds of thousands of people are threatened by starvation, and as many as 30,000 people have already died in Darfur in the past 16 months. . .

If the situation persists, the U.S. Agency for International Development estimates that at least 350,000 people will die of disease and malnutrition. . .

The government-backed groups are known in Arabic as “Janjaweed,” which means “men who ride horses and carry G3 guns.” The Janjaweed terrorize Africans, destroying villages, killing and maiming men, ransacking food supplies and blocking international assistance. . .

A U.N. report accuses local government leaders of instituting a policy of “forced starvation” that simultaneously has government officials denying problems with food distribution while militias prevent food delivery.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20765-2004Jul1.html

[color=blue]This is all man-made – a repressive Arab government in Khartoum orchestrating the slaughter of its own people with wanton cruelty. Somehow I can’t imagine Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney losing any sleep over this though and yet people wonder why we call them bone-headed hypocrites when they yammer on about liberating the Iraqi people from torture and murder.

I often think the solution to problems like these – wanton acts of genocide which require decisive, rapid reaction – is for the U.S. to start an all-volunteer “Peace Corps” composed of fit, militarily trained people of any nationality ready to step in and protect the innocent on a day or two’s notice anywhere in the world. All reservists with regular day jobs. 10,000 or so strong.

Fred, pack your bags. We’re going to the Sudan to save a little piece of this world for real. [/color]

55

Spook:

Speaking of yammering. Remember we went into Iraq for strategic reasons first. The humanitarian side is just an added plus and one that should have silenced our many leftie critics. I think that we should go into the Sudan but who is going to pay? It cannot be always the US and for those that were bleating about unilateralism, here’s a perfect case in point about why the US got fed up with dithering at the UN. Here you go UN supporters. Rascal where are you? This is your perfect case for a UN led intervention. Where the fuck is the UN? What’s it doing? The US already negotiated an end to the civil war in the South, do we get any credit for that unilaterial guntoting cowboy action? Hmmm?

56

[quote=“fred smith”]Spook:

Speaking of yammering. Remember we went into Iraq for strategic reasons first. The humanitarian side is just an added plus and one that should have silenced our many leftie critics. I think that we should go into the Sudan but who is going to pay? It cannot be always the US and for those that were bleating about unilateralism, here’s a perfect case in point about why the US got fed up with dithering at the UN. Here you go UN supporters. Rascal where are you? This is your perfect case for a UN led intervention. Where the fuck is the UN? What’s it doing? The US already negotiated an end to the civil war in the South, do we get any credit for that unilaterial guntoting cowboy action? Hmmm?[/quote]

You helped fucking start the bloody civil war in the first place Fred!!! That is a matter of record not interpretation. Heaven forbid your role in the Sudan might not be lily-white. You have judiciously avoided acknowledging my post and have tried to go off on a bloody tangent…again!

57

Just wait Broon ale. I can feel that explanantion about why they were perfectly justified in in helping to start it coming any minute now. Probably to contain the words Islamofascist, commi, strategic reallities of the time, europe worse :wink:

58

[quote=“fred smith”]Jasper the US has sent US$200 million dollars and the EU US$10 million. We have troops in Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. etc. all on peacekeeping assignments. What about Europe? A few French in Cote d’Ivoire, a few more in Congo, and even some in Haiti, and the British are in Sierra Leone and Iraq and Afghanistan but what about the rest? Germany has 80 million people nearly 30 percent of America’s population. So where is its similar level of commitment. France has 60 which is 22.5 percent of America’s, where is its level of commitment. Japan has 120 million which is nearly 40 percent of America’s population and where are its troops. China has 4 times the American population while Indian is 3.5 times bigger but where or where are their troops. We can bitch all we want amongst ourselves but given America’s frequent and generous contributions, shouldn’t we wonder why others cannot even do something small and minor like this? Where’s the UN leadership that posters like Rascal seem to crave? Where oh where is it? Where was it in Rwanda? Congo? Afghanistan before?

AND we stopped the civil war that had been raging for 21 years in the south. What have the Europeans done? Hmmm?[/quote]

A few things, the U.S. troop deployment in South Korea and Japan are hardly peacekeeping missions. They are long term military deployments that have held over from the Cold War. China and India are poor, its a tad sanctimonious to ask them to contribute relative to their populations. Also, it was once rumoured several years back, first from a British tabloid and latter on from the rightwing rags worldnetdaily/newsmax that the Chinese had 70 PLA divisions in Sudan. (That is roughly 700,000 troops, about 5 times what America has in Iraq) Of course this wasn’t true but the shrill cries about fifth column troops in Sudan was raised among American conservatives though it died down once they realized how ludicrious the rumour actually was.

Actually I do agree with Fred Smith about the U.N. though for different reasons. The illustrious dream of the U.N., a democracy of nations, is just that, a dream. It ignores the geopolitical reality that the world is not a democracy, but a hierarchy of power. It serves few other purposes than to provide a platform for some sanctimonious wealthy nations to pontificate at their pleasure and to facilitate the expansion of American hegemony via the guise of multilateralism. That is not to say the U.N. is totally useless as it has accomplished several meritorious goals. (UNICEF aid to starving war refugees, etc, etc) However, without the power to support it, the U.N. is hollow.

59

The deployments in Korea are indeed there for peacekeeping and they are holdovers from the very hot Korean War.

How in the name of all that is magnificent did you come to that conclusion? You have it completely bass ackwards.

60

Very well Broon Ale:

I accept the challenge. I seriously doubt that the matter is as cut and dried as you say it is. That is like the generally accepted view that the US was responsible for overthrowing Allende in Chile and installing Pinochet. We will see.

Interesting discussion about arming countries. I fail to find any trace of your prodigious posting about the fact that France, Germany, Russia and others armed Iraq to the teeth, but I hear a lot from similarly weakminded Leftie protesters about the US “arming” Saddam and how he was “our man.” Hah!

Give me the weekend to find out more about your allegations. Who knows, you may be partially right in that we may have sold weapons to Sudan, but I want to find out more about the threat from Libya, but I seriously doubt that the US was arming Sudan because it wanted to see the government oppress its people and start this civil war.