# Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread



## SFontaine

What do you all think of the situation in Sudan? What do you think oughta be done?

Personally I'm sick of the world ignoring Africa. We took action in Somalia back in the early 1990s and did a lot of good there until the UN pulled out, shortly followed by the US (******* Clinton).


----------



## Armymedic

Without the current war on Terrorism, the western world would be more attuned to whats going on there. No doubt Somalia and Rwanada has a lot to do with the western powers not going in, but what of other African or Asian nations starting the UN efforts? Does it always require a NATO country to start the ball rolling?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think a new way of thinking has to be done so as to allow a country to help itself.


----------



## 291er

Canada is sending less than 10 ppl, mostly staff officers with SHIRBRIG HQ next month to Sudan.  It is called Op Safari, I know this, because I happen to be one of the 10 going.


----------



## Military Brat

CFL said:
			
		

> I think a new way of thinking has to be done so as to allow a country to help itself.



They are beyond that point. There are militias running around in the Sudan, financed by the Sudanese government, that are committing ethnic clensing. The government seems unwilling to stop the genocide and the common people are unable to do it on their own - they need international help to stop the fighting and then to keep the peace. 

Eventually I am sure the Sudanese people will be able to keep their peace by themselves, just like Rwandans do today. But they can't defeat bullets and bombs with sticks, rocks and cattle.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think we have stuck our noses in other peoples business far too long.  I know it sounds wrong but if they want their freedom then they need to fight for it then they will appreciate it and won't have anyone else to blame when things aren't so peachy.


----------



## Military Brat

CFL said:
			
		

> I think we have stuck our noses in other peoples business far too long.   I know it sounds wrong but if they want their freedom then they need to fight for it then they will appreciate it and won't have anyone else to blame when things aren't so peachy.



Then we'd need to equip the people of the Sudan with rifles, machine guns, vehicles, planes and the whole bit. These people own nothing but the cattle they raise and the land they live on(which are subsequently stolen by the militias that raid the villages).

I think it would be looked down upon around the world if we were to start arming 'civilians' with lethal weaponry. Rather armed forces should win their country back for them and then train and teach them in order for them to become proficient in defending their country, and keeping the peace. The French didn't win back their freedom on their own in World War 2, neither did the Italians, or the Japanese, or the Germans. The people of all these countries seem very appreciative of the freedom and peace they live in.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

No weapons, no food.  What we give them is the know how to make food, how to police themselves, how to heal themselves.  All with their own people in all the subsequent roles.  Then forbid these new framers, doctors, teachers from practicing anywhere but their homeland for 10 years.  Give them discounts on seed, equipment etc.  They need tractors, set up a factory that makes tractors etc. run by their own people.  Ultimate goal= self sufficiency.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

As for rebels and killing, well when the majority of the populace regardless of who poor will set things right.  Until then we sit back and try to get all the parties talking.  If you want peace keepers send in countries from around the outlining area's.


----------



## SFontaine

Africa isn't exactly modern, peacekeeping central.


----------



## winchable

They've been trying to make All of Africa Self-Sufficient since the era of Post-Colonialism was ushered in, not just the Sudan.
This kind of Grassroots approach takes a great deal of time, but it is starting to turn a few places around.
There are a few notable cases where LARGE attempts were made to modernise, but most failed, not because of the people invovled but because of the logisitcs.
There was one incedent where HUGE quantities of cement hardened in the hold of a ship while it was waiting to be unloaded, the port just couldn't handle the amount that was needed.
Unfortunately with Africa there are many, many factors (tribes, languages, cultures) Africa wasn't carved up into countries with any of these things in mind.


----------



## McG

SFontaine said:
			
		

> Africa isn't exactly modern, peacekeeping central.


Africa has several countries with a long history of peacekeeping.  If you look at the missions in the DRC or Sierra Leon, you will find a significant proportion of the contingent forces are from Africa.


----------



## Military Brat

CFL said:
			
		

> As for rebels and killing, well when the majority of the populace regardless of who poor will set things right.   Until then we sit back and try to get all the parties talking.   If you want peace keepers send in countries from around the outlining area's.



What are they going to set them straight with? Sticks and rocks? These people are running around with assault rifles and the whole nine yards raiding villages, burning homes down, stealing crops and cattle and raping women. I am sure if the people of said villages had the means to defend themselves they would - rather than just fleeing their livelihoods for refugee camps in Chad where even food isn't guarenteed. 

I think it is a right of every human being on the face of this earth to live in peace, security and freedom - when those rights aren't met I think that civilized nations who are able to help have a moral responsibility to ensure said right. If the Sudanese government is unable or unwilling to maintain the peace, maybe it's time for the international community to step in on behalf of the people being terrorized by the armed militias.


----------



## nULL

I hate to agree with MB, but he's right. The militias that are going around use Russian built cargo planes to drop huge bombs on these villages before the light fighters come in to kill the men and boys and rape the women. It certainly seems a more worthy cause than keeping the leader of Kabul in "power", or maintaining the peace in Haiti. Assuming the logistics were in place for the CF to actually play a role, it would be a shame to do nothing.  

EDIT: Aren't these situations precisely what the airborne were tasked to deal with?


----------



## Pugnacious

I remember one night last year not being able to sleep so I tuned into athe BBC news channel..BIG MISTAKE. 
They were running a documentry about one of the many "African hot spots".

They had a camera man In the field with a "militia", as this group of thugs went about Murdering, Raping, ransacking looting and pillaging a village with the local police desperately fighting back.   

Which led to a a situation caught on tape that they (the BBC) partily   'fuzzed out' was the militia hunting police, and one police officer was mortaly wounded (well no hospital nearby, and nobody taking him there), the militia stood around sharpening their knives on the ground in front of him   while he slowly bled to death, and then they cut him open, and ate his Liver, and Heart...right in front of the BBC camera. 

This is the primitive BS, and low regard for human life we would have to deal with, and IMHO, and adding my voice to what SFontaine said... IMHO this is what I'd say is beyond any 'peacekeeping' level to fix. 

UHG!
P.


----------



## McG

nULL said:
			
		

> It certainly seems a more worthy cause than keeping the leader of Kabul in "power", or maintaining the peace in Haiti.


We cannot leave these countries until the work is done (DDR, elections, and stabilization of government institutions & authority).  To leave as soon as fighting stops will only have set the conditions for fighting to resume.


----------



## McG

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> This is the primitive BS, and low regard for human life we would have to deal with, and IMHO, and adding my voice to what SFontaine said... IMHO this is what I'd say is beyond any 'peacekeeping' level to fix.


Don't you think it is a bit arrogant to paint all of Africa based on one shot of video?  Do you even recall where in Africa it was filmed?


----------



## SFontaine

Unless I'm mistaken I do believe Pugnacious meant the Militias, and not all of Africa.

I swear to God. We as a civilized Western nation ought to do something about this garbage. I mean the US could field a Marine Expeditionary Unit, and we could prolly send over a Batallion of the PPCLI or RCR or something. Get our men in there, clean up the militia scum and give those people their lives back. These days the reaction the world has to these things is a "Meh" and perhaps the passing of a UN Resolution condemning it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Its nice that you are volunteering the USMC when the US military is having manning problems of its own and do you think the PPCLI and RCRs have done enough? We just don't have the guys, you have to learn that!


----------



## Military Brat

SFontaine said:
			
		

> I swear to God. We as a civilized Western nation ought to do something about this garbage. I mean the US could field a Marine Expeditionary Unit, and we could prolly send over a Batallion of the PPCLI or RCR or something. Get our men in there, clean up the militia scum and give those people their lives back. These days the reaction the world has to these things is a "Meh" and perhaps the passing of a UN Resolution condemning it.



Most 'civilized Western nations" are overtasked as it is. The Americans have been calling up hundreds of ex-military personnel who thought their time was up in the Army to go serve a tour of duty in Iraq, Canadian troop deployments are being cut by 75% to give the troops a rest, even the Brits might be forced to disband units due to manning shortages and overdeployment. 

Even if Canada wanted to send a battalion of infantry soldiers, we don't have 'em to send! I'm not an infantry expert but I would suspect an infantry battalion to be close to 1,000 soldiers, maybe more. That is probably just infantry. Then you need the support trades that go along with them, plus the equipment. I believe we have a battalion size deployment of infantry in Kabul right now and we have over 2,000 serving there at the moment. We have neither the troops nor the equipment to sustain such a deployment. Then there is transportation - Canada would need to hitch a ride with an ally most likely. Also to consider is the cost of the day to day operations - probably in the dozens of millions. 

It just ain't going to happen. Something has to be done, but realistically nothing can be done unless some European or African countries step up to the plate, because those are the two continents peacekeepers could realistically come from.


----------



## McG

Military Brat said:
			
		

> even the Brits might be forced to disband units due to manning shortages and overdeployment.


No.   The cut is a financial decision and not a reaction to manpower issues.



			
				Military Brat said:
			
		

> Even if Canada wanted to send a battalion of infantry soldiers, we don't have 'em to send! I'm not an infantry expert but I would suspect an infantry battalion to be close to 1,000 soldiers, maybe more. That is probably just infantry.


You are right, you are no infantry expert.   In a best case senario, your estimate has doubled the number of infantry in a battalion.   A battle group may have more or less infantry than a battalion.


----------



## Pugnacious

McG wrote: 
"Don't you think it is a bit arrogant to paint all of Africa based on one shot of video?   Do you even recall where in Africa it was filmed?"

I was reffering to the Militias ie..roving bands of thugs/brigands doing the dirty work for some bad people in or wanting to be in power.
Which are a common factor in most areas of Africa.

Add a little conflict and the wingnuts come out of the woodworks...Seen this in the Balkans also.

I'd like to know what part of Africa you think is so wonderful, and enriched?
There is lots of conflict in Africa, lots of poverty as well...read a book.

IMHO "Peacekeeping" as the CF does it now would be a 'very' high risk situation for he troops involved.

For the record I believe the BBC doc'  was filmed in the Congo, but I could be mistaken.
Also trust me dude you will know when I get arrogant.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Kirkhill

Any Volunteers?



> from the July 08, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0708/p09s01-coop.html
> 
> Safeguard Darfur refugees with unarmed UN monitors
> By Helena Cobban
> CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. - The actions that government-backed militias in Sudan have taken against the Fur and other black African peoples of the Darfur - "home of the Fur" - region over the past year are truly outrageous. So it's easy to pin bad names on the militias and their government sponsors. What's harder, but more necessary, is crafting an effective international response that can stop the atrocities and help the people of Darfur return home and rebuild their lives in safety.
> 
> Some Americans have advocated a Kosovo-style military intervention. But military action by outsiders hasn't built long-term peace in Kosovo and is even less likely to do so in Darfur. (Also, there is zero prospect of governments contributing troops for such a mission.) We should look instead at an instrument that worked much better than the Kosovo force and adapt it for Darfur: UNMOVIC, the UN's unarmed but well-equipped Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission. It was established to check allegations that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was violating commitments regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
> 
> Those allegations were fairly flimsy; very few were ever proven. But the prospect of the future massive destruction of human lives, should Iraq reacquire WMD, persuaded the Security Council to invest more than $80 million a year in that MOVIC.
> 
> Now, in Darfur, there is solid evidence that 30,000 lives have been lost in recent months. Those losses certainly count as a "massive destruction" of human life. The UN should therefore establish and adequately equip a new MOVIC that would "monitor, verify, and inspect" the Sudanese government's compliance with human rights norms and with the promises it made to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to disarm the militias and return Darfuri refugees home in safety.
> 
> "Returning home in safety" is key. The region's three-month rainy season has just started, making life in the makeshift refugee camps more squalid and hazardous. Risk of waterborne diseases rises daily; starvation looms. With roads washed out, distribution of relief supplies is a logistical nightmare. The US Agency for International Development has forecast that over the next nine months, 30 percent of the people in the camps could die.
> 
> The UN has been coordinating a massive relief operation for the more than 1 million people chased violently out of their homes but still living inside Darfur, and the 130,000 other Darfuri refugees in neighboring Chad. UN humanitarian affairs chief Jan Egeland launched an urgent appeal for helicopters to deliver needed aid. "I am surprised that many countries produce many more resolutions and declarations than actual hardware for our operation," he said Monday.
> 
> The refugees say they want to go home - as soon as they can do so safely. Everyone involved in the relief work agrees that would be the best outcome. Mr. Egeland and others say they hope the refugees can be home planting crops by May or June.
> 
> But safety - and equally important, a solid expectation of safety - is the crucial ingredient. That's where the proposal for a "human rights MOVIC" comes in. Such a team would not - as in Kosovo - use military force to return refugees. Instead, it would form a well-coordinated, highly visible - but unarmed - UN presence in Darfur to monitor the government's implementation of commitments to a province-wide disarmament of militias and the safe return of refugees. So far, the "joint implementation mechanism" agreed between Mr. Annan and the Sudanese government looks far weaker than that. All that it mandates are bimonthly meetings between the UN's chief officer in Sudan and the country's foreign minister.
> 
> In Iraq, by contrast, when the Security Council got serious about Baghdad implementing its WMD commitments, an appropriately serious MOVIC operation was mounted. That operation, at its height, deployed 202 staffers inside Iraq. They had excellent communications gear, capable cars, helicopters, and a fixed-wing airplane. It's true that Hussein stalled for three years before letting that MOVIC in. But Sudan is far weaker than Hussein. If Security Council members stand together, it's unlikely that Sudan would resist for long. Security Council members could start by giving the UN the helicopters it needs to distribute emergency aid in Darfur. That would send one strong signal of commitment.
> 
> The people of Darfur have suffered too long from the failure of their government to exercise basic responsibilities. Now it's time for new ideas and new commitment. A human rights MOVIC would be a good way forward.
> 
> "¢ Helena Cobban is working on a book about violence and its legacies.




Thought not.

Maybe Foreign Affairs or the NGOs can find some.


----------



## McG

UNMOVIC is a bad example.  It would be better to look at MONUC in the Congo.  The military observes can act as a barometer of the local population in a way that contingent troops cannot.  Think of them like community police (or even the NWMP in the old Canadian west) that do not do arrests.  They are an excellent source of HUMINT.  They can investigate complaints, ceasefire violations, human rights violations, and the unusual.  They can provide a link to local authority figures and they know who the authority really is (ie: is it the mayor, the tribe chief, or the medicine man?).

Military observer forces typically work in conjunction with contingent forces.  When the observes get into trouble, or need "a big stick" they have someone to call.  However, the nonthreatening nature of an observer can allow them to get to places that contingent soldiers would not be allowed.

If you do not think the CF has people on these kinds of missions, you should do a search on Op REPTILE, Op CROCODILE, or Op JADE (to name just a few).


----------



## 291er

Correction, I am not going to deploy on OP SAFARI, someone decided to shitcan it at the last second....as per usual
there are now less than 5 Canadian ppl going to Sudan, however, most notably, BGen Greg Mitchell (commander of SHIRBRIG and an RCR infantry officer) will be on the ground, presumably as the deputy commander.


----------



## Kirkhill

291er

Do you know what the terms of the intervention are yet?  Is it an observer mission? Or will SHIRBRIG have a more active role?

I hear that the African Union is also talking about ponying up some troops.


----------



## 291er

More of an observer capabilility, the GoS is hesitant to have any troops at all of course......the AU is sending some 300 troops to theDarfur region, but thats a whole different cup of tea.  Our mission involves strictly the Govt of Sudan (GoS) and the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A).  SHIRBRIG can only have so active a role........don't forget this is a UN mission, hence the ROE's are very complex and complicated. No bang bang sticks authorized for us at this point in the game.....


----------



## Kirkhill

Best of luck to thems as are going.


----------



## Pugnacious

"No bang bang sticks authorized for us at this point in the game....."

Silly question...How are you supposed to protect yourself if the poop hits the fan?

Cheers!
P.


----------



## SFontaine

They'll have UN hats on! We all know the scum of the earth respect that.


----------



## Pugnacious

I couldn't find it again on the military pics board, but there was a report there of a "peacekeeper" killed in Africa not long ago.
Shot in the back by an Africa Guard..for no reason.

P.


----------



## McG

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> I couldn't find it again on the military pics board, but there was a report there of a "peacekeeper" killed in Africa not long ago.
> Shot in the back by an Africa Guard..for no reason.


Again ready to paint all of Africa with one incident?


----------



## 291er

Just a note
Anyone who has an idea of what my trade does must be a little inquisitive and wondering if I broke OPSEC perhaps.
We were going there totally on the books, not doing any spooky stuff.....


----------



## 291er

Pugnacious, 

Supposedly we will have some sort of guards with us....presumedly troops from some other feeder nation of SHIRBRIG.....could be a good thing considering a lot of them have somewhat "looser" RoE's.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

291er said:
			
		

> Just a note
> Anyone who has an idea of what my trade does must be a little inquisitive and wondering if I broke OPSEC perhaps.
> We were going there totally on the books, not doing any spooky stuff.....



I can vouch you never broke OPSEC, so no worries 291er.


----------



## 291er

cheers Ex-Dragoon!


----------



## 291er

Now if anyone wants some really hot stuff on this subject, mull on this.....
Secretary of State Colin Powell visits Sudan at the same time as Secretary General Annan to view the crisis in Darfur.  It came out yesterday that the village they had visited had apparently been "sanitized" by GoS officials and military.  I would suspect that orders for this came from President El-Bashir himself (also an ex-military man who gained power via a coup d'etat).  

The US has been putting intense pressure on the UN Security Council for them to get active in the Sudan and this issue is apparently of personal concern to President Bush.  Mainly, because he feels that the Southern Sudanese (generally represented by the SPLM/A) are Christians fighting against a Govt which wishs to "Islamize" them.  Although the SPLM/A's leader John Garang (Ex-Colonel in the Sudanese Army and by birth a Dinka) is Christian, a great majority of the locals in the South are mainly local indigenous religions.  It's reported that about 5% of the population is actually Christian.

Let's not forget as well that Sudan was known for harbouring terrorists, Usama Bin Laden lived there for a few years, and it was only recently taken off the U.S. "hit list" of such countries including Iran, Syria, etc.  

A few more aspects to this situation.........let's hope it opens up some more discussion   :warstory:

291er sends.....


----------



## SFontaine

Where did you read that? Seems like an attempt to make President Bush look like a religious nut, again.

Oh and McG.. I don't see how you can get that out of Pugnaciou's post. He just mentioned another incident where a UN worker was murdered in Africa. He didn't say "ALL AFRICANS ARE SAVAGE MONSTERS BECAUSE SOME UN WORKER GOT SHOT IN THE BAC"


----------



## McG

SFontaine said:
			
		

> Oh and McG.. I don't see how you can get that out of Pugnaciou's post. He just mentioned another incident where a UN worker was murdered in Africa.


Then why is it relevant to this thread on the Sudan?


----------



## SFontaine

He was pointing out how even if you're in the UN a lot of the Militias in Africa are savages who don't give a crap about you or your organization. These ones in Sudan are undoubtly the same way, considering all the ethnic cleansing and such.


----------



## McG

McG said:
			
		

> SFontaine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and McG.. I don't see how you can get that out of Pugnaciou's post. He just mentioned another incident where a UN worker was murdered in Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is it relevant to this thread on the Sudan?
Click to expand...




			
				SFontaine said:
			
		

> He was pointing out how even if you're in the UN a lot of the Militias in Africa are savages who don't give a crap about you or your organization. These ones in Sudan are undoubtly the same way, considering all the ethnic cleansing and such.



Do you see what you've just written?  You suggest that the quote does not paint all Africans the same, but then justify it being in the thread because it provides a picture of Africans.  You cannot have it both ways.


----------



## SFontaine

No.. 



> Militias in Africa are savages



I do believe I said Militias in Africa. Not average Africans.


----------



## winchable

Alright lads I'd say it's safe to say that you both have good intentions even if you aren't wording it right, and I doubt either of you thinks all Africans are savage, but further debating who is and isn't a racist is another flamewar we won't be needing and not the subject of this thread.


----------



## Pugnacious

McG you are overthinking your imagination, and underthinking the context of the post. So If your trying to imply something about me by reading your own imagination into my posts then I suggest you not waist your time.

SFontaine summed up what I was trying to say very nicely. ;D

But to add IMHO Sudan is a very risky place to do "peacekeeping", as is anywhere the value of human life is considered just above dirt, and the countryside is full of armed militia/bandits that do not care where you come from, or what colour helmet you wear.

I wish good health and safety to our CF that are about to do such dangerious work.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## 291er

SFontaine
It's not propaganda against Bush, it's a matter of fact.   Bush may not be a religious nut, but that is his main reason for backing this particular civil war in Africa.   I don't know where I read it, I read a lot of material on Sudan on a daily basis, and these facts have been reiterated numerous times.
Jimmy Carter also tried to broker a deal between the GoS and SPLM/A in the nineties.   Let's not turn this into a Bush bashing session....it was simply a fact...I make it a point to be well informed on the Sudan...


----------



## devil39

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I think Canada should send "peacekeepers"




I think the US should send "nationbuilders".   Have any of those?   Phase IV of the current operation could probably have benefited from a little more pre-planning.   Then again, I only did my staff training in Canada.

Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map argues that the US should have more nationbuilding ability and start deploying them.   

Have you read the book?   Your time might be better spent as a US Army Major, reading at the strategic level as opposed to trolling on a Canadian Army forum.

I would hope that as a moderator and US Army Major, you might refrain from trolling (and I do believe your comment was a troll).   If it was not a troll, then you have my most sincere apologies.   You may PM me for a civil discussion and a contrite apology if required.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/Opinion/home.html
Was been a bad century, wasn't it.?


----------



## Yard Ape

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> McG you are overthinking your imagination, and underthinking the context of the post. So If your trying to imply something about me by reading your own imagination into my posts then I suggest you not waist your time.
> 
> SFontaine summed up what I was trying to say very nicely.


Pugnacious,
I won't call you racist, because that is not what you are.  However, your gerneralizations show you to be ignorant of the conflict & of Africa.  McG was right to call you on it as what you have done is no different that describing Montreal inorder to prepare Europeans for a trip to Chicago.  Worse, you speak with a level of authority you do not seem to have, have provided irrelevant/innacurate information, and have drawn conclusions that can not be argued in the context of this particular country.

Your vague reference to a militiaman shooting a peacekeeper in the back is wrong.  "_A soldier from the Ivorian national armed forces FANCI fired unprovoked on a French military vehicle, shooting one of its occupants in the back.  The perpetrator of this isolated incident was immediately taken down by other FANCI soldiers in the area_." (He was not Militia, he was a soldier.  He was acting on his own & clearly the other soldiers from his country were not the random savages you've suggested.  Here is where you first heard of this: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18212

Next lets look at the Ivory Coast, DRC, Rawanda, Sierra Leon, and Liberia.  It seems that these are the countries that we want to compare with Sudan.  There is one problem here though.  Ethnically, culturally, and religiously these countries are very different.  Most of Africa is Christian (or rather Christion based but incorporating much traditional spritualism.  I understand Hati to be much the same).  Sudan has an Islamic majority.  That Islamic Majority also holds the power & controls the money in that country.  Did you know it has been Arabs chasing black Christians from thier villages in the South?  

You wanted to know which part of Africa was so wealthy.  Fact is that there is a wealth of natural resources that are often the source of the conflicts.  Coruption keeps much of the wealth from the average citizen in many contries.  The DRC has gold, diamonds, uranium, etc.  Sudan has oil (but I do not belive they do much drilling).  There is money over there, but it may only be held by those in power.


----------



## Pugnacious

"Pugnacious,
I won't call you racist, because that is not what you are."

P: Yes but you where not the one implying this in the first place.  
But I'm glad you understand I am not a racist...one less person I have to "educate" when I meet them.

"However, your gerneralizations show you to be ignorant of the conflict & of Africa.   McG was right to call you on it as what you have done is no different that describing Montreal inorder to prepare Europeans for a trip to Chicago."   

P: With all due respect you also don't have a clue. I am VERY aware of the conflict in Africa.
Besides which I wasn't aware that a full historical essay was requested to make a simple comment on this topic.

My whole point was it is going to be a dangerious place for peacekeepers, and that I hope they keep their heads down, and watch their backs. People are carving each other up down there...not a warm fuzzy place IMHO. I have this info first hand.

"Worse, you speak with a level of authority you do not seem to have, have provided irrelevant/innacurate information, and have drawn conclusions that can not be argued in the context of this particular country."

P: Level of authority?  Why is this needed for a conversation here?
Also you know nothing of me, or my family background, and trust me you and McG would feel pretty silly right now if you did.

Don't worry I'll go away from this topic, and leave the conversation to the engineers...who for some reason have all the exclusive answers to world problems.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## karpovage

Sure, send in the Marines, send in the U.S. "peacekeepers" again. Nation build. Regime change. Call on us once again. We are the world police. We can fix all of the world problems. 

Quite frankly, bottom line is that my bottom line as a U.S. taxpayer can't afford to fix the world's problems anymore. Especially when we do not gain an ounce of respect for it. We are the most generous nation in the world giving billions in foreign aid, sacrificing our military personnel, increasing our deficits, etc, etc, ALL this for a dysfunctional United Nations who should be taking the lead role. 

Why NOW should American boys and girls go into an African tribe and stop them from killing each other when our own cities cannot stop gang members from killing each other? We cannot fix our own internal crime, murder and drugs so why should we spend billions more to save the rest of the world? Let alone the political fallout of the arrogant America "invading" another nation.

Sure humanitarian missions like Somalia made everyone feel good (until CLinton changed the mission). But humanitarian missions NOW will be labelled as pre-emptive invasions by the U.S. 

I don't have a clue how to stop Africans from massacreing each other. Hell, they haven't figured it out over thousands of years themselves. Why do you think more dead AMericans being dragged through the streets would solve this problem?


----------



## 291er

News from the Darfur front........the rebels (Sudanese Liberation Army, not to be confused with the SPLA in the South) and the JEM (Justice and Equality Movement) walked out of the peace talks on 17 July.  Khartoum (GoS) said it "demonstrated the rebels' lack of commitment to peace".  The rebels claimed that "By refusing to accept our demands the government in Khartoum is saying that it is not prepared to discuss the disarmament of the Janjaweed who are conducting ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Africans in Sudan".   The rebels' six demands are:

- The Sudanese government to disarm the militias, or Janjaweed;
- Janjaweed members in police departments and the armed forces to be dismissed and brought to justice;
- No government obstruction of humanitarian aid;
- Government investigations of human rights violations

Then yesterday a Sudanese court convicted 10 "Janjaweed" militiamen for looting and killing in the Darfur region.  They are sentenced to amputation and 6 years in jail.  This is important because it has traditionally been the belief that these very "Janjaweed" Arab militias have been funded and reinforced by Khartoum.  There has been several accounts of air support provided by the Govt.  Hind attack helicopters are'nt very mistakable I suppose.  Just ask the mujahideen.  This could be perceived as a step in the right direction by the GoS however, seems kind of hypocritical though.  This may be a product of Pres Bashir's promise to Sec.Gen Annan two weeks ago that he would disarm the Janjaweed, begin political talks with the rebels, and provide access for international aid agencies as well as send police to Darfur to protect civilians.


----------



## Goober

Karpovage said:
			
		

> Sure, send in the Marines, send in the U.S. "peacekeepers" again. Nation build. Regime change. Call on us once again. We are the world police. We can fix all of the world problems.
> 
> Quite frankly, bottom line is that my bottom line as a U.S. taxpayer can't afford to fix the world's problems anymore. Especially when we do not gain an ounce of respect for it...



I'm sorry but exactly what problems _*were*_ fixed by the US?


----------



## 291er

Just an FYI Karpovage
George W Bush is one of the main driving forces behind the push for peace in the Sudan, predominantly because of the miniscule Christian population there that is being ousted by Islamists.  If he wants to make it his personal agenda, then yes, he should provide some troops to back up his foreign policy.  The United Nations IS taking a lead role on this mission, but you can hardly blame them for not helping the USA out, afterall, you guys pretty much told them to bugger off when it came to Iraq.......au contraire, the US foreign policy far from solves all the world's problems, in fact they are quite apt at making more of them, and leaving it for the Canadian "peacekeepers" to sort out.  True that as a US taxpayer, you do pay a lot to extend your foreign policy, maybe your country should think of having its own "Regime Change" before they worry about other countries'.  And although the US does deploy a lot of it's forces for peacekeeping, etc., try being in the Canadian Army, we go to these missions underequipped, in some cases outgunned, we have a public which is more concerned with free Health care than pumping some much needed funds into an already cash-strapped Forces.


----------



## Yard Ape

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> Also you know nothing of me, or my family background, and trust me you and McG would feel pretty silly right now if you did.


Well, I am confident you are not the NDHQ desk officer for Africa.   Otherwise I might loose sleep on the possibility that the guys we have deployed to that continent would have to put up with bad decisions based on an incorrect recolection of unrelated/irrelevnant events that happened on the other side of the continent.



			
				Pugnacious said:
			
		

> I am VERY aware of the conflict in Africa. (I assume you wanted to say "in Sudan.")
> 
> ...
> 
> ... I have this info first hand.


Then surprise me.   You've made comments, announced that certain realities are especially true to Sudan, and then look to the DRC & Ivory Coast to prove it.   

The tactical & operational situation in Sudan is unique to Sudan.   Geography (rivers, lakes, jungles, roads, deserts, cities, etc) is not a constant across Africa and it will play a major factor in defining the situation.   The society (religion, population density, distribution of wealth) is another major factor.   But what really matters is showing trends (not things that happened once somewhere, but reocurring acts in the mission area).   If you do feel the need to look at trends in another country, then at least identify what geographic or cultural factor contributed to the trend & show that factor to be common to Sudan.


----------



## 291er

I am 100% sure that he is not the Africa Desk Officer at NDCC.....and you are completely right, Sudan is unique, you can't generalize it with all the conflicts in Africa.  Different people, different reasons for fighting.  And as someone who watchs the trends and the conflicts there "religiously", I consider myself quite well informed on the subject....as does the desk officer.


----------



## Yard Ape

EU wants UN sanctions for Sudan
Associated Press  
http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040726.wsuda0726/BNStory/International/

Brussels â â€ European Union foreign ministers agreed Monday to push for United Nations sanctions against Sudan if the country does not move to end the conflict in the Darfur region.

In a statement citing their â Å“grave concern, the EU ministers said they were â Å“alarmed by reports of massive human rights violationsâ ? perpetrated by Arab militias, â Å“including systematic rape of women.â ?

â Å“The risk is very high for a potential catastrophe,â ? EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said.

The foreign ministers said they â Å“expect the government of Sudan to ensure that these violations stop with immediate effectâ ? or the EU would take â Å“appropriate further steps.â ?

While not using the word â Å“sanctions,â ? EU officials said the 25-member bloc would â Å“likelyâ ? push for such a move by the UN Security Council.

The violence began 15 months ago when two rebel groups from Darfur's African tribes took up arms in a struggle over land and resources with Arab countrymen. Arab militias known as Janjaweed then began a brutal campaign to drive out the black Africans.

As many as 30,000 people, most of them black Africans, have been killed and more than one million people have fled their homes. Some 2.2 million are in urgent need of food or medical attention.

The 25-nation European Union, the United States and humanitarian groups have accused the Sudanese government of backing the militias â â€ an accusation that it denies.

Last week, the U.S. Congress declared that the atrocities amounted to genocide, and urged the Bush administration to do the same. A UN convention obligates the international community to prevent and punish acts it has declared as genocide.

Backing its threat of sanctions, the EU said it was preparing â Å“a list of Janjeweed leaders responsible for breaches and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and those guiding and supporting them.â ?

The EU said the Sudanese government â Å“will be pressed to arrest these persons or suspend them form office and to bring them to justice.â ?

The 25 foreign ministers also urged Sudan to admit more aid workers to provide emergency food and shelter.

The United Nations plans to send a peacekeeping mission by the end of 2004 to Darfur, a region the size of Iraq with a population of 6.7 million.


----------



## Guardian

Hooray! UN sanctions. Just like pre-2003 Iraq, North Korea, the former Yugoslavia - we know how well sanctions will probably work.

To play devil's advocate against myself, though, short of sending in troops we probably have no other alternative. So here's hoping (against hope and past experience) that the sanctions actually work. Because the chance of them working is probably better than the chance of the West sending in troops.

Thoughts?


----------



## Kirkhill

Sanctions allow our politicians to convince their constituents (at least enough of them to get elected) that they are doing something while delaying the inevitable, necessary and, unfortunately, costly intervention.

In the meantime they are squandering an opportunity and setting themselves up for trouble in the longer term, if not failure.

If they act when a crisis breaks out and chooses a side then when the intervene they can count of the support of at least part of the population, possibly a majority in some cases, for some period of time.  Long enough for the locals to decide if the intervention was a good thing or a bad thing.

On the other hand, if they hide behind sanctions, as they did in Iraq, they will create an entire population that is resentful and has to be won over.  At the time that we cross the border the reaction is not "Thank God you're  here" but "It's about bl**dy time, what took you so long".  They are not going to cut any slack while attempts are made to pick up the pieces and sort out the mess.

Sanctions are an unproductive and cowardly implement of war. The word is diplomatic speak for siege or embargo, both considered justifiable "cases for war", that allow the besieged entity to defend itself by all means at its disposal.

Sometimes such a strategy may be defensible in the short term, buying time until intervention is possible but it can't be a long term solution.

Sanctions, embargo and siege never hurt the ruling classes, seldom hurt the military but always hurt the young, the old and the sick as well, disproportionately, the female.  You are not going to make many friends by telling a potential fighter that you had to starve his children, his parents and his wife in order to save him.


----------



## 291er

Sanctions won't do anything to help this situation.  The Govt of Sudan is very adament in its flat out denial that anything is even happening over in Darfur.  Of course, they're not supplying the Janjaweed, rag-tag Arab militias regulary have close air support and Hind attack choppers.
The GoS could care less what the West thinks of it, for years it has been claiming that Sudan has not been committing any human rights violations.  Executing USAID workers, claiming they are spies and feeding the SPLA with intelligence via a non0existent radio and executing them without a trial.  I just read Don Petterson's book "Inside Sudan", he was the last US Ambassador in Khartoum.  Pres El-Bashir is not interested in diplomatics, nor does he really care about sanctions or what the rest of the world thinks of him, his main concern is his own personal status.  What more could you expect of a man who was put into power by a coup?
I think the only way to stop these Janjaweed will be troops, but it is by far not the best choice.  A group calling itself Mohammed's Army has vowed to fight any troops sent to Western Sudan, trying to make it look like this will become another Iraq.  Unfortunately the only way you can make these ppl comply is with force.....


----------



## Yard Ape

Any hints that a US involvment could draw 'mujahadeen' from bordering nations to the north and east?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/24by7panews/tm_objectid=14484371%26method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=british%2dsoldiers%2d%2don%2dstandby%2d%2dfor%2dsudan-name_page.html


----------



## Slim

One of the problems is every time a western nation puts troopies on the ground in Africa the deploying nation usually gets burnt by either a conflict they weren't expecting or a human rights issue they weren't equiped to handle.

Slim


----------



## LanceaLot

Yes, but I think Peacemakers are getting more experienced in these matters and the issue in Sudan is fairly clear. I feel this is why we have a Peace force in the first place, so we should act if we can.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBFDFHV0YD.html

Starting all over again? :'(


----------



## Yard Ape

LanceaLot said:
			
		

> I feel this is why we have a Peace force in the first place, so we should act if we can.


Do you mean you believe this is why we have an army?


----------



## Figure11

I notice that Rwanda seems determined to make a name for itself on the African stage these days. In addition to their Sudanese deployment, they also appear to be heavily entrenched in the DRC. Is this some kind of concerted effort to bury 1994, or are they emerging as a new African fire brigade?


----------



## Slim

> I feel this is why we have a Peace force in the first place,



Glad you have such an excellent understanding of our military!  Try saying that to the DS when and if you ever get in...


----------



## Spr.Earl

Figure11 said:
			
		

> I notice that Rwanda seems determined to make a name for itself on the African stage these days. In addition to their Sudanese deployment, they also appear to be heavily entrenched in the DRC. Is this some kind of concerted effort to bury 1994, or are they emerging as a new African fire brigade?


I believe it's an effort of Africans policing Africans on the part of the U.N.


----------



## bossdog

I have to agree with Earl - let African UN members try to resolve the problem first, they understand the culture and mentality better than us Westerners.


----------



## 291er

Rwanda has been helping out in some cases, however, DROC is not one of them.  In the news lately we've seen lots of reports of Rwanda sponsoring rebel attacks in Congo.  Burundi and Rwanda have it out for the Congolese and it doesn't look good.
On another note, the CF contribution to OP SAFARI (Sudan) is now increasing by a few ppl, myself included, I guess we'll see what happens.


----------



## Spr.Earl

Take care 291er.
Stay Safe.


----------



## Slim

291er said:
			
		

> Rwanda has been helping out in some cases, however, DROC is not one of them.   In the news lately we've seen lots of reports of Rwanda sponsoring rebel attacks in Congo.   Burundi and Rwanda have it out for the Congolese and it doesn't look good.
> On another note, the CF contribution to OP SAFARI (Sudan) is now increasing by a few ppl, myself included, I guess we'll see what happens.



Keep you head down and watch your back. They're not worth another one of us...

Slim


----------



## Armymedic

Staff check for a bigger mission underway?


----------



## 291er

Not really bigger....I've been dagging for this since Jan so we knew it was coming.  It'll likely be the same size as OP CROCODILE, they've put in a proposal for a few more admin types to support the BGen, but I don't believe the DCDS has signed off on it yet.
Thanks Slim, will do.


----------



## Stone

I have personal interest in this situation a good friend of mine has volunteer to be among the first to be send over if Canada does get involived in Sudan. I hate hearing what is going on over there but right now Canada's forces are stretched so thin that I don't think that we could get enough man power at this time to make much of a difference without putting a lot of innocent soldier lives a risk. If we have the funding and the man power to maintain a strong base I am all for sending Canadian peace keepers over there but not if we are just going to mess around and fight a battle with our hands tied behind out back.  They have openly said that if the U.N. gets involved that they are going to be targeted. They need the suport of the other countries before they get involves. The US's interests still remain in Iraq and that is where a lot of there ground forces remain and will be for a while so they are not of much use at this time, they are running short and have been foced to call up their reserves.  I believe that something needs to be done, as a soldier myself I would be willing to go and do what I can to help but I don't want to see Canada running in there not knowing what they are getting into. Africa has been ignored far too long and something  should have been done a long time ago, now that things are getting out of hand the rest of the world is paying attention, but it may be too late.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

U.N. Sees Danger of New War in Central Africa Following Massacre

By Edith M. Lederer Associated Press Writer 
Published: Aug 19, 2004 





  
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Citing dangers of renewed war between Hutus and Tutsis, a senior U.N. official urged central African leaders Thursday to mete out "justice not revenge" against extremists responsible for a massacre. 
Undersecretary-General Jean-Marie Guehenno told reporters after briefing the U.N. Security Council that threats of retaliatory action by Burundi, Congo and Rwanda following the mass killing of at least 160 refugees at a U.N. camp in Burundi could lead to renewed fighting. 

"I think there is a real danger of violence, of a spiral of violence," Guehenno said. "We do call on all actors at the moment to exert maximum restraint. This horrific massacre at Gatumba (camp) must not lead to a cycle of revenge. There has to be justice, not revenge." 

A decade of violence between the region's majority Hutus and minority Tutsis has wracked central Africa, including the 1994 Rwandan genocide, a continuing civil war in Burundi that started in 1993, and two invasions of Congo by Rwanda and Burundi in attempts to root out Hutu militias. 

Retaliatory violence could undo peace efforts in Congo, where a 1998-2003 civil war involved fighters from five countries and left more than 3 million people dead, most through strife-induced hunger and disease. 

A Burundian Hutu rebel group, the National Liberation Forces, claimed responsibility for the attack last Friday night on Gatumba, which sheltered Congolese Tutsis known as Banyamulenge who had fled fighting in their troubled country. The rebels later claimed they were searching for Burundi army supporters in the camp but Guehenno said they didn't deny involvement "in the atrocities that were committed in Gatumba." 

Burundi and Rwanda on Tuesday threatened to send troops into neighboring Congo to hunt down the militiamen who attacked the camp from bases in eastern Congo. The Burundian army chief accused Congolese soldiers of participating in the massacre. 

A renegade Congolese army commander, a Tutsi whose troops briefly seized a key city in eastern Congo last June, also threatened Tuesday to oust the "government that slaughters its own people." Congo's interim government responded, saying it wanted to resolve the situation diplomatically, but was ready "to react" if Burundian or Rwandan troops crossed the border. 

Guehenno called the threats of military action "very dangerous" and warned that they "could lead to terrible disasters." 

AP-ES-08-19-04 2140EDT


----------



## T.I.M.

Figure11 said:
			
		

> I notice that Rwanda seems determined to make a name for itself on the African stage these days. In addition to their Sudanese deployment, they also appear to be heavily entrenched in the DRC. Is this some kind of concerted effort to bury 1994, or are they emerging as a new African fire brigade?



Rwanda's RDF (Rwandan Defense Force - a complete misnomer as the Rwandans never defend when they can attack) actually made a name for themselves quite a while ago.   It's mainly because they have the best army in Central Africa, bar none.   They invented the "African Blitzkreig" with their lighting march across the breadth of the Congo to Kinshasa, and despite being a light infantry army with few weapons heavier than 20mm cannon, and 80mm mortars, fought the larger, better equipped armies of Zimbabwe and Angola to a standstill when they intervened to save the DRC.  For a tiny, impoverished country, suffering from the after-effects of genocide, Rwanda under the RPF has consistently punched far above her weight.

Unlike most other African nations, the Rwandans practice excellent small unit tactics, and they don't brutalize their soldiers, rather training along western lines, and developing a strong esprit de corps.   Their officers are also well schooled (Rwanda spent a lot of resources getting them trained in the best US and UK military academies in the late 90's) and practice a doctrine of rapid concentration, overwhelming local force and decisive battle that comes as a shock to many of their more haphazard foes.   While they're fundamentally still a guerilla army, they've adopted a lot western doctrines.   There is also the fact that Paul Kagame (now President, but still with great sway over the military) is a bona fide military genius.   In fact, on the entire African continent only the South Africans match them for professionalism.

However, the RDF is too large for the state to support, and without external funds it'll have to demobilize eventually.   Rwanda's de-facto occupation of the rich lands of the eastern Congo is almost entirely driven by its need to use the resources there to support its military.   To date they've been VERY leery of UN participation (understandable given their history) but they may see it as a legitimate way of getting paid.   After all, they could stand to gain a great deal of financial support for acting as "UN mercs" on the behalf of the consciences of wealthy nations.

The RDF are primarily a fast striking force quite adept at using speed and terror.   They may not be the best suited to the delicate work of peacekeeping, but they certainly have the capacity to learn.   And even with only 150 troops on the ground, there's still no force in Sudan that can match them man for man.   They have a fearsome reputation in Africa and it remains to be seen if any of the Janjeweed decide to try their luck.


----------



## 291er

Stone

There are less than 10 Canadians going on OP SAFARI to Sudan.  There are'nt even staff checks being run yet, I was not aware that they were looking for volunteers to go with us at this point.  Please elaborate......


----------



## McG

What are the roots of the conflict in Sudan?
DAVID HOWELL
Journal Staff Writer
EDMONTON
Printed in the Edmonton Journal Friday 10 Sept 04

In February 2003, violence erupted in the Darfur region of north-western Sudan, leading to what the United Nations now calls the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

Two rebel factions ,drawn largely from black African tribes, rose up against the Arab-dominated national government. The Sudanese government is accused of backing the Arab militiamen, known as the Janjaweed, in a scorched-earth campaign to quell the rebellion.

The United Nations estimates 30,000 people have been killed in the Darfur conflict Another 1.2 million have been internally displaced. Some 200,000 have fled the country and are living in refugee camps in neighbouring Chad.

Last week, retired Canadian Gen. Romeo Dallaire, who led the ill-fated United Nations peacekeeping mission during the 1994 Rwandan massacre, blasted Western countries for â Å“lame and obtuseâ ? response to the Darfur crisis.   The world's powers and the UN have learned little from Rwanda, he said.

Andy Knight is a professor of political science at the University of Alberta, specializing in international relations and UN issues. Rob Huebert is associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary The Journal asked for their thoughts on Darfur.

*What is at the root of the Darfur conflict?*
â Å“Essentially, the Darfur conflict was about land resources and water resources,â ? Knight said.   Desertification has resulted in the shrinkage of the fertile land in that area. There was less and less fertile land to be tilled, and people living on those lands were primarily black Africans. The Arabs, who moved from place to place, had cattle and migrated seasonally between the dry season and the wet season. The Arabs began to make claims on the last remaining fertile lands in Darfur. This started conflicts. When war broke out in 2003, the government did not have sufficient military presence in Darfur. It got Arab tribal groups to give them militiamen to work with government soldiers in the region.â ?

*Who are the Janjaweed?*
â Å“They are mostly Arab tribesmen, herders,â ? Knight said. â Å“In the Darfur region, they are young, on horse back or on camels, and usually armed with AK-47 assault rifles. They are usually recruited into the militia by the heads of tribes who... brainwash recruits into thinking they are protecting their land.â ?

*How are the black African people in Darfur suffering because of the conflict?*
â Å“They are losing basically all of their possessionsâ â€their possessions are burned or destroyed, their villages are burned or destroyed,â ? Knight said. â Å“There is an attempt at 'deracialization,' a fancy word for a policy of deliberate rape of African women by Arab men. Amnesty International has reported on this. There is also a huge humanitarian problem because of the famine, and the UN is trying to address it. Humanitarian workers are not getting access to these people; they are being interfered with by militia groups.â ?


*Why hasn't the Sudanese government taken the action dictated by the Security Council?*
â Å“The government has said all along that it is not supporting the Janjaweed,â ? Knight said. â Å“That's false. They claim they are disarming militia groups, but they are not disarming the Janjaweed. Also, the government, because it is Islamic, has been able to get the support of the Arab League and most Islamic countries at the UN. Islamic countries are supporting the Sudanese government, despite claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing.â ?

*How many troops could Canada send as part of an effort to restore peace?*
â Å“It's a guesstimate, but about 600 troops,â ? Huebert said. â Å“We possibly could scrape something together, but it would come at the very real cost of family time that these people desperately need, and (at the cost of) training. In other words, it would fall on one of the units just coming back from finishing up in Bosnia or Afghanistan. We constantly do not have the number of troops for our foreign policy.â ?

*Could Canada send officers to lead a peacekeeping effort?*
â Å“You get to be in command when you provide the troops; you get command when you have the commitment,â ? Huebert said. 'That's why we had the command in Afghanistan because we had the bulk of the troops. The international community says if you're willing to pay the piper, you get to call some of the tune.   â Å“They'll rely on some Canadian expertise, but quite frankly, a whole lot of other people have expertise too, nowadays, because a lot of other people are doing peace-support operations.â ?

*How else could Canada help?*
â Å“Well, we can talk,â ? Huebert said. â Å“With someone like a RomeoDallaire (speaking out it keeps Canadian attention on the issue. When Dallaire starts saying it, people say, 'Holy cow, there are all sorts of similarities to Rwanda.' Canadian political leaders can do their part for keeping the issue on the world's agenda. â Å“The problem, of course, is we're seen as hypocrites if we don't have the resources to back it up.â ?

dhowell@thejournal.canwest.com

 :bullet:

Powell calls Sudanese crisis genocide' for the first time
Knight Ridder with files from Can West News Service
WASHINGTON
Printed in the Edmonton Journal Friday 10 Sept 04

U.S. Secretary of State Cohn Powell declared for the first time Thursday that the wave of atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region constitutes genocide, a finding the Bush administration hopes will increase world pressure on Sudanese rulers to end the crisis. 
Powell, speaking to a Senate panel, said Sudan's government is complicating the brutal campaign of racial eradication carried out by Arab militias known as the Janjaweed against black non- Arabs in Darfur.

After reviewing a report by teams of investigators, â Å“we concluded â â€ I con duded â â€ that genocide has been committed in Darfur, and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility, and that genocide may still be occurring,â ? he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Powell's announcement ends a months-long debate within the U.S. government over the issue, a debate heavily coloured by the world's failure to deal with the genocide in Rwanda a decade ago.

But it's unclear what practical effect it will have. Powell acknowledged that â Å“no new action is dictated by this determination.â ? The Bush administration isn't considering direct military intervention. Instead, it's pushing Sudan to accept the deployment of roughly 4,000 African Union troops and police to protect Darfur's non-Arab population.

In months of interviews across Darfur scores of Sudanese have described to Knight Ridder horrific atrocities committed by the Janjaweed and Sudanese soldiers. A nearly identical picture was painted by the U.S. State Department report, which was based on interviews with 1,136 refugees in neighbouring Chad.

The report, released Thursday, said 67 percent of refugees reported witnessing aerial bombardment by Sudanese government aircraft; 61 per cent reported the killing of a family member; 16 per cent reported rape; and 33 per cent reported hearing racial epithets.

The Canadian government won't join the United States in calling recent atrocities in western Sudan acts of genocide. A spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said Canada was reluctant to do the same because the government remains concerned about the definition of genocide and whether the events in Darfur meet it.

â Å“Genocide is defined in a fair1y narrow manner legally,â ? said Sebastien Theberge, Pettigrew's director of communications, reached in Paris on Thursday.

 :bullet:


----------



## 291er

News Release
Canadian Forces Personnel to Deploy to Sudan
NR-04.052 - July 23, 2004

OTTAWA â â€œ A new Canadian Forces operation, known as Operation SAFARI , began this month with the deployment of two CF personnel to Sudan. Major James Simiana, a Public Affairs Officer, and Warrant Officer Robert Moug, a Staff Officer, will support the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMISUD) as members of the international advance party from the United Nations Stand-By High-Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG). 

â Å“Canada is committed to the UN objective of bringing a lasting peace to southern Sudan,â ? said Chief of the Defence Staff General Ray Henault. â Å“Through their professionalism and efforts, CF personnel deploying on Op SAFARI will undoubtedly be an invaluable contribution to the advance party.â ? 

Currently, Canada maintains a contribution of *10 CF members *(three permanent and seven non-permanent) at SHIRBRIG headquarters. In December 2003, Brigadier-General Greg Mitchell of Canada took command of SHIRBRIG for a period of two years. 

It is expected that following a UN Security Resolution and peace accord agreement, Canada may contribute a small number of troops in addition to the advanced party already deployed to Sudan. The advance party is being formed at the request of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. 

SHIRBRIG was established in 1996 as a non-standing multinational high-readiness brigade based on the UN Stand-by Arrangement System. On a case-by-case basis, member countries decide whether to participate in specific missions. Current full participants in SHIRBRIG include Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Chile, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Jordan and Senegal are observers


----------



## 291er

FYI....no other pers to be deployed to Sudan at this time....all possible missions (mine included) are cancelled


----------



## Hoplite

'I have read alot of things praising the Rwandan Army.....I didn't hear any mention of this.....

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/DRC.asp

Search on the page for coltan.  Interesting reading


----------



## bossi

And, who the heck are we going to send?   JTF 3 ... ? (yes - I meant "3" - it's a joke ...)
Maybe the smarmy little Liberal party fartcatching pollsters can fabricate a solution ... ?
("Okay - each election year, we let several thousand refugees into Canada from Darfur, we let them vote Liberal, and then we send them back to Darfur as peacekeepers armed with Immigration Canada application forms ... the sheer workload of all that paperwork will bog down the belligerents to the point that it'll be safe for Parliamentary junkets ... hoo-hoo!")


*No Canadian Iraq troops for Kerry, PM says*
CP - Oct. 28, 2004. 02:07 PM 

OTTAWA â â€ Canada won't commit troops to Iraq regardless of the outcome of the U.S. presidential election, Prime Minister Paul Martin indicated today.

Martin offered his standard reply when asked if he would send more troops in the event of a victory next week by Democratic challenger John Kerry.

Canada's military resources are simply tapped out, he suggested.

"The reason we made the decision on Iraq is we are very involved in Afghanistan," Martin said after a cabinet meeting.

"We are involved in Haiti. *We intend to get involved in the Darfur issue.* And there is a limit to our resources."

Kerry has presented himself as the best man to lead an international coalition in Iraq. The Democrat has relentlessly attacked President George W. Bush's failure to bring Canada and other allies onside.

But Martin again offered his stock line when asked if he was in effect telling Kerry, `No.'

"What I want is for Canada to be involved where we can have a significant influence or impact," he said.

"We have that in Afghanistan â â€ we are very important there. Same thing in Haiti."

Canadians are already involved in training Iraqi police officers in Jordan, Martin added.

*There are about 1,600 troops deployed overseas right now. For each one abroad, you need two at home â â€ one recuperating from the last mission, one training for the next rotation.*

The chief of the defence staff has said he doesn't have the resources to take on a new commitment without more rest for the troops.

The largest contingent is in Afghanistan, where about 950 Canadian soldiers are fighting the war on terror there.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien shot down Bush's request for Canadian troops when the U.S. president launched the invasion of Iraq in early 2003. Polls suggest the vast majority of Canadians supported that decision.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...968705899037&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes


----------



## Slim

Can anyone seriously say why the Liberals get an allergic reaction everytime someone mentions using, or supporting, the nations military?...Never mind helping out the friends and neighbours...

Slim


----------



## KevinB

:

We have 1 COY of INF in AFGHAN
1 Recce Sqn of Armoured
1 Engineer SQN

The rest is fluff - and it is less that 700 pers BTW


The fact is we have 3 Brigade (1,2,5) - the majority of "fighting troops" Inf,Armd, Arty and Engineers are sitting around with their finger in their ass.

If we assigned a Bridage to the US and let them do our service support (beyond 1-2line) and run our admin we could easily send them there and you'd have hands in the air for volunteers.


 :-*
Sudan - July ish I heard


----------



## AmmoTech90

KevinB said:
			
		

> The rest is fluff - and it is less that 700 pers BTW



Oh good, I'll have to add fluff to my resume.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> If we assigned a Bridage to the US and let them do our service support (beyond 1-2line) and run our admin we could easily send them there and you'd have hands in the air for volunteers.



Canada doesn't deploy anything above 2nd line support except when 3 CSG comes over to set up or close down a mission.  So who are you not going to deploy?  Or do you mean we'll just let the US set up and tear down our camps and provide all the equipment that normally comes in from Canada?  So now the logistics trail would go from the unit in theatre demanding it, to Montreal, who would send it somewhere in the States, and then they would fly it/sail it over to where ever where are.  Or maybe we should just get all US equipment (which might not be a bad idea)?


----------



## KevinB

Ammotech - as far as doing the job, most of the positions in Afghan are Fluff - sorry if that hurts people feelings, but it is true.

What I am saying [if WE wanted to go to IRAQ], is simply chum along with a US DIV - like the 3VP Battlegroup did with the Raks...

 Sent the Units - but the excess "Fluff" is not needed.
  and by units I meant the CSS postion to them

I defy ANYONE to come up with a defensible rational for the layout of the NSE/NCE system.
 Send a Bridage - without fluffing up officer and NCO postions so people can come over to get a medal before they retire.   That's it thats all.

IF the unit CO's or Brigade commander are not competant to command without and eye over their shoulder they should not have the position - and if they are competant (which I would say 99.99% are) they dont need the added bodies to second guess or hamstring them.

 We have fighting formations for a reason - why would we not deploy that way?

But a warfighting tour does not need the internet cafe, the volleyball net, the Officers Mess, Sr NCO mess, and JR's mess the BS about CANCAP and stuff like that has to go.

GO--> DO THE MISSION --> COME HOME


----------



## 291er

I highly doubt we'll be sending much of anything to Darfur.  OP SAFARI is the mission in Sudan supporting the North/South peace process, but there is yet to be anything considered for Darfur, expect the pile of helmets and flak vests, etc.  I think the only way that we (or any non-African nation for that matter) will be involved is if the AU seriously screws up over there or the GoS decides to start fighting them.

That being said, we probably SHOULD send atleast something to Darfur to help out...but with this supposed "regeneration" period for the Army happening, I can't see that happening.  Even something along the lines of humanitarian support (i.e. Water purification or mine clearing, etc.) would probably go a long way.  I am very sure that the people would much rather see us there than the Americans.

As for Sudan - Julyish....I just dagged the last 10 months for a mission that is already on the ground there (SAFARI), so considering that it's still to be decided on, I highly doubt that anything will be (if ever) on the ground in Sudan for over a year.  The peace process there keeps getting delayed again and again, and the UN keeps stalling on making a firm resolution.  But who knows....stranger things have happened.


----------



## bossi

291er said:
			
		

> I highly doubt we'll be sending much of anything to Darfur...
> 
> ... That being said, we probably SHOULD send atleast something to Darfur to help out...
> 
> ...   But who knows....stranger things have happened.



Have no fear!  We're deploying the ... PM to Sudan ... (?)

Martin heading to Sudan
By BRIAN LAGHI
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041102.wmarty1103/BNStory/National/

Ottawa â â€ Prime Minister Paul Martin will consider touring a refugee camp in Sudan as part of a visit to the strife-torn country this month, sources say.

Mr. Martin's office confirmed yesterday that he will add the Sudanese capital of Khartoum to an already lengthy itinerary that includes visits to Chile, Brazil and Burkina Faso.

Scott Reid, a spokesman for the Prime Minister, said that Mr. Martin wants to meet with Sudan's leaders to urge them to make good on their commitment to do everything possible to secure peace in the country.

"Unimaginable suffering has occurred and the weight of direct appeals from G8 leaders is needed to help advance the cause of peace," Mr. Reid said. He refused, however, to comment on reports that the Prime Minister was considering a visit to one of the refugee camps.

Mr. Martin spoke yesterday with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who encouraged him to make the trip, as did British Prime Minister Tony Blair when the two leaders met last month. Mr. Blair is one of the few other heads of government to have made the trip.

The Prime Minister had already been scheduled to attend a summit of francophone countries in Burkina Faso, a meeting of the organization on Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation in Chile and to make an official visit to Brazil. After discussing the issue with a delegation from the European Union late last month, Mr. Martin decided to add Khartoum to his travel plans.

About 1.5 million people have been driven from their homes in the Darfur region of Sudan. Sources said Mr. Martin is considering a visit to one of the camps that houses displaced persons.

Yesterday, the Sudanese army and police surrounded several refugee camps in the war-torn region of Darfur and denied access to humanitarian groups, the UN said. The Sudanese government denied that its security forces blocked access to the camps but said angry Arab tribesmen have gathered in the area.

The UN World Food Program said three camps were surrounded â â€ apparently in retaliation for the abduction of 18 Arabs by Darfur rebels â â€ and that it was forced to pull 88 relief workers from those areas.

The WFP fears the government may force people from the camps back to their home villages, where there is less protection from government-backed janjaweed militias that have been attacking towns, spokeswoman Christiane Berthiaume said.

Last month the UN health agency estimated that at least 70,000 people have died since March from poor conditions in the camps and warned that more will die unless countries provide more money.

Rebels in the country say the government is backing a group of Arab militias who have burned and looted villages with non-Arab inhabitants. Both sides also say the other has broken a UN ceasefire.

Mr. Martin's visit might be part of a growing movement to apply high-level pressure on the country's government. Pressure to resolve the conflict has grown as the humanitarian difficulties get worse.

The UN Security Council is to meet in Kenya next month to discuss the situation.

Canada has already promised $20-million to support of the African Union to resolve the conflict. Mr. Reid said the Prime Minister has resolutely backed the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect; a set of guidelines that obliges other nations to intervene when foreign administrations refuse or are unable to protect their own people.


Recent articles looking at the current crisis in Sudan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041102.wmarty1103/BNStory/National/
Civilians set on fire in Darfur, report says Attack carried out by Khartoum-backed militia, African Union observers say 

In Darfur, security is paramount When it comes to dealing with Sudan, STEPHANIE NOLEN finds, diplomacy can yield very little 

African Union troops arrive in Sudan Hostile reception greets soldiers assigned to protect ceasefire observers 

Sudan pays for ignoring prophet 

Jeneina offers displaced a haven from war Host families stretch meagre resources to shelter desperate Sudanese refugees 
Disaster in Darfur: 'This isn't the worst I've seen' Remote region is the latest stop for relief worker who has seen humanitarian crises unfold around the globe, STEPHANIE NOLEN reports 

Into the heart of janjaweed territory The mysterious Arab horsemen were fast and fierce and carried Kalashnikovs in their saddles. But were they the feared rebel fighters? STEPHANIE NOLEN followed them to find out 

Rape fear traps women in 'concentration camp' 

'The Hero' of Darfur lifts spirits at camp 

A new peril, this time from the sky Hunkering down in teeming rain that hits almost daily, STEPHANIE NOLEN wonders how Darfur's refugees will last the season 

In fetid camps of Darfur, refugees need to know world is watching ANALYSIS: The UN gave Khartoum 30 days to solve the crisis, and it has done almost nothing. Now the international community must respond, STEPHANIE NOLEN writes 

U.S. finds 'genocide' in Darfur Bush's use of politically charged term could spark international action on Sudan


----------



## Acorn

It wouldn't surprise me if the PM, after seeing the state of affairs in that place, looked to the CF to deploy something more than the 2 guys we have there right now. 

Acorn


----------



## Pikache

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=ffa59f9a-0a09-4933-a10e-b53a2dee5393

Amy Carmichael
Canadian Press

Saturday, November 13, 2004

PENTICTON, B.C. -- Canada will move ahead on a plan to outfit and train peacekeepers in Sudan's Darfur region and other countries in need, Prime Minister Paul Martin said Saturday, slapping the United Nations for not working fast enough to stop genocide in the area.

Canada has pledged $20 million to support the Sudanese region which has been soaked with blood from a violent civil war.

Martin urged other nations to step up with Canada and provide aid.

On Saturday, the prime minister said he's not waiting for other nations and suggested Canada could provide more money to meet the needs of an African peacekeeping force being currently being raised.

"I spoke to the president of the Nigeria this morning, the head of the African Union responsible for providing the troops, and it will come down to the number of troops," Martin told a press conference after a speech to the B.C. federal Liberal caucus.

"They're not quite sure what their needs will be and I've asked the president to give us a list of their needs."

So far, a quarter of the $20 million in funding Canada has donated has been spent. About 1,000 troops have been assembled and are ready to go into the east African state, but Martin said 5,000 are needed.

There's been a real delay in organizing the force to help the Sudanese people because the region lacks expertise and equipment, Martin said.

Canada will not ignore this void, the prime minister promised. It must help create a permanent pan-African peacekeeping regiment that will be ready to move in the future to stop fighting before it gets as deadly as it has become in Darfur.

"We have a responsibility as one of the richest nations in the world.

"Canada, you've gotta know this is put on the table. If (the Africans) are prepared to put up the troops to go in there, we will supply the flak jackets, we'll supply the equipment, we'll supply the training, we'll supply the money.

"We are not going to stand by and watch these massacres take place any longer."

He said the African Union has put forth an idea to organize 75,000 troops -- picked from various African nations -- who would be ready, trained and equipped.

Martin said it makes sense that locals do their own peacekeeping, as opposed to parachuting in Canadian troops who don't understand the culture.

"The offer I have made is obviously to deal with Darfur. Canada, because of our experience in peace keeping, should be training the trainers. That's part of the larger offer that I will be discussing in Burkina Faso when I speak to the head of the African Union," he said.


© The Canadian Press 2004

***
So, what happened to CDS saying CF will have slow op tempo?


----------



## foerestedwarrior

*shakes head* :-X


----------



## R031button

Speaking as somebody wearing OD's and who's never even _seen_ a real live tac vest, I'd  like to know why we can supply and equip the African Union but not ourselves.


----------



## GGboy

Moderator Edit

Africa's the last place we should be sending troops, especially now.


----------



## pbi

> we will supply the flak jackets, we'll supply the equipment, we'll supply the training, we'll supply the money.



Hopefully we will not issue a single flak jacket to any non-Canadian soldier until we can properly dress and equip every Canadian soldier, Regular or Reserve. The only exception would be any of the old "life preserver" type we used to have. Funny what the Govt can find money for. Now, if we were really smart, we'd figure out how to slide the re-equipment of our Army under the cover of things like this. Cheers.


----------



## McG

A Cascading program.  

100 flack vest to Sudan translate as : 100 new flakvests w/ballistic plates for the Canadians and 100 old Canadian flack vests shipped to Sudan.


----------



## pbi

McG said:
			
		

> A Cascading program.
> 
> 100 flack vest to Sudan translate as : 100 new flakvests w/ballistic plates for the Canadians and 100 old Canadian flack vests shipped to Sudan.



Ho ho ho. > I can see some potential with this. Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

You think the African's will take shiny new MGS's than?


----------



## pbi

>


----------



## NavyGrunt

We're acting without UN approval? But thats what keeps us from Iraq..... >


----------



## CBH99

Equipment issues aside, I'm impressed Paul Martin is taking a stance, and finally chastizing the UN for not acting fast enough.

I, for one, don't mind my tax dollars being used for foreign aid, especially in places that really need it.  I'm glad to see the PM taking a firm stance on the issue, and contributing things such as money and basic military equipment.

And for all of you who have whined about still being in your OD's and never having seen a tacvest, its not like we're giving them state of the art stuff here.  Old flak jackets and kevlar helmits isn't exactly going to break us.


----------



## foerestedwarrior

> And for all of you who have whined about still being in your OD's and never having seen a tacvest, its not like we're giving them state of the art stuff here.  Old flak jackets and kevlar helmits isn't exactly going to break us.




The thing is that there was no specified equipment, just what it is, "flackvests". doesnt say what ones, so this is all speculation.


----------



## CBH99

There was an article in Sun Media about a month ago, that had some specifics in terms of the equipment we were sending them.

When the initial $20 million figure was announced about a month ago (Roughly, don't chop my head off if the timing isn't exactly right) - there was also the announcement of donating some old military equipment.'

I don't have the article on hand, and I doubt I can find it seeing how it was a month ago, but in the article it stated something along the lines of:  "With the Canadian Forces now discarding their old Vietnam style flak jackets and replacing them with newer, more modern models, some of the old flak jackets will be part of the donations package.  Kevlar helmets and army boots will also be sent".

Now, keep in mind - THAT IS NOT VERBATIM.  And, Sun Media isn't the most well informed of media sources, and their writers aren't exactly the brightest crayons in the box.  But, if anybody can find the article last month re: making the announcement of $20 million in aid, some specific information was briefly mentioned when it discussed we were also donating some military kit.

Don't chop my head off for this,  I'm sure a few of you saw the article.  Sorry I can't find it and post it, and I doubt Sun Media still has it up - but rest assured, we're not about to donate state of the art personal kit (re: flak jackets) to Sudan.  From what that article mentioned, it was mainly boots, old flak jackets, and kevlar helmets.


----------



## Recce41

We do have new old vests and helmets from our first tours to Bosnia. And a lot of jungle and mk 2/3 boots that cannot be issued out.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Equipment issues aside, I'm impressed Paul Martin is taking a stance, and finally chastizing the UN for not acting fast enough.
> 
> I, for one, don't mind my tax dollars being used for foreign aid, especially in places that really need it.   I'm glad to see the PM taking a firm stance on the issue, and contributing things such as money and basic military equipment.
> 
> And for all of you who have whined about still being in your OD's and never having seen a tacvest, its not like we're giving them state of the art stuff here.   Old flak jackets and kevlar helmits isn't exactly going to break us.



Amen.  Not sure why Reservists serving in Canada exclusively need to take priority over foreign peacekeepers who will be in harm's way.  The sooner that Africa is sorted out, the better for the rest of the world.


----------



## Infanteer

> I, for one, don't mind my tax dollars being used for foreign aid, especially in places that really need it.



I really am unsure of this, as it seems a good amount of "foreign aid" seems to feed neopotism in these places - with the idealists screaming that we aren't sending enough over.  Canada seemed to get through 400 years of development without foreign aid (except colonial oversight, but the developing world feels that is bad for them).

I'd rather not line the pockets of guys like Mobutu Sese Seko, Robert Mugabe and Yasser Arafat


----------



## KevinB

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Not sure why Reservists serving in Canada exclusively need to take priority over foreign peacekeepers who will be in harm's way.   The sooner that Africa is sorted out, the better for the rest of the world.





Because what happens if all of a sudden when need those reservists?

 Sorry having seen African "peacekeeping" "forces" (which is an oxymoron IME) We'd do better sending a Bn BTLF GP and actually get somethign accomplished.


----------



## Infanteer

Anyone see that documentary "Cry Freetown".   Shows you the good of African "Peacekeepers".   Watching the Nigerians smash a twelve year old child's head in with rifle butts was particualrly enlightening....


----------



## Cloud Cover

KevinB said:
			
		

> We'd do better sending a Bn BTLF GP and actually get somethign accomplished.



I'm gonna regret saying this, as you [and not I  ] are the one who would have to go: the place is not worth the effort, and no good will come of us going any further than Mr. Martin is suggesting. Where is our security interest  engaged in the Sudan, such that we must intervene in such a manner? Let the Africans give it the "old college try" before getting balls deep in another cess pool. Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> I'm gonna regret saying this, as you [and not I ] are the one who would have to go: the place is not worth the effort, and no good will come of us going any further than Mr. Martin is suggesting. Where is our security interest  engaged in the Sudan, such that we must intervene in such a manner? Let the Africans give it the "old college try" before getting balls deep in another cess pool. Cheers.



Yup.

As much as the idealists would like to see as throwing flowers into every shithole in the world, I can't see how a few Canadian's are going to intercede in a conflict that's been going on for centuries.


----------



## Inch

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> As much as the idealists would like to see as throwing flowers into every shithole in the world, I can't see how a few Canadian's are going to intercede in a conflict that's been going on for centuries.



I concur, IIRC from my civilizations class, wasn't Africa the site of the first humans? Or at least one of the first. If they haven't gotten their shit sorted out in the last 10,000+ years, I don't think it's going to happen in my lifetime (hopefully 78.2 yrs and not ended prematurely).


----------



## Fishbone Jones

IMHO, Martin is just jumping at the first new, high vis mission for his new gov't. He needs to put his footprint on the military and cement his status as new PM with the UN. It's all about him and his cronies, not us or Africa. But, as always, well thought out or not, we'll go when they send us, lacking equip, manpower and mandate. :


----------



## Michael Dorosh

KevinB said:
			
		

> Because what happens if all of a sudden when need those reservists?



You issue them out at the airport as they get off the plane, naturally...

Not that I am going to argue the futility of trying to help them get their act together over there.   We can no longer talk of the "white man's burden" but I think Infanteer et al are correct about having a "civilized man's burden".


----------



## enfield

Africa did not just become this way on their own. True, they were undeveloped, by our standards, for much of history. This could be attributed to a number of natural factors: lack of navigable rivers, a long, straight coastline rather than inlets and penninsulas like Europe that percluded long-distance travel, the tsetse fly in the south that prevented livestock, and huge swathes of jungle and desert. 
Their recent woes could be attributed to Europe's very first foray into Common Foreign and Security Policy, the division of Africa in the late 1800s. No state in sub-Saharan Africa represents a reality on the ground. All of the borders are arbitrary, without reflecting ethnic groups, geographic, resource, or population realities. This makes sustaining such nations a little difficult.

Africa's modern era began with European states raping them, without providing for local education or training. Surprise, surprise, without trainined legislators, police, officers, bureaucrats, etc., after independence in the 50's and 60's, these countries went to hell. Yes, Britain was better and provided some degree of transition to independence, which is why ex-Brit colonies do a bit better. But, all in all, these countries were raped for 200 years and then left on the side of the road. Since then, we used them as pawns in the Cold War board game, sustaining conflicts that killed millions, again, hardly conducive to creating functioning socities. 

Do we have a responsibility for this? No, not as Canadians, and not as Westerners. And, on the scale of things, I would place responsibility at 50-50, locals and foreigners, because local nepotism, corruption, and all that have reversed a lot of progress. History is history, but don't assume that Africans chose to be like this or that they aren't working hard to improve their condition. 

So, why did we intervene in Yugo? Rwanda? Somalia? East Timor? Haiti? Afghanistan? What makes them more valued than Sudanese? What put East Timor in our national interest and not Sudan? I agree that a few thousand African 'peacekeepers' are probably not the answer - witness their successes in Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast. But, I don't see how Canada - or better yet, Europe - contributing some forces would hurt so much. I know the Belgian, Spanish, German, Swedish, Irish, etc, armies aren't too busy right now....


----------



## Cloud Cover

All of those interventions pre date our national security policy. Our national security interests are not engaged in the Sudan. There is no reason to go off half cocked and intervene in what will only turn out to be another "invasion", as the Sudan is not a failed state and has allies might that might object, to put things mildly. Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, and arguably Haiti and East Timor were failed states. When we have a modernized foreign policy that envisions such interventions, then off we [you?] go. Lots of luck. But right now, all we have is a crude NSP and a rather pie in the sky set of statements from foreign affairs. 

Our national interest is engaged in Afghanistan because our sworn enemy, who attacked our continent and killed our citizens, and some of our soldiers, is there.   

Kosovo might be the best template for action in the Sudan. Note the potential intensity of that conflict when it got underway. Are we ready for that again?


----------



## KevinB

Kosovo was another UN/NATO failure - too little to late.

 Personally it bugs the shit out of me that we place higher value on the lives of non-Africans than we do Africas - it smacks of rascism.

 Why did we go into the FYR?

Canada wants to be a "Peacekeeping" boyscout then we should vote with our actions not shout off our mouths.  go do something useful for the sake of goodness not oil or whatever the fuck else.

Failing that we should get off our ass and into Iraq - shit or get off the pot.


----------



## Infanteer

> Personally it bugs the shit out of me that we place higher value on the lives of non-Africans than we do Africas - it smacks of rascism.



As much as I hate to say it, human behaviour, like other species, are predisposed towards the notion of _inclusive fitness_ - we have an ingrained tendency to seek _kinship selection_.   Brother over cousin, family over tribe, tribe over outsiders, etc, etc.   (Read about it in the Ghiglieri book I recommended, quite fascinating).   When extended to the global arena, the principle means that the backyard of Europe takes precedence over a landlocked country in Africa.   In human nature, racism (if you want to call it that), xenophobia and nepotism are the rule rather than the exception.

As well, there are some very clear geopolitical reasons why we committed ourselves (to the point of exhaustion) to the FYR's and left Africa to the _lex talionis_.   The stability of Europe is a vital interest to Canada and the rest of the West.   The last time we let things in that area get out of control, we ended up in the stalemate of the trenches for 4 years.   These interests in the Balkans are still around today; the Croats, Serbs, and Muslims (and all the states and factions that back them) find the Balkans a convenient place to further their goals.

We tackled the Balkans before it led to another general conflagration.   Quite frankly, all the Sudans, the Rwandas, the Uganadas, the Somalias and the Ethiopias are on the periphery of the show.   Although they may get the attention on some Christian ministry program or on U2's latest album, realistic imperative will relegate them, and the idealism that springs from the constant human tragedies played out, to play the background noise to the human condition.


----------



## RDA

Enfield said:
			
		

> I don't see how Canada - or better yet, Europe - contributing some forces would hurt so much.



The situation in Sudan is very fragile and complicated.   I am no expert on the topic, so I will not even attempt to explain it myself as I would most certainly butcher the facts.   If you really want to understand why the international community seems reluctant to get involved, I suggest you do some reading.   There is plenty of "open source" analysis on the subject available all over the internet.

Here are two articles you might find insightfull:

*ISN Summary:*   "Sudan on the brink of collapse.   The only viable alternative to el-Bashir's control of Khartoum is the Islamic PNC, an outcome unacceptable to the US and EU For this reason, the Western powers will not lean too hard on Khartoum."
*Full text:*     http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=218&language_id=1

*ISN Summary:   *   "Jihadist overtones in Sudan.   However the crisis resolves itself in Darfur, one net beneficiary will be militant Islamists, both in Sudan and the wider region. They will be able to claim to have seen the "Crusader wolves" at the door, and will have no difficulty in finding a receptive audience for their message."
*Full text:*   http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=403&issue_id=3049&article_id=2368407

Take care


[Edited to correct URL...]


----------



## bossi

Talk about getting off on the wrong foot ...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/25/martin-sudan.html

*PM's convoy strikes girl in Sudan*

Last Updated Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:38:27 EST 
KHARTOUM, SUDAN - Prime Minister Paul Martin says he feels badly that his convoy struck and injured a young girl as it was leaving a displaced person's camp near Khartoum, Sudan on Thursday. 

The girl was taken to hospital by ambulance and X-rayed but has reportedly not suffered serious injury. 

"I feel very, very badly as I know we all do about what happened," Martin said. 

"She's received stitches on her tongue. She's okay and I am going to have an opportunity to see her," he said. 

Melanie Gruer, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office said, "the girl was hit by one of the pickup trucks carrying Sudanese guards who were protecting the prime minister," the Canadian Press reported. 

She said the convoy was travelling at high speed on narrow dusty roads 

"They couldn't see her because of the dust. She's been X-rayed â â€œ nothing broken. She has a slight injury to her mouth," Gruer said, adding the girl would be kept in hospital for 24 hours for observation after having stitches in her tongue. 

She was apparently hit as the crowd pressed forward toward the vehicles as they left the camp. 

The injury occurred just after the prime minister had delivered a speech offering a message of hope to those living in the camp, home to more than 200,000 people. 

"I want to say to you, because some of you were born in this camp in a time of war, you should know that war is not the norm," Martin said. "Peace is the norm." 

While at the camp, Martin met children, delivered schoolbooks, crayons and other supplies, and danced with the children. 

He also met with Sudanese officials, pledging that Canada will offer about $17 million for peacekeeping equipment and food. Martin arrived in Sudan on Thursday as part of his 10-day tour of Africa, Chile and Brazil. 

The fight between government-backed Arab militias and African rebel groups in the western region of Darfur has driven almost two million people from their homes. The United Nations estimates at least 70,000 people have died since March as a result of poor conditions in refugee camps.


----------



## Bograt

The debate thus far presented on intervining in Sudan has posed the "white man's burdon" versus "national interests." I fear that in this particular case neither argument is particular valid. The Prime Minister is trying to reposition Canada and other middle powers as significant players on the world stage. Martin is toughting the "Responsibility to Act" doctrine. A moralist policy based on "doing the right thing."

Unfortunately, in this particular case all that Canada can offer is surplus equipment, pleasant recommendations ("you must end corruption....") and moral outrage. I don't know what is more repugnant- the self satisfaction of the Canadian policy WOGs, or the sudanese girl waving the Canadian flag from her refugee camp.

My 2 cents.


----------



## bossi

Bograt said:
			
		

> I don't know what is more repugnant- the self satisfaction of the Canadian policy WOGs, or the sudanese girl waving the Canadian flag from her refugee camp.



I agree - it rubbed me the wrong way, too 
(i.e. a "photo opportunity" at a refugee camp ... ?  What a brain fart.)

Then, today's headline made me snicker ... 
(i.e. simply due to inclusion of the word "militia" ... I can imagine some ignoramus/imbecile Liberal party policy wonk lumping the Canadian militia under the same heading ... ha!)

*PM scolds Sudanese president over militia*
`We told them they had to rein them in'

Martin says he'll monitor situation
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...968705899037&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Grham Fraser, National Affairs writer, Toronto Star, Nov. 26, 2004. 01:00 AM 

KHARTOUM, Sudanâ â€Prime Minister Paul Martin told Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and his officials yesterday to call off the Janjaweed militia, who have been wreaking devastation in Darfur.

"Suffice it to say, we told them they had to rein them in," Martin told reporters after his meeting. "We said they're not going to have peace and security unless they were reined in ... We wanted them reined in, period."

Al-Bashir has always insisted that he does not control the militia, although international organizations like Human Rights Watch have documented the close ties between his troops and the armed militia members that have raped, murdered and pillaged in Darfur.

Martin acknowledged that yesterday was no different. "In the discussion with the president, the president indicated he was not able to control the Janjaweed, that in fact they were operating on their own," he said. "The point we made to him was that the Janjaweed would be controlled. Period."

Martin said that he pointed to al-Bashir's obligation as president. "I just simply said that it is a responsibility of government to control those kinds of extraneous militia forces," he said.

In its report last May, Human Rights Watch wrote that it found "credible evidence that the government of Sudan has purposefully sought to remove by violent means the Masalit and Fur populations from large parts of Darfur in operations that amount to ethnic cleansing."

The Darfur conflict, which the United Nations describes as the world's worst humanitarian crisis, began in February, 2003, when the Sudanese Liberation Army and the allied Justice and Equality Movement took up arms against what they saw as years of state neglect and discrimination against Sudanese of African origin.

The government responded with a counterinsurgency campaign in which the Janjaweed, an Arab militia, has committed wide-scale abuses against the African population. 

Martin said that al-Bashir agreed yesterday to give humanitarian aid organizations access throughout Sudan.

"It's been promised,'' he said. "It's not there yet."

In addition, they talked about issuing visas quickly, so aid workers could get into the country quickly. "That's a promise, it's not a reality yet," he said.

They also discussed security and the need for removing land mines.

Martin said he intended to monitor the situation closely.

"We have been given undertakings today," he said. "We do not intend to forget those undertakings."

He said he intended to work closely with the United Nations to ensure that al-Bashir lives up to his commitments.

Yesterday, a U.N. envoy and Britain blamed the Sudanese rebels for renewed fighting in Darfur, and the World Food Program pulled its staff from the region because of lack of security.

Britain called for an end to the fighting and an international commission said it would take measures to keep humanitarian aid flowing. Jan Pronk, the U.N. envoy, called for a doubling of peacekeepers in Darfur.

Meanwhile, Martin announced Canada is increasing its contribution to the African Union force that is monitoring the situation in Darfur, providing another 15 chartered helicopters in January and five more next May.

Canada has already supplied five helicopters, available until the end of the year, and Martin said they were used earlier in the week to evacuate 41 aid workers from Darfur, where, despite a signed agreement on Nov. 9, violence continues.

In addition, the defence department will provide $1.185 million in basic army supplies to the African Union force. Canada will also give an additional $2.5 million to the World Food Program for operations in Sudan.

The announcement brought the total of Canada's support for humanitarian activities in Sudan to $40 million since October, 2003.

Martin said that over the next four or five days he would be talking to a number of world leaders who have been involved with Sudan. U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa next week.

Martin said the problems in Sudan highlighted the importance of the principle of the responsibility to protect.

"We intend to insure that the responsibility to protect, which is a concept in which we believe, (is one) whose time has more than since come," he said. This is a principle developed in a report for the United Nations two years ago based on the idea that countries have the obligation to protect their own citizens, and when they do not do this, the international community has not only the right but the responsibility to intervene.

Martin has been arguing strenuously in favour of the principle.

Martin acknowledged that there have been problems winning acceptance for the idea, and that the nations of Latin America and Africa have insisted that if their sovereignty is to be compromised, it must be by troops from countries in their regions, and countries they are not squabbling with.

"There are always excuses," Martin said. "We have to put them in a situation where there are no excuses."

In order to do this, Martin said, Canada is prepared to train African Union troops in the techniques of peacekeeping. 

"I have been insisting that we've got to train these troops â â€ and we've got to train them before they go in," he said.

"You don't do it a week before they go in, you do it two years before they go in ... and before you train the soldiers, you have to train the people who are going to train them."

However, he acknowledged that the people of Darfur cannot wait, and that some of the preparation of the African Union forces will have to be "on-the- job" training.

Senator Mobina Jaffer, the government's special representative to Sudan, said that Canada has been working effectively on Sudan with other countries: the Arab League, Egypt, the U.S., Norway, the Netherlands, Germany and Nigeria.

After a long day in Khartoum Martin came back to Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso for the opening of the Francophonie summit this morning.

He said he wanted the Francophonie to meet a high standard.

"I certainly want it to be tougher on human rights abuses," he said. "Any organization â â€ La Francophonie, the Commonwealth â â€ no organization can tolerate within its membership human rights abuses, and they've got to be the principal monitoring force."

Martin is to return to Ottawa in the early hours of Sunday.


----------



## McG

> Sudan ousts directors of two aid groups
> Associated Press
> 29 Nov 04
> 
> Khartoum â â€ Sudan ordered the expulsion Monday of the directors of two British-based humanitarian organizations, accusing them of sending â Å“signals of supportâ ? to rebels in Darfur.
> 
> Sudan's Humanitarian Affairs Commission said the program directors of Save the Children UK and Oxfam International had violated the law on nonintervention in the country's political, ethnic or sectarian issues.
> 
> â Å“It has been decided to consider you persona non grata for the management of your organization in Sudan. Therefore, you must leave the country within 48 hours,â ? the acting commissioner, Abdel Khaliq Al -Hussein, said in letters addressed to the local directors of the aid organizations.
> 
> The Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs, which supervises the commission, said it was responding to statements on this month's upsurge in violence in Darfur, the western region of Sudan where a rebellion has provoked a counterinsurgency campaign that has killed thousands of people and displaced about 1.8 million inhabitants.
> 
> â Å“The Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs views the statements issued by those two organizations as sending signals of support to the outlaws and rebels for continuation of the war,â ? the ministry said in a press release carried by the official Sudan News Agency.
> 
> An Oxfam spokeswoman at the Oxford, England, headquarters confirmed the expulsion.
> 
> â Å“Oxfam can confirm reports that their country program manager for North Sudan has been asked to leave the country. We are seeking further clarification on this matter,â ? Amy Barry said.
> 
> In Khartoum, the Save the Children country director refused to comment.
> 
> The government referred to two press releases by Oxfam â â€œ one on Nov. 19 that condemned a UN Security Council resolution for its â Å“weaknessâ ? on Darfur, and another on Nov. 22 that called on the European Union to exert pressure on Sudan to stop the violence.
> 
> â Å“Rejecting the resolutions of the UN Security Council that calls for peace realization in Sudan simply means that organization wants the continuation of war in Darfur,â ? the ministry said.
> 
> It also said that calling for EU pressure on Sudan was â Å“sending signals to the rebels to continue war.â ?
> 
> The ministry criticized a Nov. 21 press release by Save the Children UK that accused the government of bombing a site in the North Darfur town of Tawilla. It said the aid group's report of both sides breaking the ceasefire did not distinguish between the rebels and the police who were protecting civilians.
> 
> In a Nov. 22 statement, Save the Children had accused both sides of â Å“utter disregardâ ? for the ceasefire, saying innocent people were suffering â Å“at the hands of the rebels and their own government.â ?
> 
> The ministry said the organizations should have contacted the government about these matters.
> 
> â Å“We would like to stress our rejection of any handling of security matters through the media,â ? the ministry said.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041129.wdarf1129/BNStory/Front


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Annan expects action following Darfur report
Last Updated Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:38:57 EST 
CBC News
UNITED NATIONS - A day after the United Nations commemorated the Holocaust, the Security Council will be asked to act on a report into the conflict and possible genocide in Sudan's Darfur region. 

Tuesday's report will determine if genocide has taken place in Sudan, and Secretary General Kofi Annan said he would then ask the Security Council to take action. 

"That report will determine whether or not acts of genocide have occurred in Darfur. But also and no less important, it will identify the gross violations of international humanitarian law and human rights which undoubtedly have occurred," said Annan on Monday. 

His comments came as he addressed the General Assembly in a special session to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps.  

In that sparsely attended assembly, the UN was told that indifference allowed Nazi Germany to systematically murder six million people, mostly Jews, during the Second World War. 

"I am convinced if the world had listened to those of us who tried to speak, we may have prevented Darfur, Cambodia, Bosnia and naturally Rwanda," said Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, at Monday's ceremony. 

If Tuesday's report says genocide is occurring, the UN could be spurred to mount a peacekeeping effort, level economic sanctions against Sudan and prosecute people for war crimes. 

The conflict in Darfur has African tribes battling government-backed Arab militias to end what they see as their marginalization by the state. 

The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced more than a million. 

The government on the weekend accused rebels of attacking eight villages. 

A small contingent of African Union observers has been ignored by both the Sudanese militias and the rebels. The Security Council has already passed resolutions condemning the violence in Darfur,  but has yet to take action to stop it.

....well I wonder who will survive since 12 years worth of resolutions seems to be the standard before they will act....no wait they let somebody else act on those resolutions,..then condemned that party.
The UN falls farther and farther from relevence.......


----------



## KevinB

Well if the TinPot dictators at the UN take action here - they might find themselves taken action against later...

 The UN is a blithering and useless org -- had a point once - but until we eject the nations that don't deserve a seat (some semblance of reasonable [I did not say responsible] gov't)

 Boot all the ones with major human rights issues.


----------



## a_majoor

KevinB said:
			
		

> The UN is a blithering and useless org -- had a point once - but until we eject the nations that don't deserve a seat (some semblance of reasonable [I did not say responsible] gov't)
> 
> Boot all the ones with major human rights issues.



Why waste our time? The US has got it right, assemble a coallition of the willing to do the heavy lifting, and tell the rest to "sod off". Over time, there will be a solid core of "the willing" (accepting that some members may join for a particular job or operation for their own self interest, but not otherwise be regular contributers, while others will be there wherever and whenever possible), and perhaps some sort of formalized structure will grow out of this.

The so called "Anglosphere" is one semi-permanent formation already, and we can expect to see political gatherings of greater or lesser utility based around common cultures, or interests, or trade. Unfortunately, there will also be some groupings based on the use of coercion and threats, a Chinese "East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere", a revived "Great Russia", or if the Jihadis had their way, a nuclear armed "Caliphate" controlling the mid east oil reserves.

Given the UN's track record of anti semitism, corruption, inaction against genocide in former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, Dafur, the "Oil for Food" scandal in Iraq and the "Sex for Peacekeepers" scandal in the Congo, not to mention their total inability to take effective action in the Tsunami zone, it is high time for thinking people everywhere to consider what the UN really represents now, and ask if we want to be associated with it?


----------



## KevinB

a_majoor said:
			
		

> a Chinese "East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere",


I hear their moto is Paybacks a Bitch Eh?  ;D


Valid if unfortunate points you bring up...


----------



## Infanteer

A little dated, but I always liked the message:

http://brain-terminal.com/articles/world/alliance-of-liberty.html


The Alliance of Liberty
Meet the U.N.'s replacement
Posted: 10 February 2003

By Evan Coyne Maloney

Would the McDonald's Corporation make an appropriate sponsor for a seminar on obesity?

Should Bacardi be providing refreshments at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings?

If Bill Clinton offered you marital advice, would you take it?

Unless you're a fat, drunk adulterer or a former president, I assume your answer to each of those questions is no. I also assume you wouldn't let Iraq run a conference on disarmament, or let Libya lead a human rights commission.

You might not. But the United Nations would.

Yes, the United Nations--whose purported purpose is "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person" and "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom"--decided that Iraq would make an appropriate leader for its U.N. Disarmament Conference, and that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights should be entrusted to Libya.

The U.N. pays lip service to human rights and freedom, but then lets countries like Libya and Iraq drive the discussions where these concepts are debated and defined. Is it any wonder, then, that the U.N.--for all of its inconsequential finger-waving and resolution-passing--has been unable to achieve any of the aims set out in its own charter?

Flawed By Design

The real problem isn't that the U.N. is weak and morally blind, the real problem is that it is built to be this way. As a result, the U.N. is structurally incapable of fulfilling its own goals:

- The United Nations makes no distinction between democracies and dictatorships. Libya, Syria and Iraq have the same voice and the same vote as countries like Canada, Iceland and Japan. Because much of the world is not free, any serious effort to liberate the oppressed would be stifled by the sizable bloc of nations that freedom threatens.

-  The United Nations can't enforce its own resolutions. It has neither the brawn nor the backbone to do so. Without a fighting force, resolutions can't be enforced unless members commit their own troops. But, because other nations rarely put their resources where their rhetoric is, violators correctly calculate that enforcement will never come. Emboldened by years of U.N. inaction, the Saddam Husseins of the world now understand that continual stonewalling is the formula for escaping punishment.

-  Powder-blue helmets. Like Rodney Dangerfield, U.N. peacekeepers get no respect. This may have something to do with the fact that they wear powder-blue helmets in the middle of war zones. Or maybe it's because the U.N.--hamstrung by an institutional fear of force--discourages its peacekeepers from taking action, even in self-defense. Whatever the reason, peacekeepers are able to maintain tenuous peace only when combatants are willing to grant it. How effective are they? Not very: in a few brutal days during the summer of 1995, as U.N. peacekeepers stood by, some 8,000 people were massacred in Srebrenica, Yugoslavia, a city designated a "safe haven" by the United Nations.

Because these flaws are inherent in the design and culture of the U.N., they won't go away without rebuilding the U.N. from the ground up. That's not going to happen, so we must recognize the U.N. for what it is: a terminal patient, an abject failure, a latter-day League of Nations. And, like its precursor, its time--if it ever came--has come and gone. It's time for a replacement.

The Alliance of Liberty
What we need instead is an Alliance of Liberty, whose purpose is to ensure the eventual freedom of every person on the planet. It would state its mission as follows:

We, the free people of the world, in recognition of the fact that freedom is a gift given to us through the selfless sacrifice of our ancestors, and in agreement on the belief that it is our moral obligation to share this gift with those who were not fortunate enough to be born into it, declare ourselves united in an Alliance of Liberty, whose purpose is to secure the freedom of every human everywhere. 

The Alliance would have two main objectives: to free the unfree, and to bring about long-term peace. When it must, the Alliance would use force to topple tyrants. But, by defeating tyranny--even when war is required to so do--the Alliance will be working towards an ultimate peace, a goal touted but unattained by the United Nations and the League before it.

What Is Peace?
Paradoxically, conflict is sometimes required to secure peace. In World War II, peace in Europe was achieved through the exercise of military muscle. But let's say the pacifists had been successful at convincing the allies that--to use the words of Jacques Chirac--"war always means failure and therefore everything must be done to avoid war." If Hitler gobbled up Europe and satiated his appetite for expansion, the fighting in Europe would be over. Pacifists would declare success, because by allowing Hitler to roll over Europe, war was avoided. In the minds of those who believe that peace is the absence of war, a war-free Europe living under the thumb of the Nazis would be a Europe living in peace. Talk about doublespeak.

Of course, peace is not merely the absence of war. Peace is the absence of threat. That's why the Cold War--a conflict containing much threat but no direct fighting--is referred to as a war; for forty years, the world lived under a frightening threat, and we rightly recognized that state of threat as a state of war.

Only by eliminating the threats that the world faces today will we achieve meaningful, lasting peace. Given that such threats invariably come from repressive regimes--how often do you find free countries at war with each other?--bringing freedom to those without it will eliminate these threats, and will lessen the likelihood of new ones emerging in the future. In other words, we may need to fight wars now if we want peace in the future. Or, we can let threats fester, and leave future generations even less secure than we are today. But, remember: threats do not go away simply because one side wishes to avoid conflict. There is no such thing as a unilateral peace.

The Future of the U.N.
In the coming weeks and months, we will hear much debate about the future of the United Nations. Such talk is futile. The United Nations is a world body in rigor mortis. It is not, as it set out to be, a body for promoting progress. Instead, the U.N. promotes stasis. And it has not, as it set out to do, brought about larger freedom. Instead, the U.N. winks at dictatorships by granting them the same consideration as democracies. The U.N. may truly desire world peace, it just doesn't know how to get there.

History gave the gift of freedom to many, but it overlooked many more. Is it right that we enjoy this gift without sharing it? What we now call a coalition of the willing should band together in a permanent alliance to replace groups that--like the U.N. and NATO--find themselves struggling for relevance. Those free nations that agree to fulfill the mission of the Alliance are welcome to help the United States carry the light of liberty to the darkest parts of the globe. And to those other free countries, the stingy ones that seem to think freedom is finite and must be hoarded, I ask: is the only freedom worth fighting for your own?


----------



## 291er

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Rebels in Sudan's western Darfur region called Sunday for the African Union to send more troops to Darfur and give the soldiers the mandate to stop government troops and allied militia from attacking civilians.

The Sudanese government is sending more troops and military hardware to Darfur, continues arming and recruiting Arab militia, known as Janjaweed, and has built airstrips in remote parts of the region to prepare for new offensives against insurgents, said Adam Ali Shogar, a spokesman for the Sudan Liberation Movement, one of Darfur's two main rebel groups.

He said that since December 8, the government has taken seven rebel positions in Darfur in a series of attacks.

"We are asking for more troops with a very clear mandate to protect civilians in Darfur," Shogar said. "People who are in camps are not safe, those in villages are not safe. The Janjaweed continue committing more crimes against civilians with the help of government soldiers."

The government denies targeting civilians in Darfur.

The conflict, described by the United Nations as the world's worst humanitarian crisis, began in February 2003 when the two African rebel groups -- the Sudanese Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement -- took up arms over what they regarded as years of neglect and discrimination by the Arab-dominated government. The Janjaweed's actions -- which have killed tens of thousands and caused the expulsion of more than a million -- amount to a massive retaliation.

Last year, the African Union sent 2,100 unarmed military observers and police and troops to guard them to Darfur, an area the size of France. The observers are supposed to be monitoring a largely ignored cease-fire.

The rebel appeal for more troops with a stronger mandate came as AU leaders met in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, for a summit aimed at tackling conflicts, poverty and disease in the world's poorest continent.

Shogar said the 53-member organization should give the AU force should allow its troops to protect civilians from attacks.

U.S. and U.N. officials hoped that a January 9 agreement ending a separate conflict in southern Sudan would help end the fighting in Darfur.

But Shogar said the Sudanese officials have the used the respite in the south to beef up its forces in the Darfur and launch fresh attacks.

"Since signing the agreement in the south, the government has been bringing more troops and equipment from the south into Darfur for major military offensives," Shogar said.

"They are still equipping the Janjaweed and recruiting more fighters in the area. They are preparing new airstrips in the bush -- away from the sight of African Union observers -- for sending more equipment to the militias," Shogar said.



Any comments?  Personally I think the UN will have to contribute something, because as of late, the AU has not been able to effectively protect the population or provide the amount of troops necessary to do so.  If this is the case, I have no doubt Canada will send some sort of committment, not that we can muster much of one at this point, but Mr Martin has made Sudan one of his personal pet projects.  
Don't look for anything to happen too soon though, look how long it took them to effectively deal with the North/South problem.  That being said, it was not totally the UN's fault, but I think they could have done more to grease the wheels of the peace process and hasten the deployment of troops on the ground.


----------



## McG

> Sudan air force bombing kills dozens in Darfur
> Associated Press
> Posted Globe and Mail online
> Friday, Jan 28, 2005
> 
> Cairo â â€ A Sudanese air force bombardment of villagers in Darfur this week killed or wounded almost 100 people, a UN spokeswoman said Friday, calling the bombing a major violation of a fragile ceasefire in the conflict-torn region.
> 
> The bombardment at the village of Shangil Tobaya, which took place Wednesday, forced â Å“thousandsâ ? of people to flee, spokeswoman Radhia Achouri said in a phone interview from Khartoum.
> 
> Ms. Achouri said African Union observers at the scene had reported â Å“almost 100 casualtiesâ ? but did not specify how many were dead and how many wounded.
> 
> â Å“But 100 casualties is 100 too many, be they wounded or dead,â ? she said. â Å“It is definitely one of the most serious violations of the ceasefireâ ? signed by the government and the Darfur rebels last year.
> 
> The United Nations mission in Khartoum spoke to Sudan's Foreign Ministry about the bombardment, but has received no reply.
> 
> NGO field workers based in Shangil Tobaya, 65 kilometres south of El Fasher, reported seeing bombs exploding on the ground and an air force Antonov circling overhead on Wednesday afternoon. Later the same day, the African Union, which has 1,400 ceasefire monitors and protection troops in Darfur, confirmed that there was an aerial bombardment and called it a â Å“major violationâ ? of the ceasefire.
> 
> The Sudanese government has issued no statement on the report. On Thursday, its deputy information minister declined to comment, saying a call from the Associated Press was the first he had heard of the matter, because he was on vacation.
> 
> â Å“The Government of Sudan always says aerial bombardments are not government policy and that President Omar el-Bashir has issued firm instructions that there should be no use of Antonovs for aerial bombardment,â ? Mr. Achouri said.
> 
> The Sudanese government has often been accused of employing its air force against civilians in Darfur, and it has usually denied the allegations. It is rare that an aerial bombardment is confirmed by the African Union.
> 
> The Darfur conflict, which the United Nations describes as the world's worst humanitarian crisis, began in February, 2003, when the Sudan Liberation Army and allied Justice and Equality Movement took up arms against what they saw as years of state neglect and discrimination against Sudanese of African origin.
> 
> The government responded with a counterinsurgency campaign in which an Arab militia known as janjaweed committed wide-scale abuses against the African population. An estimated 1.8 million people have been displaced in the conflict.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050128.wdarf0128/BNStory/International/


----------



## gnplummer421

Earlier someone mentioned that these people cannot police themselves and need help etc. How about they start by small groups of farmers who set up some homemade ambush and grab a small group of rebels, take their equipment, use that equipment against them, recruit more farmers once they have captured moe wpns, and grow until each little community possesses the necessary  means to defend themselves. Is this not a concept that would work?


----------



## 291er

You're asking farmers to attack armed rebels, what do the farmers use for weapons?  A hoe is hardly a challenge to an AK-47.  Plus the Janjaweed are supported by the govt of Sudan, so they have the advantage.  What happens when they keep getting bombed by Sudanese Antonovs throwing mortar rounds out the back?  Would you suggest that they attack and capture some AAA or SAM equipment as well?


----------



## Kirkhill

Getting "farmers" to tackle "rebels" works better if the "farmers" get weapons and good training, are formed into organized groups, backed by specialist counter-insurgent troops and a fair amount of Air Support.   

Look into the Firqats organized by the Sultan of Oman and the SAS during the Dhofar campaign in Oman in the 1970s against Marxist Guerillas.  A small number of SAS troops along with some "Ex" RAF types and such like, temporarily seconded to the Sultan of Oman's Forces effectively put down a similar situation.  Of course the difference there was it was the rebels that was doing the slaughtering, not the Government.

Made the Sultan of Oman a friend of the Brits for life.  Paid off handsomely in the run up to this latest go round in Iraq as Oman became a major staging area and training ground.

Cheers.


----------



## CupFrantic

This is an example of the situations that I would like the Canadian forces of the future to train for. I want to formulate an armed force that can quickly deploy into a place like Sudan or Haiti. Go in with a strong force kick ass and then pull out and let the rest of the UN countries reconstruct the region. This way Canadian soldiers are out of the country after 2 tours and we are not in a Bosnia scenario where we can never leave. I know these types of missions are not seen as glamorous but if we can stop one Rwanda from happening then we can be happy with ourselves. This role as Peace Maker not PeaceKeeper is perfect with for Canada, if we have a pro active government, which Paul Martin is trying produce with all his world trips. Canada can fit into this role because we have a history of solving problems on the world stage and we have no history(colonialism) with Africa. I believe we should then concentrate in these types of mission. Instead of being the 2nd or 5th largest supply of troops to large NATO forces in places like Afghanistan or Bosnia, we can play the main role in my Peace Maker mission, in which it only us and maybe one or two other countries. An example is Haiti

For this to happen we would need:

1) a gov that will react quickly when they see a problem(especially when defenceless civilians are being attracted by rebels or gov forces)
2)a well trained force that is trained heavily because in these missions they will see a lot more contact with the enemy, which will mean some casualties. At the same time they have to be extremely knowledgeable about the situation they are walking into. Which means lots classes on the countries history and politics etc.
4) At the same time this force must be deployable in a matter of weeks not months.
5) The battle group must be large enough  to complete the mission and must be fully supplied because they will be sometimes entering a warzone. They cannot be undersized deployment this is very important. Other troops should be ready in Canada to come in as support with in days, if the crap hits the fan.
6) This force will need the ships which can carry equipment and also act as a base of operations with a large helo fleet.
7) this force should have air support(cf18 armed and always flying over the battle groups territory ready to support them. This lets the enemy ofrse know that you attack Canadian troops that you will pay and also gives a sense of hope to the individuals we are protecting.
8) Some sort of attack helo and transport helo plus light tanks and new arty will have to be bough

() Our goal is to react quickly stop hosities, a then once the UN is ready leave and let them reconstruct the gov 
If Canada formed a force like this and used it in the way I explained  we would be the middle power that we were in the early 1950ès that Pearson always ienvisioned and most importantly we would be helping a part of the world that is usually forgotten by the rest of western world.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Rumour around here is that we will be there this summer with a reinforced company with Eng.  Only time will tell though.


----------



## 48Highlander

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the UN just announce that their investigators have concluded that no genocide took place in Darfur?


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Nope get this i agree with you again.

They stopped just short of calling it a genocide.  i guess two in one region are not good for the UN to be seen with.

Did anyone watch the passionate eye last night.  Shake Hands with the Devil.

Scary shit man, no wonder most have lost a sense of respect for the UN


----------



## dutchie

It is very clear to me that the necessity for a strong UN (or similar multi-national organization) has never been greater. It is also clear to me that the UN is so completely self-absorbed and inefficient, it couldn't organize a gang-bang in a whorehouse.

So what will happen? What should happen? Should the world respond to individual conflicts, disputes, and disasters (like Suez, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, SE Asian Tsunami, etc) with a group of nations thrown together for each particular mission (ie - 'Coalitions of the Willing')? Should we scrap the UN and develop a new organization with similar goals, but without the corruption, waste, and bureaucracy? Or do we try and fix the UN?

I like aspects of all 3 ideas. What do you think?


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I think that scrapping th UN would make any new organization equally useless look at the league of nations and now the UN.  

I think it should be Re-vamped from top to bottom, and it should have a  peace keeping division sorta like NATO with brigades stationed in areas for quick deployment, for such crisis as Rwanada and Sudan or ....... the list goes on and on.  

You could have a North American Brigade an African one a European one and an Asian one Maybe two in Europe.  Should be enough guys(girls) to sort it out if necessary.

But i have to agree the coroption has to stop.


----------



## a_majoor

The nice thing about coallitions of the willing is they can assemble and move quickly: The US, Australia, Japan and India were in action in the Tsunami zone long before the UN was really aware that anything had happened. 

"Tiger teams" formed by coalitions of the willing also don't come with cumbersome bureaucracies and the attendent intrigue and corruption that goes with it. 

Coallitions also allow nations to contribute according to their abilities and needs (sort of Marxism in reverse), so if they are unable to participate, or the mission is not deemed to be in the national interest, then you can take a pass. (This is also a quick way to figure out who the "willing" really are).

So my vote is for the Coallition of the willing plan.


----------



## dutchie

Of course, the biggest problem with the 'Coalition(s) of the Willing' to replace a permanent international organization (UN), is that there is zero consistency in: overall mission plan, vision, mandate, procedures, and focus. In short, it removes one of the biggest advantages of a NATO/UN-like organization: a stated and followed overall goal/objective. 

I like your idea Wizard, but I'd like to expand on that...

I lean towards scrapping the Un's DPKO (Dept. of Peacekeeping Operations), and the UNSC. Take the responsibility for international peace support operations away and simultaneously develop another more robust, streamlined organization. 

This new organization would be open to any nation willing to commit troops, money and supplies to any mission mandated by this new org. So having Iran as a member, for instance, is fine, but they better be prepared to commit troops to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc (to battle anti-gov forces of course). No member of the new SC would have Veto power, or permanent status. The SC would be based on level of contribution as it relates to their GDP - so by the US would not automatically be able to spend just an little (say, $750 million) to get on the SC, and a country like South Africa would not have to bankrupt their economy to get a say. The SC would be limited to a small number of nations - say 8-14. This would permit consensus. The SC would be 'reset' every few years to allow other nations a crack at it. Mandates could be proposed by any nation, but the SC has total control over whether they get approved or not. 

There would be enough troops ready to deploy within 7 days to any area of the world. These Battle Groups (for instance) would be from different sectors (kinda like what Wizard said), and be trained to a level that would allow them to actually do some good (unlike most 3rd world 'Peacekeeping' contingents in the UN). If a country doesn't have the means to get there, that's ok, we would know about that problem well ahead of time, and have all the support required to deploy in location or close-by (7 days or less to deploy in theatre).

Leave the pure humanitarian missions to the UN. Or develop some other Org and scrap the UN altogether.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Have to agree with Ceaser on the Colation of the willing thing.  What if say Iran and Syria and China decided to make a colation of the willing and step into oh i don't know for giggles lets say Indonesia.  On a humanitrian mission.  Not a pleasant thought.   I think it has to be a recognized body by the nations of the world not a colation cause you feel like thing.

But i think ceaser would have a hard sell with the SC on the US and other nations not necessarily being there.  you could expand it like we were talking about in the other UN post so it is done by region.  US, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, China, say India, Asia and Affrica. having the permant seats.  No one nation could veto any propsal you would need a majority rules,  so 5 outa 8.

the peace keepind division would be made up of troops from all nations who want to contribute them and they could be based in Europe and Asia and NA even in Affrica in say battle groups so they can train and what not but they could be deployed into any area quickly with all the equipment necessary.

just my thoughts


----------



## jmackenzie_15

At least someone is doing something and they arent the UN.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/03/russia-sudan-peacekeeping050203.html


MOSCOW - Russian troops could be sent to Sudan to join United Nations peacekeeping forces after President Vladimir Putin signed an order on Thursday authorizing the move. 


INDEPTH: Sudan

  
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks to lawmakers in Moscow Thursday. (AP photo)  
The resolution calls for Russia to send Interior Ministry units to Sudan's southern region, where a deal signed on Jan. 9 ended a 20-year civil war. 

Russia's Interior Ministry has police units and military units. It wasn't clear which would be sent to Sudan. 


The UN envoy to Sudan said last year that he expected a peace agreement to be followed by a Security Council resolution authorizing a wide-ranging UN peacekeeping mission with as many as 10,000 troops. But that resolution has been delayed.


----------



## dutchie

It's counter productive to have Permanent Status. It's kinda like University Profs who have tenure (from the words 'ten year') - once you have it you're fire proof. Why bother contributing troops, money, or ideas to the SC if you can't be booted off? 

Same thing for veto power. It gives those who have it NO incentive to be flexible, reasonable, or co-operative. I don't care that France had the shit kicked out of her twice in 25 years, they don't get to dump any plan that doesn't conform to their political ideology. Same goes for the US.

Wizard:that is exactly why the Coalition of the Willing is a bad idea on an on-going basis. It's great when the nations are our friends. Not so great when it's out enemies.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> At least someone is doing something and they arent the UN.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/03/russia-sudan-peacekeeping050203.html
> 
> 
> MOSCOW - Russian troops could be sent to Sudan to join United Nations peacekeeping forces after President Vladimir Putin signed an order on Thursday authorizing the move.
> 
> 
> INDEPTH: Sudan
> 
> 
> Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks to lawmakers in Moscow Thursday. (AP photo)
> The resolution calls for Russia to send Interior Ministry units to Sudan's southern region, where a deal signed on Jan. 9 ended a 20-year civil war.
> 
> Russia's Interior Ministry has police units and military units. It wasn't clear which would be sent to Sudan.
> 
> 
> The UN envoy to Sudan said last year that he expected a peace agreement to be followed by a Security Council resolution authorizing a wide-ranging UN peacekeeping mission with as many as 10,000 troops. But that resolution has been delayed.



Fascinating ...

One wonders just who Putin might be interested in 'helping' and why.

I am 99% certain that Putin's aims involve making mischief at America's expense.   I suspect that Putin intends to prevent any Western led intervention in Sudan, thus allowing the government in Khartoum (and the government's paymasters in Riyadh) to continue to suppress and exploit the blacks in Sudan ... including in the lucrative slave trade.


----------



## Horse_Soldier

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> Fascinating ...
> 
> One wonders just who Putin might be interested in 'helping' and why.
> 
> I am 99% certain that Putin's aims involve making mischief at America's expense.   I suspect that Putin intends to prevent any Western led intervention in Sudan, thus allowing the government in Khartoum (and the government's paymasters in Riyadh) to continue to suppress and exploit the blacks in Sudan ... including in the lucrative slave trade.


Hmm, considering China's great interest in Sudan (and thus explaining her attitude on the UNSC in this respect) and its oil - coupled with Russia's and China's off and on frictions, Putin's aim could be directed towards making mischief for Beijing rather than Washington.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> Hmm, considering China's great interest in Sudan (and thus explaining her attitude on the UNSC in this respect) and its oil - coupled with Russia's and China's off and on frictions, Putin's aim could be directed towards making mischief for Beijing rather than Washington.



Yes, good point ... I think we can assure ourselves that Putin will not do anything *for* America/the West.   He might well be acting on China's behalf.   Russia has an important long term interest in placating the Chinese who, every century or so, cast covetous eyes on Siberia.   The big change, for Russia, is that China is becoming a global superpower just as Russia, rusted out nukes and all, sinks into geo-political oblivion.   Maybe the bear is dancing to the tune of a _guzheng_.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I only gotta couple of pennies lft but here are two more.

True but with no veto vote and a majority rule it could accomplish a lot more of the things that need to be done.  And in my world France does not have a vote alone it would be part of western Europes vote so their would be Spain and England and Germany and so on in there to discuess it over with. 

Or you could hold elections in the General Assebly areana for the SC but the nations have to represent those regions.  And it is not based on the size of your contribution to the organization have say anual dues, that if you contribute troops to it comes off the cost of those dues.


----------



## dutchie

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> I only gotta couple of pennies lft but here are two more.
> 
> True but with no veto vote and a majority rule it could accomplish a lot more of the things that need to be done.   And in my world France does not have a vote alone it would be part of western Europes vote so their would be Spain and England and Germany and so on in there to discuess it over with.
> 
> Or you could hold elections in the General Assebly areana for the SC but the nations have to represent those regions.   And it is not based on the size of your contribution to the organization have say anual dues, that if you contribute troops to it comes off the cost of those dues.



we're in complete agreement on all of your points here.


----------



## Kirkhill

My own view is that right now China is playing a long game, staying out of the line of fire but always willing to support anything that causes mischief for the US.  

Russia, supported by some of their ancient political supporters in Europe (remember that the Europeans have been squabbling to get next to the Russian throne since Peter the Great's days) is trying to stay on the right side of China and at the same time look for an opportunity to regain its old supremacy.  This it is doing by trying to combine (for want of a better phrase) "Old Europe" led Europe, itself and China.   China may want the same thing but sees itself in the "Cat-bird seat".  This IMHO is probably more likely.

All parties in this triangle are agreed that the US is an obstacle to their goals.

The US finds allies in Australia, whose geopolitical situation is pretty simple, America as a friend or no friends in an inhospitable part of the world.  The UK and New Europe find themselves, as always trying to dance amongst the competing tensions of Europe.  In the UKs case that means staying inside Europe so as to be able to influence events and prevent the UK becoming the enemy.  Giving up enough sovereignty to buy a sufficiently influential seat at the table but at the same time keeping the British electors, who tend to be a very nationalistic bunch, onside and also maintaining enough sovereignty that it can act independently of Europe.  Especially, as is possible, the whole venture comes flying apart over irrenconcilable differences in the next 5 to 25 years and it finds itself divided with a resurgent Russia backed by a wealthy China on their doorstep.  To balance that out Tony has to also stay in good with the Yanks as he may want them to come calling for the third time.  I don't fancy his job.

Places like Iraq, Iran, Sudan are what they always have been,  the spaces in the middle of the chess board to be played over.

The one big question mark is India.  Whoever can secure India's support is going to have a big leg up on the future.  As a result everybody is currently paying court to India.  India faces threats to interest but I don't think it faces any realistic physical threats.  The Himalayas and the Oceans give her a reasonably secure physical location - consider China's great efforts to achieve a limited amphibious assault capability against an offshore island.  Blue water invasions seem to be a long way off.  As to coming over by Tibet - a quick scan of the history of the Burma - Ledo road will demonstrate the difficulties there ( anything on Chindits, 14th Army, Slim, Stillwell will get you there).  Not to mention over a billion nationalists many of them young and male.  So I think India can afford to sit back for a while and let the rest of the world come to her and see what kind of deals she can get.

I will be watching to see what we might make out of the tealeaves of the foreign policy review as to what direction Canada is leaning.  Total-Fina-Elf - France - Russia - China or Exxon - UK - India? - US.


----------



## CBH99

I'm interested in the opinions of others on this board, especially those with current or past military experience.  How feasible do you think military action against Sudan would be?  And, what type of operations do you think would be most effective in physically stopping the militias from continuing their reign of terror, and deterring them in the future.  Small unit raids?  Special operations missions?  Air strikes of some sort?  Large unit formations to both engage the militias, and set up a police/security role?

I know there are several factors all contributing to the situation in that region.  Their history plays a significant role, as does the ability of the corrupt government officials to run about their business with virtually no opposition.  Although Mr. Martin's "Responsibility to Act" theme sounds good to the ear, he has to be able to back it up with physical means if necessary.  Until countries are willing to put some muscle behind their words, all they are are words.  The US threatened sanctions unless the situation improved - how do you put sanctions on a country that has virtually nothing to begin with?  If anything, sanctions might make their situation worse - depriving them of what little product they do import is hardly a productive solution to the problems over there.  Bah, I'm rambling again - sorry.

So, what do you guys think?  What do you think should be done, diplomatically and militarily?  And, leaning on a soldier's honour, after hearing the stories of mass rapes, mutilations, and mass killings (Heaven forbit we call it what it actually is, the teething of a genocide) - what do you think outta' be done?


----------



## Wizard of OZ

With russia going in how long do you think it will be befroe we go.  My sources say it is going to be this summer. with the 3rd.


----------



## a_majoor

9 names the UN would PREFER we give to the "not genocide" in Darfur

   1. "Refugee Bingo"
   2. "The Sudenese government presents, Darfur on Ice!"
   3. "Just a few silly Arab militia men sowing their oats"
   4. "David Blaine's The Incredible Disappearing Civilians of Displeasing Ethnicity"
   5. "People Pruning"
   6. "Mulching the Desert"
   7. "No Chocolate Wednesdays"
   8. "That little African misunderstanding"
   9. â Å“'Extreme Makeover':  The Dark Continent edition"*


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Feb. 5, 2005. 01:00 AM 

West gets tied up in words as killing in Darfur rages


STEPHEN HANDELMAN
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

UNITED NATIONSâ â€On Jan. 22, 2004, armed government militia rode into Wadi Saleh, a desert region in western Sudan, and set dozens of small villages aflame in an orgy of murder and pillage.

When the burning was done the raiders herded frightened survivors into a large area, and the band leader read out on a microphone the names of 22 people. They were killed on the spot. 

It was just one horrific incident in the nightmare of Darfur, where a systematic two-year government-backed campaign of rape, looting and homicide has scorched an entire swath of Sudan, killing over 70,000 people and driving some 2 million from their homes. But this incident, cited in the U.N. commission of inquiry's report on Darfur released this week, turns out to be one clue to an ugly 21st-century dilemma.

Is there a difference between genocide and crimes against humanity?

This sounds at first glance like a cruelly useless distinction. From the perspective of the victims, and civilized humanity, mass murder by any name deserves the worst punishment imaginable, as we were reminded last month by the 60th-anniversary commemorations of the liberation of the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz.

But the difference does count when it comes to moving world opinion to action. The wrangles in the West over how to define genocide during the Rwanda civil war a decade ago gave many governments an excuse to turn a blind eye to what was going on â â€ thereby causing countless more preventable deaths.

The U.N. report has already provoked a storm of criticism around the world by concluding that what went on in Darfur was not genocide but almost certainly "crimes against humanity." Sudanese opposition groups and human-rights advocates say the five-person panel, headed by Italian human-rights lawyer Antonio Cassese (former head of the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal) evaded their responsibility with irrelevant legal distinctions.

In fact, the closely argued 176-page report offers the first clear moral foundation not only for bringing to justice the perpetrators of human-rights crimes, but for intervening when the situation is too muddy to tell what's actually going on. In a world where it is almost certain that Darfur will not be the last example of gross inhumanity, that's a crucial step forward. 

Take, for example, the massacres of Wadi Saleh in 2004. The ugly overtones of Nazi-style executions are hard to miss; nevertheless, as the commission points out, what stands out in that incident isn't who was killed, but who wasn't. All the civilians executed were suspected of being anti-government rebels, as were another 205 killed later. But at least 800 were spared death, according to witnesses.

Brutal, yes. But genocide? The case "clearly shows that the intent of the attackers was not to destroy an ethnic group (but) to murder all those men they considered as rebels," said the inquiry. It documents a number of similar incidents, along with statements of witnesses and survivors to back up its argument that while there was a systematic attempt to intimidate large groups of people in Darfur, through murder and forced expulsions, there was no "genocidal intent," that is, a Nazi-style campaign to exterminate entire classes of people.

The commission uses a Canadian legal opinion to back up its argument. In 1999, Department of Foreign Affairs lawyers concluded the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians during the Balkans war didn't amount to genocide. The reason, according to Ottawa's legal memo: the Albanians were being killed "in order to drive them from their homes, not in order to destroy them as a group."

Does the point really matter? To the extent that it erodes the high hurdle Western governments have set themselves since the Nazi era to intervene massively only in cases of genocide, it matters very much.

Genocide was long assumed to be the "crime of crimes." But, as the inquiry points out, there is no hierarchy when it comes to evil. "Crimes against humanity or large-scale war crimes may be no less serious and heinous than genocide," insists the report.

And it matters particularly now, in Darfur. While the Sudanese government and the West continue to wrangle about the proper category of murder, the killing and rape goes on. 

By calling on the international community to act now without quibbling over 50-year-old legal differences, and bring the perpetrators (the panel says it has identified 51 individuals) to the International Criminal Court, the commission has provided a genuine service to Darfur's still-terrified inhabitants, and to those who may someday find themselves in a similar hell.

"Real peace cannot be established without justice," the inquiry says. No one could put it better.
Additional articles by Stephen Handelman


...again we do nothing because of the "wording"....I really don't think those innocent people care if its genocide, crimes against humanity or just a lot of murdering,........its the same thing to the individual involved.
It would be nice to see the UN actually do something here instead of waiting and knowing eventually the US and its allies will step in and then get criticized for actually acting upon the resolutions they passed.........for another 12 years?


----------



## a_majoor

> *Anti-War Questions*
> by 'Cicero' at February 6, 2005 05:09 PM
> 
> Liberals are or should be aligned with progressive politics and values. So in light of political progressives who eschew President Bush's war against Saddam, a few questions:
> 
> * What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections? Can it be applied to Burma, North Korea, Iran, and other dictatorships?
> 
> * If your answer to this question involves the UN, address the UN's corruption with the Oil-for-Food scandal, sex slaves in the Congo, and the inability to prevent the Rwandan genocide. If the top dogs of the UN are profiteers for the containment of dictators like Saddam, and their representatives trafficking sex in the countries they purport to peace-keep, how can the UN be a legitimate force for democracy?
> 
> * Are tyrants defeated with soft power, or merely contained until they fade away? Is contained fascism simply the unstated and accepted cost of soft power? If it is, should Hitler have been opposed?
> 
> * What can corrupt soft power?
> 
> * Are there any circumstances where hard power is warranted?
> 
> * If the UN is too corrupt and impotent, and the US is too sovereign to represent the world, what organization would you propose instead?
> 
> * Would a 'UN-D' -- a variation or branch of the United Nations, except the members are all democracies -- be a better legitimizing force for democracy than either the United States or the current United Nations?
> 
> * If you had to wear a uniform and be put in harm's way, but could choose the flag you fought for, which flag would it be: Your family crest; your town's flag; your state's flag; your country's flag; your religion's flag; the UN, NATO or EU flag; or an NGO flag. Why?


And Mark Styen on more UN shenanigans. Honestly, should we even be associated with the UN anymore?



> Would you trust these men with $64bn of your cash? Of course not
> By Mark Steyn
> (Filed: 06/02/2005)
> 
> At tough times in my life, with the landlord tossing my clothes and record collection out on to the street, I could have used an aunt like Benon Sevan's. Asked to account for the appearance in his bank account of a certain $160,000, Mr Sevan, executive director of the UN Oil-for-Food programme, said it was a gift from his aunt. Lucky Sevan, eh? None of my aunts ever had that much of the folding stuff on tap.
> 
> And nor, it seems, did Mr Sevan's. She lived in a modest two-room flat back in Cyprus and her own bank accounts gave no indication of spare six-figure sums. Nonetheless, if a respected UN diplomat says he got 160,000 bucks from Auntie, we'll just have to take his word for it. Paul Volcker's committee of investigation did plan to ask the old lady to confirm her nephew's version of events, but, before they could, she fell down an elevator shaft and died.
> 
> If you're a UN bigshot, or the son of Kofi Annan, or the cousin of Boutros Boutros-Ghali, or any of the other well-connected guys on the Oil-for-Fraud payroll, $160,000 is pretty small beer. But, if you're a starving kid in Ramadi or Nasariyah, it would go quite a long way. Instead, the starving-kid money went a long way in the opposite direction, to the Swiss bank accounts of Saddam's apologists. "The Secretary-General is shocked by what the report has to say about Mr Sevan," declared Kofi Annan's chief of staff, Britain's own Mark Malloch Brown.
> 
> That's how bad things are at the UN: even the Brits sound like Claude Rains. Of course, the Secretary-General isn't "shocked" at all. And nor are the media, which is why the major news organisations can barely contain their boredom with the biggest financial scam of all time â â€œ bigger than Enron, Worldcom and all the rest rolled into one. If ever there were a dog-bites-man story, "UN Stinkingly Corrupt Shock!" is it.
> 
> And, in a way, they have a point: what happened was utterly predictable. If I had $64 billion of my own money, I'd look after it carefully. But give someone $64 billion of other people's money to "process" and it would be surprising if some of it didn't get peeled off en route. Especially if that $64 billion gives you access to a unique supply of specially low-priced oil you can re-sell at market prices. Hire Third World bureaucrats to supervise the "processing" and you can kiss even more of it goodbye. Grant Saddam Hussein the right of approval over the bank that will run the scheme, and it's clear to all that nit-picky book-keeping will not be an overburdensome problem.
> 
> In other words, the system didn't fail. This is the transnational system, working as it usually works, just a little more so. One of the reasons I'm in favour of small government is because big government tends to be remote government, and remote government is unaccountable, and, as a wannabe world government, the UN is the remotest and most unaccountable of all. If the sentimental utopian blather ever came true and we wound up with one "world government", from an accounting department point of view, the model will be Nigeria rather than New Hampshire.
> 
> That's why Washington has no interest in joining Gordon Brown's newly announced Cash-for-Guilt programme, under which the Chancellor (or, to be more precise, you) has agreed to improve the Afro-kleptocracy's cash flow by transferring 10 per cent of its debt burden to the United Kingdom â â€œ a perfect example of the malign combination of empty European gesture-politics and Third World larceny that's been the default mode of progressive transnationalism for far too long. By contrast, consider the splendid John Howard. In announcing Australian's $1 billion tsunami aid package, he was careful to emphasise that he wouldn't be wiring it via the estate of Benon Sevan's late auntie.
> 
> If Paul Volcker's preliminary report on Oil-for-Food dealt with the organisation's unofficial interests, the UN's other report of the week accurately captured their blithe insouciance to their official one. As you may have noticed, the good people of Darfur have been fortunate enough not to attract the attention of the arrogant cowboy unilateralist Bush and have instead fallen under the care of the Polly Toynbee-Clare Short-approved multilateral compassion set. So, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan managed to persuade the UN to set up a committee to look into what's going on in Darfur. They've just reported back that it's not genocide.
> 
> That's great news, isn't it? For as yet another Annan-appointed UN committee boldly declared in December: "Genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated." So thank goodness this isn't genocide. Instead, it's just 70,000 corpses who all happen to be from the same ethnic group â â€œ which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone's dead, and Polly and Clare don't have to worry their pretty little heads about it.
> 
> That's the transnational establishment's alternative to Bush and Howard: appoint a committee that agrees on the need to do nothing. Thus, a few days ago, the UN Human Rights Commission announced the working group that will decide which complaints will be heard at their annual meeting in Geneva this spring: the five-nation panel comprises the Netherlands, Hungary, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. I wouldn't bet on them finding room on their crowded agenda for the question of human rights in Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe, would you? One of the mystifying aspects of UN worship is the assumption that this embryo world government is a "progressive" concept. It's not. Its squalid geographic voting blocs, which use regional solidarity to inflate the status of nickel'n'dime dictators, are merely a Third World gloss on the Congress of Vienna â â€œ a relic of an age when contact between states was confined to their governing elites. In an era of jet travel, internet and debit cards that work in any bank machine from Vancouver to Vilnius to Vanuatu, there are millions of global relationships far better for the long-term health of the planet than using American money to set up Eurowimp talking shops manned by African thugs â â€œ which is what the UN Human Rights Commission boils down to.
> 
> The Bush Administration is now said to be considering using Kofi's "shock" to effect a regime change of its own at the UN. But to whom and to what? I'd be in favour of destroying the UN â â€œ or, failing that, at least moving its headquarters to Rwanda, but either of those options would require a level of political will hard to muster in modern sentimental democracies.
> 
> The best alternative to the transâ ?national jet-set is nothing â â€œ or at least nothing formal. When the tsunami hit, the Americans and Australians had troops and relief supplies on the ground within hours and were coordinating their efforts without any global bureaucracy at all. Imagine that: an unprecedented disaster, and yet robust, efficient, compatible, results-oriented nations managed to accomplish more than the international system specifically set up to manage such events. Would it have helped to elect a steering committee with Sudan and Zimbabwe on it? Of course not. But, if the UN wants to hold meetings, hector Washington, steal money and give tacit approval to genocide, let it â â€œ and let it sink into irrelevance.


----------



## bossi

Hot off the press ...

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2005/02/10/fCanada168.raw.html

*Handful of troops headed to Sudan * 

By STEPHEN THORNE / The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - The Canadian Forces will send 19 soldiers to war-torn Sudan as soon as the United Nations begins its mission, possibly spearheading a larger Canadian commitment later on, Defence Department officials confirm. 

"I think you will see (more) Canadian troops in Sudan before the year is out," a highly placed military source told The Canadian Press. 

"No one really knows details at this point." 

A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Bill Graham said she was not aware of any long-term plans to boost Canada's military commitment in Sudan. 

Nor were sources at the military's co-ordinator of overseas deployments. 

But after Prime Minister Paul Martin visited Sudan in November, he said Khartoum's claim that it's powerless to rein in militias and halt 21 months of violence simply won't wash. 

A peace accord was signed Jan. 5, but violence continues. 

Martin has offered to dramatically boost aid to the 700 African peacekeepers in the country by increasing Ottawa's contribution of chartered helicopters to 18 from five at a cost of $13.4 million. 

Canada is also sending $1.17 million in military supplies, including 2,200 body-armour vests and helmets, and is contributing $2.5 million to the World Food Program in Sudan. 

Two of the 19 Canadian officers will be posted with African Union troops in the Sudanese capital Khartoum and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 17 will join the UN Multinational Standby High-Readiness Brigade, a quick-response unit commanded by Canadian Brig.-Gen. Greg Mitchell. 

The latter group, which has included two Canadian soldiers in Sudan for seven months, will be based in Khartoum, said navy Lieut. Joseph Frey. 

The UN mission was approved in late January, but there is no firm deployment date yet. 

The decision coincides with the end of a one-year stand-down by Canada's military, during which Canadians were withdrawn from Bosnia, Haiti and Afghanistan and Canada's overseas troop commitment was reduced by more than half. 

Sudan would fit the federal government's stated policy to get more involved in humanitarian, peacemaking and peacekeeping operations. It has promised to recruit 5,000 additional soldiers for just that purpose.


----------



## McG

Based on the fact the the current UN forces have watched helplessly as villages were bombarded by air, maybe we could deploy our ADATS.


----------



## Rick_Donald

How 'bout this. Abolish the useless UN. Then take the Red Cross and outfit them with an international armed force of soldiers armed with a mandate to protect and deliver aid to the victims of oppressive governments AT ALL COSTS. Then when these starved people get there strength back perhaps they can take up their own arms and fight their own battles. Why do you think the dictator's and their corrupt generals keep the masses starved and their own armies well fed?


----------



## a_majoor

Funny, George W did that in Iraq, and all he got was a lot of abuse for his trouble......


----------



## CBH99

I wish a deployment opportunity was available when I was in - I would jump at the chance to be deployed to the dark continent, and rid this world of some true evil.   Bosnia and Kosovo were at their peaks when I was in, which still would have been a great opportunity - but going to Sudan to help end ethnic cleansing on such a huge scale?   That would be an ideal tour.   Something with just as much heart in it as politics, would be a great tour.

I know the world's governments have pussy-footed around this issue for a while, by trying to call it everything except for what it really is - but how hard to you think it would be to actually engage an enemy like that in Sudan?   The French destroyed the entire Ivory Coast air force while it was still on the ground just a few months ago, to get rid of the neusance of pestering aircraft - anybody else think maybe that would be a good idea here also?   Sudan can't have much of an air-force to begin with, so its not something that can't be potentially stood back up a few years down the road.

Anyways, good to see we're finally getting involved in something like Sudan.   Who knows, if our committment is long enough and robust enough, I'd sure as heck wouldn't mind getting back in and doing a tour there.


----------



## CBH99

Yeah, but George W had other things in mind when he went to Iraq.  If he went there strictly for humanitarian purposes, like he claims - there are a million places in more dire need of help than Iraq.  Yes, Saddam needed to go.  But, George W Bush lost a lot of the world's trust when he started a pre-emptive war, based on misleading facts, while transparently misleading the rest of the world.  Sending in troops with a robust mandate to protect humanitarian aid and protect villagers from being raped and pillaged is a bit different than invading Iraq because of WMD, oops - I mean because Saddam posed a threat - oops, I mean because we need to get rid of Saddam to promote democracy, and oops - because there is some oil there too.


----------



## a_majoor

Sigh

CBH, all of those reasons were advanced by George H.W Bush, William "Bill" Clinton and George W Bush, at different times and places. How compelling each one is by itself probably depends on where you stand (lLooking at the price of oil after OIF, I am not a big believer in that argument), but in combination, they form a compelling story, which the West either answered or ignored at their (our) peril.

Sudan has only one compelling reason to go, Humanitarian aid and the goodness of our hearts. If it were up to me alone, I would have you on the plane as soon as your shots were completed, but as it stands, not enough people think that way, and so another genocide will happen while the UN looks on, wondering why their moral authoraty is non existent.....


----------



## Wizard of OZ

MCG said:
			
		

> Based on the fact the the current UN forces have watched helplessly as villages were bombarded by air, maybe we could deploy our ADATS.



I think it will be more along the lines of a light infantry Bat.  Leave bringing the heavy stuff to a nation that has that capability.  Unless of crse we lease another couple of planes to do the work for us.  but i will leave that topic to the post it belongs in.

The UN will not do squat in Suduan it will be like Rwanda all over again.  Nato should step in, I know its not their mandate but good lord we can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines of these things.  Go in big and slam the door hard show that this s%%t  t is no longer tolerated on a world stage.  It might make others think twice before starting.


----------



## John Nayduk

Martin pledges Canadian support for UN efforts in Sudan
By PAUL KORING 
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 Updated at 4:54 PM EST
Globe and Mail Update
Brussels â â€ Canada will pledge "whatever is required" to a robust peacekeeping force being considered by the United Nations Security Council for Sudan's strife-torn Darfur region, Prime Minister Paul Martin said Tuesday.
In an unexpected and passionate statement after a NATO summit that largely ignored African security issues, Mr. Martin acknowledged that African Union efforts to deploy effective peacekeeping units into the region have failed and that more is needed.
"The humanitarian crisis remains," Mr. Martin told reporters in Brussels after a NATO summit intended to patch up rifts in the alliance over President George W. Bush's controversial war to topple the former Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein.
A senior official said it was too early to define possible Canadian military roles in any Sudan peacekeeping force but said the most serious needs were for logistics support and training.
Mr. Martin said Darfur had been a key element of his bilateral discussions with Britain's Prime Minister and that he intended to push the issue in talks later this week with the UN Secretary General.
"We will do whatever - and that's the point I made to Tony Blair and it is the point I will be making to Kofi Annan later in the week - that we will do whatever is required but we cannot simply sit by and watch what is happening in Darfur continue," Mr. Martin said.
The UN is considering a peacekeeping force of up to 10,000 troops to underpin a shaky ceasefire in the long-running north-south civil war in Sudan. The pact ending that conflict is separate from the brutal and repeated, waves of ethnic cleansing and terror, including systemic rape and mass murder that many regard as a genocide in Sudan's remote western Darfur region. 
Roving armed bands of Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, continued to loot, burn, rape and pillage in Darfur. Estimates of the death toll over the last two years range up to 75,000 while hundreds of thousands have fled.
It remains uncertain whether a Security Council resolution establishing a peacekeeping force can be extended to provide a mandate that covers intervention in Darfur.
The government in Khartoum has adamantly opposed any significant presence of foreign forces in its remote Darfur region. The limited number of African Union ill-trained, ill-equipped and often ill-paid troops, has so far failed to quell the violence.
Although the African Union has sent about 1,400 troops to Darfur - an area larger than Ontario - the mission is now widely admitted to be beyond the limited ability and experience of the force.


----------



## FredDaHead

10 THOUSAND soldiers, from the UN? Call me cynical, but I think it'll be more like 10 soldiers, without their weapons, who'll get there in a few years, stay a few days, and leave after saying "well, we didn't see no genocide, so everything's cool," and days later there'll be a few hundred thousand people killed.

Why is it that our government doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to say "we won't stand this anymore" and just send some people on our own? Are we so cowardly we won't stand for our principles unless we have a whole coalition propping us up?


----------



## Hoplite

The 10,000 troops are not supposed to be involved with Darfur.  It may turn out that way, but they are going to help implement the North/South peace agreement that was signed earlier this year.

One important consideration is that we just cannot send troops into any country that we want.  If we are going as peacekeepers that means that the local government has agreed to our presence.....Check the recent news clippings about Sudan and see what they (government in Khartoum) think about the Darfur situation.....


----------



## Lost_Warrior

> Are we so cowardly we won't stand for our principles unless we have a whole coalition propping us up?



What do you propose we do?   Go in all gung ho, save some people, kill some bad guys?   Then what?   Then we have to stay there until order can be restored, which can take years, or even decades.   Who knows.   And we're by ourself remember....so no help.

Unfortunately, coalitions are needed for operations in the world today.   The more people you have on board, the less strees on yourself.   If we go it alone, chances are it would fail due to the sheer lack of resources within the CF....

That, and a little something called International Law...


----------



## Tpr.Orange

so were raising afganistan's roster by double to 1100 ...were recalling the DART... and now darfurs gonna become a un tour....

what ever happened to that down time the reg force guys were supposed to get?


----------



## 291er

We already have troops on the ground in Sudan (OP SAFARI) but at this point we've only committed to sending approx 20 people.  And the main snag with the process thus far is that John Garang has come out and said that he is unwilling to accept peacekeeping troops from any Muslim country, which narrows down the choices.  SHIRBRIG (commanded by a Canadian BGen) is eventually supposed to take over the North/South mission.  As of this date, I don't believe the UN has set a mandate for the peacekeeping mission in Sudan.  And it has taken it over a year to get this far, so I would'nt be optimistic that the Darfur situation will be fixed anytime soon.
Maybe it'll be the usual UN performance, send in the peacekeepers too late or give them a ridiculous mandate as they did in Rwanda.  Yet another example of the UN's redundancy.
As far as Mr Martin's statement that we will pledge "whatever is required", maybe he should re-phrase it to "whatever is available", and I don't think that much will be available.  Hey WAIT, maybe he'll deploy that new peacekeeping brigade that we're creating out of nowhere.  Imagine 5000 Figure 11's with blue berets in the sandy deserts of Sudan, get ready for the march past of the Canadian contingent, let's just pray a "haboob" does'nt blow in and destroy our entire contingent in one swoop.


----------



## Tpr Valigini

I must say, the idea and the good nature is there but not much thinking on Mr. Martins part. We as Canadians have a black eye when it comes to Africa and this could either better relations or could break the camels back. If Canada and the UN goes into this to help the people it must be done right, and has to be set in for a long run and police the country and help the government restore order. Arming and training the police there would also be a good idea who then can deal with any insurgents. This is a very delicate op, it has to be dealt with much thinking and Mr. Martin cant just spout off anything that comes to mind. We are on the road to building a better armed forces with the new money being added, yet that money can not build up our reputation with the rest of the international heavy weights, in my eyes it seems Mr. Martin is trying to to just that "Hey look at us guys, I just gave our army $12 billion! Can we come and play too now?" Time will tell if this will become another political blunder..

-=Recce Tactics=-


----------



## S McKee

Made to sit at the little table during the the NATO conference, what are we to do? Mr Dithers to the rescue, blah, blah blah, I'll impress these African guys.... writting cheques with his mouth that he can't cash.


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is much soul searching and hand wringing here in Canada re: Africa.   Liberal MP (one time junior minister) David Kilgour's _Comment_ in today's _Globe and Mail_ web site (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050317.wkilgourc0317/BNStory/Front/ ) is a good example.   _ My emphasis added, here and there. _



> Does Canada stand for anything in Darfur?
> 
> By DAVID KILGOUR
> Friday, March
> 
> Last Wednesday, Stockwell Day, Alexa McDonough, Odina Desrochers and I held our second all-party press conference on Darfur. We did this for two reasons: First, to remind Canadians that the situation in Darfur, and in other areas of Sudan, is not getting any better; in fact, it is getting worse.
> 
> This is not something that will simply go away if we ignore it long enough. We have to remind ourselves constantly of the horrors that Darfur citizens face every day - the young girls and women being raped, the 4,000 citizens dying every week. Clearly, the situation is not improving, and Canadians need to know this.
> 
> The second reason for the press conference was to tell the Prime Minister that Canada is not doing enough and that there seems to be far more talk than action on Canada's part. Sumia Ibrahim, a Sudanese refugee, summed up the international community's response: "[The United Nations] ..... seems to have adopted the same strategy as the National Islamic Front in Khartoum. If they delay any meaningful action long enough, everyone in Darfur will be dead. Then they can all go home without getting their hands dirty."
> 
> To understand what Canada could be doing, it's important to know what we have already committed to Sudan.
> 
> Since October of 2003, Canada, through the Canadian International Development Agency, has contributed $37- million to Sudan - which has the world's largest number of internally displaced people, at more than four million, and more than 500,000 refugees in bordering countries. This donation translates to $8 a refugee or internally displaced person over a period of a year and a half. Compare that with the $425-million allocated to tsunami relief and reconstruction efforts. This is not including the $200-million that CIDA will match in public donations.
> 
> *Canada has nearly 1,000 troops in Afghanistan, and yet we continue to send more. I was surprised to find out that we have more troops in Florida - six - than in the whole of Sudan - where there are only three. In the past four years, Canada has allocated nearly $400-million to Afghanistan, and promises $250-million more in the next four years. *
> 
> The survivors of the South Asian tsunamis and the Afghan people working so hard to rebuild their country need and deserve aid. But we have to ask why it is that, when faced with genocide and a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions in Africa, there doesn't seem to be any money available.
> 
> The answer to that question lies in what can be called a lack of political will, rooted in a number of areas: our ignorance of the complexities and nature of African dictatorships, our fear of sending troops to "tribal" wars in Africa and - as retired lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire has pointed out many times - blatant racism on the West's part.
> 
> Another key hindrance to intervening in Sudan is one that plagues not just Canada, but most of the Western world: our reliance on the UN to fix all the major crises in the developing world. Last week, Mr. Dallaire made the point that the UN will never work properly as long as mission commanders, such as he was in Rwanda in 1994, have to go down on their knees and beg the world's richest countries for support and troops.
> 
> It appears that the UN itself is starting to address this problem openly now. In a recent report, Jan Egeland, UN undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, said: "The basic lesson of earlier crises like Bosnia, Kosovo and Rwanda is that too often the world sends us the Band-Aid, and the world believes that we keep people alive and then they don't have to take a political and security action. This is wrong and that's why we are really tired of being that kind of a substitute for political and security action."
> 
> _*An example of this reluctance to take a stand is Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew's recent welcome of the UN inquiry report on Darfur that supported the idea that "the Security Council refer the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court." *_
> 
> In essence, this disputed many NGO findings of genocide, and thus relinquished our duty to intervene, saying to the world that Canada's method of putting an immediate stop to crimes against humanity is through the international courts. The ICC may be a viable means of dealing with perpetrators of hate crimes and genocide after the fact, but they do nothing to stop daily killings now.
> 
> Although we speak highly of the "responsibility to protect," a lot of Canadians don't know that the doctrine is essentially useless without a relevant Security Council resolution to take action. So, if the UN is not ready, willing or able to do anything, where does that leave us?
> 
> _*What we need is the kind of operation that Roméo Dallaire has been calling for: tens of thousands of troops of NATO quality, with a robust mandate to protect civilians and humanitarian operations. *_
> 
> Canada should act on recommendations by Errol Mendes, a University of Ottawa law professor, that call on Prime Minister Paul Martin to take a leadership role in bringing the international financial institutions and the creditor Paris Club together to discuss how to use the debt and arrears levers to force the Khartoum government to negotiate in good faith with rebel groups. Canada should put in place travel restrictions on senior National Islamic Front officials and press the Security Council to insist on a series of sanctions: freeze all assets of the Khartoum government and companies controlled by it in the European Union, Canada and the United States; withdraw any rights of the government in the International Monetary Fund; and ban arms sales to Sudan.
> 
> It's unacceptable for Canada to say that we don't want to ask the African Union to press Sudan for a stronger mandate, or to offer Canadian troops because the problem must be solved "regionally." I don't know one Sudanese refugee in Canada who thinks that the AU can be expected to single-handedly solve one of the most complicated conflicts and humanitarian crises in Africa.
> 
> It's an excuse that Canada and the West accept only because the problem is in Africa.
> 
> As Darfur residents continue to die every day, Canada and the international community seem to be saying that these lives are not worth an intervention.
> 
> David Kilgour, Liberal MP for Edmonton-Mill Woods-Beaumont, is a former secretary of state for Africa and current chair of the subcommittee on human rights and international development. He wrote this article with Magdalene Creskey, a research assistant who has worked in community and educational development projects in conflict areas in southern Africa.



This is classic _leftish_ Canadian hypocrisy.   Kilgour was part of Chrétien's _Team Canada_ which, intentionally and with eyes wide open, emasculated the Canadian Forces in order to keep the ever shifting political _loyalty_ pf the Liberal Party of Canada's Youth Wing and its Women's Commission, both of which have deep seated contempt for all things military and much, much better uses for the $12+ billion DND budget: things like 'free' daycare and needle exchanges.   Kilgour and his colleagues helped make it impossible to mount _"the kind of operation Roeo Dallaire has been calling for..."_, even if such an operation was either desirable or necessary. 

On the larger scale, racism is part of the issue, but there is, however, a deeper reason for Western inaction in Africa: it (Africa) is of no particular strategic value to anyone.   We (North America, Europe and Asia) don't *need* Africa or its resources or its people; therefore ...


----------



## Infanteer

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> On the larger scale, racism is part of the issue, but there is, however, a deeper reason for Western inaction in Africa: it (Africa) is of no particular strategic value to anyone.   We (North America, Europe and Asia) don't *need* Africa or its resources or its people; therefore ...



No problem with this arguement; kin-group selection is hard wired into our human nature.   Along with this, I've argued previously that:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I am in no way trying to argue that any one human life is worth more then another, nor am I trying to say that the savagery that engulfs much of the developing world should be "ignored" or "written off".   However, I do believe in two key fundamentals when determining where to commit our troops:
> 
> 1) Conflict is a part of the human condition.   Like I said before, in most cases it's not a matter of "if" but a matter of "when".   As such, we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that a HESCO-fortified Maple Leaf flag in the middle of a conflagration will make things better.
> 
> 2) Canada's standing (how it perceives and is perceived by others) gives us a certain outlook on the world and its endless supply of conflicts.   This outlook helps us to define our National Interest and to determine where, when the call is made, to place our chips.   The state, as a self-serving entity (you don't elect governments to take care of France or Bhutan, you elect them to oversee Canada), must define its interests along self-serving goals.   Although we can say and believe that our national value is to _"attach the same value to ALL human beings"_, that is alot harder to define then "a secure and stable European continent" - which has a mcuh more immediate impact on Canada (and it's citizens) as a whole.
> 
> When the government wants to send soldiers, at great risk, on foreign operations, it must do its best to ensure that the effort (and lives) expended by these soldiers goes to serving the tangibles.   If we don't apply this (calculating) principle, then our Foreign Policy will have no real focus and we'd end up sending troops willy-nilly to die in far-off places - achieving nothing for the cost because #1 was ignored ("let's stop the war!" - remember, "when" and not "if") and #2 was discarded.
> 
> I think Lord Palmerston's dictum applies to here; "States don't have friends, they have interests".


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, from today's _Financial Post_ at: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=94c9de92-0729-4e99-9d03-1574da5a05ea is interesting for two reasons:

"¢	It contradicts my assertion that Africa and its resources do not matter.   If David Lyons is right (and he's a darned sight richer than I so he might be) then, perhaps, we - the American led West - do have _vital interests_ in Africa; and

"¢	It points out the _relative_ lack of power we have in Canada - our _oil capital_ is not plugged into to the _global_ petroleum and natural resources businesses.   Our entrepreneurs have to go to London.

Once again, the article is long and not password protected so those interested can link to it and read it.


----------



## Island Ryhno

UNITED NATIONS - An attempt to bring alleged war criminals in the Darfur region of Sudan to justice and to impose sanctions on the government in Khartoum has failed. 
"¢	INDEPTH: Sudan
The UN Security Council, plagued by internal haggling, has once again postponed an effort to stop the civil war in Darfur. 
A French resolution was withdrawn on Thursday. That resolution called for war criminals to be brought to the international criminal court in The Hague. 
But the council has passed a resolution authorizing a large peacekeeping force to be sent to enforce a truce in the 21-year, north-south war in the country. 
The UN is sending a peacekeeping force into southern Sudan which will eventually number 10,000 soldiers. It's hoped that force can keep the Arab North and African South from resuming their civil war. 
The peacekeepers will monitor an agreement signed in January between the government and southern rebels. 
That conflict has cost two million lives and forced four million people from their homes. 
But for western Darfur, where another conflict being fought along very similar ethnic lines still rages, the Security Council had little to offer. 
"Very little has been done to stop the cause of the problems of displacement, starvation and disease - and that's the fighting," said Ken Bacon, the president of Refugees International. He fears the United Nations may never act on Darfur. 
The attempt to pass a resolution over where to put war criminals on trial is just one snag. There's also the fact that China buys a lot of oil from Sudan and Russia sells the country plenty of arms. Both countries have Security Council vetoes. 
Bacon says it may be time to look elsewhere to try to stop the violence in Darfur. "Canada, the United States, France, Great Britain should be bringing a lot more pressure on the government of Sudan to stop this fighting," he said. 
Allan Rock, Canada's ambassador to the UN, says the vote is a disappointing. "I think someone in Darfur today could be forgiven for thinking that the UN has failed them." 

What do you think guys, will Canada be getting in on this? When do you think it will actually spread to Darfur, it is pretty tumultuous there right now. I can't remember who said it tonight on CBC but the quote was, "it's like Rwanda in slow motion" What a disaster this has been. Hopefully this is a strong step in the right direction.


----------



## 291er

I think Canada will most definitely be getting in on this, we already deployed troops there in support of this mission.  I believe there are still some on the ground now.  It's called OP SAFARI.
I think we'll committ something, Martin has basically already committed us.  I'd certainly pick Sudan over Iraq though.


----------



## Hoplite

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/09/925553-cp.html

The 19 are waiting for the mission to be finalized....


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, from: http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/ASR/8No6/Contents.html is a bit long but I think it is worth the read.  It is in three parts.



> Heart of darkness:
> Western policy of non-interventionism in Africa
> _Stephan Maninger_
> 
> * INTRODUCTION*
> 
> The world has entered an age where the term 'humanitarian mission' seemingly justifies intervention, where international law does not. In fact, many have pointed out that the Kosovo intervention has seen international law circumvented and the United Nations ignored with relative ease primarily because the emotions, unleashed by pictures of a pogrom on Europe's doorstep, provided the moral high ground.
> 
> Yet, in Africa, mass amputation in Sierra Leone, genocide in Rwanda, Burundi and parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo seem to have provided no such grounds for intervention. Nor has mass starvation and wide-spread civil war in Angola elicited more than a meek response. This article will attempt to explain why.
> 'HEART OF DARKNESS'
> In order to understand the apparent apathy of the West towards Africa, as well as the paradox mixture of double standards and misplaced feelings of guilt among Europeans, together with an ill-conceived culture of entitlement among Africans, one needs to understand the history of both and in relation to each other.
> 
> Since the concept 'heart of darkness' was first used by Joseph Conrad as the title of a novel, it has become almost trendy among many to interpret its meaning as some kind of metaphoric reference to the true savage nature presumably lurking deep within all humans, waiting to be unleashed by circumstances. Whatever the merits of the numerous interpretations, the fact remains that Africa offered both fascination and horror on such an extraordinary scale to those Europeans who explored and conquered its vast expanse, that it provided the setting. 'Dark' not only referred to the impenetrable, disease infested jungles, vast grasslands and the seemingly endless rivers of the scantily explored sub-Saharan continent, but also to the encounters with a population which, in many areas, seemed savage and warlike to the extreme.1
> 
> For Westerners, the Africa of one or two centuries later remains a political abyss of endemic conflict. As the continent with the greatest number of languages and ethnic groups, its conflicts are older than colonialism and often too complicated for the average outsider to comprehend. Its repeatedly praised 'diversity' seems to constitute a far greater obstacle to lasting peace, than what this popular euphemism would suggest. Almost nowhere does any ethnic group provide more than fifteen per cent of the population entrapped within the colonial boundaries that often throw hundreds of ethnic groups into what is then called a 'state'. No amount of development aid has been able to overcome the inherent instability of such artificial constructions, nor to provide sustained development on a continent whose political culture is determined more by geography than by the Western political philosophy introduced to its élite at European universities.
> 
> More deeply embedded than Karl Marx or Mao Tse Tung, is the far more durable political culture which constitutes the foundation of Africa's ethnic hierarchies both past and present. Geographically, Africa's relatively few natural harbours, narrow coastal plains and generally shallow rivers have significantly impeded development. It was geography which promoted the politically centralist hierarchies of classical riverine societies, with those situated at the river's edge determining access to waterways and trade routes for those living further inland. This not only created dependency, but also economic specialisation along tribal and ethnic lines.
> 
> The relative absence of suitable beasts of burden promoted the manifestation of slavery as a key component of the African economy. While slavery was a universal phenomenon, the sub-Saharan economy was particularly dependent upon slaves as the primary source of labour and means of transport. Prior to any European contact and as far back as antiquity, some estimates suggest that as many as seventy to 75 per cent of African males spent all or part of their lives in slavery. Given the highly communal nature of African societies, slaves were one of the rare 'items' which could be individually owned, thereby constituting a form of currency and exchange much in the same way as Africa's pastoral societies elsewhere used cattle for this purpose. Whereas land served as the primary source of individual or private wealth in Europe, so slaves played this role in most parts of Africa, specifically along its equatorial belt. The three dominant kingdoms of Ghana, Songhai and Mali, all upheld slave-driven economies in the sense that their supply of labour rested entirely in their acquisition, while trade in humans was part of the power they held.2
> 
> But African imperialism did not provide the only platform upon which humans were degraded to 'property'. Sub-Saharan Africa's killi and tegria wars, fought in the tribal areas beyond the periphery of its giant kingdoms, were "... frequent and fought over the most frivolous provocations,"3 also serving as a means to acquire or replace labour and supplement harvests. They were largely regarded as part of the annual cycles and a legitimate way of securing the interests of the various communities in terms of food-supply and manpower. Kingdoms and tribal chiefdoms alike, regarded slavery and the slave trade as a lucrative economic activity at a time in Africa when 'throwing the book' at someone accused of wrongdoing, could mean only two forms of punishment: death or slavery.
> 
> Long before the ships of European powers were able to reach the shores of the dark continent, the camel had connected sub-Saharan Africa with the Arabic world. Apart from the slave trade and the cultural influence exerted through trade and other interaction, there were no apparent efforts at direct colonisation. Military raids and the diffusion of the Islamic religion brought parts of present-day West and East Africa into the sphere of Arabic influence, the cultural faultlines running through Sudan and Mauritania. The East African port of Zanzibar, for example, emerged as the gateway through which Africans from this region supplied the seemingly insatiable demand for slaves that dominated the relationship with the Arabic world to the point where Arabs are viewed with suspicion to this day. This caused the son of the former Sudanese vice-president to conclude in the 1990s that "[t]he Arab will always try to enslave people because it is in his culture to enslave people."4
> 
> Indeed, an estimated fifteen million black Africans would be enslaved by the Arabs and transported via ports or across the Saharan desert. The mortality rate was double that of the European slave trade which would later emerge along Africa's west coast. The slave route could be followed through the Sahara desert by a line of skeletons literally marking the way.5
> 
> For a long time, the lucrative transatlantic slave trade provided the primary motivation for Europeans to stop between the tropics where their average lifespan was nine months due to the prevalence of infectious diseases.6 Between ten and thirteen million Africans would be displaced to work on plantations in the Americas. Of these, between ten and fifteen per cent died en route, particularly during the early stages of the slave trade.7 The mortality rate of white slave traders was often as high as that of the slaves themselves, though this was largely in direct relation to the disregard for hygienic conditions that the various transatlantic slave traders displayed aboard their ships.8 The treatment of human cargo was generally as inhumane as the trade itself. People were literally packed into the hulls of ships where they remained in dismal conditions of close confinement. Punishment was harsh as the crews also used fear as a psychological tool to prevent organised resistance during a journey.
> 
> In 1772, Britain abolished slavery on its soil, and in 1833, throughout its empire. France followed in 1848, forbidding slavery in its territories, followed by other European nations.9 Tribal leaders from The Gambia, Congo and Dahomé sent delegations to London and Paris, protesting the antislavery decrees, because they felt that it amounted to their assets and 'means of production' being seized.10
> 
> Some colonial powers, Britain in particular, dedicated much of their time and resources towards eradicating slavery, human sacrifice and cannibalism during and after the era of the 'scramble for Africa'.11 Slave traders saw their ships forcefully boarded and impounded by the British navy, and their precious cargo released.12 The Ibo, themselves ironically the later victims of the Biafra genocide in 1970, faced a British punitive expedition in March 1902 because of their refusal to cease slave-raiding, and the slaughter of new-born twins together with the torture to death of the unfortunate mothers.13
> 
> *DECOLONISATION*
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, the era of decolonisation was less a successful freedom struggle on the part of Africans, than a voluntary albeit gradual withdrawal by colonisers. It was the logical consequence of the general realisation among colonial powers that their colonies were simply not worth holding onto. The days of Commerce, Christianity and Civilisation - the three Cs providing the motivation for exploration and colonisation - had given way to disillusion in all three respects. In addition, values had changed among the Western electorate. Weakened by two world wars, Western civilisation had expended much of its collective energy to the point where it could no longer generate much public support for holding onto troublesome and generally non-profitable colonies.
> 
> While many critics have maintained that European powers relinquished their colonies reluctantly, the evidence indicates otherwise. Those adhering to various economic theories of imperialism, explaining European expansion into Africa as providing important markets and outlets for exports, will be disappointed to learn that commercial investments in and trade with Africa were generally trivial, the exception being South Africa. Germany's exports to Africa constituted less than one per cent of its total exports, while Britain's investments into Canada alone exceeded the combined sum of investments into India and Africa.
> 
> As a source of raw materials, particularly minerals, Africa held a slightly higher ranking in the order of importance, but only in some concentrated areas, such as the South African gold mines or the West African cocoa and palm oil regions. Britain received less than seven per cent of its imports from the vast expanse of its African colonies, less than from any other continent. Germany's colonies were no better, with only Togo being even remotely profitable.14
> 
> From the point of view of Africa, the impact of colonialism was enormous. New agriculture, literacy and infrastructure profoundly altered the way Africans lived and thought. A single railroad box-car could carry as much freight as 300 slaves or porters, and cover the distance for which the latter would require two months in just two days, while consumer patterns among the élite did start to reflect those of the Europeans.15
> 
> More importantly, however, the African élite started to understand the dynamics of the ideological conflicts between the major European powers. Along with their own political aspirations and a wave of black nationalism on the continent came the opportunities provided by the enhanced strategic value of Africa within the context of the Cold War.
> 
> The decolonisation era was marked by a combination of colonial fatigue due to lack of will, the paternalistic Zeitgeist of 'the white man's burden', and strategic considerations in securing the goodwill and co-operation of the new governments in an effort to counter communist expansion. Of particular strategic value, both in term of minerals and geopolitics, was South Africa.
> 
> This era saw a number of low intensity conflicts being fought by the colonial powers in Kenya, Angola, South West Africa (Namibia), Rhodesia and elsewhere. These so-called 'liberation wars' provided more of a good reason to jettison the colonies, with little sign of the determination which had characterised the European imperial powers during the initial conquests less than a century earlier.
> 
> *AFRICA'S MARGINALISATION*
> 
> The end of the Cold War saw a drastic strategic marginalisation. Without indispensable strategic 'choke points' and no competing powerblocs, the strategic role faded. Economic decline, poverty, disease, famine, corruption, dictatorship and general political instability had already become synonymous with the African continent, whose various ethnic groups sought self-determination in countless uprisings. With accelerated marginalisation, many governments in Africa were unable to exercise administrative control over great parts of their territory, entire regions being under the de facto control of rebel movements and/or ethnonationalist separatists.
> 
> The absence of stability has prevented Africa from successfully competing for the much needed investments on a new and truly global market, while its élite are reluctant to consider the breaking of taboos preventing the abolition of colonial boundaries seriously. Only the Independence of Eritrea in 1991, for a brief moment, created the impression that the developments in Eastern Europe would be repeated and would see a rapid fragmentation of Africa's artificial states and its colonial boundaries. This failed to occur for a number of reasons that go beyond the scope of this article.
> 
> Nonetheless, what remains today is a deep-rooted anti-Western sentiment among African leaders who are confronted by little international sympathy for their repressive measures. Couched in pseudo-intellectual theories of 'neo-colonialism', these sentiments have resulted in what is generally regarded as the North-South conflict. The South tends to be the driving force here, arguing that its relative underdevelopment can be attributed to being structurally, and therefore by implication deliberately disadvantaged by the policies of the developed North.
> 
> Reflected in this is the conceptual framework of so-called 'blame cultures' that see the source of their problems as inherently external and not of their own doing. More objectively, the causes that go beyond the acknowledged problems associated with colonial boundaries, include aspects which are of a cultural-developmental nature, such as:
> 
> "¢	work ethic, i.e. the inability to understand the correlation between 'status' and 'achievement';
> 
> "¢	the inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure; and
> 
> "¢	nepotism, i.e. the extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organisation.16
> 
> Western governments have also experienced a reduction of the status of the nation-state. Consequently, the falling away of strategic ideological considerations has been accelerated by increasingly business-oriented 'risk to profit ratio' considerations which simply do not always make Africa seem an attractive proposition.
> 
> Globalisation sees the continent not only being reduced in geopolitical importance, but its inhabitants also increasingly being left to their own devices. Having seen the population of sub-Saharan Africa increase eight-fold over little more than a century, the competition for scarce resources and environmental degradation have also drastically increased, becoming major factors in the intensification of ethnic conflict. The ethnic group provides a better - if not the only - chance for individuals to compete for and acquire access to water and land. This constitutes a daily reality and provides the megapolitical factors that are manifested in the so-called 'vicious cycle of violence and poverty'.
> 
> In the final analysis, it is a combination of geography, receding Western power, and Africa's apparent inability to secure stability and development that provides the framework for the marginalisation of the continent. With little hope of countering ethnification, and consequently preventing already existing or potential fragmentation, African leaders would be well-advised to allow self-determination by their various national components and thereby provide them with an incentive for peace. Peace has to pay in order to be desirable for those who have so far only been able to get what they could take and hold what they are able to defend. Policies of so-called 'nationbuilding' that disregard the cultural 'breathing space' of self-defined ethnocultural population groups, intentionally or unintentionally threaten these with de facto 'nationdestroying' (ethnocide), thereby stimulating and fuelling ethnonationalism.17 Even the political fragmentation of boundaries holds greater prospects for peace, in so far as lasting 'deals' can only be made with representative and legitimate structures, which can be held accountable and hold a greater stake in peace. At this stage, African states have either already experienced de facto fragmentation or have representatives who hold little power outside the government building where they meet with the representatives of international organisations and governments.
> 
> To illustrate this point, one only needs to look at the repeated failures in securing any kind of lasting peace deal in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).


----------



## Edward Campbell

Part 2


> *UNWINNABLE WARS*
> 
> While the above realities, as well as geographic and cultural distance dampen Western enthusiasm, this did not initially disqualify Africa from any and all interventionism, as a number of post-Cold War interventions by Western powers and the UN have shown. In addition, intervention is a multidimensional concept, comprising various measures, such as:
> 
> "¢	diplomatic pressure and condemnation;
> 
> "¢	sanctions;
> 
> "¢	the threat of war crime indictments;
> 
> "¢	mediation; and
> 
> "¢	military intervention.18
> 
> Most of the above constitute aspects of 'soft power', falling short of any coercive measures usually associated with intervention in violent conflicts such as those which wreak havoc across Africa's poverty belt. Attaching development aid to human rights issues has become a well-entrenched practice among Western donors, thus also constituting a form of intervention.
> 
> The apparent lack of will in the West for high-risk military intervention - displayed in the hasty retreat from Mogadishu after the humiliating losses sustained by the US intervention troops, and the paralysis of the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) personnel during Africa's most blatant genocide - is a product of the reduction in its collective energy. In both cases - first in a failed attempt to seize the Somali warlord Aideed and later with the literal slaughter of ten Belgian paratroopers in Kigali - the world's last superpower, as well as the ultimate global conflict regulator in the form of the UN retreated in the face of little more than machete wielding ethnic militias and urban warriors. Naturally, this does little to discourage warlords elsewhere to challenge the international order. In fact, it could be argued that the half-hearted intervention in Somalia encouraged subsequent conflicts and acts of genocide.
> 
> Many of the people engaging in conflict in Africa are 'warriors' rather than soldiers, and conduct war on a far less structured level.19 For some groups and individuals, war is a way of life, lacking almost all forms of medium to long-term objectives, with participants basically leading a subsistence life as marauders and pirates. They are mostly found in the very darkest alleys of the global village, and unfortunately sometimes become rulers in what are officially still referred to as 'states'. In West Africa, particularly Liberia and Sierra Leone, such groups have been characterised by the display of a type of barbarism that stretches the limits of Western imagination. Among them are superstitious aspects such as witchcraft, voodoo, human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism on a remarkable scale and magnitude. Other parts of the continent are also increasingly becoming affected by similar symptoms. In South Africa, for example, the Commission on Witchcraft and Ritual Violence in the Northern Province found that 231 people have been murdered in incidents related to witchcraft between April 1994 and April 1995, warning that this constituted a growing trend.20
> 
> Liberia's warlord, General 'Butt Naked' (Joshua Milton Blahi), for example, was renowned for his supposed 'magical' powers which he claimed to have acquired through regular human sacrifice. He led a rag-tag militia of men who would enter battle naked or wearing dresses and wigs. Men and boys like these engaged in barbaric acts, ranging from the disembowelling of pregnant women to settle arguments over the probable sex of the foetus, to ritual cannibalism.21 Before him, Charles Taylor shocked the world in 1990 when he filmed the prolonged torture of Liberian President Samuel Doe, and subsequently distributed the video recording throughout the region. In 1992, the neighbouring Sierra Leone saw the mass execution of plotters against the Strasser regime, their ears cut off and shot on Hamilton Beach.22 Child warriors and semi-naked, often intoxicated men with a large assortment of weapons are thrown together in groups and movements which operate with superstitious fatalism and barbarous violence. They become the unpredictable and unreliable parties in any attempts to tie warring factions to a process aimed at inducing peace.
> 
> For Westerners, dealing with intrastate conflict remains an enigma because of the fixed mindset prevailing from the era of the nation-state and ideological conflict. It is also the infinite number of unknown variables that are involved in communal conflicts, where interests are often not defined by ideology or classical 'state interests', which provide for a murky picture. Frustrated by the lack of conceptual clarity, the influence over warring factions like those mentioned above, remains limited. Core issues, such as the concept 'peace', for example, are often defined differently by Western observers and representatives, than by the parties engaged in mutual slaughter. While theoretical consensus exists in the West that the definition of peace essentially constitutes the absence of violence, experience has shown that, in communal conflicts in Africa, the definition seemed more focused on the absence of opponents.
> 
> This is a fundamental difference based on the presence of two extremely diverse value systems, the one philosophically rooted in Western enlightenment and humanism, the other firmly rooted in the realities of Africa. This is where 'civilisation's faultlines' become apparent and no amount of imitation of Western ideologies has resulted in the manifestation of what are widely - and wrongly - regarded as 'universal' human rights. Those propagating the universality of human rights seldom realise that they are propagating values that are first and foremost Western, and hardly hold the same position on the list of priorities of the people most involved in violence along the development periphery.23 Outside the shrinking influence of the still dominant Western 'core', culture-specific conceptions of individualism, representative structures, rule of law, and the division between state and religion are all issues that have not yet been resolved and may not necessarily follow the same course of development as in the West. For all the good intentions of those propagating this well-intended form of Western cultural imperialism, it is also increasingly likely that these values will not manifest themselves everywhere.
> 
> Dealing with such opponents, even where they are militarily relatively insignificant, is therefore more than a mere military operation, and requires a cultural change in mass perceptions or a permanent repressive military presence. Western political interests are limited to the former and not willing to be committed to the latter, aiming at pacification of the conflict rather than a cultural crusade.
> 
> Western sensitivity to violence and losses effectively precludes the wide range of military options that go beyond the Distant Retaliation Doctrine responsible for the results of Operation Desert Storm and, more recently, those of the Allied Force in the Kosovo conflict. The reluctance to deploy ground forces in combat scenarios where the distinction between friend and foe, combatant and civilian appears murky, is even greater when such scenarios hold little or no strategic benefits, as is the case in Africa. The latter may not necessarily have provided the prime motivation for the Kosovo intervention, but then again it was on Europe's doorstep and not in a faraway and remote area of the globe.
> 
> Facing a demographic time bomb in terms of the global ageing crisis, and a wide range of potential future conflict scenarios due to the large numbers of immigrants from less compatible cultures, the West's receding influence is strongest felt along those areas of the periphery which are culturally the furthest from the core, in other words, Africa. Westerners neither want to see white soldiers on their television screens shooting Africans, nor the bodies of their own soldiers dragged through the streets by the inhabitants of distant cities.
> 
> Fear of becoming involved in unwinnable wars, or getting caught between warring factions of ethnic groups whose conflicts are more intricate and durable than most of those with good intentions tend to understand, is causing Western military planners carefully to avoid repetitions of failed missions. There are insufficient legitimate political and efficient state structures with which the conflict could be regulated and peace implementation structured.
> 
> Certainly among Western military planners, these considerations play a role in the reluctance to invest forces, resources and time in areas of conflict that seemingly lack the inherent preconditions for peace as it is understood in the West.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Part 3


> *STRATEGIC PRECONDITIONS FOR INTERVENTION*
> 
> With the US holding its position as the 'last remaining superpower', interventions in the 1990s largely reflected the realities of a monopolar world system, with US political will being pivotal to what constitutes 'Western intervention'. This period seems to be nearing its end, gradually being replaced by a multipolar global order that increasingly reflects the controversial 'clash of civilisations' paradigm first postulated by Samuel Huntington in 1993. Certainly, the inability of the US to prevent nuclear proliferation on the Indian subcontinent, the humiliating setback in Somalia, followed by a series of successful strikes by fundamentalists against US installations, have forced it to concentrate on priorities such as the Korean peninsula and the Middle East.
> 
> Consequently, the preconditions for intervention have been reduced to include the following:
> 
> "¢	The situation must constitute a threat to the stability of an important region of the world, e.g. Lebanon or Kashmir. Africa, as has previously been pointed out, holds little importance and is a marginal continent.
> 
> "¢	The conflict must be generating mass suffering, resulting in domestic pressure and support for military intervention. Conflicts that receive little attention in the media, and are therefore not transported into the living rooms of Western societies are not taking place in the minds of the masses, for all practical purposes. With the Kosovo campaign, a 'C List Category' interest was elevated to an 'A List Category' due to media pressure generated by the attention focusing on the suffering of the Kosovo Albanians, a dangerous reality of the information age.24 In the case of Africa, the extent of suffering witnessed over the decades seems to have had a numbing effect on audiences in the West. Apparently resigned to the inevitability of bad news from Africa, the pictures of suffering have become less frequent and seldom elicit anything other than sympathy and the routine air drops of basic supplies.
> 
> "¢	The conflict must be threatening a multi-ethnic democracy, e.g. Bosnia. The scarcity of multi-ethnic democracies is most apparent in Africa and this point consequently hardly applies at all.
> 
> "¢	There should be a close historical link with Europe or the US. Apart from US involvement in seeking solutions to the Northern Ireland conflict, much of its foreign policy is increasingly determined by the lobbies of its various ethnic diasporas. Most of these originate in non-African areas, and utilise their influence to elevate their own countries of origin on the list of priorities and foreign policy objectives.25
> 
> The US has committed the most resources to those conflicts that have included the above criteria and where national interests needed to be secured. Parts of the globe that did not comply with the above preconditions have seen little efforts at possible intervention, e.g. Burundi, Rwanda and Sri Lanka.26 Nonetheless, the role of the Afrocentrist lobby in American politics, and its growing influence and desire for greater ties with Africa are at least likely to maintain some efforts on the part of the US. Whether this can act as a serious counterweight to the marginalisation of the continent remains to be seen. In the final analysis, though, the combined marginalisation of sub-Saharan Africa and the receding Western influence world-wide, are megapolitical trends which ultimately dictate the future of Western intervention. The need to concentrate forces and resources where Western interests are considered to be the most at stake, makes Kosovo of greater importance than the Congo.
> 
> The last decade of the millennium has seen more Western efforts aimed at improving Africa's own capacity to secure peace. Regional co-operation, in the form of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), created the ECOWAS Military Observer Group (ECOMOG), with the aim of implementing peace agreements and conducting peacekeeping operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Co-ordination with the UN was to be secured through a UN Observer Mission (UNOMIL). ECOMOG's performance as an intervention force has not only been substandard in military terms, but has little to do with peacekeeping in the UN sense of the word, with the assembled forces suffering from major force degradation in the form of ill-disciplined and violent behaviour.27 Subsequent US efforts aimed at building peacekeeping and intervention capacity among African states have so far borne little fruit.
> 
> In the final analysis, it might be prudent for African states to accept that they are unlikely to receive massive foreign assistance in expanding regional capabilities and that they cannot expect direct foreign intervention to be more than a rare exception. Solutions to the continent's plagued conflict areas will ultimately require a new approach stemming from an internal paradigm shift.
> 
> *RETHINKING AFRICAN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT*
> 
> Africa is yearning for a new approach to conflict management, and it will require a fundamental paradigm shift in this regard. The following approach will need to be considered.
> 
> *Allowing and managing the disintegration of non-viable states*
> 
> Allowing ethnic partition on the basis of self-determination can be reconciled with the need to form more viable states. Fears of a 'domino effect' and greater violence are largely offset by the already existing reality that the 'psychological geography' of Africa's inhabitants bears no relation to the maps of published atlases. In addition, those areas currently rendered non-viable due to structural ethnic conflict as a result of arbitrary colonial boundaries, could return to relative stability. Of 27 ethnic civil wars which were ended over the period 1944 to 1994, twelve were suppressed through the complete victory of one side, five through partition, and two through military occupation by a third party. In the end, only eight were ended through an agreement that did not partition the country.28 In fact, between 1945 and 1987, nine of fourteen UN peace operations were interstate, whereas only six of 24 were interstate since then.29 Even when measured in terms of lives, implemented partition models hold an average of 13 000 deaths, while multi-ethnic models stand at an average of 250 000, the latter also being inherently less stable and permanent than the former.30
> 
> The basis for ethnic conflict resolution seems to lie in the recognition and acceptance, on the part of all the parties involved, of an underlying ethnocultural incompatibility which can best be addressed in a peaceful manner by implementing partition. Separatists tend to propagate partition as a first option over secession, which has a higher conflict potential, arguing that when ethnic conflict is inevitable or already at a stage where it has culminated in violence, partition is a humane way of "... achieving through negotiation what would otherwise be achieved through fighting."31 The fear that this merely transforms an intrastate conflict into an interstate one, is unjustified. In the case of interstate conflict, a certain degree of objectivity prevails because the conflict is controlled by state structures, therefore allowing for the possibility of external influence, structural adjustments and a change in power relations. Ethnocultural intrastate conflict, in stark contrast, is a subjective and emotional form of communal conflict that seems to depend more on changes in mass perceptions in order to improve the relationship between distinct parallel communities, aiming at the way these behave and understand each other.32 It is important to be dealing with visible, legitimate leaders and organisations which have influence among the various warring factions and which can be held responsible.33 Allowing ethnic groups state or state-like structures tend to ensure this to some extent.
> 
> The fear that even less viable states will result from allowing such fragmentation, is not entirely unfounded. It is more likely, however, to be compensated by the realisation by ethnic groups that their desire for independence will have to be balanced against the desire to be prosperous. An example might be the 'Tutsi triangle' of Rwanda, Burundi and ZaÃƒÂ¯re that, in all likelihood, would result in a state characterised by greater stability. Due to the relative cultural homogeneity of such a structure, this would enable national consensus and the establishment of development priorities. National values determine national interests and this is the primary reason why an ethnically almost homogeneous, though relatively poor and landlocked Botswana has remained more stable than most other states in Africa, although the latter often hold far greater geopolitical and resource assets than the former.
> 
> *Allowing certain conflicts to burn out*
> 
> The current international fascination with cease-fires and conventional steps towards achieving peace are prolonging and postponing conflicts rather than solving them. During the Cold War with its possibility of escalating a regional conflict into a world war and the scenario of mutually assured destruction (MAD), arresting conflict through cease-fires was a prudent and necessary measure.
> 
> In the current circumstances, this approach has turned into what could be termed a 'peace industry', providing a sense of mission for many people who desire a life of doing good things. Driven by the good intentions of individuals and organisations or just plain gratitude junkies from Western surplus societies, this industry perpetuates rather than resolves conflicts. Its refugee camps have provided bases and safe havens for the combatants of a number of warring parties in Lebanon, ZaÃƒÂ¯re and Cambodia, while also preserving resentment and allowing recruitment drives. If not through bias, UN structures and highly competitive non-governmental organisations (NGOs) aid combatants through their inability to defend their supplies and infrastructure from becoming part and parcel of the logistic inventory of warring parties.
> 
> Cease-fires allow the warring sides to rest, regroup, refit and retrain. Once cease-fires are negotiated, none of the sides are faced with imminent defeat or the prospect of intolerable losses. Most of their energy is now invested in the 'next round' and a 'better luck next time' attitude prevails. The very incentive for a lasting settlement is removed, with the various parties returning to their preparations for the next round of conflict. Angola offers a model example of how wars can be prolonged and how peacekeeping can fail dismally in the face of international organisations preferring to treat symptoms rather than causes.34
> 
> It is sometimes better to let the conflict burn until a clear winner emerges or the parties experience fatigue through mutual attrition. It is important for people in conflict zones to become tired of war, before they develop a capability to reach consensus that would be conducive to the resolution of the conflict and the implementation of a lasting peace.
> 
> *Consistency in Military Intervention*
> 
> If and when military intervention is decided upon, it must be swift and decisive. It must become clear to the combatants that the intervention forces have a mandate to engage forces contravening security council resolutions and/or agreements, including cease-fires. Facing the reality that multinational commands have the problem of ensuring quality and a common standard of conduct among the composite forces from member states, one dominant and militarily capable force must provide the core of any task force that is deployed. This was the case in the Kosovo campaign, where seventy per cent of forces in the air were US, and with the intervention in East Timor where the Australian contingent provided the core.
> 
> Multinational forces hold the same problems of cohesion as multi-ethnic militaries, and consequently suffer from troop degradation that remains hidden from the external observer until a force is put to the test and fails dismally, for example, the South African National Defence Force in Lesotho in 1998. Cohesion in heterogeneous forces is their Achilles heel and even the French Foreign Legion has shown varying combat performance based upon its ethnocultural composition at the time of deployment.35
> 
> *CONCLUSION*
> 
> Interventions are products of a number of coinciding factors. The preconditions are seldom applied fairly and instead base themselves predominantly on a geopolitical priority list. Africa's place on that priority list will vary from case to case, but it generally appears more likely that the West will neither have the sustained will nor the capabilities to put the lid on every current or future conflict in Africa.
> While its presence will be felt, military intervention will be limited to sporadic interventions at most, predominantly aimed at minimising casualties among 'own forces'.
> 
> Hence, it is advisable that Africa should take control of its own destiny in dealing with ethnic regional conflicts in a more tolerant and flexible manner, thus departing from the rigidity of the ideological era. Boundaries must coincide with the ethnic composition of the population, or should at least not attempt to integrate incompatible cultures forcefully under a ruling multi-ethnic power élite. Such a new approach will involve the management of the fragmentation that will beset African states, but that can be channelled in a positive manner and allow for a gradual and constructive restructuring process.
> 
> ENDNOTES
> 
> This article is published in support of Training for Peace, a project sponsored by Norway and executed by the ISS in partnership with the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs (NUPI) and the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD).
> 
> 1.	British troops were equally shocked by what they often faced in Africa, e.g. the Benin campaign. The conduct of war throughout Africa before, during and after colonisation has apparently not changed much in terms of savagery. The level of cruelty sometimes experienced, became so intolerable that British troops have been seen to open fire on allied Massai tribesmen because these could not be otherwise dissuaded from butchering the non-combatants of the opposing side en masse. See L James, The savage wars, Robert Hale, London, 1985, pp 121-124.
> 2.	D D'Souza, The end of racism, Free Press, New York, 1995, pp 72-73.
> 3.	JDDavidson & W Rees-Mogg, The great reckoning, Pan, London, 1992, p 147.
> 4.	Sorrow and shame: Brutal North African slave trade ignored and denied, The City Sun, 22 March 1996.
> 5.	T Sowell, Conquests and cultures, Free Press, New York, 1998, pp 111-112.
> 6.	RDKaplan, The ends of the earth, Random House, New York, 1996, p 18.
> 7.	As the profit margin was a mere ten per cent, the interest of slave traders to bring their 'cargo' alive to the destined ports was high. In later years, slaves would even be inoculated and more spaciously loaded into ships in an effort to maximise profits by raising survival rates. See Der Spiegel, 8, 1998, pp 148-150.
> 8.	J Landes, The wealth and poverty of nations, Free Press, New York, 1998, pp 117-118.
> 9.	The abolition of slavery destabilised African societies by taking away an important economic pillar, while their traditional way of life was being questioned. See D'Souza, op cit, p 106.
> 10.	Ibid, p 105.
> 11.	At the turn of the century, the British launched several military operations into the more remote regions of West Africa for this very purpose, encountering numerous scenes of mass sacrifice, crucifixion, massacre and ritual cannibalism. See James, op cit, pp 121-124.
> 12.	Arab slave traders along the east coast of Africa were notorious for throwing slaves overboard as soon as British ships were sighted. This way, they could at least save their ships and hope for better luck next time. See Sowell, op cit, p 112.
> 13.	James, op cit, p 124.
> 14.	The private sector investments were hardly worth the trouble, with only eight out of nineteen sisal plantations, four out of 22 cocoa plantations, eight out of 58 rubber plantations, and three out of 48 diamond mines paying any dividends. See Sowell, op cit, p 117.
> 15.	Ibid, pp 117-118.
> 16.	R Peters, Fighting for the future, Stackpole, US, 1999, pp 155-157.
> 17.	W Connor, Ethnonationalism: The quest for understanding, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1995, p 29.
> 18.	D Callahan, Unwinnable wars, Hill and Wang, New York, 1999, pp 135-165.
> 19.	Unlike warriors, soldiers depend almost entirely on the state. They pledge allegiance to it, enjoy recognised legal status, and function as the 'restorer of order' both within and beyond the boundaries of the state.
> 20.	Noord Transvaler, 28 Julie 1995, pp 21-22.
> 21.	R Herbert, Dark sacrifice, Sunday Times, 7 September 1997, pp 14-17.
> 22.	RDKaplan, The coming anarchy, The Atlantic Monthly, February 1994, p 74.
> 23.	This is also described as a distinguishing characteristic of the West, with Huntington citing one study where out of fifty countries examined, nineteen of the twenty with the highest individualism index were Western. Elsewhere, the concept was situated near the bottom of the list of priorities cited by participants from non-Western cultures. See SPHuntington, The West: Unique, not universal, Foreign Affairs, 75(6), November/December 1996, p 32.
> 24.	JSNye, Redefining national interest, Foreign Affairs, 78(4),July/August 1999, p 32.
> 25.	SPHuntington, The erosion of American national interests, Foreign Affairs, 76(1), January/February 1997, p 53.
> 26.	Callahan, op cit, p 133.
> 27.	A Parsons, From Cold War to hot place: UN interventions 1947-1994, Michael Joseph, London, 1995, pp 215-219.
> 28.	C Kaufmann, Possible and impossible solutions to ethnic civil wars, International Security, 20(4), Spring 1996, p 161.
> 29.	T Cucolo, Grunt diplomacy: In the beginning there were only soldiers, Parameters, Spring 1999, p 112.
> 30.	Kaufmann, op cit.
> 31.	JTMathews, Power shift, Foreign Affairs, 76(1), January/February 1997, pp 23-24.
> 32.	T Woodhouse, Commentary: Negotiating a new millennium? Prospects for African conflict resolution, Review of African Political Economy, 68, 1996, p 136.
> 33.	Western observers have difficulty accepting the possibility of legitimate leaders not necessarily being democratically elected. In most cases of conflict resolution, however, the West's preferred discussion partner has seldom been the one with the most influence among the people.
> 34.	ENLuttwak, Give war a chance, Foreign Affairs, July/August 1999, p 39.
> 35.	D Porch, The French Foreign Legion, 1993, p 619, points out that the legion performed at its best when it was dominated by Germans who "were not to be outdone in skills or courage by legionnaires from other countries." One legionnaire said, "[t]he legion is only as good as its worst German legionnaire."


----------



## cbt arms sub tech

CF Announced today, we're sending 31 soliders to Sudan, who do you think is going, a small group from across the country?  Thoughts!


----------



## McG

What jobs? Observers & staff officers?


----------



## cbt arms sub tech

Sounds like an observer team, its on the www.dnd.ca, press release's


----------



## McG

Every year there are a bunch of officers from across Canada (and from all three environments) that are trained as UNMOs and put on a year long stand-by list.  I expect some of the pers will be drawn from this list.  Other observers may be specifically trained for this mission at PSTC.


----------



## 291er

I suspect that most will be attached to BGen Mitchell (Canadian Deputy Force Comd) in the Headquarters.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Whoever goes, it"ll be 90% Ruperts, 10% baggage monkeys/drivers...IMHO, as usual

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I'd love to be the monkey boy.


----------



## bossi

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Whoever goes, it"ll be 90% Ruperts, 10% baggage monkeys/drivers...IMHO, as usual



[/sarcasm on] But aren't you forgetting the 143 CANCAP and PSP employees ... ha! [/sarcasm off]

In reality, it would seem that this group will rely on somebody else for most of their logistical support (much the same as UNMO's elsewhere, as pointed out previously).

As for the ISL (International Standby List) ... ha! (double "ha!")
Hopefully we're starting to use the ISL for it's intended purpose
(and not just for PER points ... oops ... I forgot to use the sarcasm button again ...)


----------



## Edward Campbell

Anyone who thinks that doing much of anything about or *for* Africa â â€œ especially sending Canadian troops and do-gooders _armed_ with food baskets and toys â â€œ needs to consider that the (relatively) 'safe' and 'stable' parts of Africa re, also, social/political basket cases.

Consider this from the International Organization for Migration â â€œ a multinational do-gooder organization (see: http://www.iom.int/) of which Canada is a full member.



> Ghana - Severe Toll On Mental and Physical Health of Trafficked Children
> 
> The high level of trauma suffered by children trafficked for forced labour into fishing communities in Yeji in Ghana, has resulted in major physical and mental health problems for the victims, according to IOM.
> 
> IOM has so far rescued 537 children who had been sold by their impoverished parents to fishermen in Yeji, on the northern shores of Lake Volta. In February 2005, a group of 107 children were rescued and have since spent time trying to recover from their ordeals in a rehabilitation centre in Accra before being reunited with their parents at the end of the month.
> 
> Although most of the children have now been declared medically fit to return home and attend school, they will all need a minimum of two years of constant medical evaluations and treatment to fully recover. The most severe illnesses affecting the children are bilharzia, malaria, amoebiasis and chronic eye, stomach and head ailments. In addition, there is evidence of post-traumatic stress disorders, reflecting the acute trauma the children suffered during their servitude. As a result, they will need extensive counselling.
> Boys were often forced to dive into Lake Volta's muddy and dangerous waters to free tangled nets and worked extremely long hours to cast and retrieve nets. Some have died in the process and almost all were regularly beaten and poorly fed.
> 
> For the 430 children who have already been reintegrated into their communities, IOM will be running two mobile clinics to provide primary healthcare services. The trauma the children suffered is still having an impact on their physical and mental health and they will need counselling and medical assistance on a regular basis for some time to come.
> 
> IOM is preparing to rescue another group of children shortly, but there is no clear picture of the extent of child trafficking into fishing communities in Ghana. Upon IOM's request, UNICEF has committed to funding two baseline research studies on child trafficking in the Central and Volta regions, both of which begin in June.
> 
> This programme, which is carried out in cooperation with the Ghanaian authorities is funded by the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) of the US State Department.
> 
> For further information, please contact
> Joseph Rispoli
> IOM Accra
> Tel: +233 244 975250
> E-mail: jrispoli@iom.int



From Accra to Zimbabwe, black Africa is a nightmare which is slipping, inexorably, into chaos.   HIV/AIDS will deprive black Africa of one or two generations of workers, thinkers, leaders, etc.   The consequences of this are too horrible to contemplate from the comfort of a quiet Canadian home on a warm Canadian spring morning.   But, consider this, from the BBC, (at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4424909.stm ):



> DR Congo's atrocious secret
> 
> By Hilary Andersson
> BBC Africa correspondent
> 
> Despite a peace deal signed two years ago to end the long-running civil war, violence is continuing in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo. And in the province of Ituri, Hilary Andersson finds evidence of cannibalism by some rebels.
> 
> There is a part of the world where atrocities go beyond all normal bounds, where evil seems to congregate.
> 
> Almost everyone who has ever worked there will know where I am talking of.
> 
> The area is not very large on the map of Africa.
> 
> But the region in and north of the forests of central Africa has hosted Rwanda's genocide, the massacres in Burundi, the devastation of southern Sudan, the mutilations in Uganda, and the atrocities of the north-eastern Congo.
> 
> And so I had the usual feeling of dread when we flew into the area on this trip.
> 
> We left the acacia-lined, sunswept plains of east Africa and, as we approached, the sky began to darken.
> 
> We began to descend through black clouds that hugged the huge forests below.
> 
> We landed in a ferocious rainstorm in the small town of Bunia in the north-east of the Congo.
> 
> *'Hole in Africa's heart'*
> 
> The Congo is a vast territory, the size of western Europe.
> 
> But it has been called the hole in the heart of Africa, because much of it is a giant power vacuum.
> 
> In the north-east, at least seven warlords are locked in brutal scramble for personal power and control.
> 
> Lots of the fighters are children.
> 
> Rape is more widespread than possibly anywhere else on Earth.
> 
> And the war is not about any principle at all, violence has just moved in where there is no authority.
> 
> *Mutilation*
> 
> We visited a refugee camp set in a small valley, a piece of land like a basin.
> 
> Around its rims the United Nations patrolled to keep the militia out.
> 
> In an afternoon every person we spoke to, without exception, had witnessed not just killing but horrific mutilation.
> 
> The children had sunken, troubled eyes. The women looked exhausted and the men were bursting with what they had to tell.
> 
> Their relatives had their hearts ripped out, their heads cut off, their sexual organs removed.
> 
> This, it seemed, was the standard way of killing here.
> 
> Why?
> 
> You want to know why?
> 
> Yes there is war, but this is different.
> 
> This is not just killing, or taking territory.
> 
> It is deliberate mutilation on a scale that makes you reel with horror.
> 
> It reminded me of the atrocities in Bosnia, where at a certain point individuals turned into human devils, bent on doing not just the worst they could but the most atrocious.
> 
> *Militia attack*
> 
> We met a woman whom I will call Kavuo, not her real name.
> 
> To talk to her about her story we had to travel to a remote location in the jungle, where we could not be seen or heard by others.
> 
> What she had to speak of is an atrocity shrouded in secrecy here, an atrocity. It is taboo to even speak of it.
> 
> The events she told me about happened two years ago and hers was one of the first public testimonies of its kind.
> 
> Kavuo was on the run with her husband, her four children and three other couples.
> 
> They had spent the night in a hut, and got up in the morning to keep moving.
> 
> But they had barely left the hut when six militia men accosted them.
> 
> Kavuo and the women were ordered to lie with their faces on the ground.
> 
> The militia ordered Kavuo's husband and the other men to collect firewood.
> 
> Then the women were told to say goodbye to their husbands.
> 
> They obeyed.
> 
> The militia then began to kill the men one by one.
> 
> Kavuo's husband was third.
> 
> Her testimony is that the militia men lit a fire and put an old oil drum, cut into two, on the flames.
> 
> I will omit other details. But Kavuo says the militia cooked her husband's parts in the drums and ate them.
> 
> *Beliefs perverted*
> 
> Those who have studied the region say cannibalism has a history there but as a specific animist ritual, carried out only in exceptional circumstances.
> 
> What has happened now is that the war has turned Congo's society upside-down.
> 
> Warlords are exploiting this, and perverting existing beliefs for their own ends.
> 
> Fighters told us that those who carry out such acts believe it makes them stronger.
> 
> Some believe they are literally taking spiritual power from their victims. That once they have eaten, they have the power of the enemy.
> 
> These atrocities are also designed to instil utter fear into the enemy.
> 
> *Anarchy*
> 
> It is estimated that four million people have died in the Congo as a result of the long running war.
> 
> That is truly staggering. It is more than those killed by Cambodia's Pol Pot and more than those killed in Rwanda.
> 
> Most people have died of hunger and disease that the violence has left in its wake.
> 
> Kavuo lost four of her children to illness and malnutrition even before her husband was killed.
> 
> Now she lives in a remote village in the forest, and cannot afford to look after her surviving children.
> 
> If this is her story, imagine how many others are like it and the numbers begin to make a horrifying sort of sense.
> 
> As we flew out of the Congo, I could see the vast forests below, thick with trees, infested with malaria, and barely accessible. A huge area that few outsiders venture into an area where evils happen that are rarely reported.
> 
> The blood red sunsets, the streaks of black clouds a weird sort of echo.
> 
> Anarchy is not just a word.
> 
> In the north-eastern Congo we saw its reality.
> 
> What is happening there is proof of the scale of devastation that chaos can invite, and of the terrifying human capacity for unleashing deliberate evil on the innocent.
> _ From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Thursday, 7 April, 2005 at 1100 BST on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times._



A little secret, well not really a secret, just something about which words are rarely spoken:   In country after country, throughout black Africa, the 'answer' is always the same â â€œ â Å“just several hundred, maybe a few thousand, less than 10,000 professional soldiers could solve this, that and the other problem and rescue the country."   That's probably true, but there are scores of countries so that means a few thousand times, say, 35 which means that the combined strengths of the Australian, British and Canadian armies would not come anywhere near 'solving' even half the problems.   Worse, even after the immediate 'problem' is solved by foreign troops there needs to be long term, very long terms, several generations long term change â â€œ without a shadow of a doubt, in my mind, *imposed* and _supervised_ change.

Despite protestations, it is not clear that the Belgians were all that much worse than the French or Italians who were not too much worse than the British.   19th century Europe, in other words, did not do too much to help Africa cope with the 21st century.   There is no reason to believe that 21st entury Europe and America will do any better.

What to do?   Troops to Darfur?   Why?   What will they accomplish?   What can a few thousand under equipped, ill trained, undisciplined, miserably led African troops do?   What possible 'help' can a couple of dozen Canadian staff officers and instructors do?   Does anyone with an IQ higher than that given by the gods to green peppers really believe that our current commitment to Sudan is anything other than a cynical, pre-election, partisan political move designed to say: â Å“See?   We kept our promise; we're helping Africa.â ?   What immoral claptrap.

What to do?

Troops, certainly â â€œ let us, after we rebuild our own forces, work with a select few allies, totally outside the United Nations, to send task forces, uninvited, using only Pink Lloyd  Axworthy's _duty to protect_ doctrine, to selected countries to settle their internal disturbances and leave behind an Indian administration, supported by American, Australian, British, Canadian, New Zealand and Singaporean dollars, which will stay in place for something in excess of 50 years.   When three or four countries have been 'settled' then we can send task forces to others, leaving behind Pakistani administration, with more money from the _Anglosphere_.   By the time we have 'settled' about half of black Africa it is possible that more Asian and European money will be available and that a few other suitable _supervisory_ powers will be on the scene â â€œ perhaps Egypt, China and Malaysia.   This is the work of decades, even centuries but I believe it is the only hope for Africa.

There is an alternative: we, the whole world, can do nothing - which is to say that we can continue as now.   Eventually we just wash our hands of the whole place and leave the Africans to their own devices.   That: savagry, chaos and collapse - what Stephan Maninger (in the long, three part article, above) called letting conflicts burn themselves out, which means accepting what Hillary Andersson saw, magnified and multiplied, may be the easiest, even the 'best' route for Canada.


----------



## mover1

who cares who is going.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Please see my (too lengthy) comments way down below in Politics just above.  _Thanks, Moderators, for merging these two threads._

I, personally, do not believe that anyone â â€œ not in Canada and not in the UN, either â â€œ cares a wit for Sudan and no one, especially not Canada, is interested in preventing the _Janjaweed_ from terrorizing the black people around Darfur.   _Some_ people, a fairly small number, in Canada want to help, some, a subset of that small number, even want to help in a useful, effective manner.

Canada's current 'help' is a cynical, partisan political ploy designed to say, domestically, â Å“See; we did keep our promise!   We are doing something for Africa.â ?   That's rubbish, of course.   Our _observers_ and the large contingent of accompanying public affairs staffers are there to provide propaganda for Bill Graham.


----------



## BIGMAN

Well, its official, most of our guys are out of Bosnia and now operation Athena should be coming to a close at its designated time in august. Now that thats all said and done where will we be going next? I just wanted to get your opinion because I'm just going through for officer and I kinda want to a general idea of where I might be goin in the future if I get sent over seas.

Personally, I think it might be somewhere in Africa, but thats just my opinion.

What do you think?


----------



## Jc066

I would not be surprised if the next bit of time is spent in consolidation, not just the army but the air force and navy as well.The politics of budget spending, coupled with the "Baby boomer bubble" that is in the early stages of un-winding is a very serious issue. Look at any demographic chart of the CF when it is ranked by age and Time in...Two BIG spikes at either end, thouse just in and those nearing the 20 mark. I think to any one that is unhealthy in terms of manpower issues and experience. Do I have the answers?...No
That being said, yes, Africa and some of the smaller "Banana Republics" are a good bet...If your a betin' man

My two and a half cents
Cheers


----------



## BIGMAN

Yeah I guess I never thought of that. It would be a good idea to build up for a year or two but some how I doubt the governments gonna let that happen. Its all cut back on spending but make more promises now adays.


----------



## Edward Campbell

In exchange for not voting to bring down the government, former Liberal MP David Kilgour appears to have secured a government commitment to do what, just a few weeks ago, it said it could not do: increase 'aid' to Darfur.


Here is what today's _Globe and Mail_ has to say at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050506/DARFUR06/TPNational/?query=David+Kilgour (my emphasis added)



> Ottawa planning greater aid role in Darfur
> 
> By JEFF SALLOT
> Friday, May 6, 2005 Page A8
> 
> 
> OTTAWA -- The federal government is ramping up a military assistance and humanitarian aid package to help the international peacekeeping operation in the blood-soaked Darfur region of Sudan.
> 
> Canada's top general has just returned from a fact-finding trip to Africa and is preparing an action plan for the cabinet.
> 
> General Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, said the Canadian Forces will be ready to deploy a large contingent overseas for "significant operations" by late summer after a year of recovery and rebuilding.
> 
> The Darfur situation, he said, "is a complex and a relatively dangerous environment and the tragedy that is unfolding there is on a scale that is very tough to determine."
> 
> Defence Minister Bill Graham said whatever the Canadian military does in Darfur, it will be in a support role to the African Union, which is in charge of the peacekeeping operation and whose member states will supply most of the ground troops.
> 
> "We'll be looking, from a government point of view, at every way we can help the people of Darfur," Mr. Graham said. "The military is part of the solution."
> 
> Prime Minister Paul Martin, whose minority government could face a no-confidence vote as early as next week, injected a note of urgency into the Darfur discussions, saying he will have an announcement in coming days.
> 
> The two-year-old Darfur conflict, which has already claimed about 300,000 lives, is "one of the most important tests as to how the West is prepared to come to the aid of Africa," Mr. Martin said.
> 
> He denied a suggestion that plans to help are motivated by Parliament Hill politics. Independent MP David Kilgour of Edmonton, whose vote in the Commons might be crucial to the Liberal government's survival, met with Mr. Martin this week to stress the importance of quick action in Darfur.
> 
> Mr. Kilgour, a former Liberal junior minister for African affairs, had just returned from his own week-long trip to the region. He said he'll decide how to vote on any no-confidence motion the day it comes, and how the government responds to the Darfur crisis is only one of the factors he'll consider.
> 
> Mr. Martin said he's not shopping for votes. He's been concerned about Darfur for some time.
> 
> The government has previously pledged about $20-million in assistance to the African Union, which includes the cost of leasing up to six helicopters to help AU peace observers get around the vast region. Canada also contributed thousands of helmets, flak jackets, and other bits of kit.
> 
> Gen. Hillier said he has 31 officers working with the AU on plans for Sudan.
> 
> Peacekeeping operations would extend over an enormous territory, the size of France, with few roads, airstrips or other infrastructure, he said.
> 
> The scale of the crisis is so vast, he said, "the people in theatre are still unable to wrap their arms around what is actually going on."
> 
> About two million people have been driven from their villages and are living in camps. Military forces are needed to provide security so that humanitarian assistance can be delivered, Gen. Hillier told a news conference.
> 
> Many living in camps find the conditions better than anything they had previously known in their villages. "They have enough to eat. They have some security. They have some medical care . . . and they have some schooling, in many cases for the first time in their lives."
> 
> The long-term challenge, international development agencies say, will be to build a lasting peace and provide tools for the people of Darfur to become economically self-sufficient.
> 
> The crisis is attracting the attention of young Canadians.
> 
> A group called Students Taking Action Now: Darfur has collected 10,000 signatures in about two weeks on university campuses and in high schools, urging the government to play a leadership role.
> 
> Ben Fine, one of the organizers, said the group will present its petition on Parliament Hill next Thursday.



While the Liberal Party of Canada has a vital interest in Darfur â â€œ the group called _* Students Taking Action Now: Darfur*_ consists, largely of _potential_ voters (you young people are far less likely to vote than we old fogeys) with an issue, I cannot see that Canada has any particular _*vital*_* interest* anywhere in Africa.


----------



## supplyguy

Yes, OP Athena will be closed, however, all we will be doing is transferring Camp Julien to Kandahar.
  Closing Bosnia (OP Boreas) completely.Which will make 2006 a busy year. With the opening of a camp in Kandahar and the possibility of Sudan (nothing confirmed as of yet). Hold on to your hat you will have plenty of chances to be deployed in the years to come.


----------



## mover1

remember the good old days when having a cypress medal or a Golan gong were the only medals around?

The good old days....PRE 1990, still had a cold war, Russia was our threat. The Equipment was "bad" but it worked and was on par with all of our allies.


----------



## jc5778

supplyguy said:
			
		

> Yes, OP Athena will be closed, however, all we will be doing is transferring Camp Julien to Kandahar.
> Closing Bosnia (OP Boreas) completely.Which will make 2006 a busy year. With the opening of a camp in Kandahar and the possibility of Sudan (nothing confirmed as of yet). Hold on to your hat you will have plenty of chances to be deployed in the years to come.



Maybe you will but WE were told 2008  :crybaby:


----------



## Pieman

I wonder what the size of this operation is going to be? I just hope you guys are given everything you need to get the job done right and safely.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/05/06/Darfur-050506.html
OTTAWA - Canada is making plans to send troops to the war-ravaged Darfur region of Sudan by summer's end. 

The head of Canada's military returned recently from meeting with leaders of the African Union peacekeeping force that Canadian units would support. 

  
A refugee in a Darfur camp.  
"This is a complex and relatively dangerous environment," Gen. Rick Hillier told CBC News. 

Hillier said he has more than 30 officers working on the project but was mum on the specifics until he presents several options this week to Defence Minister Bill Graham. 

The minister wants military intervention to be only one part of an overall plan for the northeastern African country. 

"We cannot invade Sudan. It requires United Nations action ... it requires political as well as military and aid matters," Graham told CBC. 

The two-year-old Darfur conflict, stemming from the fallout of a peace deal to end the country's decades-old civil war, has driven about two million people from their villages to live in camps and killed 300,000 others. 


INDEPTH: Crisis Zone: Darfur, Sudan 

Canada has already marked $20 million in aid to the African Union, a continent-wide association of states that will lead peacekeeping in Darfur. 

Peacekeepers must overcome the obstacles of few roads and runways in an area the size of France. 

  
The Darfur region of Sudan.  
Prime Minister Paul Martin has pledged a greater Canadian commitment to Darfur and was expected to make an announcement within days. 

He said Wednesday the conflict "is one of the most important tests as to how the West is prepared to come to the aid of Africa." 

Martin met earlier this week with David Kilgour, a former Liberal MP who now sits as an independent. 

Kilgour is a strong proponent of sending Canadian troops to Darfur. Kilgour and the prime minister denied the meeting was an attempt to prop up the Liberals' shaky minority government.


----------



## Armymedic

BIGMAN said:
			
		

> now operation Athena should be coming to a close at its designated time in august.



Lets not hang out hat on ISAF being done in SEPTEMBER when the parlimentry elections happen. IF they go the way the US wants and the people of Afghanistan have elected a parliment supportive of Karzi, maybe we will actually leave Kabul, to go on to a smaller PRT role in the south by Feb 06....That is if we don't accept the ISAF Command group, and just move back to Warehouse.

Darfur is definately on the radar screen...Iraq is pounding at our door for rebuilding....Haiti is still not there, and could reignite....

My feel for Sudan is alot of logistics in support of UA rifleman who will try to keep the peace....That is if China will let the western UN countries in.

No worries BIGMAN, you will get your tours.


----------



## Infanteer

Yes, we are definately in a growth industry....


----------



## P-Free

1/2 of the Middle East and 2/3 of Africa..take your pick.


----------



## Canadian Sig

Armymedic said:
			
		

> ....That is if we don't accept the ISAF Command group, and just move back to Warehouse.


 :'(

Cant even begin to describe how large the rumor mill is around 2 Sigs regarding this.


----------



## spenco

I apoligize if this has been posted elsewhere.

Canadian soldiers likely bound for Sudan
Last Updated Fri, 06 May 2005 11:58:50 EDT 
CBC News
OTTAWA - Canada is making plans to send peacekeeping troops to the war-ravaged Darfur region of Sudan by summer's end.  

The head of Canada's military returned recently from meeting with leaders of the African Union peacekeeping force that Canadian units would support. 

"This is a complex and relatively dangerous environment," Gen. Rick Hillier told CBC News. 

Hillier said he has more than 30 officers working on the project but was mum on the specifics until he presents several options this week to Defence Minister Bill Graham. 

The minister wants military intervention to be only one part of an overall plan for the northeastern African country. 

"We cannot invade Sudan. It requires United Nations action ... it requires political as well as military and aid matters," Graham told CBC. 

The two-year-old Darfur conflict, stemming from the fallout of a peace deal to end the country's decades-old civil war, has driven about two million people from their villages to live in camps and killed 300,000 others. 

Canada has already marked $20 million in aid to the African Union, a continent-wide association of states that will lead peacekeeping in Darfur. 

Peacekeepers must overcome the obstacles of few roads and runways in an area the size of France. 

  The Darfur region of Sudan.  
Prime Minister Paul Martin has pledged a greater Canadian commitment to Darfur and was expected to make an announcement within days. 

He said Wednesday the conflict "is one of the most important tests as to how the West is prepared to come to the aid of Africa." 

Martin met earlier this week with David Kilgour, a former Liberal MP who now sits as an independent. 

Kilgour is a strong proponent of sending Canadian troops to Darfur. Kilgour and the prime minister denied the meeting was an attempt to prop up the Liberals' shaky minority government.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> _Mr. Martin said he's not shopping for votes. He's been concerned about Darfur for some time._



Once again, life imitates *Top Gun*: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/quotes



> *Iceman*: [_coughs whilst saying_] Bullsh*t.


----------



## BIGMAN

Wow, you guys are given me a lot to look forward to. I was worried I was gonna come out of RMC and become a paper pusher. I had a feeling the CF would be goin in to the Sudan sooner or later but I never heard any kind of offical talk about it.


----------



## George Wallace

This is all 'old news'.  We have been slated to go to the Sudan for over two years now and we still haven't gone.  Too many other factors involved.  The NATO Quick Reaction Force, that we were supposed to be part of has yet to gel completely.  Politics in that Region of Africa are still too unstable to introduce our Troops as part of this NATO Force.  NDHQ has probably conducted numerous feasibility studies and come up with numerous options in their planning processes, but the Government seems to be lacking in any decisiveness dealing with the subject.  What does Foreign Affairs have in their corner?  Funding?  Transport?  It is another "Wait and Shoot" situation.  Meanwhile Units will be tasked and train as part of their 'tour' as QRF or IRU and go nowhere.


----------



## Armymedic

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Meanwhile Units will be tasked and train as part of their 'tour' as QRF or IRU and go nowhere.



Except back to Afghanistan


----------



## Edward Campbell

This is from today's _Globe and Mail_ web edition at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050507.wsudan0507/BNStory/National/



> Canada to send up to 150 troops to Sudan: source
> 
> *Source also reveals that Canada will hand over some old military equipment to the African mission*
> 
> Saturday, May 7, 2005 Updated at 4:36 PM EDT
> Canadian Press
> 
> Ottawa â â€ Canada will send up to 150 military personnel to Sudan to help the African Union and a United Nations mission keep the peace in the war-torn African country, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> Ottawa will also shore up its support for the African mission by handing over some old military equipment and likely adding to the $20-million in humanitarian support it has already given to Sudan, a source said.
> 
> But whether the announcement â â€ expected within days, and which could also include diplomatic efforts â â€ is enough to assuage independent MP David Kilgour remains to be seen.
> 
> Mr. Kilgour has said Canada's response to Sudan will be a major factor in his decision to lend his critical support to the minority government in a confidence vote expected May 18.
> 
> The government announcement will not include a major military force, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Rather, the troops involved will act as short-term advisers, mechanics, trainers and planning staff.
> 
> "We're looking at a suite of different options, including giving them some pretty substantial pieces of equipment," said the highly placed Defence Department source. "This isn't just a defence package.
> 
> "What is not on that menu of options is a large-scale deployment of troops on the ground in the actual affected area."
> 
> Canada has already committed 31 soldiers to act as advisers to the African Union mission based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, which is responsible for the hard-hit Darfur region, and the UN Standing High-Readiness Brigade in Khartoum.
> 
> Ottawa will increase that commitment "by a factor of five or less," said the source. The exact number will depend on what the forces in-theatre say they need.
> 
> Ottawa has also leased helicopters for the African Union force. It is now contemplating other transportation options Canada no longer requires, including surplus vehicles "with some protection" â â€ not Iltis jeeps.
> 
> Western nations have been urging the Khartoum-based government to halt attacks by government-aligned Arab militias. The militias launched a counter-insurgency campaign in 2003 against ethnic African rebels.
> 
> The rebels began their fight over what they view as discrimination by the Arab-dominated government.
> 
> Known as the Janjaweed, the militias have committed wide-scale abuses against tribes they say are allied with the rebels.
> 
> The two-year conflict in Darfur has left at least 180,000 people dead, many through disease and hunger, and has displaced more than two million people, says the UN.
> 
> In an interview Friday, Mr. Kilgour suggested he's willing to help topple the government if he disapproves of its military policy.
> 
> He reacted strongly to remarks by Defence Minister Bill Graham, who has said Canada "cannot invade Sudan."
> 
> "It requires United Nations action," Mr. Graham said. "It requires co-ordination with the African Union. It requires political as well as military and aid matters."
> 
> Mr. Kilgour called Mr. Graham's comments "fear-mongering."
> 
> "I don't think [it] becomes him or becomes the office, or is at all helpful at a time when 4,000 people a week are being murdered or raped," Mr. Kilgour said.
> 
> "To me it's grossly irresponsible for a defence minister to be saying that. If he thinks he's going to win friends and influence people by that kind of statement â â€ including in a [confidence] vote next Thursday â â€ he's sadly wrong."
> 
> In a recent meeting with Prime Minister Paul Martin, Mr. Kilgour said he requested boots on the ground in Sudan, plus equipment like helicopters, food, medicine and money. He also wants Canada to boost its foreign aid to get it closer to 0.7 per cent of the gross domestic product.
> 
> "There was clearly an understanding that a major initiative would be undertaken by Canada, both militarily and in terms of aid for Darfur."
> 
> Mr. Kilgour says the situation requires a multilateral force â â€ probably NATO. But the African Union has clearly stated it does not want or need such a force, Graham said.
> 
> "We'd have to go in, in combination with the African Union," said Mr. Kilgour.
> 
> "Logistical support is required â â€ all kinds of things that Canada and all kinds of countries could use to stop the slaughter, in partnership with the African Union."
> 
> Justin Laku, an Ottawa resident, said he recently toured displaced-persons camps in Darfur and saw victims of ritualistic rape first-hand. He said he knows of camps where refugees are being murdered by militiamen.
> 
> "The Janjaweed comes in and rounds up women every night," Laku said in an interview. "They round them up, they rape them and they leave them there.
> 
> "They [the African Union] say: 'We can only document their crimes but we cannot fight back. We cannot protect because we don't have money."'
> 
> Mr. Kilgour said he'd likely issue a news release an hour or two before the crucial Commons vote saying which way he'll go.
> 
> He said right now he's "dead-centre" on the issue.



The Liberals plus the NDP have 151 votes to keep Martin's Liberal government alive, if everyone shows up and if Carolyn Parrish does, as she suggests she will, vote with them.  The Conservative and the Bloq have 153 votes to topple the government.  There are two undecided: Kilgour and BC Independent (former Alliance) MP Chuck Cadman.  (There is one vacancy and the speaker votes only to break a tie; 151+153+2+1+1=308)  If Kilgour finds Martin's _offering_ acceptable then the Liberals need only, either:

1.	Buy Cadman; or

2.	Hope and pray that the two Conservatives undergoing cancer treatment are too sick mto come to Ottawa. 

I repeat:

The government announcement will not include a major military force, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Rather, the troops involved will act as short-term advisers, mechanics, trainers and planning staff.

"We're looking at a suite of different options, including giving them some pretty substantial pieces of equipment," said the highly placed Defence Department source. "This isn't just a defence package.

"What is not on that menu of options is a large-scale deployment of troops on the ground in the actual affected area."


----------



## jc5778

Canada to send up to 150 troops to Sudan: report
Last Updated Sat, 07 May 2005 17:04:13 EDT
CBC News

OTTAWA - Canada will deploy up to 150 military personnel as peacekeepers to war-torn Sudan, according to a report.

    * INDEPTH: Sudan

A child refugee from Darfur washes clothes outside her shack at the Iridimi refugee camp near Iriba in eastern Chad, September 2004 (AP File Photo)

Ottawa would also donate some used military equipment, and increase the amount of humanitarian aid for the Northeast African country.

An official announcement was due within days, the Canadian Press reported Saturday.

The Liberal government has already earmarked $20 million in aid for Sudan. And On Friday, Gen. Rick Hillier told CBC News that Canada was making plans to send troops to the Darfur region of Sudan by the end of the summer.

    * FROM YESTERDAY: Canadian soldiers likely bound for Sudan 

Darfur is the western province of Sudan, where government-backed militia are accused of killing thousands of locals because of political, ethnic and religious differences.

At least 180,000 people have died and more than 2 million others displaced in two years of conflict there.

Canada has also already promised 31 soldiers to act as advisers to an African Union mission based in neighbour Ethiopia's capital, Addis Ababa.

The additional Canadian military personnel would serve as short-term advisers, mechanics and trainers, CP reported, citing an anonymous source.

The Liberal minority government's renewed sense of urgency to deal with what the United Nations has called the world's worst humanitarian crisis may be connected to a looming confidence vote in parliament that could come as early as May 18.

Paul Martin's administration will need every single vote of support that it can garner from NDP or independent members of parliament to survive that scenario.

David Kilgour, who quit the Liberal caucus to sit as an independent MP recently, has said a tougher Canadian response to the Darfur crisis would be important in helping him make up his mind to support the government when it comes to such a vote.


----------



## Zartan

I'll be amazed if they (the government) actually are able to send that many troops there and be able to provide support without allied assistance. Let's face it, the Hercs can't even get there without stopping in Europe, plus considering how much equipment they would have to tag along with them would probably take 3 months to move(considering how many Hercs actually work ). I would think it alot more plausible to send more troops to Haiti or something. It would be easier - we could send ships (?), whereas we couldn't to Sudan.
However, we do owe the Sudanese Christians something. Remember the accusations against Calgary's Talisman Energy regarding the Sudanese genocide a couple years ago? According to human rights groups, Talisman's actions assisted the extremely endebted Islamic Government launch new offenses against the Sudanese Liberation Army, and the southern territory.
In terms of continuity, though, this would be another extension of the war on terrorism. When Osama Bin Laden was living in the Sudan in the late 1990's, he established a number of training facilities, al-Qaeda cells, and communications networks throughout the country. But perhaps the most disturbing was his establishment of a successful slave trade based out of Sudan, where the government's christian peoples could be sold as a means of funding terrorist activities. You can be sure many of the slaves traded were from Darfur. :skull:


----------



## Britney Spears

Do you have a cite for any of the stuff you just posted?


----------



## Zartan

Yes: (unless you ment "site", as in website);
The book: "Al-Qaeda, Brotherhood of Terror", by Paul L. Williams, a consultant on international terrorism and organised crime for the FBI.
And the article: "Oil Patch Pariah", by Andrew Nikiforuk, from 12-10-99 edition of Canadian Business. That should cover my info on Sudan.


----------



## Britney Spears

> Yes: (unless you ment "site", as in website);



Thanks, I meant cite as in the verb form of "Citation", which is different from what you have presented. What you posted are called "References".

Obviously, a direct link to some of your sources would strengthen your argument, you're presenting the statements, so I would expect you to provide the evidence and do the research, not tell your audience to go read a book.


----------



## Zartan

Here you go:
http://elibrary.bigchalk.com/libweb/curriculumca/do/document?set=search&groupid=1&requestid=lib_canada&resultid=1&edition=&ts=62C0C3BD9B5AC045364B0CFCBE5FE34F_1115654263713&urn=urn%3Abigchalk%3AUS%3BBCLib%3Bdocument%3B33500066
copy this and check it out - this is the article which I referred to. If you print it off, it is four pages long. This covers most of what I said regarding the Sudanese government. I'm afraid the rest is in the book I talked about. However, I figure that news articles on the homepage may also be of some relevance. But in case you are wondering, after Bin Laden was exiled from Saudi Arabia (or left , I'm not sure), he took up residence in Sudan, where he lived before going to Afghanistan.


----------



## BruceR

Zartan, the residents of the Darfur region, in the west of the country are Muslim, being oppressed by the country's Muslim majority. Sudanese oppression and enslavement of the Christian minority in south Sudan, which the Talisman controversy was linked to (before the company divested from Sudan in 2003), is an entirely separate issue, involving a different part of what is a very large country. As written your post could be misleading to people who don't know the situation.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> In exchange for not voting to bring down the government, former Liberal MP David Kilgour appears to have secured a government commitment to do what, just a few weeks ago, it said it could not do: increase 'aid' to Darfur.



*Update*:





> *Kilgour criticizes Liberals' Sudan package*
> 
> By ALLISON DUNFIELD
> Thursday, May 12, 2005 Updated at 12:25 PM EDT
> Globe and Mail Update
> 
> Independent MP David Kilgour was harshly critical Thursday of a $170-million Liberal aid package and additional troops for Sudan â â€ a move widely seen as an attempt to win him over before a confidence vote.
> 
> Prime Minister Paul Martin announced Thursday morning that Canda would provide the funding over two years for peacekeeping efforts in the war-torn region.
> 
> "To get the job done, the African Union needs more training, it needs better equipment for its troops. Canada will answer the call," Mr. Martin said Thursday.
> 
> Mr. Martin also announced an initial 100 troops for the region but said that number could be increased. "The Canadian Forces' military experts who will operate in a technical and strategic support role to the african union, and some will also participate in the UN mission in southern Sudan because both areas are essential to peace and progress in the region. All of this is with a single view, and that is to protecting innocent civilians, families, most of whom are refugees," the Prime Minister said.
> 
> But *Mr. Kilgour indicated earlier in the day that he may not be happy enough with what the government is offering to vote along with the Liberals.*
> 
> The Liberals need the support of all three independents in a confidence vote, including Mr. Kilgour.
> 
> With such an unstable minority, the Liberals need the three independents, all the NDP and possibly the Speaker of the House to break a tie, in order to win a confidence vote.
> 
> Mr. Kilgour indicated that Sudan is not an issue to play politics with.
> 
> "This does not require a vote in the House. What is being asked by the students and in fact by canadians and people around the world and those suffering in Darfur. This requires action.
> 
> "It requires political will, and that's what we need to see happen," he said during a press conference in Ottawa on Thursday with a number of MPs from the Conservative, NDP and Bloc Québécois parties.
> 
> *He said the government's offer of troops is inadequate.
> 
> It was first reported that the Liberals would provide 60 troops, although Mr. Martin said Thursday that there would be at least 100.
> 
> Mr. Kilgour, who has recently returned from a visit to the Darfur region of Suday, has said he wants to see rapid deployment of Canadian troops there before committing himself to backing the government.*
> 
> "I am afraid if it is 60 Canadian military advisers announced in an hour, that are going to do not very much to stop a genocide taking place in an area the size of France," Mr. Kilgour said. "Would 60 troops have been an acceptable response in Bosnia or Kosovo? I think the answer is no.
> 
> "I don't see how that will stop the mass murder and mass rape" in the region, he said.
> *Mr. Kilgour said at least 500 troops would be necessary to begin to bring about stability in the area.*


 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050512.wsudn0512/BNStory/National/


----------



## cbt arms sub tech

Guess the minister announced today, 100 troops will head to Sudan, not much info out about it, anyone know anything more, perhaps from the bases?


----------



## KevinB

I think GO might have a bit of info when they get back from their predeployment trg...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

It isn't infantry - not the main force anyway.  From what I have been told, we're sending "technical experts" as advisors to the African Union.  There may be some equipment involved (Grizzlies?), to be donated to the Africans, who will shoulder the bulk of the operational roles...  More to follow.

TR


----------



## Marauder

Daaaamn, this country is fucked up.

You can bet if Dubya threw out a multi-mil BG to some pissant African country just to keep *one* Congressman in heel there's be shit to pay down there. Here, it's just the Liebrals committing business as usual. Disgusting.


----------



## Edward Campbell

See: What Next for CF? Sudan? on this page.

The _operational requirement_ is whatever number of troops Mr. Kilgour decides are necessary to make him vote for the Martin government.


----------



## Polish Possy

I heard the Jtf-2 are already getting ready to go to Sudan .....


----------



## Blakey

Polish Possy said:
			
		

> I heard the Jtf-2 are already getting ready to go to Sudan .....


Please,...I implore you *DO NOT* go down that road. Your 16, right? so your friends father who is a cleaner at NDHQ overheard.....





> The operational requirement is whatever number of troops Mr. Kilgour decides are necessary to make him vote for the Martin government


But that number has flip flopped in the last 24 hrs, PMO's stating 150 troops yesterday, 100 troops today... I dunno Make it a BN size deployment with all the CSS and other NATO contries and ill buy it for a dollar....


----------



## DAA

Sudan is considered to be an African problem, particularly the area of Darfur.  Why else would the African Union be involved?  What they currently lack is logistical support and the expertise necessary to carry out such an operation.  The man power question is not that big an issue, but the issue is once they are there on the ground, they do not have the experience nor equipment required to support themselves.  This is the first time the AU has mounted such a large force/operation within Africa.  Canadian ground troops will not go into Darfur because they don't want them there!  They will be employed, as many of you have said and as reported in the newspapers, advisor's and support staff.  The AU (military ops) is in its' infancy and Canada has many many years of experience with UN Deployments and know the potential problem areas.

Besides, if Canada experienced a similar problem, would you want foreign troops from outside your continental area on your sovereign territory?  It's not such a bitter pill to swallow, especially when its' your neighbours lending you a hand and you are somewhat confident that at the end of the day, they are going to go back home and not insist on wanting something in exchange.


----------



## DogOfWar

DAA said:
			
		

> Sudan is considered to be an African problem, particularly the area of Darfur.   Why else would the African Union be involved?   What they currently lack is logistical support and the expertise necessary to carry out such an operation.   The man power question is not that big an issue, but the issue is once they are there on the ground, they do not have the experience nor equipment required to support themselves.   This is the first time the AU has mounted such a large force/operation within Africa.   Canadian ground troops will not go into Darfur because they don't want them there!   They will be employed, as many of you have said and as reported in the newspapers, advisor's and support staff.   The AU (military ops) is in its' infancy and Canada has many many years of experience with UN Deployments and know the potential problem areas.
> 
> Besides, if Canada experienced a similar problem, would you want foreign troops from outside your continental area on your sovereign territory?   It's not such a bitter pill to swallow, especially when its' your neighbours lending you a hand and you are somewhat confident that at the end of the day, they are going to go back home and not insist on wanting something in exchange.



I wouldnt expect Canadians to massacre themselves to the tune of 100000's. And if we did I would want help from whereever I could get it. Genocide is a human problem. Not an African one.


----------



## DAA

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> Genocide is a human problem. Not an African one.



I couldn't agree more with you!  

But if you look closely you will see that it was the US, in particular Colin Powell, who were the first to use that term to describe the situation in Darfur.  Yet the most recent visit by a high level US Diplomat was by US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick and even he and the new US Administration are back tracking from those previous statements.  Besides most of what you read in the papers is only 1/3 true and that is on a good day.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Wow!  This is amazing: Sudan, despite being a dusty, grubby place full of black and brown people, expects to be treated like a sovereign nation when Prime Minister _Dithers_ and Foreign Minister _Pierre Prettycurls_ decide what Canada is going to do for or about or to it.  (See the paper attached to http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17947/post-182791.html#msg182791 for a definition of what foreign policy is.)

Here is the _poop from group_ from this morning's _CanWest_ papers at: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=d7249ce8-09aa-45c4-93a0-541fb1812035



> Send aid, not troops, Sudan tells Martin
> *Ambassador says Khartoum wasn't consulted about PM's Darfur relief plan*
> 
> Mike Blanchfield
> The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> Saturday, May 14, 2005
> 
> Sudan has accused Canada of not properly consulting with Khartoum in the crafting of the Darfur aid package announced this week.
> 
> "This plan has never been consulted or negotiated with the government of Sudan," said Sudan's ambassador to Canada Faiza Hassan Taha in an interview yesterday. "They had enough time and ample time to talk to our government about their intentions. This has not happened. We feel very sorry."
> 
> The ambassador said Foreign Affairs called her Monday to tell her that Prime Minister Paul Martin was planning an announcement, which came on Thursday, of aid to the war-ravaged west Sudanese region of Darfur.
> 
> Ms. Taha said she asked Mr. Martin to call Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir or for Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew place a courtesy call to his counterpart, Mustafa Osman Ismail.
> 
> A spokeswoman for the prime minister, however, said the Sudanese government was fully advised. Melanie Gruer said Mr. Martin spoke to al-Mr. Bashir 24 hours before Thursday's announcement, and Canada's charge d'affairs in Khartoum briefed Sudan's minister of state for foreign affairs.
> 
> While Sudan welcomes the $170 million in military aid, and any other assistance Canada might be contemplating, Ms. Taha said her government firmly objects to non-African soldiers in Darfur. That means the 60-odd military advisers that are to assist the African Union should not set foot in Darfur, she added.
> 
> "We are not going to refuse any help, which we think we need. But we want to be there, in the picture, to participate fully as a government," said Ms. Taha.
> 
> "This is an agreement between the African Union and Sudan. The African Union should be given the chance and should be given the opportunity to develop its own capacity in dealing with African problems."
> 
> Ms. Taha also rejected calls by the independent MP David Kilgour for Canada to send at least 500 troops to the Sudan. Mr. Kilgour, whose vote is crucial to the survival of Mr. Martin's minority government in next week's confidence vote, has said he won't support the Liberals unless Mr. Martin increases the troop commitment.
> 
> "This will not be decided by Mr. Kilgour, neither by the Canadian government. But it will be decided by all parts which are involved in that in Sudan," said Ms. Taha.
> 
> Glen Pearson, of the volunteer group Canadian Aid for Southern Sudan, said he is urging Mr. Kilgour to support the government in its confidence vote next week.
> 
> Mr. Pearson, who was recently in Sudan and spoke with Mr. Martin and Mr. Kilgour in separate meetings this week, said it makes no sense for Canada to send hundreds of combat troops to Sudan as Mr. Kilgour is demanding.
> 
> "We've been to Sudan over 20 times. There's just no way Canada can logistically support that number of troops in such a huge country. Coalition partners would need to be involved," said Mr. Pearson.
> 
> © The Ottawa Citizen 2005



The _National Post_ print story - same article, just longer and not on the web, yet - goes on to discuss the fact that Canada and Sudan do not have any kind of _Status of Forces Agreement_ which is required to allow Canadian troops to be armed in a foreign country - someone named Marie Okabe, at UNNY said that Canadians in UNMIS will not be carrying weapons.  Someone else, named Marie Christine Lilkoff (who is listed in the government's electronic directory as _â ? Spokesperson, Africa, Asia, Middle-East, Commonw/Francophonieâ ?_ in International Trade Canada's Media Relations Office) said "DND is and will make appropriate arrangements to ensure the security of CF personnel.â ?  Notwithstanding her rudimentary grasp of English grammar, I wonder how an International Trade Canada _press agent_ can say what DND will or will not be able to do.

I heard a pertinent comment the other day.  The Liberals' _team_, this person opined, is great at campaigning but lousy at governing.  This Sudan fiasco is a classic example: the whole exercise is founded, 100%, on public relations.  There is no Canadian policy objective at issue because the _centre_ - the PMO - is not interested in policy, in fact the _centre_ actively dislikes policy because it  gets in the way of _politics_.

So, maybe a handful of unarmed logistics type trainers and advisors and as much money as someone like Ms. Lilkoff can conjure up from existing lines in the Blue Book - will that be enough to buy Mr. Kilgour's vote?

Canadians who really, really believe in _Pink Lloyd_ Axworthy's 'Human Security Agenda' and 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine must demand, scream from the rooftops: _"To hell with the UN and the Government of Sudan!  Load our Light Brigade into our C-17s and invade the Darfur region *Now!*  Human security is threatened and we have a responsibility to protect; let's not be hamstrung by petty legalisms - George Bush is right.â ?_  Responsible Canadians must, yet again, slap their foreheads - look towards _Festung Pearson_ and ask, quietly: _â ?Is anyone thinking over there?â ?_


----------



## Armymedic

Is Cluster F*&% one word or two?

All I can say is BOHICA. Any one in uniform who is looking forward to get into this mess must be out of thier freaking mind....

One thing is certain though...main body won't actually deploy for quite a few months...after all DART is a rapid reaction force and it took them 2 weeks.

Any bets on this Sudan mission falling to the wayside when the gov't crumbles next week?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Is Cluster F*&% one word or two?
> 
> All I can say is BOHICA. Any one in uniform who is looking forward to get into this mess must be out of thier freaking mind....
> 
> One thing is certain though...main body won't actually deploy for quite a few months...after all DART is a rapid reaction force and it took them 2 weeks.
> 
> Any bets on this Sudan mission falling to the wayside when the gov't crumbles next week?



Q1: Two, I think

Q2: One can only hope

It seems to me that you can, as a result of this, increase your chances of recognizing a Liberal in the dark: now you can add the smell of stupidity to the stench of corruption.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Ahhh, so once again we go rushing in to "do good", without making sure all our ducks are lined up... They don't want us!  : 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/14/sudan-canada050514.html

One would have thought that the political/diplomatic side would have been sorted out before making this "generous" offer.  Er, guess not.

This sounds eerily familiar...

TR


----------



## dross headon

This latest failure of the Canadian government to give their soldiers a chance to do what they signed up for deeply depressed me as I read the above article about Sudan --of all places-- rejecting our help.

When I joined the infantry in  '76 I had the idea that I would take part in history. Cyrpus turned  out to be club Med, the only danger the Canadian soldier getting into was on his own time. All the guys I served with were ready to do their duty which is what I also read throughout these forums. I started my career full of fire but by the time my three years came up I could barely keep the spark going enough to show up for work in the morning. 

A few months ago while visiting in the states a thought occurred to me: 

A Canadian youth must make a choice: do I want to take part in history or do I want to be a Canadian?


----------



## Jungle

dross headon said:
			
		

> This latest failure of the Canadian government to give their soldiers a chance to do what they signed up for deeply depressed me as I read the above article about Sudan --of all places-- rejecting our help.
> 
> When I joined the infantry in   '76 I had the idea that I would take part in history. Cyrpus turned   out to be club Med, the only danger the Canadian soldier getting into was on his own time. All the guys I served with were ready to do their duty which is what I also read throughout these forums. I started my career full of fire but by the time my three years came up I could barely keep the spark going enough to show up for work in the morning.
> 
> A few months ago while visiting in the states a thought occurred to me:
> 
> A Canadian youth must make a choice: do I want to take part in history or do I want to be a Canadian?


Thanks for the support... Obviously, you were in the CF during the dark ages (the 70s). The Canadian Military has played a large part in recent history, look at world events since 1992.


----------



## Blakey

> CF Operations in Sudan


http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Operations/sudan_e.asp


----------



## Blakey

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> It isn't infantry - not the main force anyway.   From what I have been told, we're sending "technical experts" as advisors to the African Union.   There may be some equipment involved (Grizzlies?), to be donated to the Africans, who will shoulder the bulk of the operational roles...   More to follow.
> 
> TR





> On September 1, 2004, following a request by the AU, the Minister of National Defence, Bill Graham, announced that DND would provide army supplies, valued at $250,000, to the African Union. These supplies were to assist the AU in its efforts to provide security and stabilization in the Darfur region of Sudan.


http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Operations/augural/index_e.asp


----------



## KevinB

No offence but I wpould not trust the AU troops to pour piss out of a boot.

 Once again the "civilized" nations turn a shoulder and ignore crisis in black Africa...


It is a lose - lose situation, but lets just be honest WE as a nation dont care, personally it makes me sick.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Blakey:

Right - that's the current stuff.   I was referring to the new "expanded" role.   If I recall correctly, the first involvement (mentioned on the DND website) included donations of tac vests, helmets, etc., but not vehicles.

Much is up in the air right now and I've seen nothing new since I posted last week.   Methinks there is much scrambling around in Ottawa at the moment, given the political situation and the Sudanese attitude to all of this.

TR


----------



## pjocsak

An editorial from The Toronto Sun:

Prime Minister Paul Martin's latest attempt to save his political hide by horse-trading with the safety of Canadian soldiers is not only alarming, it's dangerous. 

In a bid to win the support of former Liberal MP David Kilgour in the non-confidence vote his government faces this Thursday, Martin last week announced Canada will send $170 million in military aid and an initial contingent of up to 100 soldiers to war-torn Sudan. 

Kilgour, who quit the Liberal party a month ago to sit as an independent, has made a major Canadian military intervention in Darfur, Sudan, where up to 300,000 people have been killed and two million displaced in a bloody civil war, his price for supporting the Liberals. 

After Martin made his proposal last Thursday, Kilgour, who wants 500 Canadian soldiers sent to Sudan, dismissed it as tokenism, adding Martin had a week to do better. 

But what Martin is doing -- potentially endangering the lives of our soldiers by bargaining with one MP over the role of our military in Sudan -- is even worse than his ongoing attempts to buy the next election by bribing taxpayers with their own money. 

Canadians have already seen the disastrous results that can happen, for everyone, from an ill-planned military mission -- in Somalia. This whole idea that our foreign policy could be set by a prime minister desperate to cling to power via bargaining with one individual is simply appalling. 

How we got here is instructive. 

When Kilgour, who in 1990 was expelled from the Conservative party for opposing the GST, quit the Liberals a month ago, Martin said good riddance. 

"Mr. Kilgour feels he doesn't belong in our caucus, so be it," Martin said at the time. "I'm not interested in working with those who won't stand with their colleagues when it comes to cleaning up the sponsorship problems." 

While the latter part of this statement is bizarre -- who said anything about Kilgour being soft on AdScam? -- Kilgour has previously said that while Martin has been consulting with him about Darfur, "there was no bargain, no linkage, between how I would vote and Darfur." 

Well, it sure appears as if there is one now. 

Kilgour is aware of the enormous stakes here. 

As he told CTV's Question Period last week: "I don't want to see Canadian soldiers killed. But Canada has to stand for something in the world." 

Yes, it does -- and we don't doubt Kilgour's passion on this issue. But Canada has to stand for more than using its soldiers as the bargaining chips of a panicked prime minister. 

Canada may indeed have a role to play in ending the slaughter of innocents in Darfur by the notorious Sudanese-backed militia known as the Janjaweed. But this is not the way to decide it. 

P

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2005/05/16/1041371.html


----------



## ghazise

Military Aid, Logistics Support is great, but any thing less than a REIN Inf. Bn. is token support.


----------



## jimmy742

Talking to an aid worker who just returned from two months in Darfur. I'm not an infantry person and nor is he, but you're going to need some ground pounders from the sounds of it. It's a total mess. The AU soldiers are praying for intervention by the Americans, French...anyone. They do little more than guard the camps and provide personal guards to aid workers.( I have this photograph of one being escorted by three Central African Republic soldiers). They simply don't have the training and professionalism. The Janjaweed travel by camel, operate in broad daylight with inpunity, own the countryside and do as they please i.e killing people, burning villages, even taking pot shots at the people and aid workers inside the camps. Most people in the camps are sick - dysentery. I got an interesting rundown on the different attributes of each AU contigent from his perspective. The Gambians were the most cooperative, but the Rwandans are the only ones who have showed any backbone and competence. They would like nothing more than go after the Janjaweed but are under orders not to, which frustrates them to no end. 

No doubt, something needs to be done...


----------



## Edward Campbell

_â Å“Oh what a tangled web we weave ...â ?_ and all that.

Here is more from today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050517/DARFUR17/TPNational/?query=Darfur 



> Ottawa to comply with ban on troops in Darfur
> 
> By DANIEL LEBLANC
> Tuesday, May 17, 2005 Page A8
> 
> OTTAWA -- Canada will respect the will of the Sudanese government and not send its troops into the ravaged Sudanese region of Darfur, senior federal officials said yesterday in response to Khartoum's cool reception of a recent Canadian aid proposal.
> 
> Federal officials moved to appease the concerns of the Sudanese in relation to last week's $170-million proposal, which included a plan to send up to 100 Canadian troops to Sudan.
> 
> The plan never stated that troops would go into Darfur, but it didn't reject that notion, raising concerns among Sudanese officials, who say that only African troops should enter the region.
> 
> Canadian officials insisted yesterday they will act in concert with the African Union, which is spearheading the assistance effort in Darfur. As a result, any Canadian troops sent to Sudan are likely to work out of the capital city of Khartoum.
> 
> "As much as we would like to be helpful in terms of action on the ground, it's clear the United Nations has authorized the African Union to do this mission, and the African Union and the Sudanese have told us, 'No European, no non-African troops,' " Defence Minister Bill Graham said.
> 
> Retired general Roméo Dallaire, who is now a senator, said it would be a mistake to go against the will of Sudan.
> 
> "What we don't need are Canadian troops fighting their way into Darfur and, before getting there, having to fight against the Sudanese," Mr. Dallaire said in an interview.
> 
> Last week, Sudan's ambassador to Canada, Faiza Hassan Taha, said her country will not allow Western peacekeeping troops into Darfur. Ms. Taha also criticized Ottawa's announcement, which she said was done without proper consultations. Rather than meaningful consultation, she said, Canada presented Sudan with a fait accompli.
> 
> Canadian officials said yesterday the assistance package could still be improved at a donors conference in Ethiopia next week. However, a senior official said the package will not be augmented between now and Thursday, when the minority Liberal government faces a confidence vote.
> 
> An independent MP, David Kilgour, has said that he could vote with the Liberals if the Sudan package is boosted to include a commitment of 500 Canadian combat troops to help protect more than two million refugees.
> 
> But Canadian officials said there will be no changes in coming days.
> 
> Human-rights groups say the Khartoum regime, a military dictatorship, has been inattentive to the rapes and murders of thousands of Darfur farmers by marauding militias known as janjaweed.
> 
> Last week, Mr. Martin pledged the $170-million assistance package for Darfur that includes an "initial" deployment of up to 100 Canadian military intelligence officers, strategic planners and logistics experts.
> 
> The Prime Minister did not specify whether these soldiers would go into the Darfur region -- a vast area where 300,000 have died in the past two years -- or be confined to an African Union headquarters outside the region.
> 
> He said there might be a larger Canadian deployment down the road of "whatever troops or whatever military advisers" are needed by the African Union.



But just two months ago, in the March 9th _Globe and Mail_ Jane Taber reported that:_â ? Former lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire urged international action to stop the violence in Sudan, evoking Wednesday the decade-old massacres in Rwanda to give weight to his plea.â ?_  International *action* with Canadian cash and platitudes but no troops is, I guess, the extent of our new, improved commitment to international peace and security.

Sheesh!


----------



## KevinB

And once again the gov't sells out...


 To do anything effective in Africa you need professional troops in LARGE numbers.  Realistically a Brigade sized deployment - pull out of ISAF let Eurocorps continue to corrode it - and launch.

 Three Brigade sized deployements and turn it over to a less capable Euro Army...


----------



## dross headon

The whole problem with the Sudan seems to me to be part of a much larger problem of lack of any real coherent plan or ready force to deal with such emergencies  on the part of the major nations that call the shots at the UN.(I realize the Sudan past the point of mere emergency long ago) I forget where I read it, but there is a line from UN Secretary General Kofi Anon that says it all: "The United Nations is the only fire department in the world that, when called to a fire first has to procure a fire engine."(Quoted to best of my memory)

It's like some moronic community that whenever a crime happens, the members get together, create a police force, train it for months to solve the crime, then disband it after the crisis is over. Not a whole lot of justice or protection comes out of the mess.

Do we want to send our troops into a situation like that? The op-ed above from the Toronto Sun expressed one of my concerns when I heard the announcement to send our troops in. It was that Martin seemed to be willing to send our troops into a hairy situation for the wrong reason. Regardless of what planning may have been in the works, the feeling he left a lot of  people was that actually solving the problem in Darfur was a secondary, if that, consideration.


----------



## Cloud Cover

From the Globe: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050519/COLEW19/TPComment/TopStories

Wasn't The Four Feathers about the Sudan?   

Roméo, Roméo, wherefore art thou partisan?It's hard to watch someone whose name is linked to our failure in Rwanda argue that Canada's response in Darfur is just fine, says retired major-general LEWIS MacKENZIEBy LEWIS MACKENZIE 

Thursday, May 19, 2005 Page A19

 It's no secret that Roméo Dallaire and I have some profound differences of opinion regarding the role and capabilities -- or lack thereof -- of the United Nations when it comes to fulfilling its primary responsibility: to enhance international peace and security. After his experience in Rwanda, I wasn't prepared to debate our differences in public, lest it exacerbate his fragile state of mind. Now that he has eagerly accepted a partisan appointment as a Liberal senator, however, one can reasonably assume that he will be able to cope with deserved criticism.

In the past few days, we have witnessed the sad spectacle of Senator Dallaire arguing with his own oft-stated previous position regarding the appropriate action to be taken in the Sudanese region of Darfur. It has been widely reported that Mr. Dallaire met independent MP David Kilgour in an attempt to convince him that the government's plan to dispatch a mere 100 unarmed Canadian observers and advisers to the area would be not only adequate but the best policy for Canada. The senator opined that any attempt to dispatch thousands of white troops from NATO countries (as Mr. Kilgour wisely suggested) would exacerbate the situation in Darfur, because the Khartoum government would not be happy to see such troops cross their borders.

This flies directly in the face of Mr. Dallaire's own pronouncements made over the decade since his return from Rwanda -- namely, that a mere 2,500 well-trained NATO troops would have prevented the slaughter of 800,000 Rwandans! Now that Prime Minister Paul Martin has offered up a token Canadian military contingent for Sudan, Mr. Dallaire has done an about-face: He has decided that a tough, disciplined and well-led force protecting Darfur's innocent victims would be a bad idea! Go figure.

Mr. Dallaire has suggested on numerous occasions that the West did not respond to the genocide in Rwanda because of underlying racism. This inflammatory comment is blatantly untrue. Since 1956, the United Nations has conducted more peacekeeping missions in Africa than on all the other continents combined. Further evidence that the UN has paid close attention to Africa is the fact that more UN peacekeepers have been killed in Africa than on any other continent. 

Advertisements

 Distasteful as it is to admit, the members of the UN, including Canada, turned their backs on Rwanda because there were no perceived national self-interests at stake. The Security Council has been sitting on its hands for years regarding the situation in Darfur because of the national self-interests (oil) of at least two, and perhaps three, of the Security Council's veto-holding permanent five members (France, China and Russia).

Recently, from stage left, we've seen the entrance of the Canadian Responsibility to Protect (R2P) initiative. For all intents and purposes, this initiative, recommended by a committee of eminent international statesmen reporting to the UN Secretary-General, has been accepted by the UN and will be formally adopted in September. R2P addresses the long-standing conflict between two principles: respect for a nation's sovereignty and the need to act when that nation's government is not prepared or is unwilling to protect its own citizens. After other options have been exhausted, R2P not only authorizes intervention over sovereign borders, it encourages such action to protect the innocents.

The situation in Darfur easily qualifies for such intervention. But because the Security Council chronically prefers debate over action, it behooves other multinational organizations to take the lead in stopping the genocide.

Mr. Dallaire has tried to convince Mr. Kilgour that should outside intervention (i.e., NATO) take place without the "invitation" of the Khartoum government, it will result in a bloodbath and only make Darfur's situation worse. This opinion, from someone whose only operational experience was less than a year commanding the UN's most colossal failure in its history, smacks of appeasement. To suggest, as Mr. Dallaire has done, that the African Union's modest and ill-equipped force can successfully operate in an area the size of France and bring deadly force to bear to stop the killing in Darfur -- and that a few unarmed Canadian observers and advisers will make them even more effective -- is naive in the extreme.

On my visit to the area less than a year ago, it was clear that the African Union contingents needed considerable time and much more support than has been offered to date to mature into an effective and mobile fighting force. 

The situation cries out now (as it has for years) for rough, tough, professional soldiers to take on the goons, cowards, rebels and militias who are doing the raping and murder.  The two sides in the conflict, the Darfur rebels and the government-supported militias, who share the blame for the chaos, don't have to be defeated -- at this time. But if they attack the innocents, the elderly, the young and the women in and around the displaced persons camps, they should be killed. 

Only then, when the killing of innocents has stopped, can the diplomatic process have a chance and the NGOs return to help rebuild the society. The West could have saved Rwanda. It should move now to save what is left of Darfur's innocents. It was hard to watch Mr. Dallaire standing behind the Prime Minister during a press scrum waiting for the cue to leap to the microphone -- swallowing his pride and endorsing Canada's pathetic response to the genocide in Darfur as the "best solution." If he really believes this, I have some waterfront property by the Sydney tar ponds that I'll sell him.

David Kilgour is right. Intervention in Darfur by disciplined, well-trained troops who can stop the killing is long overdue. As for Mr. Dallaire, it can't be easy as an ex-general to become partisan when 30-plus years in the profession of arms and the screams he says he hears from Rwanda tells his conscience that Canada must do more than pontificate and send cash.

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.


----------



## George Wallace

A fairly Hawkish stance.  If this legislation slated, for September, was passed several years ago, it would have justified the insertions into Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Britney Spears

Heh, maybe Gen. Mackenzie and Gen. Dallaire will meet/call each other out here at army.ca. 

Mackenzie: Hey look here punk, you've only got one tour, so maybe you should shut up and listen?

Dallaire: Yeah? When did you get promoted to LGen again? oh wait you NEVER did, so why Lou? Failed the LGen course did you? Maybe you're the one who should STFU.......




> Wasn't The Four Feathers about the Sudan?



Ugh, worst movie EVER.




> Mr. Dallaire has suggested on numerous occasions that the West did not respond to the genocide in Rwanda because of underlying racism. This inflammatory comment is blatantly untrue. Since 1956, the United Nations has conducted more peacekeeping missions in Africa than on all the other continents combined. Further evidence that the UN has paid close attention to Africa is the fact that more UN peacekeepers have been killed in Africa than on any other continent.



Minor nitpick: How many of those troops killed in Africa were from the west/NATO, as opposed to the African Union, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc? I suspect Gen. Dallaire is on the mark with this point.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Dallaire: Maybe you're the one who should STFU.......



It probably sounds better in French...


----------



## Danjanou

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Ugh, worst movie EVER.



Which version, there have been three that I know of. If you mean the PC last one I agree. Ok thread hi-jack ends, back to the topic at hand.

Be interesting to see how this plays out, aside from Britney's suggest that they argue it out here, and I for one don't want to moderate that flame war.


----------



## Britney Spears

> It probably sounds better in French...



It seemed to me that Gen. Dallaire is quite eloquent and well spoken in both languages.



BTW Mike did you see him when he gave the talk at the UoC a few month ago?



> and I for one don't want to moderate that flame war.  Shocked



Oh come one, what's a couple more hissy officers for you to set straight?


----------



## Erborn

I served under both when they where both Jr Officers Given my choice I would Take Gen. Mackenzie over Gen. Dallaire any time
MacKenzie lead by example 
Dallaire by fear


----------



## Jed

Its about time this difficult speaking point hit the open forum. If you are one of the lonely Western Nation UNMOs going in to the area, just how secure would you feel if their was no robust NATO led force or equivalent to be avail for support ? Canada has got to stop fooling itself that dialogue and good intentions will accomplish something in this part of the world.


----------



## wotan

I have always been puzzled as to why Gen Dallaire is regarded as a "hero".  He saw troops under his command (Belgian paratroopers, I believe) that were captured and that would most likely (and later were) killed.  He drove on by.  Unlimited liability isn't just for the boys in the boots, it extends to LGen as well.

  Basically, I'd have to say I wouldn't follow the man, even out of curiosity.


----------



## FSTO

From Question period today:

RESPONSE BY THE HONOURABLE PIERRE PETTIGREW, LIBERAL (PAPINEAU, QUÉBEC) â â€œ MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

MR. SPEAKER, WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT WE WILL BE COMPLEMENTARY TO WHAT THE AFRICAN UNION IS DOING. WE WILL BE SUPPORTING THE AFRICAN UNION EXERCISE. WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN SAYING EXACTLY THAT, MR. SPEAKER. BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT WHERE THE AFRICAN UNION HAS BEEN IN DARFUR, IT HAS BEEN HELPFUL. BUT THEY NEED MORE BOOTS TO THE GROUND IN THE REGION, MORE THAN THEY HAVE NOW, MORE THAN THE 3,000 THEY HAVE NOW. THEY NEED BETTER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT, MR. SPEAKER. CANADA CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, AND THEY NEED BETTER TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES, MR. SPEAKER. CANADA CAN HELP WITH THE NATO TO DO THE RIGHT THING IN DARFUR, MR. SPEAKER. 

I'm just a sailor, but don't we have a shortage of vehicles to supply. Also it is telling that Minister Graham is not answering the questions. Maybe he knows that OMA Martin is full of it and has decided not to get covered in the splatter.


----------



## Cloud Cover

wotan said:
			
		

> I have always been puzzled as to why Gen Dallaire is regarded as a "hero".  He saw troops under his command (Belgian paratroopers, I believe) that were captured and that would most likely (and later were) killed.  He drove on by.  Unlimited liability isn't just for the boys in the boots, it extends to LGen as well.



I'm not so sure that is a fair summation of what happened over there WRT those particular troopers. At a minimum, I believe he has always accepted responsibility, even if the situation was beyond his control.

Lets be careful not to villainize the man, after all the bare facts remain that he was rendered somewhat powerless by the decisions of others. I would also add that he has recovered with dignity and class from an absolutely horrific experience and has, in fact, always sought to make the world a better place. Couldn't ask for more from a professional soldier, IMHO.


----------



## winchable

My bare understanding of Dallaire's "heroism" is that he feels the exact opposite about it and accepts that it was his failure.
I read the book and met the man and both times I got a definite feeling of sadness and emptiness really as a result of the whole thing.

But Mac is right, once he accepted the Senate spot he opened himself up.


----------



## TCBF

"Ugh, worst movie EVER."

-The original was good.   A bunch of us got drunk one night years ago watching it on TV.   We got to arguing, and one of our number left in a huff.   We retired to the apartment balcony (8th floor or so), to say good night (morning, actually) to him, and the goodbyes degraded.     We tossed cans of Coke at him (always take the high ground)   and they exploded like grenades in the parking lot below.     It was zero-dark-buffallo, and when the lights in the neighbourhood started to go on, we figured it was time to roll up the party and go home.   But I digress...

"I side with MGen. Mackenzie on this one."

- Me too.   Absolutely amazing how much damage one can do to one's place in history when one sells out. 'If only we could see ourselves as others see us.' etc.   He (Dallaire) was well enough off before this, I can't see him needing the money. 

 Oh well:

 'Pigs Get Fat - Hogs Get Slaughtered'

Tom


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Quoting myself:



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> From what I have been told, we're sending "technical experts" as advisors to the African Union.   There may be some equipment involved (*Grizzlies*?), to be donated to the Africans, who will shoulder the bulk of the operational roles...   More to follow.



Haven't heard anything new yet...

TR


----------



## Gunner

If you wanted to really assist the African forces deployed in the area, you would give them Toyota trucks with a machine gun mount on the back deck.  Not worn out Grizzlies that they will have no experience with nor aptitude to employ.


----------



## wotan

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure that is a fair summation of what happened over there WRT those particular troopers. At a minimum, I believe he has always accepted responsibility, even if the situation was beyond his control.
> 
> Lets be careful not to villainize the man, after all the bare facts remain that he was rendered somewhat powerless by the decisions of others. I would also add that he has recovered with dignity and class from an absolutely horrific experience and has, in fact, always sought to make the world a better place. Couldn't ask for more from a professional soldier, IMHO.



  An interesting point of view.  Perhaps if we asked one of the families of the Belgian troopers, they could give an insight into the gentleman's professionalism?  Unfortunately, he declined the Belgian government's request to appear and explain his actions or lack thereof.  The long and the short of it is that he chose to leave troops under his command to their fate.  If that makes him a "hero" in some folks minds, so be it.  Not for me to try to change their minds.  Did he have a tough go?  Certainly.  Did he lack the resources that he had specifically requested from the UN and the Canadian officer there (Hi Gen Baril!)?  Yep.  What did the troops under his command at the time think of him?  Don't know, they're dead.


----------



## Cloud Cover

wotan said:
			
		

> An interesting point of view.  Perhaps if we asked one of the families of the Belgian troopers, they could give an insight into the gentleman's professionalism?  Unfortunately, he declined the Belgian government's request to appear and explain his actions or lack thereof.  The long and the short of it is that he chose to leave troops under his command to their fate.  If that makes him a "hero" in some folks minds, so be it.  Not for me to try to change their minds.  Did he have a tough go?  Certainly.  Did he lack the resources that he had specifically requested from the UN and the Canadian officer there (Hi Gen Baril!)?  Yep.  What did the troops under his command at the time think of him?  Don't know, they're dead.



I can't deny any of that. It's not my place to do so, so I wouldn't try.  

What did the troops under his command at the time think of him?     Can you expand on that?  

Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> What did the troops under his command at the time think of him?        Can you expand on that?
> 
> Cheers.




He already did.


> Don't know, they're dead.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Heh, maybe Gen. Mackenzie and Gen. Dallaire will meet/call each other out here at army.ca.
> 
> Mackenzie: Hey look here punk, you've only got one tour, so maybe you should shut up and listen?
> 
> Dallaire: Yeah? When did you get promoted to LGen again? oh wait you NEVER did, so why Lou? Failed the LGen course did you? Maybe you're the one who should STFU.......




Thats awesome. Probably right on the money too.


----------



## wotan

Hey Whiskey601,

  The question I asked about what the troops under his, Dallaire's, command at the time was a rhetorical one, but I can certainly expand on the point of it.

  LGen, now Senator, Dallaire certainly has his admirers and those that support him on various issues.  As well, there are a number of people that sympathize with his condition, PTSD and the effects it has had on him and his family and career.  Well enough, they are entitled to their opinion.

  But I have never understood the lionization of the man.  Imagine, if you will, that you are a Belgian paratrooper, taken prisoner by murderous thugs.  Outside your camp gate, you see the vehicle of your General Officer Commanding.  It slows down, perhaps even stops.  He is an honourable man, a dignified and distinguished soldier that has achieved high rank.  Certainly, he will intervene, he will act, protest your treatment, possibly secure your and your comrades release but definitely let the thugs know that they will be held accountable for all of you.  Hell, he might even engage the enemy and make them pay a price.  But then, you see the vehicle pull away and you are led into the dilapidated building where you see the first of your comrades being murdered with a machete and clubs.  Your turn will be soon.

  Now the above paragraph is pure speculation on my part.  But LGen Dallaire admits he saw those troops and admits that he drove away without intervening.  And it is very much confirmed that they are very much dead.  

  Class act?  Dignified?  Professional soldier?  If you say so.  But I wouldn't trust the man to lead a successful trip to the bathroom.


----------



## TCBF

I remember a Canada when we chose our heroes from a list of men who had actually fought battles, even if they didn't always win them.


----------



## jimmy742

It's interesting how Dallaire and Mackenzie have different points of view. From what I understand and what I've been told by people that are there or were there recently, Mackenzie's perspective is the right one. Assuming a worse case scenario, is the Army capable of a possible armed intervention?

The AU has armoured vehicles. In fact, when an aid worker arrives, he or she is immediately shuffled into one that is waiting within the AU escort's defense perimeter set up around an arriving transport helicopter. One of the problems is likely vehicle maintenance. Another problem is communications apparently. It takes a week to find out anything. Unless you see a column of smoke in the distance, you have no idea what's going on around you.

That the Gov of Sudan doesn't want intervention is understandable. They are aiding and abetting the Janjaweed who are nothing more than a mercenary rabble in reality. It is in the opinion of most that even a modest show of force would scatter them. One of the GoS favourite tactics is to send a helicopter gunship into a camp, have it hover just above the ground while pointing its weapons at people, blow sand everywhere and generally cause grief to both the AU soldiers and aid workers. Hardly the actions of a friendly Government.

It is quite clear that the AU have very strict rules of engagement. Would those change if, lets say, the PM decides to send an infantry battalion?


----------



## FastEddy

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I can't deny any of that. It's not my place to do so, so I wouldn't try.
> 
> What did the troops under his command at the time think of him?        Can you expand on that?
> 
> Cheers.




Up to this point I have given Mr.Dallaire the respect that his Rank and the horrific situation that his Command placed him in. As for the Decisions taken, there are still Camps divided. How or why his
future is unfolding, I'm afraid I do this with one eye closed.

Yes it would be interesting to hear from Troops that served under him at the time of the incident

Any Officer, that it has been suggested, he had left Troops to their fate or death, cannot come out a winner or very popular. Probilly because contravening a order would effect his career and future.

I have often wondered in that situation, if the troops had been U.S. Marines Commanded by a U.S. Marine
Brigadier, what the outcome would have been.

As for Mr.Dallaire's suggestion for a Hundred un-armed PeaceKeepers, one of two things come to mind.
1. I hope he's placed in charge and goes with them. 2. That the General Staff, wakes up and smells the
Coffee and says No Way Jose.

For my preference I'd rather follow M/Gen. MacKenzie strategy into the Lions Den.


----------



## FastEddy

TCBF said:
			
		

> I remember a Canada when we chose our heroes from a list of men who had actually fought battles, even if they didn't always win them.




You know Tom, your a 100% on the mark.

HAND.


----------



## Slim

I don't believe that there is a place where any amount of unarmed soldiers should go in Africa...Regardless of who is leading them.

I'm also very dissapointed in Gen. (now senator) Dallaire for going along with this Lieberal farce.

He should know better. I guess the Lieberal ability to corrupt is even more powerful that we all thought...Can't waite for the day that Canadians wake up and chuck them out of power.

Slim


----------



## KevinB

Well I for one fell exhonoratred for my low opinion I have had of Dallaire ever since 94...

 The guy's a self serving toad - FULL STOP.

Mac, on the other hand is 100% bang on


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is more, from the _CanWest News Service_ (National Post, Ottawa Citizen, etc) about the spat.

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=fe8b4294-5157-4794-bf21-5205d2165ccf


> War of words erupts over Sudan plan
> Veterans Dallaire, MacKenzie clash over what role Canada should take
> 
> Mike Blanchfield
> The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> Tuesday, May 24, 2005
> 
> Two of Canada's highest-profile retired generals have gone to war with an unfamiliar enemy -- each other -- over how best to stop the bloodshed in Sudan's Darfur region.
> 
> Their battle has been tinged by political mudslinging and bitter personal attacks. Lewis MacKenzie and Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire are at each other's throats, figuratively speaking, over a plan by the Liberal government to send military advisers to the African Union force that is trying to protect innocent civilians in Darfur.
> 
> The two generals bring distinguished credentials to this fight. Each led high-profile United Nations missions in the 1990s to protect persecuted ethnic groups. Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie commanded UN forces during the siege of Sarajevo in 1992 at the height of the Balkan wars that would eventually rip apart Yugoslavia. Lt.-Gen. Dallaire commanded the ill-fated UN mission to Rwanda that was understaffed, ignored and unable to stop the 1994 genocide of 800,000 Tutsis by Hutus.
> 
> Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie and Lt.-Gen. Dallaire are now clashing over how Canada should respond to the two-year-old humanitarian disaster in Darfur, where an estimated 180,000 to 300,000 people have been killed and more than two million forced from their homes. Marauding Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, have driven black African farmers from their homes, forcing most of the population into squalid refugee camps in a vast desert region the size of France.
> 
> Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said he's not calling for Canada to send in an invasion force to take on the Janjaweed or anybody else that gets in the way. But he would like the government to take a lead role politically to get more NATO countries to commit soldiers.
> 
> "At least when you show up in Brussels, you would say: 'We've got a thousand, and we'll provide a headquarters, now where the hell are the rest of you?'" he said.
> 
> Canada recently agreed to contribute about 60 military advisers to provide help in intelligence, map-making and training to the UN-approved African Union security force. Lt.-Gen. Dallaire also joined Prime Minister Paul Martin's advisory team for Darfur, and has rejected calls by some -- notably independent MP David Kilgour -- to send hundreds of combat troops, arguing that would only lead to more bloodshed.
> 
> That caused Maj.-Gen. Mac-Kenzie to fire the first shot. Last week, he accused Lt.-Gen. Dallaire in a national newspaper column of being nothing more than a Liberal partisan for backing the plan. The column was also circulated by the influential Conference of Defence Associations, and was titled, Romeo, Romeo wherefore art thou partisan?
> 
> Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie also threw another punch -- one Lt.-Gen. Dallaire says was clearly below the belt -- when he wrote: "Following his experience in Rwanda I was not prepared to debate our differences in public lest it exacerbate his fragile state of mind. Now that he has eagerly accepted a partisan appointment as a Liberal senator, one can reasonably assume that he will be able to cope with deserved criticism."
> 
> Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie was referring to the very public battle Lt.-Gen. Dallaire has waged with post-traumatic stress in the years following his return from Rwanda, one that nearly drove him to suicide and transformed him into a campaigner for injured veterans of the modern era. Lt.-Gen. Dallaire recently helped fast-track the passage of a new Veterans Charter through the Senate and into law, giving modern-day veterans more access to health care, social services and employment options.
> 
> In an interview, Lt.-Gen. Dallaire fired back, calling Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie "condescending and paternalistic." He was particularly bitter about how Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie wove his years of battling psychological demons into his criticism.
> 
> "I'm a veteran. He's a veteran. I got injured. He didn't. He doesn't have to use that in his arguments," Lt.-Gen. Dallaire said. "I just think that bringing those dimensions into what should be a professional argument in terms of military capability is highly unprofessional and totally unnecessary."
> 
> Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said he considers Lt.-Gen. Dallaire a friend, and has expressed his opinion with him privately in the past. "Once he was appointed a senator, the gloves were off," Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said. "I was blown away when all of a sudden I saw him standing dutifully two paces behind the prime minister."
> 
> But Lt.-Gen. Dallaire said it is Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie who is being politically partisan because he once ran as a candidate for the Conservative party.
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Dallaire said he's adjusted his view because the situation in Darfur has changed, and like any good military tactician, he must alter his approach.
> 
> "I was arguing for the deployment of 44,000 troops to stop that genocidal action. But that's done. The killing and slaughtering and the burning of villages and moving of hundreds of thousands of people into displacement camps where the Janjaweed wanted them is done.
> 
> "Now what we've got to do is stabilize that situation," he said, so that the displaced are protected from further violence and international aid workers are also secure to help them.
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Dallaire , who will be part of a government delegation at a donors conference for Darfur on Thursday in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, said he backs the African Union's desire to have only African troops as part of its stabilization force. Lt.-Gen. Dallaire takes issue with the argument that essentially white, NATO-trained troops are needed in the African Union's mission.
> 
> "Anybody who says that the era of the white man going into Africa and sorting out their problems is what should still remain is someone who's totally disconnected from the reality of Africa."
> 
> © The Ottawa Citizen 2005



As I said earlier, see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2179/post-201789.html#msg201789 - _â ? Romeo Dallaire was chosen for the Rwanda mission for, largely, political (linguistic) reasons; Ottawa need a Francophone to counter the just retired, immensely popular and potential Tory: Lewis MacKenzie.   General Dallaire was, still is, a fine man, a good (albeit, in 93/94, an internationally inexperienced) soldier and leader, with a positive talent for education and training.   He was dumped into the sh!t by an uncaring Government of Canada and was kept there by that government and an incompetent United Nations.â ?_

I have also said before that I know and like Romeo Dallaire - not well enough to call him a friend but when, now and again, we meet on the street or some event we chat, amicably, remembering happier times.   He made mistakes - some serious ones; so have I.   I suspect both he and I will make a few more before we shuffle off these mortal coils.

Who knows?   Maybe even Lewis MacKenzie is not perfect.   Maybe even Lewis MacKenzie is fed up with Gordon O'Connor as Tory defence critic.


----------



## DAA

So like I said before it was printed in the papers, the GoS does NOT WANT non-african troops in Darfur, it's as plain and simple as that.  When and if the time comes for Canada to become involved by providing technical expertise, you will most likely see these troops supporting the AU from either Addis Ababa or possibly from Khartoum.  Never will you see "armed" Canadian Troops in Darfur for the purposes of intervention!  You can take that to the bank!

The PM has visited Sudan and so has the CDS, so when aid is offered I really don't think the PM is pulling this stuff out of his hat.

And I will say this one more time, troop levels are not the big problem here, the AU can mount a 10,000 man force for Darfur, which is what they want to do and have a mandate for.  What they can't do, is support themselves because they don't have the means, expertise nor the experience to do that!  The logistical abilities of the AU are relatively non-existant and they can barely sustain and in some cases they aren't, what is on the ground in Darfur right now.

Which is yet another reason why Canada is not even considering sending ground troops into that area.  Why send troops, when there is NO logistical support?


----------



## TCBF

So, who is going to maintain all of those Canadian Grizzlies if we give them to the AU?


----------



## CBH99

The GoS is definitely not a friendly government, and its sad that the average media-trusting citizens over here haven't figured it out yet.  

The Government of Sudan is definitely not a friendly government, and I'm willing to bet you this is going to end up as just another case of "feed them now, kill them later".  History repeats itself, unfortunately.  We (As in, the West) armed Iraq so it could fight Iran.  Few years later, look at what happened.  We supplied Usama with weapons while he fought off the Soviets, and now that he's our enemy - we're a bit unsure as to where all that weaponry went.  There are numberous other examples, but I think the point has been made.

There have been plenty of media reports to help concur that the Government of Sudan - while officially saying it is trying to find a solution to the current genocide - is actually supporting it.  Helicopter gunships, operated by the government, have harassed AU and UN forces in the area, as well as aid workers.

Just today, in the Daily Telgraph, there was a report of 17 civilians killed by police when a police pickup truck, armed with an MG, opened fire while INSIDE a refugee camp.  Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of police had surrounded the camp, and seiged it while looking for "illegal weaponry and contraband" - when the incident occurred.  I thought the Government of Sudan was trying to help the people of Darfur?  I thought the soldiers and police officers were there to protect the people in the refugee camps?  How can the Government of Sudan lay claim that they are cooperating with AU and UN forces in the area, and doing the best they can to help end this crisis - while its forces, the same forces that are apparently trying to protect the civilians, are infact seiging refugee camps and opening fire on civilians?  

Isn't it also ironic that the Government of Sudan will happily gobble up the $170M in aid we offered them, but deny access to our troops?  Isn't that just slightly "obvious", for lack of a better word?  All of the media reports that the Government of Sudan is covertly supporting the genocide, or at least turning an apathetic eye to it - all of the conflicting reports that punture holes in their government's story, and now the classic characteristic of them all - they'll happily take out $170M in aid, but they really don't want our forces there to help intervene in the event of a mass rape or murder.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Hopefully, people will see through this huge blanket of bullshit very, very soon.


----------



## jimmy742

The GoS doesn't want NATO or the UN there to be sure. The AU does...definitely. They feel like sitting ducks. Furthermore, some of the African soldiers' lack of professionalism is starting to cause problems. The Nigerians in particular.

One point was made clear to me. It's just a matter of time before the Janjaweed wipe out a refugee camp. It's likely this will occur when the GoS thinks it's convenient. It's not being alarmist. Everyone --the AU, the UN workers, the refugees-- know it's coming...

By the way, the Janjaweed kill the local police too. A favourite target apparently. There is more to the Daily Telegraph story than meets the eye. Janjaweed in police uniforms perhaps? 

I don't think a country such as ours should intervene militarily. Certainly not with the current rules of engagement. No matter how optimistic, the Army is not equipped for this. Providing communications and repairing the AU APCs should be more than enough. I'm not sure Grizzlies will help since they will just add to the logistical burden. Again, the AU has armoured vehicles...

The idea of giving the GoS money is laughable. You can be sure not a penny will be used to assist the refugees.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is a link to a lengthy but interesting piece in today's _National Post_ - http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=ac1adf00-98fb-4ed7-932b-e72e69d57c87 - by Noah Novogrodsky who is the director of the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law - http://128.100.206.123/visitors_content.asp?itemPath=5/12/3/0/0&contentId=604 .  It's not subscription only â â€œ click on the link to read t.

Here is the text of an e-mail I sent to Prof. Novogrodsky at noah.novogrodsky@utoronto.ca .

Dear Professor Novogrodsky;

I read your article in today's National Post. To the degree that I accept that R2P is a valid doctrine then I agree your points.  The problem I see is that no one in the Government of Canada, including, maybe especially Lloyd Axworthy, ever supported the doctrine with anything but harmless words.

The problem with any responsibility is that it must be accompanied by some sort of authority or it is meaningless.  The authority with must accompany R2P can rest only with our military â â€œ if we, Canadians, accept the responsibility then we must be able to go and act on it.  That requires troops â â€œ lots of troops and all that entails, beginning with a requirement to spend, at the very least, $12 new billion per year, every year, year after year, for about 15 years before the defence budget can be allowed to settle, for a generation or two, at 2% of GDP â â€œ about twice its current level.  Canada, I believe, rejects that level of defence spending and, therefore, Canada rejects R2P.

It is my belief that few Canadians â â€œ far fewer than you think â â€œ care anything for Darfur or Africa or human rights in general.  The government of the day employs legions of opinion takers and smoozes with legions of opinion makers in an effort to tell people what they want to hear (we're nice people, really, helping those in need) and ensure that they are not offended by any of the government's actions (spending money on defence rather than health care, for example, would offend a large majority of Canadians).

If you really believe in this cause, Professor, let us see an equally persuasive article demanding that the feds divert $15 billion from health care and social services to defence and foreign aid.

Yours truly

Edward Campbell
Retired Army Officer â â€œ 35+ years of service all over this dirty, dusty, sick, sad world
Pessimist
Ottawa


----------



## Acorn

That should probably have been an open letter to the Post. I thought along similar lines when I read the good Prof's article, though my initial thoughts for a letter to the editor were a lot less eloquent than yours Edward.

Acorn


----------



## Gunner

Letter from Col (retd) Sean Henry in the national post...



> The myth of peacekeeping
> 
> National Post
> 
> Re: Proudly Keeping The Peace, Norman Hillmer
> 
> Nothing illustrates more clearly the dream-world Canadians inhabit than the myth of peacekeeping. Regrettably, Prof. Hillmer does little to dispel the myth.
> 
> Peacekeeping was not "invented" by Lester Pearson in 1956. Military intervention forces had been around since 1919. Moreover, in the Suez crisis it was Britain that proposed a UN force. Pearson was merely the (highly capable) messenger. As for Canada collecting international accolades for peacekeeping, most major players accuse us of using it as an excuse for not spending adequately on defence and, worse, letting others engage in the dangerous and dirty business of combat operations. The truth is that most UN peacekeeping operations fall somewhere between busy work and a paid vacation. By temporarily halting conflicts, peacekeeping allows the combatants a respite before resuming hostilities more intensely.
> 
> Most troubling, as indicated by Prof. Hillmer and reflected in the new Canadian War Museum, is the false belief that all Canadian military operations since the end of the Cold War have been peacekeeping ones. Our Forces sent to Kosovo, Somalia and Afghanistan were committed to combat operations. Those sent to Bosnia and Kabul performed international security operations, with mandates to use force as necessary.
> 
> The myth of peacekeeping has been detrimental to Canada's reputation and its Armed Forces. It is time for the dream to end, and for Canadians to awaken and face reality.
> 
> A. Sean Henry, Col (retd)
> 
> Ottawa


----------



## AcornsRus

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Wow!   This is amazing: Sudan, despite being a dusty, _*grubby place full of black and brown people*_, expects to be treated like a sovereign nation when Prime Minister _Dithers_ and Foreign Minister _Pierre Prettycurls_ decide what Canada is going to do for or about or to it.





			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> If you wanted to really assist the African forces deployed in the area, you would give them Toyota trucks with a machine gun mount on the back deck.  Not worn out Grizzlies that they will have no experience with _*nor aptitude to employ*_.



Thanks guys, for enlightening me.  I didn't realize that the grubby place full of black and brown people lacked the aptitude to employ Grizzlies.  

Come on Folks!  I can't believe that these comments made it through without being called out.  I really hope the authors of these comments did not mean them as I took them.  

The CF has enough image problems without adding ignorance and racism on top of it.


----------



## atticus

That would be what the "Report to Moderator" button is for. But some how, I don't think Gunner meant the way your taking it.


----------



## AcornsRus

atticus said:
			
		

> That would be what the "Report to Moderator" button is for. But some how, I don't think Gunner meant the way your taking it.



I didn't think it was necessary to report anything to a moderator.  I have had a chance to read more of this thread and I hope I did take it the wrong way, both Gunner and Edward Campbell have many excellent posts here.  But if I took it the wrong way, then I'm sure others have also. A careful use of language is always needed in an open forum.  Sorry to divert the topic.


----------



## KevinB

Actually I think the wording is KEY.

 It is true - anyone who has worked with a African contigent can tell horror stories:  The Grizzlies will last about a week if that.

 Secondly it is specifically due to the that the country is a backwater full of non whites that the gov't knows it can act the way it does - People will flip the channel and promptly forget about it - thus the political impetus for sending troops will be gone.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

atticus said:
			
		

> That would be what the "Report to Moderator" button is for. But some how, I don't think Gunner meant the way your taking it.



Gunner has substantial time in Africa, working with African armies, so knows what he's talking about here.  By "aptitute" (putting words in his mouth), I suggest he's referring to the AU's inability to support an armoured vehicle fleet and a lack of technical education and or/driving experience, rather than an innate inability of soldiers to handle vehicles.


----------



## AcornsRus

KevinB said:
			
		

> Actually I think the wording is KEY.
> 
> It is true - anyone who has worked with a African contigent can tell horror stories:   The Grizzlies will last about a week if that.
> 
> Secondly it is specifically due to the that the country is a backwater full of non whites that the gov't knows it can act the way it does - People will flip the channel and promptly forget about it - thus the political impetus for sending troops will be gone.



Your comment does not address the context of the original posts.   

1. The question was not whether the Grizzlies would last, it was whether the people had the "aptitude" to employ Grizzlies. 
Aptitude:
 - An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. 
 - Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.

2. Perhaps I missed the sarcasm in this post, but it was definitely not obvious.

Again, *careful wording * is important in a public forum and sarcasm doesn't translate well in the written form.   I know, I've done it before. :-[

-------------
Had to edit this in.  You folks obviously know a little about the people who made the comments (background, etc), I (and many others) do not. That is what I mean by careful wording in a public forum.
-----------

No more comments from me on this one.   I just wanted to draw attention to it - if I got it wrong I apologize to Gunner and Edward Campbell.


----------



## paracowboy

OK troops, break out the ol' dictionary and thesaurus. From now on, ALL posts will be carefully checked for grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I got my red pen all revved up.


----------



## KevinB

I think a bit of both - most of the AU soliders dont drive, have not driven ever.   While I dont think it is beyiond their capability to learn to drive - it is going to take time and effort to teach them the basics - let alogn the maintenance of the AVGP's.

 My take on AU deployment is that it is a phenominal cash cow for the host governments - who take the UN funds to line their treasury and use slim to none to augment their soliders.


----------



## Acorn

One of the reasons ex-Soviet kit is so common, and still working, in many African, Middle Eastern, or Asian countries is that it is simple to operate and maintain, and even 2d and 3d line maint can be done by people who fabricate parts from scratch. "Western" equipment, in general, needs an extensive logistics trail, and is much more sensitive to things like dirty fuel and poor training.

There is also the added cultural "way they drive" which is generally incompatible with motor vehicles the way they've been designed. Our rules of the road and driving methods have evolved in sync with motor vehicles (though the more I drive Canadian roads, the more I feel we're backsliding through complacency). In general, people outside Europe and Gringo North America run vehicles 'till they break, and then have a "mechanic" (usually a guy who has been fixing vehciles in general since he was a child apprentice) who has no manuals or formal training, and who gets parts from scrapped vehicles or has them fabricated by his metalworker neighbour. Complex systems don't lend themselve well to this style, and require more preventative maint. Look at what vehicles last: Land Rovers and Land Cruisers, Benzs, ex-Soviet military vehicles, Pugeot cars, and Japanese vans and pickups - vehicles either built so anyone with a couple of wrneches and a five pound lump hammer could fix, or built in such numbers that there's always plentiful spare parts. 

(Trivia point: 60% of all Land Rovers manufactured since they were first produced in the late '40s are still on the road and it's also thought to be the first motor vehicle seen by 70% of the world's population).

Acorn


----------



## Edward Campbell

AcornsRus said:
			
		

> Your comment does not address the context of the original posts.
> 
> 1. The question was not whether the Grizzlies would last, it was whether the people had the "aptitude" to employ Grizzlies.
> Aptitude:
> - An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent.
> - Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.
> 
> 2. Perhaps I missed the sarcasm in this post, but it was definitely not obvious.
> 
> Again, *careful wording * is important in a public forum and sarcasm doesn't translate well in the written form.   I know, I've done it before. :-[
> 
> -------------
> Had to edit this in.   You folks obviously know a little about the people who made the comments (background, etc), I (and many others) do not. That is what I mean by careful wording in a public forum.
> -----------
> 
> No more comments from me on this one.   I just wanted to draw attention to it - if I got it wrong I apologize to Gunner and Edward Campbell.



Apology accepted.


----------



## Gunner

> I just wanted to draw attention to it - if I got it wrong I apologize to Gunner and Edward Campbell.



Apology accepted by me as well.


----------



## atticus

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> By "aptitute" (putting words in his mouth), I suggest he's referring to the AU's inability to support an armoured vehicle fleet and a lack of technical education and or/driving experience, rather than an innate inability of soldiers to handle vehicles.



Thats what I meant he was probably reffering to!


----------



## CBH99

The situation in Sudan is absolutely disgusting, and its deplorable that the West would allow it to happen to obviously, yet still turn a blind eye to it.  Ah yes, politics.  I for one would love to see Canadian soldiers doing their part in ending the genocide in Sudan.  Isn't that what Canada is all about?  The obligation to protect?  Demonstrating moral leadership?  What other mission (No disrespect to the Op Athena folks at all) - but what other mission could the CF undertake that would make Canadians from coast to coast light up with pride?  Something has to be done, and it best be soon.

Just the other day, the head of one of the largest aid agencies in Sudan was arrested, but then later released on bail, for publishing reports about the mass rapes and other brutalities his agency has witnessed.  He said they have medical proof that hundreds, possibly thousands, of women have been raped by soldiers and militiamen.  However, when Sudan asked that the evidence be turned over to their authorities, he refused - saying it violated doctor/patient confidentiality.  Not to mention, the trust factor just isn't there.  

I'm just hoping there is a deployment there very, very soon.  (And not because I'm an armchair general.  I might be out of the CF now, but to me - that would be an ideal tour.  Personal opinion though.)


----------



## Edward Campbell

OK, lets assume, just for the sake of argument that there is some, any merit at all in the _responsibility to protect_ (R2P) doctrine espoused by _Pink Lloyd_ Axworthy _et al_ but, due (at least) to lack of resources and will, ignored by successive Canadian governments.   If R2P is valid and if there is a god, etc then someone â â€œ _goody-two-shoes_ peace loving, peacekeeping Canadians, for a start - ought to be there _doing something_.

Doing what?

It _appears_ that a local militia â â€œ the _Janjiweed_ â â€œ which may be a tool of the national (North African/Muslim) government is using fairly typical African _militia_ (a.k.a. peace loving people's liberation movement) methods (one hesitates to dignify tem the with term _tactics_) to subjugate/terrorize/cleanse/eradicate the largely black, animist (Christian?) people of the Darfur region.   The solution to this problem is simple enough and can be accomplished in two phases:

1.	Send in a fairly small number of seasoned, professional troops â â€œ Canadians, Indians, that sort of thing â â€œ and *destroy* the _Janjiweed's_ will and ability to do anything except tend their flocks for a few generations; and

2.	Send in legions of non-governmental _do-gooders_ to toss truck loads of money (and fur coats and X-boxes) at the black people in/around Darfur.

Anything else, it seems to me, will be a colossal waste of time and effort.   If it is, indeed, our *RESPONSIBILITY* to protect these folks then the threat needs to be removed â â€œ that involves killing a lot brown folks so that the black folks will be safe.

Why?

The answer, it seems to me, again, must be that 'we' â â€œ Canadians and folks like us â â€œ understand what the responsibilities of the Government of Sudan are better than the Sudanese.   That implies, of course, that the Chinese might also have understood the responsibilities of the government of Tibet better than the Tibetan people did and may, right now, understand the responsibilities of the government of Taiwan better than the Taiwanese do.   Equally, Iran feels it has a *responsibility to protect* the people living along a thin strip of Mediterranean coastline; it plans to meet this responsibility by gassing or incinerating the Jews who moved in over the past century â â€œ what's sauce for the goose, etc.

R2P is an interesting doctrine â â€œ one which several major powers, including China, reject out of hand because it threatens to toss the Peace of Westphalia onto the dung heap of history.   Our modern _rules_ for sovereignty have worked, more or less, for 350 years; do we really want to revert to, say, Imperial Rome's ideas on the subject?

The Sudanese civil war has been going on for a long, long time â â€œ several hundred years in one form or another, ever since militant Islam was blocked on its march up the Nile.   It is not clear to me that Sudan or the Balkans (about the value of which, measured in Pomeranian grenadiers' bones, I share Bismarck's views) merits the adoption of R2P.   That being said I think Canada's response is about right.   A touch contrary, I admit, but _c'est la vie._


----------



## Infanteer

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> The Sudanese civil war has been going on for a long, long time â â€œ several hundred years in one form or another, ever since militant Islam was blocked on its march up the Nile.   It is not clear to me that Sudan or the Balkans (about the value of which, measured in Pomeranian grenadiers' bones, I share Bismarck's views) merits the adoption of R2P.   That being said I think Canada's response is about right.   A touch contray, I admit, but _c'est la vie._



Thanks Edward, that was spot on.

I, for one, am not interested in seeing Canadian soldiers die so that these guys go to the sidelines only to resume killing eachother in 10-20 years.


----------



## paracowboy

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Thanks Edward, that was spot on.
> 
> I, for one, am not interested in seeing Canadian soldiers die so that these guys go to the sidelines only to resume killing eachother in 10-20 years.


I am, however, willing to see Canadian soldiers kill so that bad guys get dead (janjaweed, and the Al Queda supporting gov't in Khartoum) and potential allies get power. Go in fast, kill the enemy, hand it over to someone we want in power, home for beer. Imperialism? Maybe. I don't care. Islamofascists are murdering people in grotesque manners. Islamofascism is the threat du jour. Kill bad guys. Do it often enough, people get the message.


----------



## Pikache

I don't think evidences are in dispute that there is some really bad human rights violations going on in Darfur.

If we truly care about this concept of human rights, why weren't we in there when this shit started?

Nuremberg trials set a precedent that national sovereignty is no cover to hide human right abuses.


----------



## Edward Campbell

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> I don't think evidences are in dispute that there is some really bad human rights violations going on in Darfur.
> 
> If we truly care about this concept of human rights, why weren't we in there when this shit started?
> 
> Nuremberg trials set a precedent that national sovereignty is no cover to hide human right abuses.



There is a small thing called national sovereignty.  Sudan is a sovereign nation; it acts like one, just like we do.  It has a sovereign _right_ to decide who may do what to whom within its sovereign territory.

We set our benchmark a couple of years back when we said, â Å“Canada does not invade sovereign nations unless the UNSC says it's OK.â ?  In early 2003 France said, â Å“Non!  Allied nations may not invade Iraq.â ?  Chrétien said: â Å“OK, dat's our policy â â€œ whatever France says.â ?  Now it is China which says, â Å“No!  We do not sanction white guys invading Sudan.â ?  There is no difference, at all, in these two issues.  If it was wrong to invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein then it is equally wrong to invade Sudan just because the _Janjiweed_ are not the sort of folks we would invite over for dinner.

The Nuremberg trails made waging aggressive war a crime against humanity.  Germany invaded sovereign nations â â€œ Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc â â€œ on a very basic R2P pretext, saving ethnic Germans from oppression by their Czech and Polish _masters_, and its foreign minister (von Ribbentrop) was hanged for it.

I agree that some pretty bad things are happening in Sudan and Angola, Benin, Chad and right through to Zimbabwe, too.  I do not agree that gives us, or anyone else, the right or the responsibility to _do something_ about it.  R2P is a deeply flawed _doctrine_ â â€œ the result of too many mushy minds dealing with hard issues.  I agree with paracowboy re: how to fix it, if fixing is, indeed, to be done.


----------



## Acorn

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I am, however, willing to see Canadian soldiers kill so that bad guys get dead (janjaweed, and the Al Queda supporting gov't in Khartoum) and potential allies get power. Go in fast, kill the enemy, hand it over to someone we want in power, home for beer. Imperialism? Maybe. I don't care. Islamofascists are murdering people in grotesque manners. Islamofascism is the threat du jour. Kill bad guys. Do it often enough, people get the message.



Unfortunately I don't think that would result in more than a band-aid solution. First, we would need to identify the "good guy" we want in power, then we'd be obliged to keep him there (no going home for a beer yet). 

In the face of that, here's an analogy: as much as we despise the Liberals, would we accept it if the US stepped in, shot a few Liberals _pour encourager les autres_, and installed Stephen Harper in power? Even though many who post here want him there, would we accept him under those circumstances?

I wish things were as simple as you suggest, but unfortunately people tend to resent outside interference _for their own good_. It smacks of *White Man's Burden*.

Acorn


----------



## paracowboy

History shows that unless a nation has some sort of elective government, it implodes. History shows that unless a nation has some form of laissez faire economy, it collapses under it's own debt. History shows that when these events happen, violence occurs, and is inevitably exported. When this happens, Canadian die.
History shows that Africa has a real problem in establishing  elective governments without outside imposition. 
In order to keep Canada secure and safe, we first have to ensure that no threat reaches us. The most effective way to do so, is to ensure that no nation on Earth wishes us ill. The best way to do so, is to give each nation's people a secure and stable country. The best way to do this, is to make every country on Earth embrace some form of democracy, with a capitalist economy.
You're thinking of Occupation. I'm not. We put the right people in power and leave. Occupying a country puts you in a position of responsibility for the day to day running of it. Screw that! We descend from the Heavens in a Righteous Fury, layeth the Holy Smack Down, then tell 'em to do what <insert names here> say, or we come back and kill everyone right down to the household pets.
We monitor the puppet gov't, ensuring that they meet the needs of the people, or we kill them. We ensure that the hungry are fed, the sick are tended, the homeless are housed, etc. We ensure that there are hospitals and schools built, that there is a free press, and that the populace can rest knowing that stability has taken hold. Should we find that our puppet head of gov't is back-sliding, we kill him. And his cabinet, and his replacements.  If necessary, we build mountains of skulls, a la Attila the Scourge of God (a personal role model). Once the locals have a taste of Democracy, and once the free economy starts working it's magic, voila! we have an ally.

Oh, and I would accept Harper under those conditions. Or even Harpo, for that matter.


----------



## paracowboy

to expound: What the Khartoum regime is doing is evil. By exhibiting physical and moral cowardice, by not putting an end to their crimes, we become complicit in them, and culpable for any future crimes they go on to commit. 

Further, the Khartoum government has demonstrated, clearly, that they are a threat to my country when they allied themselves with Osama bin laden and Al Queda. Canada is still number 5 with a bullet on their hit list. And I have sworn an oath to defend the citizens of my country from all threats.

More, the most effective way to eliminate threats to my countrymen is not to destroy them as they appear. This is simply reacting, and they will always have the advantage. The best way is to remove the breeding grounds from which these threats spawn: poverty-stricken dictatorships. By exporting (forcibly when necessary) democracy in whatever form is most palatable to the nation/culture in question, along with an economic free enterprise system, we give the people of the world what they want most: a safe and secure environment. A chance at a better life. Thus, removing any possibility of conflict. Read Sun Tzu: â Å“To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.â ? How much more so, than, to subdue the enemy BEFORE he exists!

And before anyone says â Å“democracy is not natural to these peopleâ ? (whomever 'these people' may be), or â Å“it's not our place to force our views on someone elseâ ?, let me remind you that democracy was 'not natural' to the people of Iraq or Afghanistan. They seem to have taken quite a liking to it, when they got a taste. And we forced our views on the people of German and Japan. Last I checked, they're doing pretty well for themselves.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Prof. Noah Novogrodsky (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30415/post-220309.html#msg220309 ) says, in an E-mail, _â ? Stay tuned for my next piece encouraging greater funding for the troop levels you describe ...â ?_

I hope that emerging leaders of the human rights movement â â€œ which is how I would classify Novogrodsky â â€œ will see that means are necessary for ends and lend their support to efforts to make Canada capable of making choices about the ends it wants to pursue.

I need to specify that I am not convinced, that R2P, as enunciated by people like _Pink Lloyd_ Axworthy, is a sustainable doctrine.  It leads, it seems to me, towards another empire _â ?acquired in a fit of absence of mind.â ?_


----------



## Mineguy

Im ex cf, Ive been here in sudan for a year and a half dead smack in the centre of the country living in a tent. Bordering darfur. 

This is even worse then iraq where ive also been. For example an analogy internationals use around here is when trying to understand this mentailty in khartoum is Youre talking about people here that will paint themselves into the deep end of a swimming pool and then hang down to paint the rest....they do it at every level in some form or another. Sometimees my days are so frustrating.

Just my opinion but Its impossible to negotiate for anything with khartoum without us being in charge, they are corrupt,only like su for the money (and when the worlds flavour of the week changes its bussniss as usual here) even democracy would not work here cos in fact no form of govt will work  well , its africa,  its sad but only dictatorships work really well as its all theyre used to,everything else will be half ***, if you give them somthing its broke in a day, a way to earn money and develop, somebody tries to take it forcefully, its a real mafia paradise and only a fence and a gun saves anyone. this will not stop until time stops.We can only stop things as per the flavour of the week for now if we can ever manage to get in control.     In darfur They have been doing the same tactic milosevic did in bosnia now for quite a while (janjaweed the cetniks) and the UN isnt any smarter as theyre falling for the same trick again at point blank range just as stupid. Hit the aid agencies and nationals in the agencies so they pull out of the killing zones and nobody is there to witness what happens outside the gates. There will be another srebrencia here some day and the un will wash its hands again just the same. This mission is unprofor under a diffrent name so far. 

All khartoum did was sign a peace deal to get aid and funding from the world and that money goes to various places not all of where intended i am sure. Yet they signed a deal to take over parts of this country (but didnt sign for darfur-too much of a loss of control and then they cant force their plans anymore) that even the people of those parts didnt understand before they signed it. The spla in the nuba mountains fought 23 years for the area im in and they are only now figuring out that they will not get a referendum (and this was clearly written in the deal) and the area will be 100% north controlled, think there will be many christian churches here then?i doubt theyll roll ovr and take it...so now they feel that another war is better than a bad peace so as you see its a revolving circle. And the most ridiculous thing is that they have eygptian troops coming in here as the UN, the very guys who supplied and were freinds of the north in the war, along with other foreign nations like iraq on the front lines here.   This is africa boys! If you got somthing somebody else wants it, so thats why they do all this crap and massacre, handing out water and food only makes more bussniss here and makes more crime, and then of course they want to be paid to unload the food youre giving them or they wont unload it. They in khartoum have forced their islamic way on the blacks in sudan since the brits left and there will never be peace. 

All i hear in this supposed new peace where i am is shooting every night and there are still checkpoints and weapons everywhere in the supposed zone of mutal co operation (but yet 100% muslim control of the area that they have to hand over after fighting for it for 23 years)....this is far from a sorted out soverign country where everybody agrees. Its a dictatorship supported by china, russia and others in the past and continuing etc...and still we have norway, the usa supporting the south and in the peacekeeping troops and other troops sneaking around, its very strange combinations here.   The an troops here are crap, as a matter any african troops here will be useless to prove points, what we need here is a nato type mission with units like the airborne regiment. Thats the only way youll get anything done around here. 

In sudan people will not respect you unless you build a fence, same as show whoes in charge. With an troops in charge bussniss just goes on as usual. But also I rememebr a janjaweed said to a freind of mine in darfur and i say this just in case anybody thinks of ever sending real soldiers in here, he said that if a international force ever comes in here, theyll be slaughtered. So as you see you should be scared he said.Im sure he will feel the same being shot at 2.5 km away by the internationals he will slaughter. Thats bussniss as usual, cos khartoum would thne loose control and the way to deal with internationals in sudan is if you loose control of them to manipulate them  they will find a way to call you a spy or anything, much like they will cook up all sorts of excuses  why they refuse international troops, its their way of maintaining control. Its just a revolving mess but if canada can get into it with our troops and we can get more internationals  troops in here we might just sort it out for now. But after all its africa like i said.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I hope I don't sound too callus and cruel (at least no more so that I really am) when I say that Canada has no interests in Sudan â â€œ in Africa, as a whole, for that matter, and we should never send troops to places where we have no interests.  Aid, yes â â€œ even government to government aid (which is nothing more nor less than a legal bribe and ends up, mostly, in the Swiss bank accounts of black _kleptocrats_) â â€œ but no troops.  We can, properly, waste money â â€œ that's only a combination of political ineptitude and public _ennui_ - but it is immoral to waste lives.

We have a national responsibility to protect and promote *our* national interests and we may, indeed should send out ships and soldiers into harm's way to do that â â€œ to protect *our* interests.  We have, in my view, neither a responsibility nor a _right_ to protect others or their interests â â€œ that is up to them.  We may provide aid â â€œ we may even provide covert aid to help terrorists overthrow ostensibly _friendly_ governments â â€œ but we should not invade (we have no _right_) nor send any troops unless our interests are at stake.

I have said elsewhere â â€œ see e.g. the attachment at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17947/post-182791.html#msg182791 - that Africa will sink in utter chaos.  You can send any combination you like of the entire US military establishment and the EU's combined treasuries â â€œ Africa will still sink into absolute chaos; probably in my lifetime and I'm in my'60s.  A significant percentage â â€œ maybe 25% of African adults are going to die over the next 20 years of AIDS.  No nation, much less a poor, disorganized continent can survive such a blow.  The next two or three generations of Africans will be poorer, less educated, less sophisticated, less _able_ (in terms of the 21st century) than is now the case.  Africa is, already, a _basket case_ in those same 21st century terms, when it (its people) is less _able_ then you tell me: what's below _basket case_?

If Canadians insist on _rescuing_ Africa then we had better line up a _coalition of the generous_ so that we can hire an imperial administration: I favour India for the task.  (The Europeans, by and large, were lousy, incompetent colonial _masters_.  There is no reason to expect that the Americans are made of sterner (or smarter) stuff.)  We may, in the interests of _realpolitik_ have to split the place between India and China but that's OK, too.  India needs a _hinterland_ (in _Mackinderish_ terms) and Africa can provide that â â€œ India and China could, also, use some _busywork_ to keep them both out of strategic mischief.


----------



## Britney Spears

Edward: PM inbound.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here are the deep thoughts from aspiring village idiot and full time university president _Pink Lloyd_ Axworthy and his acolyte, former Canadian Ambassador to the UN and mushy-minded do-gooder Paul Heinbecker, from today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050604/CODARFUR04/TPComment/?query=Paul+Heinbecker  my emphasis added



> Let's do the right thing right in Darfur
> 
> BY PAUL HEINBECKER AND LLOYD AXWORTHY
> 
> SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 2005 UPDATED AT 8:01 PM EDT
> 
> Paul Martin can prove the cynics wrong. Many presumed that the Prime Minister's decision to upgrade our assistance to Darfur, made in the midst of a parliamentary imbroglio, was less about the survival of some of the most wretched people on Earth than about the survival of his government. But Mr. Martin has energetically endorsed the idea of a "Responsibility to Protect," a made-in-Canada norm gaining wide acceptance abroad, which holds that when governments cannot or will not protect their citizens, the international community has a responsibility to do so. The Prime Minister is doing the right thing in Darfur, but to lead the international community, and to prove the cynics wrong, it will take more than money, impressive though Canadian generosity is.
> 
> To do the right thing right, Canada is going to have to field a battalion or two of boots-on-the-ground soldiers, not just a platoon or two of logistics support. To do so, Mr. Martin will have to overcome resistance in several quarters. The Canadian Forces have all but stopped participating in United Nations military missions. Just last month, Lieutenant-General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, was quoted as saying that after a necessary period of rehabilitation and rebuilding, the forces could soon carry out an increased level of operations, and by winter they could field 1,500 soldiers. Mr. Martin is going to have to ask DND to step up a little earlier than planned.
> 
> To do the right thing right, Mr. Martin will also have to override the gnomes at the Finance Department. If DND is going to deploy a proper force, doing so will cost extra money. Mr. Martin has twisted Finance's collective arm for increased domestic spending, while reassuring people that the fiscal framework can afford it. It is time to twist Finance's arm a little harder. And, while he is at it, Mr. Martin could direct a small fraction of the money to Foreign Affairs, so that Canada can enhance its eyes and ears on the ground in Sudan.
> 
> Mr. Martin will also have to surmount the obstacles presented by the Sudanese government and the African Union (AU). The Sudanese do not want capable foreign forces operating on their territory -- no surprise there. The AU insists on doing the job itself and resists the help of non-African forces. The AU's determination would be admirable and highly encouraging if it was getting the job done. But the AU has neither the numbers, nor the equipment, nor the training to succeed. African governments cannot have it both ways, decrying the world's abandonment of Rwanda but eschewing assistance in Darfur. Crimes against humanity are everyone's business.
> 
> Nor should Mr. Martin expect the permanent members of the Security Council to applaud him. The U.S. wants Sudanese intelligence in its war against terror. Further, the Americans claim to be unable to help stop the crimes in Darfur, which they themselves have proclaimed a genocide, because of overstretch in Iraq and Afghanistan. China has its own interests to protect, notably oil interests. Russia is likely willing to fight to the last Darfurian to safeguard the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, as if the displacement of millions of people were exclusively an internal affair. Meanwhile, NATO and the EU seem content to hold others' coats.
> 
> What is needed now is for Mr. Martin to challenge the international community, particularly its richest states, to do the right thing right.
> 
> Here's how: He could authorize Canada's ambassador to the UN, Allan Rock, who has been a rare leader on this issue at the UN, to make the Security Council an offer it will find hard to ignore. Let Mr. Rock ask for an open meeting of the council to assist the people of Darfur. Let him offer 1,500 Canadian troops, with all the gear they require. Let him challenge Western and other countries with capable military forces to help the AU not hide behind it. And let him challenge the Africans to put the protection of people before the protection of pride, and co-operate in the creation of a larger force. To underline his point, let him be accompanied to the Security Council table by one of the countless survivors of Darfur who have lost everyone and everything dear to them.
> 
> No one is sure just how many people have died in Darfur in the 18 months since the region was declared a humanitarian crisis. Current estimates of the monthly death toll in Darfur are as high as 10,000. Compared to Rwanda, where 800,000 were killed in four months, Darfur is unfolding in slow-motion.
> 
> It is late, but not too late, for Canada to make a difference to those still surviving in Darfur.
> 
> _Paul Heinbecker is distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, and director of the Laurier Centre for Global Relations, Governance and Policy, in Waterloo, Ont. Lloyd Axworthy is president and vice-chancellor of the University of Winnipeg, and former minister of foreign affairs for Canada. _



What arrant bloody nonsense!

But: two battalions of infantry plus an appropriate logistics tail would be enough to kill the requisite few thousand _Janjiweed_ and sundry Sudanese soldiers and make the Darfur safe for _Medicins sans frontiers_ et al.  I just fail to see the point ... saving folks from rape and murder, yes, but that is the task of the Sudanese government.  If it cannot or will not do that the Sudanese people need to rise up, kill a bunch of their fellow countrymen and install a new government, _â ?deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.â ?_


----------



## paracowboy

problem is, there really IS no "Sudanese people". Like every other African nation, the borders overlap tribal boundaries, due to colonialism. Hence, civil war and genocide.


----------



## Infanteer

Perhaps we need to sit down and redraw Africa?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Perhaps we need to sit down and redraw Africa?



Which 'we'?

I suspect that subdividing Africa into several (many?) hundred ethnically/linguistically sensible 'nations' might be a good idea.  I am inclined to the view that the people(s) concerned ought to decide for themselves when and how it is to be done.

I believe that Africa must have a series of horrifying bloody wars as they (the Africans)  decide their own futures for themselves.  I also believe that will happen as a _natural_ consequence of the descent into chaos and savagery which I believe is inevitable over the next quarter century or so.


----------



## KevinB

I am in the Paracowboy camp as far as action and aid go.

I think BEFORE we send any money or aid that we should secure a safe and secure environment.

 As much as I sound like Mr Axworthless - I don't think he'd agree with my method - mainly exterminating the militias and if necessary the Sudanese Army and "gov't"

We have the troops - and beleive me we'd relish a worthwhile task.


----------



## Infanteer

Ok, interesting discussion with many different facets to consider:

1)


			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> As much as I sound like Mr Axworthless - I don't think he'd agree with my method - mainly exterminating the militias and if necessary the Sudanese Army and "gov't"
> 
> We have the troops - and beleive me we'd relish a worthwhile task.



I'm all for considering this plan as well - Africa is an unmitigated disaster and I could see a very possible solution in going in and sorting it out ourselves (as I mentioned above, "we" may have to rewrite the map) - however, this may not be appreciated by others, as it is essentially "Colonialism Redux".   While some may see it as a genuine effort to restore peace and stability (restore?   has there ever been peace and stability?!?) others are only going to see the revival of the White Man's Burden.

2)   Ok, say we agree to get tough and crack down - we go in, knock a sovereign government out of power (that ascended through coup), and enforce a new paradigm of governance among the various national groups within the Westphalian nightmare known as Sudan.   Hey, doesn't that sound familiar?   I-R-A-Q.   Not saying good or bad idea - just trying to point out the implications of "going in" - we are probably going to have some tough fighting on our hands; look at the scenario the Americans have on their hands now.   Can you imagine trying to do something like this under the UN?

3)   Ok, more on this matter with Iraq - many seem to support invading Sudan to support repressed/brutalized minorities but scream bloody murder at the Americans for doing the same thing (regardless of stated intentions on CNN) in Iraq.   Now,   I'm not saying Paracowboy or KevinB have done this (they haven't, let's make this clear), I'm only referring to the general impression I get that the tragedy in Sudan is some sort of noble cause waiting to be undertaken while the tragedy that is Iraq is all the American's fault and they are getting what they deserve for going in.   Considering that the situations seem to be fairly similar (Unless the people of Darfur are more important than the Kurds), I'm smelling abit of hypocrisy on the journalists, academics and general Yankee-haters that have spoken out for Sudan but against Iraq in the last little while.   Did you know that there is oil in Sudan?   Maybe Canada should go get it....


4)   We've discussed national interest and security and I agree that, in the short term, Sudan presents no real interest to Canada and thus is not really a good cause to adopt (and get Canadians killed) in any half-hearted political way - in other words, unless I see any clear policy statement on objectives and long term commitments (such as the one I mentioned above) I'm not real interested as a citizen in seeing Canada in Sudan.   90% of the world is a shithole, and we simply cannot afford to be everywhere, all the time.   More pressing interests lie elsewhere right now.

5)   Conversely, it may be important to consider that, in the long term, a failing Africa is a matter of interest for Canada - I am reminded of the "sinking boat" analogy, where more and more people are trying to get out of the water and onto the life raft; if left to drown by those in the life raft, they might flip the life-raft and ruin it for everyone (here, in essence, is a real interest for supporting R2P).   Considering that sub-Saharan Africa is full of HIV, strange varieties of hemorrhagic fever that inspire movies, genocide, natural resources, brutal environmental and eco-system (including species) degradation (remember what Robert Kaplan said, environmental politics will be THE national security issue of the 21st century) and huge populations of refugees perhaps there is a genuine interest for the West to not let the situation go down the tube lest it pull us in Canada off our comfy couches as well.

6)   Another very real concern about "going into" Sudan is that I feel it will galvanize opposition within the Arab/Islamic insurgency against the West even more.   Many in the world will see a hard stance on Sudan as simply further Western aggression against an Islamic state.   There is a genuine issue of strategy to consider here - we do not want an operation here to throw a wrench into the larger game (in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, etc).   In a war where we are trying to convince millions of angry Muslims that we are not invading Crusaders intent on destroying Islam, destroying another Islamic state (regardless of the fact that it deserves it) may not be the best move to pull at this stage in the game.   Regardless of our intentions, we'll most likely see Afghans, Chechens, Syrians, and the rest of the love crowd showing up the support the Janjaweed.   Again, I'm not saying good or bad, only trying to point out that this issue seems to have many facets that make it more than a simple "show up and save those guys" type of affair.


Anyways, these are some pretty complex issues, and I'm sure that, between patting Belinda Stronach on the back and wrangling with Grewal, our Representatives are hard at work making the hard and right choices....   :


----------



## KevinB

and Knights Templar 2005 style 











 ;D


----------



## Britney Spears

Somehow I don't think you'll enjoy the vows of poverty and celibacy all that much......


----------



## KevinB

Not me I'm the wenching and wine'ing type of Knight

(edit: not sure how to spell wine+ing - I did not want winning or whinning - so I did a Kevin'ism and added an ')


----------



## Infanteer

Another topic that I think needs consideration is the factor of Egypt.  If we go in and rough up the Khartoum regime, expect to see political consequences in Egypt with Mubarak's government.  As mentioned above, the Islamic Insurgency is a very real movement right now, and two of the highest profile organizations within it are Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ - Bin Ladin's number 2 man Zawahiri's organization) and the Jamaat al-Islamiyya (JI).  Conducting military operations on the border with Egypt may kick these guys into high gear and provide serious problems for the Western-friendly government of Mubarak which has, from my understanding, been an important facilitator to Western policy in the Middle East; losing this government to a fundamentalist group (or one that is friendly to such people) may not be very good for our cause and will probably get the Israeli's pretty upset.

As well, there will probably be truckloads of willing Martyrs heading from Cairo to Khartoum, and I'm sure that the Islamic government there would gladly take them.  Make no mistake, if we go into the Sudan, it better be on a war-footing which may be difficult to pull off considering there are unfriendly groups in all directions.


----------



## paracowboy

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Make no mistake, if we go into the Sudan, it better be on a war-footing which may be difficult to pull off considering there are unfriendly groups in all directions.


"We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded."  
Egypt has been a hotbed of Islamofascism since the '60s, at least. It's where the Muslim Brotherhood started from. So, it's better to let the Islamo-nuts strengthen their footholds, and gain areas in which to train, equip and stage out of? Recent history is showing us that when faced with the Will to enforce Liberty's demands, the autocracies of the Middle East fold. They know they don't hold a hand worth bluffing with. Would it get rough? Sure. Is it worth it to destroy an enemy? Yep.
Sudan is just another battle in World War IV. Either we fight this war elsewhere now, or we fight it in Canada later. I'd rather the collateral damage took place on someone else's shores.
Appeasement has never worked against bullies. Neither has ignoring them. Punching them in the lips has always worked.


----------



## Infanteer

paracowboy said:
			
		

> "We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded."



Unfortunately, we don't have an Armoured Division to come and pull us out.... ^-^



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> Egypt has been a hotbed of Islamofascism since the '60s, at least. It's where the Muslim Brotherhood started from. So, it's better to let the Islamo-nuts strengthen their footholds, and gain areas in which to train, equip and stage out of? Recent history is showing us that when faced with the Will to enforce Liberty's demands, the autocracies of the Middle East fold.



The point I was making is that we may hand the fundamentalists the reigns to the Egyptian state if we upset Mubarak's control over a population that doesn't fully support him.  That would not be good.



> Sudan is just another battle in World War IV. Either we fight this war elsewhere now, or we fight it in Canada later. I'd rather the collateral damage took place on someone else's shores.
> Appeasement has never worked against bullies. Neither has ignoring them. Punching them in the lips has always worked.



Sure, I never said that going in was "good" or "bad" - only that we need to seriously consider it before doing so as it is more than a simple intervention (IMHO).  You are right, it is and will be another campaign between the West and the Islamic Insurgency - the question we should as know is if we really need to open up another front when the US have their hands full with Iraq and we are expanding our committment to Afghanistan - all the way over on the other side of _Dar-al-Islam._


----------



## paracowboy

well, li'l brother, I don't see us making a commitment, as such. just goin' in an killin' dirtbags, then pullin' out. A series of 'national level raids' as it were. Committing to Africa is a centuries-long commitment. I just want to whack a bunch of evil men, remove an openly hostile regime, and come home for parades and beer. Trying to establish a functioning government in Africa is akin to trying to build... actually, I can't think of anything that would be as useless, right now. Trying to teach ethics to anyone in the Liberal Party? I dunno. 
No, I say go in, whack the bad guys, place the opposition in power with a stern warning, then boogie on back. Repeat as necessary. 
As for Egypt, give this a look. Quite serendipitous, really, in the timing: from the Globe and Mail



> *Islamist politics makes for strange bedfellows*
> _As reform sweeps the Mideast, militants must choose sides, MARK MacKINNON reports_
> Monday, June 6, 2005 Updated at 6:27 PM EDT
> CAIRO -- Unsurprisingly for a group that would like to see Egypt ruled on the basis of the Koran, the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't like to contemplate making deals with what it sees as the devil.
> But the Brotherhood, Egypt's largest opposition political group, finds itself in an uncomfortable spot. With a presidential election due this fall, it faces a choice between backing an autocrat it hates or siding with a surging pro-democracy movement it sees as too close to the United States.
> It's a dilemma facing Islamist groups across the Arab world as political change rapidly and unexpectedly rolls across the Middle East. Do they jump aboard, hoping that some of the reforms they've been seeking for years will finally come about, or do they stick with the old axiom that whatever benefits the United States and Israel must be bad for Islam?
> Hezbollah, the militant Shia movement that holds sway over much of southern Lebanon, swept a majority of the seats in yesterday's second round of parliamentary voting there. But after this spring's pro-democracy uprising in the country, it has been forced to make deals with groups it has long considered ideological opponents, and faces the prospect of being asked to disarm by the next parliament.
> The armed Palestinian faction Hamas is also struggling to adjust. It recently bought into the logic that it could achieve some of its aims through the ballot box, only to see Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas announce over the weekend that a parliamentary vote scheduled for this summer would be indefinitely delayed.
> Most analysts say Mr. Abbas, who won a resounding mandate from voters in January to seek peace with Israel, made the move to keep Hamas from winning control of parliament, and to give his ruling party time to regroup. It's believed he did so with the unspoken approval of Israel and the United States, but it was hardly the reward the Islamists had sought when they joined the political process. Hamas warned yesterday that Mr. Abbas's decision could provoke "chaos."
> The Muslim Brotherhood has opposed Hosni Mubarak for all of his 24 years as the Egyptian President, a period during which thousands of the Brotherhood's members have been jailed without charge.
> But Mr. Mubarak's grip on power is suddenly wobblier than perhaps ever before, following a wave of street protests in Cairo and other cities, as well as simultaneous revolts by judges, journalists and university professors who previously co-operated with the regime. In what was viewed as an attempt to defuse mounting pressure on his government, Mr. Mubarak pushed through changes to the country's election law to allow for multiple candidates in the coming election.
> That would ordinarily be good news for the Brotherhood, but the Islamists remain wary of the opposition coalescing around articulate, Western-minded Ayman Nour, who has declared that he will run against Mr. Mubarak in September.
> The group was put off by the way U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke out while Mr. Nour was in prison this year -- a favour no U.S. official has ever granted the Brotherhood's leaders -- and have spurned Mr. Nour's requests for a meeting to plot a joint push for Mr. Mubarak's ouster.
> The Brotherhood, which has been banned since 1954 and cannot put forward its own presidential candidate, views an election race between Mr. Mubarak and Mr. Nour as one between two tools of the White House.
> "Isn't it ironic that I have no ideological similarity with Ayman Nour, but people are asking me to support him? Why don't I have the right to seek power?" said Ali Abdel Fattah, a member of the Brotherhood's leadership council.
> The Brotherhood, which is believed to have millions of members in Egypt, is considered a "terrorist" organization by the U.S. State Department, primarily because of its direct ties to Hamas and its unbending opposition to the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. That deal was brokered by Washington and sees the U.S. government give $2.1-billion a year in economic and military aid to Cairo.
> "America knows that if there's a freely elected government, it will reject the state of co-operation between America, Egypt and Israel," Mr. Abdel Fattah said.
> Hezbollah, which Washington also classifies as a terrorist group because of its frequent attacks against Israeli targets, has been similarly been caught off guard by the rise to prominence of the region's pro-Western democrats, and has struggled to adjust. The wave of protests in Lebanon after the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14 forced one of Hezbollah's key sponsors, Syria, to end its 29-year military presence in the country.
> Conscious of the new climate, the group cut pre-election deals with a bloc headed by Mr. Hariri's son, Saad, who is widely viewed as anti-Syrian.
> Sheik Khoder Nouraddin, a member of Hezbollah's 12-man politburo, said the group is ready for a "dialogue" with Lebanon's other parties about whether it should keep its weapons. However, he disputed that the country's Cedar Revolution had made Lebanon a more democratic place.
> "These elections are just like previous ones," he said in an interview at his group's offices in a Beirut suburb. "The only difference is that the Americans and the French have come in the place of the Syrians."


----------



## Hawker

Canada may send armoured carriers to Sudan
Last Updated Sun, 12 Jun 2005 12:06:37 EDT 
CBC News
Canada may send 100 Grizzly armoured personnel carriers to Sudan, CBC TV news reports. 


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/12/grizzly-sudan050612.html

Does this make sense?  And do we have 100 of them that are up and ready to go?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Sounds like a great idea.  I'm sure we can find 100 grizzlies between Jasper and Banff.  Crate em up, keep em hungry, and air drop them into the local warlords camp... They have a pretty impressive body count here in The Free Republic of Alberta....

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## paracowboy

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Sounds like a great idea.   I'm sure we can find 100 grizzlies between Jasper and Banff.   Crate em up, keep em hungry, and air drop them into the local warlords camp... They have a pretty impressive body count here in The Free Republic of Alberta....
> 
> CHIMO,   Kat


where we gonna get the airlift for 100 Ursus horribilis? That's a lot of weight!


----------



## Marty

Dont they dart em sling em under a copter ?


----------



## Haggis

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Sounds like a great idea.



Sure does!  Finally the government can solve separate international and domestic problems in one act.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/06/12/1083711-cp.html

Kinda reminds me of the story of our "gift" of beavers to Chile.
http://forests.org/archive/samerica/beachil.htm


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You guys do realize they're talking about the Grizzly APC right?


----------



## 48Highlander

CFL said:
			
		

> You guys do realize they're talking about the Grizzly APC right?



What the heck is that?   ???


----------



## KevinB

Rob, you sarcasm detector is broken


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You get posted to  backdoor land and we'll see how well your sarcasm detector works


----------



## the 48th regulator

48th,

APC  Animal, Protected and Controlled....

What are you new?

geez

tess


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Rob's getting angry.
Rob may need to sign out the gas gun from Charlie Coy.


----------



## 1feral1

Personally, I'd rather see these Grizzlies used as hard targets on ranges before being sent to Africa. If they have to have things given to them, why not aid in other forms, as some regime will just end up using these vehicles in some attrocity anyways, or worst against the west in some form should we ever be deployed in the region for any reason in the future.

Sorry I don't have much confidence in the mentality of today's governments of African nations.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Armymedic

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd rather see these Grizzlies used as hard targets on ranges before being sent to Africa.



Gee Wes, I'd rather see them being hard targets crewed by others in someone elses country...I am sure once the warlods figure out RPGs can cut thru them like hot knifes in butter....

They are friggin useless to us, give them all away.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I'm pretty sure that the latest RPG's can cut through a LAV 3 as just as easily.


----------



## KevinB

Yeah but in a LAV - the fire system works (both the outgoing fire - 25mm M242 Bushmaster - and the onboard fire supression system)

hadji is going to have to grow a set of big brass ones is he wants to engage a LAV with a RPG-7series - or 18 series.


We will reap what we sow when there is CNN video of AVGP's shooting at civilians in Africa -- kinda like Turks using our old Starfighters we sold then against their "internal problems".


 That said a LAV/Coyote unit 1/10 the size of a AVG unit would have them dead in seconds -- heck given them to the Sudanese Army/Miltia's then let a LAV combat team roll them up... 
The write "Surge-06 2VP - easy come - easy go..." on their wreckage  ;D


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

CFL said:
			
		

> You get posted to Shilo and we'll see how well your sarcasm detector works


Sarcasm got me sent to Shilo in the first place.  And whose laughing now? :'(


----------



## 1feral1

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Gee Wes, I'd rather see them being hard targets crewed by others in someone elses country...I am sure once the warlods figure out RPGs can cut thru them like hot knifes in butter....
> 
> They are friggin useless to us, give them all away.



I just do not want them going to tin pot regimes, thats all. I's rather see them get uesd up here on the range than endanger lives of others, being they innocent civvies, or our allies in future deployments.

They may be useless to the CF, but what about LEOs  ERT/SRG/SWAT etc, and similar orgs around North America alone.

Leave the aid to Africa for medical and agricultural and similar things, never give 'em military aid as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Kat Stevens

paracowboy said:
			
		

> where we gonna get the airlift for 100 Ursus horribilis? That's a lot of weight!



It would be fitting if the big Russian Bear loaned us an Antonov to get them over there... Just imagine the carnage a stick of half starved, air sick, pissed off parabears could inflict.  One big ramp exit party.....A "bear-assed drop" if there ever was one...okay, I'll stop now.

Kat


----------



## Slim

Personally the only thing I would ever send to anyplace in Africa is food and/or medicine.

That continent has more guns and other forms of mayhem than the rest of the world put together...They certainly do NOT need Canadian Grizzly APC's!


----------



## McG

There are several African nations that make regular and sizable contributions to peacekeeping operations on their continent.  Providing them a decent vehicle to do this in may not be a bad way to contribute when we cannot provide soldiers (especially if they are only sent on loan).

That being said, before seeing the Grizzlies go off to be a range target, I would prefer to see them used for CMTC OPFOR (instead of converting perfectly functioning LAVs into a vehicle with the sole role of playing bad-guy on trg).


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, from yesterday's _Ottawa Citizen_ is Senator Romeo Dallaire's response to the large number of people, including MGen (Ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie, who have critized his _volte face_ on Sudan.

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=11852587-f1c1-409d-bcfc-9a74cad02f80 


> The solution for Darfur
> 
> Two years ago, I called for a major effort to stop a repeat of Rwanda, but nothing happened. Now, things have changed.
> 
> *Romeo Dallaire*
> Citizen Special
> 
> Friday, June 24, 2005
> 
> The debate surrounding the Canadian response to the situation in Darfur must not be cheapened by partisan bickering or personal disputes. The focus must remain on the people of Darfur and how Canada can best contribute to stopping the human-rights abuses and crimes against humanity there.
> 
> Based on my experience as commander of the United Nations Force in Rwanda in 1994, and everything I have learned since, I believe the best hope for Darfur right now is for the wealthy countries of the West, like Canada, to do all they can to support the African Union in its efforts to bring security and stability to Darfur.
> 
> As recently as three months ago, I called for an intervention force of up to 44,000 combat and support soldiers to be deployed to Darfur, a recommendation based on the many reports of mass killings, destruction of villages and concerted internal displacement as Darfuris fled for their lives en masse from the Janjaweed militias. Add to this the raping of women and young girls as they foraged for critical scraps of wood, the nightly raids on dispersed rural populations, the still unprotected camps and the despair and disease spreading due to lack of food and other vital supplies. The whole situation smacked of a repeat of the Rwandan genocide.
> 
> The militias, tribal extremists and common bandits essentially achieved with impunity the aims of the Janjaweed. They succeeded in creating the revolting scenes that we see throughout Darfur today: millions of innocent people packed into camps in Sudan and neighbouring Chad; a depleted rural population, villages burned and countryside ravaged, waiting for the onslaught of torrential rains.
> 
> All the while, what did the supposedly enlightened, just and human-rights-conscious developed world do about this situation as it unfolded over the last two years? What did we do when faced with these hard and verified facts, even as reminders of the Rwandan genocide a decade before flickered on the movie screens?
> 
> In fact, we did not do much.
> 
> Faced with cries for help from Darfuris, echoed by hundreds of humanitarian workers on the ground, we fiddled, prevaricated and watched from afar. We hoped, as was the case 11 years ago, that the problem would resolve itself, in as short a time as possible and with a minimum commitment on our part.
> 
> The situation in Darfur has changed dramatically over the past few months. Make no mistake, the situation continues be grave. The rapes and killings must stop and security must be improved to allow the millions of refugees and internally displaced persons to return to their homes, and for humanitarian aid to reach those desperately in need.
> 
> However, a changed situation calls for a changed response. We have to focus on this new state of affairs. The priority must be the protection of the nearly two million internally displaced persons and refugees who ultimately must return safely to their homes and start to rebuild their lives.
> 
> Having taken the decision not to intervene months ago while genocide was unfolding, we are now faced with different options. There is a conspicuously more defined and limited threat and consequent security requirement.
> 
> Instead of leading a Don Quixote cavalry charge into a desert that has absorbed legions of white colonial troops in previous decades, we may finally have realized that those who are the most immediately concerned, and who are the closest to this calamity, might be the best ones to intervene. We don't need a crusade by the professional armies of the north. We need a more humble and determined effort and an extended kinship.
> 
> When the world abandoned Rwanda in 1994 at the height of the genocide, the big powers told me that the genocide was an African problem and so it was up to the Africans to sort it out. But the Africans did not have the means to do so.
> 
> Eleven years later, Africans are once again being told to sort out their problems and there is some evidence they have learned some lessons from Rwanda.
> 
> The African Union soldiers currently stationed in Darfur have the fundamental skills necessary to do the job. They don't lack the experience or the motivation to accomplish their mission.
> 
> As United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan reported after his tour of the region a few weeks ago, in the areas where the African Union Mission (AMIS) is deployed the security situation is vastly improved -- reducing fear among the local populations and permitting humanitarian aid to get through. The AU force is extremely effective in the areas in which it is present; but they must be supported and reinforced so they are able to increase their presence across the region.
> 
> What the AU forces lack are the "force multipliers," tactical mobility, as well as the strategic airlift that would make them most effective. They require helicopters, and armored vehicles. And the commanders of this mission require the resources that would allow them to establish a proper headquarters with communications to improve their command and control function. The Darfur mission needs exactly what I needed in Rwanda -- but did not get.
> 
> This is exactly the support and reinforcement Canada is providing. We are reinforcing the African Union Mission with a significant force multiplier capability for the rapid reaction reserve forces in the form of armoured personnel carriers and helicopters, which are of great strategic importance to the force commander's ability to effectively achieve his mission. We are providing additional support in the form of equipment and material and are prepared to provide planning experts and other specialized staff to support AU operations.
> 
> In May I travelled, as a member of the prime minister's special advisory team, to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to take part in the AU Pledging Conference where Canada committed $170 million to AMIS, the largest single contribution made at the conference.
> 
> While in Addis I met with many people involved in the AU mission, including the deputy force commander from my mission in Rwanda, Maj.-Gen. Henry Anyidoho who is now the chief of staff of AMIS. These meetings strengthened my professional commitment and reinforced my belief that the support Canada is providing to AMIS is the full and right response to the situation in Darfur and for Africa in the long term.
> 
> Canada is prepared not only to offer its expertise and experience in dealing with these situations. We can also try to use our influence with others. We must facilitate and support the AU countries as they grapple with this situation and learn how to better serve their African brothers and sisters when the next catastrophe hits their region.
> 
> We must help Africans to sort out the evil in their midst that strangles development and drowns the fundamental rights of every human to be treated and respected equally.
> 
> Senator Romeo Dallaire is a member of the prime minister's special advisory team on Sudan and former commander of the United Nations Force in Rwanda.
> 
> _Dallaire Responds_
> 
> © The Ottawa Citizen 2005​



With apologies to the good Senator, nothing has changed and, in my opinion, nothing needs to change.   Sudan went to heck in a hand basket years and years and years ago - about the time the old, reasonably stable, not too corrupt, _Anglo-Egyptian Sudan_ was replaced by the current construct.   We can, I believe, safely, leave Sudan, and all of Africa, for that matter, in heck, in hand-baskets.   I doubt that anyone - not even a _United West_ has the skills, resources or stomach for rescuing Africa from the chaos and barbarism into which it is steadily, unstoppably descending.   When, near to 2025 the descent is almost complete it may be appropriate to _contract out_ the re-colonization of Africa to India (maybe to China, too, just to be fair).   We, the _Euro-West_ certainly made a colossal mess of the 19th century colonial process in Africa and we should not try again.   If, as I assume is the case, the perfectly sensible option of ignoring Africa for a century or so - except for a few mineral deposits - is not acceptable, then someone else will have to take charge.   If Africa cannot do it to itself and if Europe/America is a bad choice then Asia is all that's left.

I have no objection to sending serviceable kit to the AU forces in Sudan - it will not be serviceable for long and it will not, therefore, do much good (or harm) one way or the other.   I, as a matter of policy, object to sending even one Canadian soldier to Africa for any reason less than conquering Zimbabwe and hanging Mugabe - that ought to take one brigade about one year; since we don't have a brigade any such discussion is far-fetched, at best.

Dallaire has just given us the Liberal/Government of Canada _party line_ - all the Party _apparatchicks_ in the bureaucracy, _commentariat_ and academe can now speak with a single voice.   Three months ago (when Dallaiere says he called for 44,000 Western troops to go to Sudan) never happened.   Paul Martin's infinite wisdom has been confirmed by _Saint Romeo_ himself, what else is needed?

*Moderators: could we merge this with the What next for CF? Sudan? * thread - they are closely related. I think.   Thanks

DONE!


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

To horribly misquote Otto Von Bismark- The problems of  (Africa) today will not be settled by words(or money), but by blood and iron!.  Sanctions have no effect on bandits, genocide is not halted by leaflets, and inspection teams that report on gang-rapes and murder, that are never followed by justice, only fill Africa with contempt for the fine words and empty promises of the west.  If we are not willing to send a brigade to stop it, then stop wasting time and money pretending to care.  If we are going to play colonial power, then do it.  If we want to take up Kiplings "White mans burden" (sorry, today he'd call it First World or G8, but at the time only Europe and North America were playing), and tell the less developed nations of the world what atrocities are and are not allowed, then start building up the CF now, because we will need a few divisions if we want to deploy long enough to smash the old order, and build a new one.  I don't see our politicians having the balls to do that.  I see our politicians looking for a "noble gesture" that will showcase their "deep sincerity" and accomplish jack-shite.  If that's the case, they can do it from someone else's budget.  Since the CF has seen every major procurement announcement clawed back, or downscaled to support our ever-dwindling overseas deployments, or to fund other gov't pet projects, then I fundamentally object to "giving" away CF material to Africa.  Sending APC's to Africans is not going to make peace.  Sending a brigade will stomp one side flat, and stop today's genocide; it will not make the survivors play nice unless we are committed to keeping it there, and stomping our allies flat if/when they decide to try returning the favour (because today's victims are often just as inclined to slaughter as their stronger opponents).  If we send APC's, send PPCLI or RCR  in them.  If we are making a useless gesture, send Adrienne Clarkson.


----------



## Pikache

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4300526.stm

The African Union has accused Sudanese government forces of supporting Arab militiamen targeting civilians in the troubled region of Darfur.

The head of the AU mission in Sudan said government helicopters gunships had flown overhead during a recent militia attack on a refugee camp.

But he suggested that rebels had also broken a truce signed by both sides.

About 180,000 people have been killed and two million have fled their homes since the conflict began in early 2003.

There has been an upsurge in violence in recent days.


There is neither good faith nor commitment on the part of any of the parties
Baba Gana Kingibe
Head of UA mission in Sudan
On Wednesday at least 32 people died during a attack by pro-government Janjaweed militias on Aro Sharow refugee camp in western Darfur.

The head of the AU's peacekeeping mission in Sudan, Baba Gana Kingibe, told reporters that army helicopters had been flying overhead in an "apparent air and land assault".

He said this gave "credence to the repeated claim by the rebel movements of collusion between the government of Sudan forces and the Janjaweed".

Both sides blamed

Mr Kingibe also spoke of close co-ordination by Sudanese forces in militia attacks earlier in the month in north Darfur.

Janjaweed militiaman
Janjaweed militias are accused of widespread atrocities
The head of the AU mission in Sudan said both sides in the conflict had violated the ceasefire.

"There is neither good faith nor commitment on the part of any of the parties," he said.

The Sudanese government denies any links to the Janjaweed and describes them as criminals.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on Friday condemned "attacks of civilians, humanitarian workers and assets and the African Union mission in Sudan".

Mr Anan called for those responsible to be brought to justice.

The conflict began in early 2003, after a rebel group began attacking government targets.

About 5,600 peacekeepers from the African Union are monitoring a ceasefire agreement reached in April 2004. 
***
Interesting, because normally Africans don't like to accuse other Africans of wrong doing in this manner, unless there's unknown political pressure from somewhere that we don't know about.


----------



## Gunner

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/11/20/grizzlies051120.html



> Canadian armoured vehicles start arriving in Darfur
> Last Updated Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:54:08 EST
> CBC News
> The first of 105 Canadian armoured personnel carriers have arrived in Darfur, as part of a $170-million Canadian effort to support African Union peacekeepers in the troubled west Sudan region.
> 
> INDEPTH: Sudan
> 
> One of the 105 Canadian armoured personnel carriers, nicknamed Grizzlies, sits after arriving in Darfur.
> There was little fanfare as some of the vehicles â â€œ known as "APCs" or "Grizzlies" â â€œ rolled out of a Ukrainian transport plane and into the hot sun in Al Fashir in Darfur on the weekend.
> 
> They're expected to make a big difference in helping the African Union soldiers enforce a truce between government-backed militias and southern rebels in a harsh desert landscape the size of France.
> 
> *Sen. Romeo Dallaire â â€œ a former general who is part of Canada's special advisory team on Sudan â â€œ praised the vehicles and said they would have helped greatly when he was leading the UN peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide.*
> 
> "Instead of running around in an open vehicle and potentially [being] totally at risk of being shot at ...these APCs will give them that protection," Dallaire told CBC News.
> 
> He predicted the extra sense of security would make the peacekeepers bolder in pursing their mandate.
> 
> The Grizzlies, which are armed with heavy and light machineguns, should be all in active use by January. It is costing the federal government $15.5 million to rent the cargo planes and it is expected to take about a month to move all of the vehicles, spare parts and ammunition into Sudan.
> 
> They are part of an African Union rapid-reaction force that also includes 25 Canadian-leased helicopters.
> 
> Earlier delivery of APCs might have saved peacekeepers, envoy says
> 
> African Union troops began training on the Grizzlies in July in Senegal and they were meant to start arriving in late September.
> 
> Instead the vehicles sat in Senegal for three months because the Sudanese government wouldn't let them into the country.
> 
> Sudan's government said they feared the southern rebels â â€œ who say the Arab-dominated government is oppressing black Africans in the country â â€œ would get their hands on them.
> 
> Ambassador Baba Gana Kingibe, the African Union's special envoy for Darfur, questioned the high cost of that delay as the first Grizzlies were unloaded.
> 
> Four Nigerian peacekeepers were killed in October, allegedly by government-backed Arab militants known as Janjaweed.
> 
> "Had we had these APCs in the time that they were scheduled to have been delivered, I wonder if we could not have saved the lives of four of our comrades."
> 
> The 7,000 African Union troops are presiding over a shaky ceasefire between rebels in Darfur and the Janjaweed.
> 
> The Janjaweed are accused of conducting a kind of ethnic cleansing that has claimed tens of thousands of lives and forced two million people from their homes over two years.
> 
> Despite regular peacekeeping patrols, the violence has flared in recent months with regular attacks on aid convoys, villages and refugee camps.
> 
> A man in the Otash refugee camp in South Darfur told CBC News that he had fled a Janjaweed raid on his village two weeks ago that left 43 people dead.
> 
> He said that when he tried to return to his home, accompanied by AU peacekeepers, militants attacked again.
> 
> *Some questions have been raised over the APCs, which are old â â€œ dating to the 1960s â â€œ and will need a lot of maintenance in the hot, dusty environment.
> 
> But the African Union peacekeeping mission has drawn widespread international praise for its work under difficult conditions and it's hoped that the APCs will help them put an end to the militias and their attacks.
> 
> "I don't think they have any equipment that can face the APCs," said Maj.-Gen. Festus Okonkwo, who commands the African Union Mission (AMIS) in Darfur. *
> 
> "Most of them go in on horses and camels and I don't think they will be able to withstand AMIS troops in such circumstances."



Hmm, wonder if MGen Festus Okonkwo will still think the Grizzly is good the first time a RPG is fired at it.  Maybe I'm just being cynical.


----------



## TCBF

Did we give them the .50 cals and C6s for the turrets?

Did we give them the up-armour packs we used in Bosnia?

Radios?

What about an echelon? - Mrts, ammo fuel, rats, water, connsumables trucks...?

Ambulances?

Command posts?

Huskies for Recovery?

I hope we set these guys up to succede.

Tom


----------



## Cloud Cover

If the Husky is the "tow truck" version, there were a few in todays news video's. I didn't see any weapons fitted to the Grizzly turret. 
Cheers.


----------



## KevinB

> Sen. Romeo Dallaire â â€œ a former general who is part of Canada's special advisory team on Sudan â â€œ praised the vehicles and said they would have helped greatly when he was leading the UN peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide.
> 
> "Instead of running around in an open vehicle and potentially [being] totally at risk of being shot at ...these APCs will give them that protection," Dallaire told CBC News.
> 
> He predicted the extra sense of security would make the peacekeepers bolder in pursing their mandate.
> 
> The Grizzlies, which are armed with heavy and light machineguns, should be all in active use by January. It is costing the federal government $15.5 million to rent the cargo planes and it is expected to take about a month to move all of the vehicles, spare parts and ammunition into Sudan.



 :   So this half baked moron is in favour of arming the tinpot dicators of the AU - but wants to ban former CF soldiers from doing private security contracts  ???  -- hmmm let me offer an opinion on which venture is more likley going to indiscrimately kill, rape, and maim...

 :blotto:


----------



## AmmoTech90

My little bit of crystal ball gazing...


> Posted on Army.ca, 21 Nov 2015 by Innocent Newb-
> 
> Captured Canadian Grizzly- In Sudan?
> 
> Hi I've just seen some pics of what looks like those old APCs we had in the 80s.  It was used crushing some riots in Sudan.  I was wondering if we had lost any in Rwanda or Eritrea?  Anyone know the story behind this.





> Reply by Infanteer (posts 1,030,459)
> 
> Use the search function, this was discussed by AT90 in 2005


----------



## Infanteer

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Reply by Infanteer (posts 1,030,459)



Your ball is a little off - I'm slated to be there next June....  :dontpanic:


----------



## pbi

I don't want to be negative about uor aid to a truly desperate situation, but we had a hell of a time keeping those vehicles on the road when they were in Canada, with fully equipped maintenance organizations and semi-reasonable access to the remaining stocks of spare parts. Short of cannibalization, I wonder how the AU force will keep these old things running. I hope we are not going to have an embarassing scene in a few weeks when the VOR rate goes through the ceiling, and AU turns to us to sort it out.

Cheers


----------



## TCBF

Then they better not break anything on a weekend, or their screwed!   ;D

Tom


----------



## KevinB

[cynic on]

 You have to use them to have them fall apart[/cynic of]

 Do we really expect the UA to do anything?   They have a hard time guarding food convoys let alone a "mechanized" infantry force.

More bang for our buck -- pay a PMC unit to do the mission


----------



## enfield

pbi said:
			
		

> we had a hell of a time keeping those vehicles on the road when they were in Canada, with fully equipped maintenance organizations and semi-reasonable access to the remaining stocks of spare parts. Short of cannibalization, I wonder how the AU force will keep these old things running.



Seems to describe most of the vehicles on the road in Africa, and likely most of their military fleets as well. Having seen the Bus Depot in Maputo, Mozambique, I have faith Africans can keep anything running. 

I'm waiting to see Grizzlies start popping up (in various colours and with various changes) all over Africa. The Grizzlies can join the M16A1's, G3's, FN's, T-55's, GAZ jeeps, and MiG-21's that arm the continent. Old weapons don't fade away in Africa, they just get recyled. 
Isn't Botswana flying our old fighters?


----------



## old medic

True enough:

http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/fighters/freedomfighter/index.php

The following aircraft were sold to Botswana:

705, 716, 719, 723, 727, 732, 734, 754, 764, 765, 784, 801, 802, 811, 829, 830


----------



## pbi

Enfield said:
			
		

> Seems to describe most of the vehicles on the road in Africa, and likely most of their military fleets as well. Having seen the Bus Depot in Maputo, Mozambique, I have faith Africans can keep anything running.
> 
> I'm waiting to see Grizzlies start popping up (in various colours and with various changes) all over Africa. The Grizzlies can join the M16A1's, G3's, FN's, T-55's, GAZ jeeps, and MiG-21's that arm the continent. Old weapons don't fade away in Africa, they just get recyled.
> Isn't Botswana flying our old fighters?



Hmmmm.having been in Mozambique myself, I have to admit that you do have a point. But..."running" is one thing (with blue smoke spewing everywhere, parts tied on with wire, cardboard or wood replacing bodywork, and odd-sized tires, moving at 12kmh) and being a serviceable AFV is quite another. From what I saw in 93, a goodly part of that fleet of old "orphan" AFVs spends its time on blocks rusting away.

Cheers


----------



## Blunt Object

I was watching the news this morning and caught something about the African Union dicussing handing over peace keeping responsibilities in Darfur to the U.N.. If that what do you guys think the likely hood of Canadas involvement in it will be. I often hear discussions about us going to Africa next. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Armymedic

Sudan has repeatedly told the UN it does not want non african soldiers in its country, but they will take any money we are willing to give them....we won't be going there peacefully any time soon.


----------



## sneak and peek soldier

I agree with Armymedic.....if we go in there it wont be because they wanted us to it will be because we had to..


----------



## BKells

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060408/canada_darfur_060408/20060408?hub=TopStories



> Canada's Dallaire to review UN Darfur plan: CTV
> 
> Updated Sat. Apr. 8 2006 11:40 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> The United Nations will soon ask Sen. Romeo Dallaire to review a peacekeeping plan for Darfur -- something that could mean deploying more Canadian troops there, CTV News has learned.
> 
> "It needs not developing country's troops, it needs developed countries troops," Dallaire, who witnessed the 1994 Rwandan genocide firsthand while commanding handcuffed UN troops, told CTV News about the Darfur situation.
> 
> "It needs troops from the northern countries, it needs troops from middle powers like Canada."
> 
> MPs from all parties gathered this week to express sadness and horror at the ongoing violence that has killed more than 200,000 people and created more than three million refugees.
> 
> "As we gather here in Ottawa, mass atrocity and impunity continue in Darfur," Liberal MP Irwin Cotler said.
> 
> They issued a call for action, and it's one that Prime Minister Stephen Harper may act on.
> 
> "We have given that some preliminary consideration. We haven't reached any final decision," Harper said.
> 
> "This obviously is something that would have to be worked out in concert with all of our allies including the United States and others."
> 
> Canada has about 50 soldiers in Darfur acting as advisors or otherwise providing support to African Union troops. In addition, Canada has sent about 100 armoured vehicles.
> 
> Dallaire thinks Canada can and should do more.
> 
> "Does it have enough depth now to handle another mission? My estimate is yes but it doesn't have any more room after that," he said.
> 
> The government has not yet asked military officials to plan for an increased presence in Sudan, but that could soon change.
> 
> The UN releases its Sudan action plan on April 24, and that plan will likely call for more peacekeepers.
> 
> "We welcome the initiative to develop a plan, that as on the 60th anniversary of the whole concept of peacekeeping which emerged right here from Canada, that Canada's prepared to move from 33rd place in participation to a more significant role," NDP Leader Jack Layton said Friday.
> 
> With a report from CTV's David Akin


----------



## MG34

IMHO,we should stay out of Africa entirely,that continent is a quagmire of nil returns.


----------



## George Wallace

> "We welcome the initiative to develop a plan, that as on the 60th anniversary of the whole concept of peacekeeping which emerged right here from Canada, that Canada's prepared to move from 33rd place in participation to a more significant role," NDP Leader Jack Layton said Friday.



That is a rather interesting statement for Jack Layton to make.  He welcomes the initiative to develop a plan to move from 33rd place in participation to a more significant role, at the same time saying we shouldn't be in Afhanistan.  :clown:  

:argument:


----------



## pbi

I'm sure Jack is hoping that those nasty Americans will not be involved in Darfur, so our deployment will be morally acceptable to that crowd of knee-jerk anti-Ameicans who seem to form a large part of his constituency. I wonder how Jack and his friends will deal with the first time Canadian troops blow away some of the predatory types who are causing the problems there. But, I suppose that the bright side of this is that even the NDP has come to learn that the employment of armed forces is a legitimate and important part of a country's foreign policy and its status in the world.

Cheers


----------



## geo

Jack is not a member of the party in Power..... he can bloody well say whatever he wants. He does not have to back up anything he thinks or says...... NDP will forever be all over the place.


----------



## tomahawk6

Blackwater offered to send a brigade of peacekeepers to Darfur at a Special Ops Conference. Excerpt:

"Amman, Jordan — J. Cofer Black, vice chairman of private security firm Blackwater USA, astonished Special Forces representatives gathered here from around the world with a proposal to use his company as an army for hire.

“It’s an intriguing, good idea from a practical standpoint, because we’re low-cost and fast,” he said March 27 during the 2006 Special Operations Forces Exhibition and Conference. “The issue is, who’s going to let us play on their team?” 

Black said he struck upon the idea about a year ago after watching several populations suffer because no one was willing to go in and help. He used the Sudan as an example.

“About a year ago, we realized we could do it,” he said. “I just got tired of watching people not really do anything. It’s heartbreaking.” "


----------



## MarkOttawa

The Globe's Norman Spector in his column today writes:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/globe234.htm

"...They [MPs] will no doubt press the government on the amount of time we will be in Afghanistan; the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, has raised the possibility that it could be as long as 10 years, and other estimates go as high as 14. And parliamentarians will want to know whether Ottawa has an exit strategy; that is, how the government will know when Canadian troops have accomplished their mission...

This evening's debate will also provide an opportunity for Parliament to examine the exact nature of Canada's national interests in Afghanistan. If, on the other hand, we're there for humanitarian reasons, MPs will be able to raise another conflict calling out for international attention, in Darfur province of western Sudan, where many believe genocide is occurring..."

For all those demanding that Canada "do something" in Darfur, surely the questions about the duration of a mission and an exist strategy are at least as relevant to Darfur as they are to Afstan. And equally hard to answer.

He also quotes on his website from a Washington Post story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900957.html?referrer=email

"The Bush administration has settled on the idea of sending up to several hundred NATO advisers to help bolster African Union peacekeeping troops in their efforts to shield villagers in Sudan's Darfur region from fighting between government-backed Arab militias and rebel groups, administration officials said...

The proposal, which still faces uncertain approval within NATO because of concerns that it could be a distraction from operations in Afghanistan, falls well short of more aggressive measures that some have advocated, such as sending ground combat troops or providing air patrols to protect peacekeepers and prevent the bombing of villages. These options have been ruled out as unnecessary at this time, an administration official said..."

Now this seems to me like the evil Bush trying to suck NATO members (including Canada if our do-gooders have their way) into a quagmire without UN Security Council approval (China and Russia are unlikely to approve any effective action in Darfur) and against the will of the government of Sudan (which almost certainly would oppose any NATO presence).

Moreover, as the Globe's John Ibbitson pointed out in a piece April 7 (full text not online):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060407.IBBITSON07%2FTPStory%2FNational%2Fcolumnists&ord=3745032&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

"People who know the region well [Jan Pronk, the UN's leading envoy to Sudan], warn that imposing a European or American intervention force will only unite all factions in opposition to the intruders and spawn a new swarm of jihadists."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/02/wsudan02.xml&site=5

Sounds like intervention (even if only in a support role) might just make matters worse and lead to an increase in terrorism (just as those opposed to the interventions in Iraq and Afstan say has happened in those countries as part of their reason for opposing the Western military operations there).

Surely in these circumstances the conclusion must be, for those opposed to--or even questioning--our mission in Afstan, that any substantial Canadian military mission to Darfur would be madness.

But somehow I doubt that conclusion will be reached by our chattering classes since Canadian foreign policy debate is conducted not on any rational basis but rather simply on the basis of emotion (bleeding heartism often combined with anti-Americanism) and partisanship. Arguments which are raised in one case are not even mentioned in a potential parallel one.

Mindless.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

Many thoughtful, respected, even eminent Canadians have spoken out in favour of, at last, a Canadian parliamentary debate to consider what to do about Sudan’s Darfur region.  Several politicians have joined in.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan pleads with the world – although, in reality his pleas are aimed at the US led ‘West’ and China – to _do something_ (anything) to try to ensure that Darfur does not become “another Rwanda.”  In a recent _Globe and Mail_ opinion piece  (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060410.CORWANDA10/TPStory/?query=caplan) Canadian public intellectual Gerald Caplan says:



> Twelve years after perhaps a million defenceless Rwandans were slaughtered for the sin of being Tutsi, Rwanda's genocide has at last become widely known. As people around the world commemorated the recent anniversary, the phrase "Another Rwanda" joins the wildly ignored "Never Again!" to reflect the world's apparent abhorrence of genocide -- the ultimate crime of crimes. Anyone who thinks this augurs well for the future of humankind is dead wrong.


And


> Yet, three years after the Darfur crisis erupted, the world's reaction remains pitiful. The all-powerful permanent members of the UN Security Council -- China, Russia, the U.S., France and Britain -- have perfectly good reasons of crass self-interest to allow hundreds of thousands of Darfurians to die, countless women to be raped, millions forced to flee to squalid camps.
> 
> Three years after it exploded, the situation in Darfur continues to deteriorate drastically. "Another Rwanda," indeed.
> 
> What are the real lessons of Rwanda and Darfur? They are surely inescapable. Those of us who demand interventions on humanitarian grounds -- in Rwanda, Darfur, northern Uganda -- will continue to be ignored. When Western powers do intervene, we can be sure that dubious geopolitical and hegemonic interests are the driving force. We'll have many more Rwandas. We can count on it.



Senator (LGen (Ret’d)) Romeo Dallaire suggests that Canada should *and can* send troops to Darfur under a new, improved UN mandate.

As others have pointed out here in Army.ca (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42028/post-364349.html#msg364349 ), much of our operational manning problem lies in some CSS elements – many scarce, skilled technical experts are needed just to _sustain_ the current operations.  Those are exactly the people most needed by the UN (or anyone else) to mount and conduct successful operations in Darfur.

I think Caplan is right when he talks about Western (and Chinese) _perfectly good reasons_ to avoid Darfur:

1. The American led West is, for the most part, tied up – militarily and diplomatically – in the Middle East and (much more importantly) Central Asia;

2. China has its own _perfectly good reasons_ to oppose any UN or UN sanctioned actions in Sudan; and

The “solution” to Darfur is, most likely, a general war (of conquest) in Sudan.  The Darfur problem is a _domestic_ matter for Sudan and I, personally, cannot see a “solution” which does not require a new government in Khartoum.  I’m not sure that Canadians would or should support _regime change_ for Sudan any more that they did (or should) support _regime change_ in Iraq.  I’m not sure Spain or Italy or Singapore or New Zealand or any other OEDC nation would be willing (and able) to _sign on_ to any UN sanctioned mission in Sudan which had any realistic prospect of success.

I agree that our Parliament should debate Sudan, and Africa in general, as part of a thorough, public review of our foreign policy.  I think our Parliament should conclude that the _Responsibility to Protect_ doctrine advanced and championed by Canada is ill considered and too dangerous to implement - because it is ill considered and, therefore, 99.99% to obey the _law of unintended consequences_.


----------



## GAP

Has China ever participated in any UN mandated missions??


----------



## geo

GAP said:
			
		

> Has China ever participated in any UN mandated missions??




Uhhh......Korea?


----------



## Edward Campbell

GAP said:
			
		

> Has China ever participated in any UN mandated missions??



This (nearly 18 months old) is from People's Daily and is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://english.people.com.cn/200412/27/eng20041227_168796.html


> Six Chinese servicemen died in UN peacekeeping operations: white paper
> 
> In the past 14 years, six Chinese servicemen lost their lives and dozens wounded in United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations, says a white paper issued by the Information Office of the State Council on Monday.
> 
> China has consistently supported and actively participated in the peacekeeping operations that are consistent with the spirit of the UN Charter, and will continue to support the reform of the UN peacekeeping missions, hoping to strengthen the UN capability in preserving peace, says the white paper titled China's National Defense in 2004.
> 
> According to the white paper, China has sent 3,362 military personnel to 13 UN peacekeeping operations since its first dispatch of military observers to such operations in 1990.
> 
> At present, 845 personnel from the People's Liberation Army are working in eight UN peacekeeping task areas, including 66 military observers, three staff officers at the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, and personnel in engineering, medical and transportation units to Congo (Kinshasa) and Liberia.
> 
> Since January 2000, China has sent 404 policemen to the peacekeeping operations in six UN peacekeeping task areas, the white paper says.
> 
> China devotes itself to promoting international security dialogues and cooperation of all forms in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, says the white paper.
> 
> In recent years, China has intensified strategic consultation and dialogues with countries concerned in security and defense fields, and vigorously pushed forward the building of a security dialogue and cooperation mechanism in the Asia-Pacific region.
> 
> The nation has also established military relations with more than 150 countries in the world, says the white paper.


----------



## Koenigsegg

How about China being on our side?

I don't Korea is a good example of that, I think the Americans' butts still hurt from the first bit of their involvement in that war.

If they would just bloody help us out, it could seriously help calm down and cool relations with them.

**Edit**  Woops, for once I did not read the post before mine, terribly sorry.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Piper: You might like to look at this guest-post at "Daimnation!"

"The Grizzly road to Darfur" (Nov. 18)
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005238.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## KevinB

I cant see anything good coming out of a force in Darfur.
As Edward mentioned above their are two options 1) a force that does nothing 2) a force that changes the gov't and destroys the janjaweed.

If #2 is chosen it will (IMHO) further alienate the African and Muslim/Moslem world.

I hate to say it - as I am a large interventionalist - but I do NOT think this is a well spent use of Canadian power.

IMHO (and a more cold blooded approach) would be to equip the Rebels (Christians) and send in SF teams from the West to train their forces (FID).  Keep the force capabiltiy levels similar between both factions - and then partitian the nation.


----------



## Kirkhill

Khartoum is 680 km from salt water.

Darfur is 1480 km from salt water and you have to go past Khartoum to get there.

US Navy is not going to be able to supply a lot of support.

Countries neighbouring southern Sudan are: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Democratic Republic of The Congo,  Central African Republic and Chad.

Chad is the nearest mounting base but it is land locked and 1500 to 2000 km from salt water.  It would be necessary to fly over Libya, Nigeria or Sudan to get there.

The Chad border is 2-300 km from the Darfur camps as I understand it and the nearest mounting base in Chad is a town of 95,000 known as Abeche.

EnCarta has this to say about Abeche.



> Abéché is in a sheep-raising and farming area and has a meat packing plant. The town was the capital of both an independent sultanate in the 16th century and the Wadai kingdom in the 19th century. Abéché was a notorious slave-trading center for Arab and North African slave systems for roughly 300 years.
> 
> © 1988-1998 Microsoft and/or its suppliers.  All rights reserved.



Given that Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, the Congo, and the Central African Republic are all rather "fragile" right now the only other mounting base would be Kenya.  The Kenyan border is 1500 km from Darfur and 1100 km from the port at Mombasa with limited or no direct road access.

By comparison Qandahar is waterfront property.


----------



## GAP

Why does anything good have to come out of stopping the janjaweed in the Darfur area other than allowing people to live? 

At some point the UN has to grow something resembling a spine. All I have seen in the last year has been related to how Sudan has continually blocked UN aid to the darfur region, in one form or another, meanwhile the janjaweed continue the genocide. Just stopping the genocide would be a good first step, and if they have to step on some Sudanese toes in the process, so be it. 

There are already UN African peacemakers/keepers assigned to Sudan, but it seems they don't want to upset the regional politics by forcing their way in, therefore they need someone with no Vested Interest other than humanitarian to lead.

Maybe it doesn't need to be Canada specifically, but a composite of western/European forces heading it up, preferably with some "Muslim" nations picking up the slack. If the majority of wealthy Muslim nations want to be recognized for something other than their natural resources, then they too have to start having some major input into helping out the nations with an Islamic population.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree with you entirely on the need for something good GAP.  It should be enough to stop the killing.

But if the locals don't respect borders and can't bring themselves to challenge their own rebels that cheerfully ignore said borders,  if they can't bring themselves to act against a humanitarian crisis, what makes you think that they will accept any outsiders coming in.

I venture that any member of the OECD,  the wealthy western nations, would be viewed with suspicion as having vested interests, even Canada. Remember we have had our own oil companies in the area and the Muslim community generally seems reluctant to let outsiders intervene.

Where do you find 





> someone with no Vested Interest


?

Without the buy-in from at least one of the neighbours, somebody willing to upset any and all of the rest of the neighbours by joining with an outsider, how could you mount and sustain a long-duration operation?  Just think of the troubles the Americans are having in Iraq or the Brits have in Northern Ireland.  It doesn't take many bodies to create confusion and the area necessary to patrol is immensely greater.


----------



## GAP

my bad...forgot about the Canadian Oil Companies.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Some background on the difficulties facing intervention:

"Darfur: Preston Manning provides a corrective to John Ibbitson's do-gooding hubris" (April 7)
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006211.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Taylor187

Would I be totally out of line to sugest that the UN should hire on a PMC *cough*Blackwater*cough* to go in, and protect civilian interests/kill ak wielding janjaweed? Train the local christians who are getting slaughtered, donate some milsurp from south of the boarder then go from there.

It has been said already in this thread, putting a wrench in the early stages on a country wide genocide by killing off the janjaweed would go along ways to fixing the problem without throwing idiotic ammounts of money at it.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just out of curiousity, but how is this different than bombing the hell of Belgrade to get the Serbians to stop murdering Bosnians in places where we couldn't put boots on the ground?  Are the Darfurians somehow worth less than the Bosnian Albanians?  Or is the Arab Government in Khartoum not as responsible for this genocide as the Serbians in Belgrade?

Or is this another example of us having different sets of rules for dealing with muslims "because they might get upset with us"?


Matthew.  ???


----------



## Kirkhill

You could be right Matthew, but I hope you're wrong.

I think one of the differences militarily is that the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia could be followed up by a ground force.  In addition the aircraft could launch from the Adriatic and Aviano in Italy requiring a flight of only 400-600 km each way, some portion of which was secure territory.  That is about the distance into Khartoum from the Red Sea but the people we want to protect are another 900 km beyond that.  What do we do if the guys in Khartoum run TOWARDS the refugees and away from the sea?


----------



## pbi

I think it's because the ghosts of Somalia and Rwanda have not yet gone away enough for a Cdn Govt to contemplate a real "boots on the ground" A**-kicking mission yet. Those ghosts have louder voices than the ghosts of the janjaweed's victims.

Second, we are (helloo-o!) heavliy committed to trying to do a good job in Afgh: all the advice the military has offered Cdn govts in the last few years is to stop spreading us around so thinly. 

Finally, I think there is some uneasiness about the possibility that mostly white Canadian soldiers might be seen killing mostly black opponents, even if  the opponents are actually partially or mostly Arabic. Too much like the "bad old days of colonialism". Much better that Africans slaughter each other.

Cheers


----------



## MarkOttawa

This guest-post at "Daimnation!" might be of interest:

"Darfur update: Somebody please tell Jack Layton about this"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006239.html

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Pikache

I dunno about you guys, but when I see this sort of EVIL happening and no one in the world seems to give a damn enough to do something about it, I get mad.

Forget the politics for a second. Are the people of Darfur's lives worth less than any other lives in this world?

What is our humanity really worth then?


----------



## Kirkhill

HF: 

Wanting to do something and being able to do something are not the same thing.

I think most folks here WANT to do something but it seems to be an open question as to what can be done....and, as importantly, what can be done effectively.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Dallaire commenting on Darfur............"Danger Will Robin danger danger".....( for those of you too young to remember that its hard to explain) remember the last time that guy had anything to do with troops and africa. We dont need his comments on any military subject except how to.....na forget that, no subject.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I don't know about the rest of you, but after the sustained whining from several directions, I'm looking forward to:

1) A parliamentary debate on our aims in Darfur, and
2) A vote at the end of said debate

prior to any commitment.  I want to know what conditions will be deemed "success; bring the troops home" and more importantly, I want to know how much time and many lives lost the Opposition parties will accept before they start muttering about bringing the troops home.  And the House had better damn well be full for as long as the debate takes.


----------



## geo

(3rd.... it's Will Robinson)


----------



## Armymatters

I respect the heck out of Romeo Dallaire for what he has done under the circumstances when he was in Rwanda. What is happening in Darfur is similar to what has happened in Rwanda, and Dallaire is pretty much the best person we have to review our plans.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Not so sure a go now???

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Coyright Act (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409).

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/13/oconnor060413.html

Canadian military won't be taking on new assignments: defence minister
CBC News Online, Last Updated Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:52:09 EDT 

''Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says the military won't be taking on any additional overseas commitments in the near future, in spite of recent discussions over whether Canada should be more involved in the Darfur region of Sudan. 

*"I have apprehension of how we do this commitment, take on other commitments, transform and regenerate the armed forces at the same time," O'Connor said Thursday. "We can maintain the commitment in Afghanistan into the future if the government chooses to do so, but we will be greatly challenged to take on any substantial commitment anywhere else offshore." * 

*O'Connor told reporters at CFB Petawawa that the Conservative government will limit overseas military operations to Afghanistan, and that Canada's military needs to be rebuilt, which requires the work of top personnel. * 

*O'Connor said the priority is to improve the military through recruitment and training. Prime Minister Stephen Harper echoed that sentiment on Thursday. 

"There's no doubt that the current size of the Kandahar mission has put a significant strain on the military," he said. "We're committed to building up the forces. that's something that will happen over time." * 

Harper has said the military will stay in Afghanistan after the February deadline, but it's not clear how many troops will be kept on. 

(...)


----------



## Edward Campbell

In today’s _Globe and Mail_ Sen. Romeo Dallaire discards his decades of military service and judgment to launch a totally partisan (Canadian) political crusade advocating Canadian military participation (through SHIRBIG, at last) in Sudan.

Dallaire is wrong, dangerously (to the lives of Canadians) wrong.

There is no room for Western forces in Sudan.

The Americans (Powell and Rice) are right: what is happening in Sudan is the beginning of genocide.  It is racially motivated genocide to boot.  Arab Muslims are trying to wipe our black African Muslims and animists.  The issue is race, not religion.

If it is a genocide then doesn’t the doctrine of _Responsibility to Protect_ (R2P) require Canada to act?

Leaving aside the fact (and it is a fact) thatR2P is just about the dumbest thing the UN did since the nonsensical, farcical UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights* and is equally _valid_, R2P does not provide any justification in international (law and) custom for its position.  China, rightfully, opposes it and all its potential consequences.

Sudan is fast becoming a Chinese protectorate and we, all of us in the West, should turn the entire problem over to the Chinese.

A genocide, a crime against humanity, is underway.  Something *does* need to be done but we, the West, have not the _means_ to do much and not doing enough may do more harm than good.

China has the ways and means to sort out Sudan.  It might, probably would be the best thing to happen to that poor, sad country since 1956 (when the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan _condominium_ was disbanded).

Canada has a major, long term and *vital* commitment in Central Asia.  Canada should increase its commitment to Afghanistan – by adding tactical air forces and increasing the strength of its army combat forces – and it should _sign on_ for the long term: decades, not just a few months or years.

Prime Minister Harper: Senator Dallaire is wrong; dangerously wrong.  Tell Canadians that and tell them why and tell them what _diplomatic_ actions Canada will take to get the right people to _do the right thing_.

Senator Dallaire’s article follows; it is reproduced under the Fir Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060505.wxcodarfur05/BNStory/specialComment/home


> There's no time to wait
> 
> *ROMÉO DALLAIRE*
> 
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> 
> Is the Canadian government trying to step quietly away from the tragedy unfolding in Darfur? It seems so, despite urging by youth and community groups, NGOs and parliamentarians of all political stripes that Canada step up its role in the area, where an estimated 180,000 people have been killed and millions displaced to camps where conditions are appalling. Two years ago, with Rwanda still fresh in our minds, we did not answer the call to protect millions of Darfurians being "ethnically cleansed" in their villages and homes.
> 
> Despite all the signs that the violence in Darfur now is escalating, the only significant action taken by the new Canadian government has been the disbandment of Canada's Special Advisory Team on Sudan (SATS).
> 
> The non-partisan work carried out by SATS, whose members included Senator Mobina Jaffer, Ambassador Robert Fowler and me, was an important signal to the Canadian public and the international community that Canada was serious about supporting the pursuit of peace, security and development in Africa.
> 
> Now, Canada has relegated its response to the crisis in Sudan to a departmental level -- an abrupt, backward step whose significance is not lost upon the international community nor upon those who seek to sow discord in the region.
> 
> The situation in Darfur has reached a critical juncture. After two long years of negotiations between the rebel groups and the government of Sudan, the soon-to-be-signed peace agreement promises to be a significant step forward. But the ray of hope it represents is clouded by Sudan's tumultuous history and faltering international commitment.
> 
> The people of Sudan have known little peace in their lifetimes. A civil war ravaged the south for 21 years, leaving an entire generation to know only refugee and displaced-persons camps as their homes. While a peace deal signed last year officially ended this conflict, its implementation has been halting and slow. Violence continues and there is little or no infrastructure to support the return of displaced persons looking to start their lives over.
> 
> Since 2003, Darfur, in the West of Sudan, has been the site of unimaginable human suffering. Despite a so-called ceasefire signed in April of 2004, violence continues to plague the region. Humanitarian conditions are frightening, with bandits stealing supplies and driving aid workers out of areas where help is most desperately needed. Women and girls suffer horrifying sexual and gender-based violence. The government and the rebels continue to violate the ceasefire, with the government's proxy militias, the janjaweed, the worst offenders.
> 
> The United Nations and the African Union are currently in the planning phase for transferring the Darfur mission to an urgently needed UN mandate. We must ensure the force is mandated appropriately under the UN's Chapter 7 provision enabling it to enforce the Darfur peace agreement, protect civilians and take pro-active measures to prevent breaches of the agreement.
> 
> The concept of operations must revolve around a highly skilled and fully equipped, core ground force that is supported by approximately 20,000 troops -- two battle groups for each of Darfur's eight subregions.
> 
> The UN Multinational Stand-by High Readiness Brigade for United Nations Operations, or SHIRBRIG, is the ideal core force for the task. This multinational brigade-size force of about 4,000 troops was created to provide a rapid deployment capability of up to six months. Canada is one of a dozen Western powers that have signed on as a full participant to SHIRBRIG, a Danish initiative. It provides a highly trained force with operational experience, efficient command and control, and credible deterrent capabilities when needed.
> 
> SHIRBRIG's signatory countries must provide equipment such as command and control, armoured personnel carriers, unmanned aerial vehicles and air defence systems, which would make SHIRBRIG the force commander's reserve or the "force de frappe". This core force must be supported by a large observation capability, the bulk of which should be provided by developing countries from the region and abroad.
> 
> The African character of the force must be retained through its commander if the force is to be legitimate in the eyes of the population and the government of Sudan. The 7,000 African Union forces currently deployed in the region should be integrated into the UN force, providing much needed experience and sensitivity to the nuances of the land and its people. Simply put, the transition from AU to UN must be done in a spirit of reinforcement rather than a takeover.
> 
> Last July, I called for the planning of a UN transition to start immediately, but neither the UN nor the AU was ready. We know it takes between six and nine months to get a force in the field when there is little infrastructure to rely upon, and up to a year for the force to be at full capacity. The urgency of the current situation means delay and indecision would be fatal.
> 
> Canada must play a lead role as a resolute middle power to ensure that there is sufficient political will to enforce the peace treaty and see this mission through. It is critical that Canada exert concerted political energy to head off Russian and Chinese vetoes in the UN Security Council. Similarly, Canada must persuade the government of Sudan to grant entry and free movement to this Chapter 7 mandated UN force.
> 
> Finally, Canada must demonstrate its commitment to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine it has endorsed by supporting the United Nations in this mission -- by providing not only resources and expertise but, most importantly, boots on the ground. A reinforced battle group of approximately 1,500 soldiers, with a sizable transport capability for return and humanitarian support, should be Canada's contribution to a robust UN mission to bring peace and stability to the region.
> 
> We Canadians pride ourselves on our history of peacekeeping and our dedication to multilateralism, but we are currently ranked 50th in contributions to UN missions. We continue to refuse UN leadership jobs for our senior officers, robbing them of the opportunity to gain command experience. Many in the international community are asking whether we have given up and pulled out of peacekeeping. This trend must be reversed and our role clarified.
> 
> The atrocities being committed in Darfur, and the inhuman conditions in which people live, are beyond our comprehension here in the Western world. When we hear references to three million people being homeless and subjected to continual violence, it becomes almost abstract. But these are three million souls, humans equal in every way to you and me.
> 
> It is time we in Canada started to live up to our high-minded rhetoric and make a comprehensive and long-term commitment to protecting these besieged and destitute individuals.
> _Senator Roméo Dallaire is a retired lieutenant-general and former commander of the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda._



Dallaire fails to mention that just a year ago he agreed that Canada could not and should not send military forces to Sudan; but that was then and his Liberals were in power and this is now and his party is on the ‘outs’ – he is playing partisan politics with the lives of Canadian soldiers.  For shame!

----------

*  See the last dozen or so 'rights' in the Universal Declaration.  Is anyone in his or her right mind really ready to send Canadians to fight and die for two weeks of paid vacation?  What rubbish!  And to think that (ignorant) Canadian school teachers tell impressionable youngsters that the UN Declaration is a good thing, about which Canada should be pride.  Nonsense.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Edward Campbell: You might like to look at these guest-posts at "Daimnation!" (and the internal links):

"Darfur: Sen Roméo Dallaire is in cloud cuckoo-land"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006419.html

"Darfur: More Canadian lunacy; international callousness"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006360.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Centurian1985

Canadian involvement in Sudan would be a ticking political time-bomb waiting to happen.  It would pit the Canadian government (and other western countries) against the Sudanese Muslim government with the Sudanese government able to play the 'anti-Muslim card' at any time they chose to.


----------



## Britney Spears

Couple of points: 

1) Despite what the Western media tries to portray it as, BOTH sides of the Darfur conflict are largely black in skintone and Muslim in religion. Christians and Animists are certainly disadvantaged and persecuted in other parts of Sudan, but they do not live in Darfur. "Arab" in Sudan is a class descriptor, used to describe wealthy coastal sedentary peoples as opposed to nomaidc pastoralists in the interior and has little to do with skintone or race, although the warring factions are largely divided along tribal and ethnic lines.  <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict>Wikipedia cite, more independent sources availible upon request</a>



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Although the large majority of resultant refugees are non-Arab black Africans fleeing Arab Janjaweed attacks, [3] there are also Arab victims and non-Arab perpetrators. In addition, both sides are largely black in skin tone, and the distinction between "Arab" and "non-Arab" common in Western media is heavily disputed by many people, including the Sudanese government. Moreover, these labels have been criticized for describing the conflict as one of purely racial motivations, where some experts instead attribute the causes to competition between farmers and nomadic cattle-herders who compete for scarce resources.
> ...
> The true division in Darfur is between ethnic groups, split between herders and farmers, and the tribes gave themselves the label of "African" or "Arab" based on what language its members speak and whether they work the soil or herd livestock. Also, if they attain a certain level of wealth, they call themselves Arab.




2) China?!

If I'm not mistaken, The complete extent of Chinese experience in overseas intervention has been 1 engineer bn in Lebanon under UNFIL, another in the Congo also under the UN(MONUC?) mission, and 1 engineer bn with some light inf force protection in Cambodia (UNAMIC?) in the early 90s, plus some odds and ends police and mil observers. All of these, perhaps except Haiti, would have been complete coffee tours for us. They're about in the same league as Norway or Italy in terms of foreign intervention capability. The Chinese have no troops in Sudan and I can't see any way they can get any there any time soon. "Chinese protecterate?" The Chinese goverment might have some economic leverage in Khartoum, through the state oil company, but no more than the US or UK. I think if we were not in Afghanistan already WE would be able to mount a much more effective intervention than China can possibly dream of in the near future.


----------



## Centurian1985

Ref Sudan, the level of extremism in the government is defined by their attempts to implement Sharia law throughout the entire country, not just in the capital.  This was a key point in the last agreement between the government and Christian insurgents in the east and south of the country (that eventually failed due to the death of the Christian faction leader).  The dispute between the government and the 'Animists' (as they have been labelled) in the west (Darfur) is seen as a seperate issue, which as you pointed out is reportedly due to race not religion.  

Britney, Ref China, not all missions are UN-sanctioned; missions by China have occurred in many other countries besides those two, especially through a military 'advisory' or observation capacity.


----------



## Britney Spears

> Britney, Ref China, not all missions are UN-sanctioned; missions by China have occurred in many other countries besides those two, especially through a military 'advisory' or observation capacity.



So does Sweden, and Bangladesh, who have probably done more. This board has collectively more experience in operations overseas in adverse conditions than the Chinese do.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The Chinese have the silver,
Khartoum has the gold
(black that is).

And Beijing has the veto.
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006315.html

All she wrote.  Unless a scheme can be presented that protects Chinese interests whatever happens to the current Khartoum regime.

We have to recognize that Beijing could not care less (even if we think we do) to dead people in Africa--or anywhere else.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## DG-41

> he is playing partisan politics with the lives of Canadian soldiers.



I could not possibly disagree more. To accuse Gen. Dalliare of playing partisan politics is beyond the pale.

DG


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

If Dallaire thinks we can send any meaningful contribution in the way of troops, how can I put this delicately.  He's still sufferning the effects of PTSD.


----------



## paracowboy

RecceDG said:
			
		

> To accuse Gen. Dalliare of playing partisan politics is beyond the pale.


then he should probably stop doing it.


----------



## Infantry_wannabe

I wonder why Dallaire would possibly want to send Canadian troops to Darfur, other than for simple Liberal partisan politics. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he watched hundreds of thousands of people killed with no response from the international community...No, certainly not. 

Despite his severe post-traumatic stress and suicide attempts he has suddenly forgotten all of that and decided to play petty partisan politics with human life? I find the smugness of some of you appalling. No matter what some of your experiences are, I guarantee none of you have the lives of 900,000 people on your conscience. Walk a mile in the man's shoes before you s--t on someone who has served the country and humanity so strongly. He did what he could when he had no support from the UN, from the international community, or even really his own country. For those of you who think he made bad decisions, as in an earlier post, I'm sure you could have done much better in your infinite wisdom. I hope you never have to feel such responsibility.

Regards.


----------



## a_majoor

The previous posters were just pointing out Gen Dallaire seemed to be "against" the idea when the Liberals were in power, but now seems to be "for" it now that the Conservatives are in power.

In military, logistical or strategic terms (i.e. affecting Canada's national interest), please point out the changes that took place after Prime Minister Harper was sworn in that makes Dafur either desirable or doable. Since, except for who is sitting in the Prime Minister's chair, nothing has changed, then the charge of playing partisan politics does seem very justified.


----------



## Kirkhill

Justified or not, is it necessary?

Like many of you I don't think Darfur is doable.  At the same time I am willing to accept that others may see movements on the ground amongst the warring parties that might give them cause to believe that things have changed.  I don't know enough to know one way or the other.

I do know that Infantry_wannabe has a point.  General Dallaire is carrying more demons than any of us can begin to imagine.  That alone earns him the benefit of the doubt as far as I am concerned.

We can disagree on the course of action and even disagree on the appreciation. I think we can also allow people to change their mind as situations change.  Do we have to go looking for motives other than the ones the man expressed?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Justified or not, is it necessary?
> ...



I think so or I would not have said it.

I have expressed myself before, here in Army.ca, on Dallaire and his misfortunes (including being badly used and abused by his military and political masters) and the former government’s *exploiting* his sympathetic celebrity status by e.g. musing, publicly, making him governor general and, eventually, appointing him to the Senate.  I’ll summarize: I know Dallaire well enough to stop for a very brief chat when, now and again, we bump into one another – we were _colleagues_ in Ottawa something like 25 years ago.  I admire him as a gifted trainer of troops – especially aspiring officers; I think he and Roche Carrier made CMR an outstanding small university back in the early ‘90s and a model for what military colleges could and should be.  I think his assignment to Rwanda was a mistake – one made, in part, because ‘they’ wanted a Francophone Lew MacKenzie.  I argued for leaving him alone to battle his demons – which I agree he has.

Romeo Dallaire decided, for his own good reasons, which I do not challenge, to enter the fray of public life.  He put aside any claims on our sympathy when he decided to trade on his rank and reputation for political purposes.  What else (beyond being a political forum) is the Senate of Canada?

His views on Darfur are of interest precisely because he was a lieutenant general and the _victim_ of Rwanda; that’s what gives him credibility.  I continue to contend that is trading on his past for partisan political purposes, as a-majoor said nothing has changed except the occupant of 24 Sussex Drive.  I think it is *good* politics, especially good Québec politics, for the Liberals to attack the Tories on Darfur but, ‘good’ or not, Dallaire’s article is part and parcel of a partisan political debate so I repeat: “…he is playing partisan politics with the lives of Canadian soldiers.”

He begins his article with: “Is the Canadian government trying to step quietly away from the tragedy unfolding in Darfur? It seems so, despite urging by youth and community groups, NGOs and parliamentarians …”  That’s partisan, so it is *necessary* to call him on it.


----------



## DG-41

> I admire him as a gifted trainer of troops – especially aspiring officers; I think he and Roche Carrier made CMR an outstanding small university back in the early ‘90s and a model for what military colleges could and should be.



I'm one of them: CMR 87-91

There are few officers from whom I have learned so much, and he is of VERY few who I would follow anywhere, unhestatingly, without question, because I trust his judgement and his ethics.

Nobody is pefect, and not every decsion he has made has been the right one - but he also faces his mistakes and admits them unflinchingly - and he learns from them and attempts to teach others the lessons he learned from his own mistakes. I trust that.

If Romeo Dallaire comes to me and says "I think Darfur is doable, and I need you to go" - then Darfur is doable, and I will drop everything and go.

To accuse him of playing partian politcs with the lives of soldiers is unspeakable.

DG


----------



## paracowboy

RecceDG said:
			
		

> To accuse him of playing partian politcs with the lives of soldiers is unspeakable.


 If he stopped doing it, we would stop speaking of it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Couple of points:
> 
> 1) Despite what the Western media tries to portray it as, BOTH sides of the Darfur conflict are largely black in skintone and Muslim in religion. Christians and Animists are certainly disadvantaged and persecuted in other parts of Sudan, but they do not live in Darfur. "Arab" in Sudan is a class descriptor, used to describe wealthy coastal sedentary peoples as opposed to nomaidc pastoralists in the interior and has little to do with skintone or race, although the warring factions are largely divided along tribal and ethnic lines.  <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict>Wikipedia cite, more independent sources availible upon request</a>
> ...



Quite right; thanks for clarifying that.  I would quibble, slightly, with 'coastal' - I think the rich, settled Sudnaese live in both the coastal and Nile basin regions.


----------



## Kirkhill

I yield to your closer sense of the man, Edward.

For those of us that are not so acquainted with him I don't know that it serves to go that road.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## paracowboy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> For those of us that are not so acquainted with him I don't know that it serves to go that road.


it is my duty, as a Jack, to stand up for my troops when they are getting screwed over. I will do so to my Sgt, WO, PL Comd, OC, and CO. Many times it is out of ignorance of a soldier's situation, and once brought to your superior's attention, it is addressed. Sometimes, it is not, and I will continue to press the issue. I will do so as politely as possible at first, but will not stop until I am out of legal options. This is no different.

He's screwing the troops for politics. It MUST be addressed.


----------



## a_majoor

Since RecceDG knows the man from personal experience, I will accept he is charismatic and can attract the loyalty and trust of his men, but I will side with Paracowboy here on this issue, it is my duty and responsibility as an NCO to look after the welfare of my men, and if a leader (or the leadership) is suggesting an unsound course of action, then I must point out the alternatives.

The danger here is Dallaire is not in any of our chain of commands, and we as serving members must follow the lawful orders of the government of the day. If he wields his influence to push the government into making an ill considered and unsupportable deployment, then the potential consequences are horrifying for all of us. Remember, except for the party in power, nothing substantial has changed in the strategic sphere (i.e. how does this affect our national interest), nor in our military ability to pull this off. If Gen Dallaire was making these statements as an opinion columnist (like Gen Mackenzie does from time to time) that would be one thing, but he is a Liberal Senator, so he is speaking from a different and privileged platform to influence public opinion and government policy.


----------



## DG-41

> Since RecceDG knows the man from personal experience, I will accept he is charismatic and can attract the loyalty and trust of his men



You make him sound like some sort of cult leader.

Gen. Dallaire didn't generate this kind of loyalty through personal charisma; he earned it the hard way, by demonstrating, time and time again, his overarching concern for the success of his mission, the welfare of his troops, and above all, the safety and security of the people under his protection.

We have discussed the Col. Grossman "sheep, wolves, sheepdog" metaphor before; Gen Dalliare is the King Daddy Sheepdog. The requirement to protect the sheep is integral to the man, all the way to the core of his soul.

His methods, his operational decisions, and his measure of success in completing his missions can be debated, but as far as I am concerned, his ethics are beyond reproach. I have never met any other officer for whom the military ethos was so completely internalized, and whose personal conduct served as the very example to be emulated. He set the bar the rest of us try and live up to.

To accuse him of partisan politics, especially in the context of the lives of Canadian soldiers, is to completely misrepresent the man's honour and integrity, and it so flies in the face of the man's history, that I am forced to conclude the accusation itself is a partisan act.

One of the things I have always admired about Gen Dallaire is his capacity to admit to his own errors, correct them, and carry on. If his position on Darfur has changed, then I conclude that he has revised his analysis and has adopted that new position based on that revised analysis. And note that I am not commenting one way or another on his initial or his revised analysis - Gen Dallaire is not omnipotent nor omniscient; he may make mistakes as readily as any other man.

But to assume that his position has changed for partisan reasons makes assumptions utterly in variance with reality, and I think projects the qualities of the accusers. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

DG


----------



## Edward Campbell

RecceDG said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> But to assume that his position has changed for partisan reasons makes assumptions utterly in variance with reality ...



Romeo Dallaire changed occupations.

He went from being a retired general officer, with all the prospects available for e.g. lobbying or playing a leadership role in non-partisan, non-governmental, public affairs, to being a working politician: a senator.  More power to him.  Politics is an honourable calling, it is public service of the highest order with its own prospects for leadership in public affairs.  It is also highly partisan, which did not offend Dallaire – he said, when he took the appointment, that he was a life long Liberal, from a family of Liberals.

I don’t pretend to know Dallaire’s current _*reality*_, but his change of opinion looks partisan and sounds partisan so I continue to assume it is partisan.

I don’t object to Senator Dallaire being a partisan politician but we need to recognize that the main reason he, as an untested legislator, gets _prime real estate_ in the national media because he was a lieutenant general and he is the _victim_ of Chrétien, Baril _et al_ and their Rwanda fiasco.


----------



## KevinB

The moralist in me wishes to see Western Troops in Darfur -- the realist in me stays STAY THE FUCK OUT...


I disagree on DG's assesment of Dallaire - I will leave it at that.


----------



## Journeyman

RecceDG said:
			
		

> There are few officers from whom I have learned so much, and he is of VERY few who I would follow anywhere, unhestatingly, without question, because I trust his judgement and his ethics.



I too worked for Gen Dallaire, when he commanded 5CMBG. And I too thought he was an excellent officer, tactical commander, and human being. The key to both those statements, however, is they are written in the past-tense. We've crossed paths several times since, including a rather lengthy discussion when he couldn't escape me on an Amsterdam-Toronto flight. He is not the same man he was, primarily due to the demons he will likely always carry. Even if his opinion on the mission was not tainted by partisan politics, which it clearly is, he is not the dispassionate, rational observer most suited to make such a judgement.



			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> If Romeo Dallaire comes to me and says "I think Darfur is doable, and I need you to go" - then Darfur is doable, and I will drop everything and go.



I suspect the judgement will be couched more in hand-wringing terms of "something _must_ be done," rather than any sort of straight-forward "Darfur is doable." 

Darfur, however, is _not_ doable given the realities of the CF's current strength/capabilities _and_ the Canadian population's support for such an operation. If Canadian troops are told to get on with it, they will. They will fail, but the government will find some positive aspect in order to declare it a success. Committing troops to Darfur will certainly force a weakening of our efforts in Afghanistan, increasing the peril of that mission's success as well. And the people who are predisposed to dislike the military will point at the CF and proclaim "why were _they_ allowed to drag Canada into these situations?"


----------



## MarkOttawa

Jack Layton and Dawn Black of the NDP want Canada to reduce the Canadian Forces' mission in Afghanistan in order to do "traditional peacekeeping" in Darfur: "Get soldiers out of Afghanistan, into Darfur" (full text not online):
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=98c09cca-ca71-473e-a1f2-c952eacede01

Mr Layton says ""Canada invented the concept of UN-led peacekeeping forces under (former prime minister Lester B.) Pearson 60 years ago in order to protect people in very difficult situations like you see in Darfur..."

Mr Layton is clearly not aware that the UN's Suez peacekeeping mission (UNEF)--Pearson's concept--had nothing to do with protecting people. Its mission was simply to place troops between two armed forces, the Israeli and Egyptian, in order to discourage a resumption of hostilities.

And according to the story Ms Black said "...once Canada fulfils its Afghan commitment in February, it should look at returning to a more traditional peacekeeping role in a place like Darfur."

The story also notes that "Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire, the former general who led the doomed UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, has called for Canada to play a lead role in a proposed 20,000-member UN peacekeeping force."

Clearly Ms Black is unaware that what most of those urging intervention in Darfur--including Sen. Daillaire--want is no such thing. Rather they want a UN Charter Chapter VII force with a mandate to take action and use force on its own: in other words "peacemaking" (as in Afghanistan) rather than "traditional peacekeeping".

How ironic that such nonsense would appear on VE Day--a day that is a reminder of a real tradition. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## DBA

There is zero chance of the UN sanctioning any direct action in Darfur as they have declared it not a genocide and several veto holding countries will block action anyway. Since the Liberals held the UN as the moral authority on such issues while condemning the US in Iraq it's very hypocritical to now suggest something has to be done even if it's outside UN approval. Typical sanctimonious liberal crap. "I know when I am right so I can ignore the rules for the greater good but you must follow them as breaking them is evil" is how I view this line of liberal reasoning. It's an easy trap to get into as you do know your own intentions but not those of others. If you feel superior to others and never analyse your viewpoint then this self serving contradiction doesn't even seem a problem.

Dallaire may be hoping the Conservatives will follow a more US approach to the UN and ignore the lack of a UN mandate for direct action.


----------



## a_majoor

Why listen to Senator Dallaire when Mark Steyn sums it up so much better?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,19056736-7583,00.html



> Mark Steyn: *New coalition of willing needed in Darfur*
> Hollywood stars are naive to expect the UN to stop the bloodbath in Sudan
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 08may06
> 
> I SEE George Clooney and Angelina Jolie have discovered Darfur and are now demanding "action". Good for them. Hollywood hasn't shown this much interest in indigenous groups of the Sudan since John Payne and Jerry Colonna sang The Girlfriend of the Whirling Dervish in Garden of the Moon (1938).
> 
> I wish the celebs well. Those of us who wanted action on Darfur years ago will hope their advocacy produces more results than ours did. Clooney's concern for the people of the region appears to be genuine and serious. But unless he's also serious about backing the only forces in the world with the capability and will to act in Sudan, he's just another showboating pretty boy of no use to anyone.
> Here's the lesson of the past three years: The UN kills.
> 
> In 2003, you'll recall, the US was reviled as a unilateralist cowboy because it and its coalition of the poodles waged an illegal war unauthorised by the UN against a sovereign state run by a thug regime that was no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders, which it killed in large numbers (Kurds and Shia).
> 
> Well, Washington learned its lesson. Faced with another thug regime that's no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders which it kills in large numbers (African Muslims and southern Christians), the unilateralist cowboy decided to go by the book. No unlawful actions here. Instead, meetings at the UN. Consultations with allies. Possible referral to the Security Council.
> 
> And as I wrote on this page in July 2004: "The problem is, by the time you've gone through the UN, everyone's dead." And as I wrote in Britain's Daily Telegraph in September 2004: "The US agreed to go the UN route and it looks like they'll have a really strongish compromise resolution ready to go about a week after the last villager's been murdered and his wife gang-raped."
> 
> Several hundred thousand corpses later Clooney is now demanding a "stronger multinational force to protect the civilians of Darfur".
> 
> Agreed. So let's get on to the details. If by "multinational" Clooney means a military intervention authorised by the UN, then he's a poseur and a fraud, and we should pay him no further heed. Meaningful UN action is never gonna happen. Sudan has at least two Security Council vetoes in its pocket: China gets 6 per cent of its oil from the country, while Russia has less obviously commercial reasons and more of a general philosophical belief in the right of sovereign states to butcher their own.
> 
> So forget a legal intervention authorised by the UN. If by "multinational" Clooney means military participation by the Sudanese regime's co-religionists, then dream on. The Arab League, as is its wont when one of its bloodier members gets a bad press, has circled the camels and chosen to confer its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on Khartoum by holding its most recent summit there.
> 
> So who, in the end, does "multinational action" boil down to? The same small group of nations responsible for almost any meaningful global action, from Sierra Leone to Iraq to Afghanistan to the tsunami-devastated Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia and on to East Timor and the Solomon Islands. The same core of English-speaking countries, technically multinational but distressingly unicultural and unilingual and indeed, given that most of them share the same head of state, uniregal. The US, Britain, Australia and Canada (back in the game in Afghanistan) certainly attract other partners, from the gallant Poles to the Kingdom of Tonga.
> 
> But, whatever international law has to say on the subject, *the only effective intervention around the world comes from ad hoc coalitions of the willing led by the doughty musketeers of the Anglosphere.* Right now who's on the ground dragging the reluctant Sudanese through their negotiations with the African Union? America's Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick and Britain's International Development Secretary Hilary Benn. Sorry, George, that's as "multinational" as it's gonna get.
> 
> Clooney made an interesting point a few weeks ago. He said that "liberal" had become a dirty word in America and he'd like to change that. Fair enough. But you're never going to do so as long as your squeamishness about the projection of American power outweighs your do-gooder instincts.
> 
> The American Prospect's Mark Leon Goldberg penned an almost comically agonised piece fretting about the circumstances in which he'd be prepared to support a Bush intervention in Darfur: Who needs the Janjaweed when you're prepared to torture your own arguments the way Goldberg does? He gets to the penultimate paragraph and he's still saying stuff such as: "The question, of course, is whether the US seeks Security Council support to legitimise such airstrikes."
> 
> Well, no, that's not the question. If you think the case for intervention in Darfur depends on whether or not the Chinese guy raises his hand, sorry, you're not being serious. The good people of Darfur have been entrusted to the legitimacy of the UN for more than two years and it's killing them. In 2004, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan took decisive action and appointed a UN committee to look into what's going on. Eventually, they reported back that it's not genocide.
> 
> Thank goodness for that. Because, as yet another Kofi-appointed UN committee boldly declared, "genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated". So fortunately what's going on in the Sudan isn't genocide. Instead, it's just hundreds of thousands of corpses who happen to be from the same ethnic group, which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone's dead, at which point the so-called "decent left" can support a "multinational" force under the auspices of the Arab League going in to ensure the corpses don't pollute the water supply.
> 
> What's the quintessential leftist cause? It's the one you see on a gazillion bumper stickers: Free Tibet. Every college in the US has a Free Tibet society: There's the Indiana University Students for a Free Tibet, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Students for a Free Tibet, and the Students for a Free Tibet University of Michigan Chapter. Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet. Idealism as inertia is the hallmark of the movement.
> 
> Those of us on the Free Iraq-Free Darfur side are consistent: There are no bad reasons to clobber thug regimes, and the postmodern sovereignty beloved by the UN is strictly conditional. At some point, the Left has to decide whether it stands for anything other than self-congratulatory passivity and the fetishisation of a failed and corrupt transnationalism. As Alexander Downer put it: "Outcomes are more important than blind faith in the principles of non-intervention, sovereignty and multilateralism."
> 
> Just so. Regrettably, the Australian Foreign Minister isn't as big a star as Clooney, but I'm sure Downer wouldn't mind if Clooney wanted to appropriate it as the Clooney Doctrine. If Anglosphere action isn't multinational enough for Sudan, it might confirm the suspicion that the Left's conscience is now just some tedious shell game in which it frantically scrambles the thimbles but, whether you look under the Iraqi or Afghan or Sudanese one, you somehow never find the shrivelled pea of The Military Intervention We're Willing To Support.
> 
> Mark Steyn is a regular contributor to The Australian's opinion page.



So yes, we and our friends in the Anglosphere may be the only ones willing to take effective action in Dafur, but as a practical matter, we as the Canadian Forces do not have the wherewithal to make it happen, nor will we for years to come. Since Senator Dallaire knows this as well as anyone (and far better than most of his fellow senators), he should be very careful in his pronouncements about what we "should" be doing.


----------



## Centurian1985

Sadly, this hilarious comedic piece has done a better job of summing up the situation than most any academic with a political science background...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I'm liking this Mark Steyn fella.


----------



## Journeyman

Yes, he seems like a typical, shy, understated Aussie


----------



## Old Sweat

Mark Steyn is a Canadian.


----------



## Journeyman

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Mark Steyn is a Canadian.



Yet one _more_ thing I didn't know...or was wrong about. Thanks for that.


----------



## artsy

sorry.......the u.s has everything to do with darfur.....and the genocide.......they trained to them and supplied them with weapons......get educated people


----------



## George Wallace

Two posts artsy girl and you are starting to look a lot like Pike.  If you insist on Trolling, your existence here will be eradicated with extreme prejudice.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

artsy said:
			
		

> sorry.......the u.s has everything to do with darfur.....and the genocide.......they trained to them and supplied them with weapons......get educated people


     Get educated?  Darlin', my family has been soldiering in Africa off and on for the last three hundred years.  We did not have to teach them genocide, that is the reality of tribal warfare.  We did not have to arm them, the traditional tools for genocide in Africa are muscle powered, not precision guided.  There are no outdated weapons.  A rock will still crush a skull, a blade will still cut a throat, and when you are facing defenceless women and children you do not need a tank.  Africa has sunk all the way back to the way it was when we colonized it in the first place; a few small islands of order in a sea of poverty and pain.  I know you want to blame the US and shadowy corporate figures for all the evils in the world; but child, most of us have met these evils, and they were old before the first coin was struck, and will continue on long after capitalism goes the way of the dinosaur.
     PS, if you want to be takes seriously.  Use the shift key to make the big letters just like the grownups do ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

artsy said:
			
		

> sorry.......the u.s has everything to do with darfur.....and the genocide.......they trained to them and supplied them with weapons......get educated people



I don't know what kind of mind altering chemicals these guys and Layton are taking, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





but I hope their using cat sanitation. Whatever it is, it's to powerful to be released unimpeded into our water system when it runs off the rope their pissing up.


----------



## The Wrong Guy

artsy said:
			
		

> sorry.......the u.s has everything to do with darfur.....and the genocide.......they trained to them and supplied them with weapons......get educated people



Ok. Please support these statements with facts, if you can, and not hearsay. If not, then where have you been getting your education from?

What do Peace and Freedom mean if they are not shared ?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

artsy said:
			
		

> sorry.......the u.s has everything to do with darfur.....and the genocide.......they trained to them and supplied them with weapons......get educated people



Here you go artsy, a little light reading on the Darfur...


Matthew.   

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,19056736-7583,00.html


> *Mark Steyn: New coalition of willing needed in Darfur*
> Hollywood stars are naive to expect the UN to stop the bloodbath in Sudan
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> May 08, 2006
> 
> I SEE George Clooney and Angelina Jolie have discovered Darfur and are now demanding "action". Good for them. Hollywood hasn't shown this much interest in indigenous groups of the Sudan since John Payne and Jerry Colonna sang The Girlfriend of the Whirling Dervish in Garden of the Moon (1938).
> 
> I wish the celebs well. Those of us who wanted action on Darfur years ago will hope their advocacy produces more results than ours did. Clooney's concern for the people of the region appears to be genuine and serious. But unless he's also serious about backing the only forces in the world with the capability and will to act in Sudan, he's just another showboating pretty boy of no use to anyone.
> 
> Here's the lesson of the past three years: The UN kills.
> 
> In 2003, you'll recall, the US was reviled as a unilateralist cowboy because it and its coalition of the poodles waged an illegal war unauthorised by the UN against a sovereign state run by a thug regime that was no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders, which it killed in large numbers (Kurds and Shia).
> 
> Well, Washington learned its lesson. Faced with another thug regime that's no threat to anyone apart from selected ethnocultural groups within its borders which it kills in large numbers (African Muslims and southern Christians), the unilateralist cowboy decided to go by the book. No unlawful actions here. Instead, meetings at the UN. Consultations with allies. Possible referral to the Security Council.
> 
> And as I wrote on this page in July 2004: "The problem is, by the time you've gone through the UN, everyone's dead." And as I wrote in Britain's Daily Telegraph in September 2004: "The US agreed to go the UN route and it looks like they'll have a really strongish compromise resolution ready to go about a week after the last villager's been murdered and his wife gang-raped."
> 
> Several hundred thousand corpses later Clooney is now demanding a "stronger multinational force to protect the civilians of Darfur".
> 
> Agreed. So let's get on to the details. If by "multinational" Clooney means a military intervention authorised by the UN, then he's a poseur and a fraud, and we should pay him no further heed. Meaningful UN action is never gonna happen. Sudan has at least two Security Council vetoes in its pocket: China gets 6 per cent of its oil from the country, while Russia has less obviously commercial reasons and more of a general philosophical belief in the right of sovereign states to butcher their own.
> 
> So forget a legal intervention authorised by the UN. If by "multinational" Clooney means military participation by the Sudanese regime's co-religionists, then dream on. The Arab League, as is its wont when one of its bloodier members gets a bad press, has circled the camels and chosen to confer its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on Khartoum by holding its most recent summit there.
> 
> So who, in the end, does "multinational action" boil down to? The same small group of nations responsible for almost any meaningful global action, from Sierra Leone to Iraq to Afghanistan to the tsunami-devastated Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia and on to East Timor and the Solomon Islands. The same core of English-speaking countries, technically multinational but distressingly unicultural and unilingual and indeed, given that most of them share the same head of state, uniregal. The US, Britain, Australia and Canada (back in the game in Afghanistan) certainly attract other partners, from the gallant Poles to the Kingdom of Tonga.
> 
> But, whatever international law has to say on the subject, the only effective intervention around the world comes from ad hoc coalitions of the willing led by the doughty musketeers of the Anglosphere. Right now who's on the ground dragging the reluctant Sudanese through their negotiations with the African Union? America's Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick and Britain's International Development Secretary Hilary Benn. Sorry, George, that's as "multinational" as it's gonna get.
> 
> Clooney made an interesting point a few weeks ago. He said that "liberal" had become a dirty word in America and he'd like to change that. Fair enough. But you're never going to do so as long as your squeamishness about the projection of American power outweighs your do-gooder instincts.
> 
> The American Prospect's Mark Leon Goldberg penned an almost comically agonised piece fretting about the circumstances in which he'd be prepared to support a Bush intervention in Darfur: Who needs the Janjaweed when you're prepared to torture your own arguments the way Goldberg does? He gets to the penultimate paragraph and he's still saying stuff such as: "The question, of course, is whether the US seeks Security Council support to legitimise such airstrikes."
> 
> Well, no, that's not the question. If you think the case for intervention in Darfur depends on whether or not the Chinese guy raises his hand, sorry, you're not being serious. The good people of Darfur have been entrusted to the legitimacy of the UN for more than two years and it's killing them. In 2004, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan took decisive action and appointed a UN committee to look into what's going on. Eventually, they reported back that it's not genocide.
> 
> Thank goodness for that. Because, as yet another Kofi-appointed UN committee boldly declared, "genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated". So fortunately what's going on in the Sudan isn't genocide. Instead, it's just hundreds of thousands of corpses who happen to be from the same ethnic group, which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone's dead, at which point the so-called "decent left" can support a "multinational" force under the auspices of the Arab League going in to ensure the corpses don't pollute the water supply.
> 
> What's the quintessential leftist cause? It's the one you see on a gazillion bumper stickers: Free Tibet. Every college in the US has a Free Tibet society: There's the Indiana University Students for a Free Tibet, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Students for a Free Tibet, and the Students for a Free Tibet University of Michigan Chapter. Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet. Idealism asinertia is the hallmark of the movement.
> 
> Those of us on the Free Iraq-Free Darfur side are consistent: There are no bad reasons to clobber thug regimes, and the postmodern sovereignty beloved by the UN is strictly conditional. At some point, the Left has to decide whether it stands for anything other than self-congratulatory passivity and the fetishisation of a failed and corrupt transnationalism. As Alexander Downer put it: "Outcomes are more important than blind faith in the principles of non-intervention, sovereignty and multilateralism."
> 
> Just so. Regrettably, the Australian Foreign Minister isn't as big a star as Clooney, but I'm sure Downer wouldn't mind if Clooney wanted to appropriate it as the Clooney Doctrine. If Anglosphere action isn't multinational enough for Sudan, it might confirm the suspicion that the Left's conscience is now just some tedious shell game in which it frantically scrambles the thimbles but, whether you look under the Iraqi or Afghan or Sudanese one, you somehow never find the shrivelled pea of The Military Intervention We're Willing To Support.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Another case of foot in mouth, or will DND refute the Liberals

 Wednesday » May 10 » 2006 

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act  

Contradictory signals on Canadian military role in Darfur
  
Mike Blanchfield 
CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen 


Wednesday, May 10, 2006



CREDIT: AFP/Getty Images/Jonah Fisher 
Freshly displaced Darfuris await the arrival of the UN relief coordinator Jan Egeland in the rebel held town of Gereida in southern Darfur, 07 May 2006. 

OTTAWA - The Canadian Forces told the Liberal government last year that they could provide troops to an international protection force for Darfur, apparently contradicting Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's assertions that the military is too stretched to help in the war-torn Sudanese region.

The revelation came as Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday that Canada has not been asked to contribute soldiers to a United Nations peacekeeping mission for Darfur, but stands ready to contribute humanitarian assistance.

Last year, prior to the federal election that drove them from power, the Liberal minority government of Paul Martin was briefed by the Armed Forces that it had the capacity to supply a reinforced battle group of up of 1,500 soldiers, with its own transport capability and an ability to provide humanitarian support.

The military recommendation came after a special task force comprising Liberal senators Romeo Dallaire and Mobina Jaffer, as well as former UN ambassador Robert Fowler, returned from a fact-finding mission to Darfur. The new Conservative government has since disbanded that advisory group.

"During our time, we were informed by the military that we could do two missions, not of the same size but there was room to do something," Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said in an interview.

On two recent occasions, O'Connor has cast doubt on the Force's ability to conduct another major international deployment of soldiers beyond Afghanistan. The first time was last month at CFB Petawawa, northwest of Ottawa, and more recently at an appearance before the Senate defence committee.

O'Connor said that with 2,300 troops in Afghanistan, the Forces are too stretched to send more army forces on another major foreign deployment, but he did leave open the possibility that Canada could contribute some form of naval support.

"I support the government when they say we can't do two missions of the same size, but I think definitely we can do something, a smaller mission (than Afghanistan). We should do that as part of a larger UN mission," said Dosanjh.

In the House of Commons, Harper was pressured by NDP Leader Jack Layton to contribute troops to a mission to Darfur to stop what he called E"genocide."

Harper said Canada has been consulting with its allies and the UN on what contribution the country can make to bolster the recent peace agreement, but that he does not expect a request for military personnel.

"We are expecting requests for assistance on governance and humanitarian assistance. At this moment, it does not appear that there will be any request for military assistance, but we stand ready to work with our international allies to improve the situation in Darfur," Harper told the Commons Tuesday.

Despite a recent peace agreement in the three-year Darfur conflict that has claimed an estimated 200,000 lives and rendered three million homeless, there has been no formal decision to deploy such a UN force.

But UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and U.S. President George W. Bush have said a more robust international force is needed to offer protection because a 7,000-member African Union force has proven ineffective.

Dosanjh said the fact that Canada has received no formal request for troops "gives us an out for the time being."

"I'm hopeful the prime minister left some room there. He did not actually rule out the possibility of a mission, a smaller mission," he added.

Ottawa Citizen

Memo: May be updated with Steven Edwards' file from UN EDS:May be updated with Steven Edwards' file from UN.

© CanWest News Service 2006








Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.


----------



## McG

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> OTTAWA - The Canadian Forces told the Liberal government last year that they could provide troops to an international protection force for Darfur, apparently contradicting Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's assertions that the military is too stretched to help in the war-torn Sudanese region.


This is because in order to achieve the growth directed by the Conservative Government, the soldiers that could have gone to Sudan will now be required to run courses & training.  So, what was said last fall & what is being said now are both true (though contradictory).


----------



## Brad Sallows

How small a force should we send?  Maybe if we plan it right we can send a force too small to have any useful impact, and the soldiers can come home to spend the rest of their lives dealing with memories of seeing it but being unable to stop it.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Perhaps aid can be delivered by one of the expensive tactical fighter squadrons from 30,000 feet, thus avoiding witnessing the misery.


----------



## TCBF

This Darfur thing requires the observations of some genuine heroes.  I would like to hear what some of our WW2 and Korean War vets have to say.  I have a lot of respect for well meaning politicians such as Senator Dallaire, but I recall fondly a time in this country when we chose our heroes from a list of soldiers who - even if they never got to WIN a battle - actually got to FIGHT one.

Tom


----------



## exsemjingo

How is Darfur worse than the rest of Africa?

I have met people from Sudan (ultimately refugees) personally, and must say that the situation is at least 10 years old.
Ideally, our troops would have been not only there, but in many, many other areas in Africa for a very long time.
We should be in Sudan, but not at the cost of our mission in Afghanistan, which is equally important.
The truth is, the Canadian public could not stomach the losses that would result from going to Darfur (though not excessive).
Secondly, we do not have enough troops to finish the mission.  Once again, this is because the Canadian public has not been willing to commit resources to the C.F.

Ideally we would have been in Sudan long ago, also Rwanda, have had more troops in Somalia, etc, etc, etc.
The values this country represents are better than what most citizens think.


----------



## TCBF

We talk the talk, but we don't fund the walk.

Tom


----------



## MarkOttawa

Excerpts from a brilliant column by Margaret Wente in the Globe today (full text not online):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060511.COWENT11/TPStory/National/columnists

'..
...Jack Layton wants to help Darfur, especially if it means we get to pull our troops out of Afghanistan to do it. "Let there be no doubt," he said in an emotional speech this week. "What we are seeing in Darfur is genocide in slow motion."

Mr. Layton wants to bring back the glory days of peacekeeping under the umbrella of the United Nations. The blue helmets will protect the innocent (if there are any left alive by then) from being raped and slaughtered, just the way they protected those 800,000 people in Rwanda. Even Roméo Dallaire now says the UN is the answer...

If sentiment were deeds and talk were action, Canada would be a hero...

Let no one say Canada hasn't seized the moral high ground on Darfur. Even if we don't have any troops to send, we can help in other ways. We can get Mr. Rock to talk sternly to Russia and China, who are stubbornly refusing to come around. And after the militias peacefully lay down their arms, we can send our experts to help write a constitution.

Unfortunately, I doubt Sudan's Omar Hassan Bashir is too worried yet. He knows his pals will stick up for him. China gets 7 per cent of its oil from Sudan, and in turn sells it weapons to arm its militias...

The Arab nations have been curiously mum about the Muslims dying in Darfur. Is it because they're the wrong kind of Muslims? Or is it because they're being slaughtered by other Muslims, instead of by Americans and Jews? The African Union isn't enthusiastic about Western meddling either. They're insulted that people think their own 7,000-man security force can't do the job -- even though it has been totally ineffectual. The Europeans, meantime, have mostly got out of the peacekeeping business. They'd rather stand back and denounce American imperialism...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060511/darfur_deployment_060511/20060511?hub=TopStories

CTV.ca News Staff

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that Canada could deploy more troops to the troubled Darfur region of Sudan if necessary, days after his defence minister warned that the army is stretched too thin to help in the war-torn nation. 

"This government stands ready and is in consultation with our friends in the international community to do whatever is necessary to advance the peace process in Darfur," Harper said Wednesday in the House of Commons.

"If that involves sending troops, that will be an option that we consider."

As recently as Tuesday, Harper said Canada stands ready to contribute humanitarian assistance, but did not expect any military requests from Darfur, where at least 180,000 people have died and another 2.4 million uprooted.

Politicians from all parties have urged the government to take a leadership role to stop further bloodshed in Darfur, where 100 Canadian soldiers are already serving as advisers to about 7,000 African Union troops.

But Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told a Senate committee on Monday that Canada's military can't take on any new overseas missions while it's trying to expand

"As long as we are expanding the armed forces, we will not be able to maintain two sort of heavy lines of commitment from the army," he said Monday while testifying before a Senate defence committee hearing in Ottawa.

Asked about the mixed signals from the two politicians, O'Connor's spokesman Etienne Allard told The Globe and Mail it would not be easy to do two large deployments at the same time.

"Minister O'Connor has been consistent in saying that, considering we have 2,300 troops in Afghanistan and the current state of the Canadian Forces, it would be very difficult to support another substantial overseas mission."

Decades of low-level tribal clashes over land and water in Darfur erupted into large-scale violence in early 2003.

The rebels took up arms, accusing the government of discriminating against the black residents of Darfur. 

The government is accused of responding by unleashing Janjaweed militias, who are blamed for the worst atrocities such as mass killing and rape, but it's a charge Sudan denies.

The Sudanese government has signed a peace deal with the major rebel group there and has indicated it would be open to UN peacekeepers getting involved.

Doesn't take a level 5 wizard to see this has got trouble written all over it.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Perhaps this is a way to get the other parties to publicly change their anti-military tune and in exchange for the PM taking a Darfur Mission to the UN, then the NDP will make a public declaration about the importance of our military in failed states and the need to increase funding so it can perform critical missions into the next century.

I can always hope, can't I?   ;D

In all seriousness, I think it would be a great opportunity to get rid of a large part of the "useful idiot" segment of our population, most of whom vote NDP.


Matthew.


----------



## Journeyman

Yet one more example of a headline catering to society that can't be bothered to read a _whole_ newspaper article.

Headline


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that Canada could deploy more troops to the troubled Darfur region of Sudan if necessary


Actually said in the House of Commons


> "If that involves sending troops, that will be *an option that we consider*."



These are not equal - - the "consideration" may show that  ~surprise~ the CF is stretched too thin to deploy a second, sustainable battle-group. But that wasn't the headline-writer's intent, now was it?   :


----------



## Bograt

Well said Journeyman.

I noticed today that Somalia was back on the news. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060511/security_somalia_060511/20060511?hub=World 



> Thursday in Somalia's capital as hundreds of families fled violence that has killed at least 122 people over five days.....The battle between the Islamic Court Union and the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism has centered on the northern neighborhood of Sii-Sii, with neither side gaining an advantage.... The International Committee of the Red Cross said two hospitals have admitted 184 wounded people, including 20 women and 22 children, and expressed concerns about "the consequences in humanitarian terms of the intense armed clashes."



Curious to know if the NDP or the Liberal Defence critic will jump on this "grenade" of an issue.


----------



## Kirkhill

Funny you bring up the bit about Headline Writers - an art form unto itself apparently.

Christie Blatchford wrote a column generally sympathetic to the Government's position on the "Return Ceremony".  In a long piece she wrote many paragraphs understanding the Government's position and supportive of the need to protect families and support the wishes of the troops.  She wrote one short paragraph understanding the position of the opposition.

The headline read something like Troops support Government position - But Harper is still wrong.  This prompted me to write to Ms. Blatchford.  In her reply she seemed to express chagrin that the headline did not reflect what she wrote.

A related art is placing a headline from one article in close proximity to a photograph from another story to create an entirely different impression.  Hypothetical situation: "Conservatives Debate Use of Nuclear Weapons" juxtaposed against a picture of an "Angry" Stephen Harper standing in the House on the front page.  Picture refers to a page 5 story about Harper defending more money for Natives.  Headline refers to British Conservatives.

Few people read newspapers.  Many people see what is "above the fold" staring out at them from the newspaper boxes scattered around the countryside like mini billboards.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Another Darfur headline to ponder, from (surprise) the Crvena Zvezda:

"Peacekeeping pledge broken"
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1147297813034&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

A stinging and well deserved shot at Layton from the Gazette. The last sentence is particularly poignant. Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act.

Thursday » May 11 » 2006 

Layton the Afghan opportunist
  
The Gazette 

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Jack Layton, trying to carve out a vote-winning foreign policy position for his party, has instead demonstrated just how pointless and useless the NDP's version of "soft power" really would be. Canadians should all be very glad Layton is not charting Canada's course in the world.

Just a day after a new poll showed many Canadians un-enthusiastic about the Canadian role in Afghanistan, Layton rushed Sunday to get ahead of the parade: Canada should cut back our Afghan commitment, he said, if that's what's necessary to provide resources to go into Darfur.

He's got the last part right, at least. For decades the NDP has watched cheerfully as successive Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments reduced defence spending as a proportion of Canada's gross domestic product. NDP security policy (www.ndp.ca/page/3018) says "total defence spending would not be reduced" but focuses mainly on foreign aid, Third World AIDS, defence department toxic dumps and "humanitarian and environmental support."

It's all very earnest but it hardly mentions actually military forces. Priorities would obviously move away from readiness.

So Layton is right: We're hard-pressed now to maintain our 2,300-strong force in Afghanistan. But why would the NDP want us to leave Afghanistan? What part of the Canadian role there does Layton reject? Support for democratic government? A bigger role for, and better treatment of, women? Suppression of Taliban fanaticism?
And if Canada did abandon the Afghan project - entered into by Paul Martin's Liberals and reconfirmed by Stephen Harper's Conservatives - how long could anyone trust us to stay in Darfur? Until Prime Minister Layton detects votes in some new headline-winning crisis?

And what exactly does the NDP imagine Canada could accomplish in Darfur, a region as remote and geographically forbidding as Afghanistan?

The NDP platform says the party would "commit Canadian troops to overseas operations only under the auspices of international peace and security organizations." But it will be a long time before the United Nations, that sink-hole of double standards and corruption, summons up the will to do anything in Darfur. NATO won't touch the place. The European Union doesn't want to know.

Any peace-making force for Darfur would need to be mainly African and/or Muslim. The African Union force there now is so pathetic that it has actually borrowed some vehicles from Canada. So what world body does Layton imagine Canada joining to ride to the rescue?
Layton's weekend speech played the nostalgia card, speaking of "peacekeeping." But Darfur is not Cyprus. The Khartoum government seeks to consolidate its control via ethnic cleansing or genocide, and seems indifferent as to which method it uses.

*That government's devotion to peace simply does not exist. Peace will have to be made and enforced, which can't be done by pious wishes.*

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2006

Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.


----------



## MarkOttawa

whiskey601: Well done.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Please post all replies to the "Canada to Darfur?" Editorial here.


----------



## muffin

I do not think that going to Darfur now would be a smart thing for us to do, although I am somewhat biased after having been personally affected by the outcome in Rwanada. As it has been stated a hundred times, we just do not have the equipment or the manpower for such a mission right now. 

The UN was promised to Sudan in February, and the Sudanese government objected. Has much changed since February? A peace agreement or 2?

Personally I am sitting on the fence over the issue, because I would hate to see the "Op tempo" increase to the point where men and women of the CF are suffering as a result, both professionally and personally. At the same time, though, it seems so terribly wrong to stand by and watch what is happening in the Sudan. 

The United Nations Panel has "found no genocide" in Darfur, but does refer to it as "Ethnic Cleansing." It is however, refered to as a genocide in the media. Angelina Jolie, herself a UN goodwill ambassador, has taken large ads out in magazines to ask for support and genocide intervention groups have become involved.  

As I recall, Rwanda's UNAMIR was not supposed to be this sort of mission either. Our (1CDHSR at the time)  boys were supposed to be in and out - set up comms and leave. 8 months later, after building numerous orphanages, several ambushes and a lot more death , they came home. This was all AFTER Dallair had already returned to Canada. It was decided later that yes, it had been a genocide, and yes they should have done more.

Following Rwanda the UN gave this statement :

_US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke said: "The prevention of another round of genocidal violence in central Africa is one of the core elements of US policy in the Great Lakes, and is one of the United Nations' greatest challenges."_ _(1)_

Rwanda saw 937,000 _(2)_ deaths. in Darfur they are reporting 70,000 - 400,000 depending on the source._(3)_ It is difficult to find a current, accurate count.

I don't envy Mr. Harper or Mr. O'Conner for the decisions they will have to make concerning Darfur. The political and social pressures they must feel, that all the while contradict with the strategic requirement to increase the CF strength, has got to make for at least a few ulcers.

I can also say as a military spouce, that the idea of my husband going to Africa frightens me in a way that no other mission could, but again that comes back to the bias I have towards African missions.

I do believe that if we allow for the growth within the CF to take place, then we would be in a much more stable position to offer our assistance if required. The question is, by then, will it be too late.


_______________

Works Cited: 

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm (15 April 2000)
2. http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/108117321274.htm (4 April 2004)
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6186-2005Feb7.html (8 Feb 2005)


----------



## MarkOttawa

David Rudd (Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies) advocates sending tactical helicopters (which seems to be the editorial's fall-back position if the government decides Canada simply must do something front line) in this column in the Globe and Mail, May 12: "Canada can play a role in Darfur -- just not a lead one" (full text not online).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060512.COTROOPS12%2FTPStory%2FComment&ord=19201566&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

Rick Salutin, the _Globe and Mail’s_ resident loose left wing nut, is not someone I would usually quote; I think is either unbearably ill informed or trying, intentionally, to mislead Canadians because he is the last guy who doesn’t know that the Cominform and Comintern collapsed.

But, now and again, as even the village idiot must, Salutin gets it right.  Here is an excerpt from today’s offering, about the horror (right word, I guess) that is the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, formerly just Congo and, sadly for everyone who ever lived there, the Belgian Congo.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060512.wxcosalutin12/BNStory/International/home 


> … The DRC just doesn't qualify {for international/UN, NDP or even Hollywood celebrity attention} under what seem to be the rules for widespread sympathy and humanitarian intervention. These are:
> 
> 1. There must be a genocide;
> 
> 2. There must be clear victims and villains;
> 
> 3 Act single-mindedly for the victims and against the villains;
> 
> 4. Ignore everything else.
> 
> In fact, the DRC is almost a contradiction to these rules since Rwanda, now one of the main illustrations of the schema, actually invaded the DRC and carried out massacres there itself. (I base this on the account by New York Times reporter Howard French.)
> 
> Darfur qualifies though, and I am not being snide. It is Darfur's luck to fit the current fashion for compassion. It might help them get some help. In the DRC, people appear to know they are less favoured. "What struck me most," says Helen O'Neill, "was that these people seemed to have no expectations of being helped." Hopeless and cynical then. But not foolish, or ill-informed …


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

The point is that, as I said in  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43032/post-379120.html#msg379120 (which the Ruxted Editors cited): 



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> Many Army.ca members have opined that the primary _utility_ of armed forces is to give the government of the day *options*.  To do that the armed forces must be capable of doing a certain range of tasks – decades, nearly four of them, of neglect and, occasionally, actual destruction of military capabilities have deprived the Government of Canada of many of its options.  Delaying the rebuilding of our military capabilities, even to help others to deal with a real crime against humanity, would a grave *strategic*_ error.
> 
> Darfur is bad; there will be worse.  The longer we postpone giving ourselves useful options the weaker will be our capability to respond.
> _


_

Not only should we ‘sit out’ Darfur, doing anything else will impede Canada’s capability to respond to the *equally bad/sad, maybe worse crises which will follow.*
_


----------



## MarkOttawa

Edward Campbell: regarding Congo, a useful piece in Der Spiegel (English), "Spectre of Civil War Haunts Congo":
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,415642,00.html

And note the skimpy EU peacekeeping effort:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,404976,00.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on Congo, "U.N. releases report on Congo forces":
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1105AP_Congo_UN_Army.html

'The United Nations reported an upsurge of rapes, killings and torture by Congo's security forces and warned that U.N. peacekeepers overseeing the postwar transition in the country could end their cooperation with the police and army.

Congolese troops and police committed some 1,200 of the 1,866 rapes investigated by the United Nations between April and December, the U.N. said in a report released Wednesday. Some 800 rapes were blamed on security forces during the same period in 2004, while the overall number of investigated cases was about the same...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'd love to see Canadian soldiers, American soldiers, UN soldiers or any other professional soldiers sent to Africa.

I can't argue stats or operational tempo or administrative problems because I don't have that info. I'm sure there are a million reasons we shouldn't go there.
We don't have heavy lift capabilities.
We can't even afford ammunition to train for the missions we are currently doing.
Hurting for NCOs, combat arms needs more man power, jets need upgrades, can't eat the honey from the rations, you name it.

All I know is the dreamer out of touch with reality part of me compares the shit going on in Africa with whats going on in Afghanistan and all I can do is say wow, I wish we could do something.  If people have it hard in Afghanistan imagine how people have it in the Sudan. 

Should we, say in the west, be responsible for policing, protecting, feeding the world?  Everyone is going to have their own opinion.  That out of touch part of me says yes.
Myself and I'm betting most of the soldiers I know would volunteer to go to Africa AFTER our tour to Afghanistan, back to back if need be.

The shit going on in Africa really justifies the quote (something along the lines of) one death is a tragedy, 100'000 is a statistic. And thats what we're facing isn't it? Wide scale death and suffering.

Canada's Forces is spread too thin. We can't juggle this or that. We can't afford the man power, we don't have the capability.
That isn't something new, that's been the story with the CF for how many years now?
I think the media, critics and nay Sayers really underestimate the average Canadians willingness to "do the right thing, regardless".

Going to Africa and saying the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people is the right thing, regardless.


----------



## tomahawk6

The West cannot solve the problems of the world. Starvation and genocide are tough to watch, but we lack the resources to get involved in all these places. I would rather see the UN outsource peacekeeping to private military companies. Blackwater for one has already propsed this. They felt they could create a brigade size force for such missions. If they got into trouble they could call on the USAF or USN to provide air support.


----------



## Kirkhill

Tomahawk 6- do you reckon that a Blackwater Brigade could do much more than secure a refugee camp for a short period?  What would it take to create a secure enough environment to let those people go back to their previous lives in their villages?


----------



## tomahawk6

What you seem to suggest is regime change and frankly we cant go to war with every cruel regime just because they abuse their citizen's. If we did what you propose then Drafur would become a state that would require a perm military presence to safeguard. I dont see the upside for the uS, Canada or anyone else. Of course the people of Darfur are free to take up arms and try to change their situation, which is what they are doing.


----------



## paracowboy

> Canada to Darfur?


can't be done.

If you look back through many of my posts, I was pushing for us to go in and kill janjaweed, provide security for Aid agencies, and remove the current Khartoum gov't. That was before my new job, and I got an in-depth look at how badly under-strength, and under-equipped, and over-tasked we are in the Arrrrmy. 

I want to go. I want to go more than anything. I want to visit righteous wrath upon the killers and rapists running amok. And I want me a monkey. (Are there monkeys in the Sudan?) But, it just can't be done without a huge commitment from better equipped nations to asist. (And to get us there in the first place.)

We don't have the transport, the logistics, or the bayonets. Any troops we could scrape together would be putting a band-aid on a cancer patient.

The very best I can see is to send DART, beefed up with spare medical types (if any can be found, which isn't likely, from what I'm told on the medic side of the house), and a company of bayonets from 3 PPCLI to provide security. The docs get to do their thing, the bleeding hearts get to imagine the CF is all fuzzy and cuddly (leaving us alone to do our thing - smoke and mirrors, baby!), the current government gets to say "Look! We're doing something.", and the company or so from 3 PPCLI that's providing security get to shoot janjaweed. Something for everyone!

Of course, DART only goes for 60 days. Meanwhile we scramble and fail to fill positions for a more prolonged mission, can't transport the pers or materiel we do find, and end up showing the Canadian public just what kind of pitiful shape the military is in, thanks to their continued support of a band of criminals in Parliament during the '90s.

Some folks get helped, the medical types get real-world practice, the troops from 3 PPCLI get trigger time, some janjaweed get dead, and the current Canadian government gets to say "Told ya so!"

Of course, we end up using the lives and deaths of thousands of people to prove a point. And that is reprehensible.

Better by far to just admit the truth. We've been largely de-fanged, and they haven't grown back yet.

Yet.


----------



## Kirkhill

Sorry for giving the wrong impression Tomahawk6.

I wasn't proposing regime change, although that may be the only answer to solving all the world's ills eventually.   That, as you point out, is not a realistic solution.  My question was more on the lines of what real value would even a Brigade serve?  I can see it securing a perimeter around a restricted area as a safe haven - but that would have to be held indefinitely and ultimately we end up creating a Gaza/Cyprus situation - interminable and irreconcilable.  I can also see it working with a generally permissive population to help them stand up a working army and police force but those projects seem to be going fairly slowly in Haiti/Afghanistan/Iraq and seem to be requiring a considerably larger force.

Creating a safe haven is important, but it seems that once the haven has been created it never goes away, the problems remain and more crises pop up elsewhere requiring more safe havens requiring still more forces.

As Ruxted says: something must be done and somebody really ought to do it.  But what?

In the absence of the second coming I understand the need to keep pegging forward, dealing with one problem at a time, but that means a constant clamour of "Why them, why not us?" from those that need to be saved.

Cheers, pessimistically.


----------



## Kirkhill

paracowboy, I can understand your frustration and agree that the forces need to be rebuilt.  My point though is that there is no force capable of resolving these issues (nor will humanitarians solve the problems).

If the US were not involved in Iraq I think that Darfur would still be a stretch for them.  And if the got involved there how about the rest of Central Africa, or West Africa, or Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, the Steppes, the Caucasus, Sahara, Himalayas....  These issues have to be resolved one at a time and/or by the people involved.  If they want to wait for the West to help them it seems to me it is going to take a while before we get to the bottom of our "honey-do" jar so we can get to them.

This is not an argument for doing nothing.  This is an argument agreeing with the "long war" concept.  But this is not necessarily a war against a government or a person.  It is more akin to the war against slavery - and that has been going on for centuries.


----------



## paracowboy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My point though is that there is no force capable of resolving these issues (nor will humanitarians solve the problems).


yeah, mine too. We can't do it. Plain and simple.

Maybe someday. Not yet.


----------



## tomahawk6

If we gave the green light to the PMC's I don't doubt that they could field 10,000 troops. The UN would give the mission contract to PMC X who would then act as the prime contractor and contract with PMC's to supply battalions under the direction of PMC X. I think PMC's are well suited to humanitarian type missions. If the decision was made to go into Zim, then that would be a job for a multinational force.


----------



## a_majoor

The Blogging Tories have picked up the editorial. BZ Ruxted Editor!

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/ 12 May 06



> Darfur: What can and should Canada do?
> An excellent analysis in an Army.ca editorial. The conclusion: ... The Ruxted Group agrees with an Army.ca member who said, recently, ”… the primary utility of armed forces is to give the government of the day options. To do that...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Two columns in the Toronto Star, May 13:

1) The sensible: "Darfur would be a mess, just like Afghanistan: Chances of success for our troops slim" by Thomas Walkom.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1147470610837&call_pageid=970599119419

2) The silly: "For Harper, it's either Darfur or Afghanistan: But does it have to be one or the other?" by Jim Travers.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1147470610832&call_pageid=970599119419

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Long in the tooth

It always seems to me that the folks moaning that "we must do something about Darfur!" never make the connection that it requires viable military force and ours must be rebuilt.  Most seem to live in some fantasy land where if we lament enough miracles will happen.

They're high on principles as long as someone else is pragmatic.


----------



## George Wallace

It's the McDonald's Generation.  They all figure that they just go into Mc's and get a Big Mac and leave.  Where the hamburger came from in the first place is of no concern of theirs.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It's the McDonald's Generation.  They all figure that they just go into Mc's and get a Big Mac and leave.  Where the hamburger came from in the first place is of no concern of theirs.



Kinda like my kids and money   ;D


----------



## TMM

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It's the McDonald's Generation.  They all figure that they just go into Mc's and get a Big Mac and leave.  Where the hamburger came from in the first place is of no concern of theirs.



And let's not forget what that impulse Big Mac turns into and where it ends up...


----------



## Kirkhill

I find this bizarre.  I am in agreement with Thomas Walkom.

As to Travers ..... he asks ..."is the military that weak.." that they can't do anything in Darfur?

Short answer. Yes.  And he needs to go ask his "prescient" buddy Paul why.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Kirkhill: I still want Travers et al. to explain:

1) How they are going to get Khartoum to agree to a UN force;
2) If Khartoum does not agree, how they are going to get China and Russia to forego using their vetos at the UNSC if someone proposes a Chapter VII "peacemaking" force (what MP Keith Martin and Sen Dallaire want Canada to promote);
3) How they are going to get countries with the assets (US, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, maybe Netherlands) to agree to provide the forces for an invasion of Sudan without UNSC authorization (a scenario that in other locales seems rather repellent to the Travers types); and
4) If Khartoum agrees to a UN Chapter VI "peacekeeping" force--something Khartoum might perhaps do--that would solve anything.  See: Bosnia, Croatia.

The intervention advocates simply refuse to think with any clarity.  They just spew platitudes based on emotion, while also trying to score political points.

A final thought: The US under Pres. Bush is the only major country that has been consistently pushing for effective action in Darfur.  If Canada were somehow in a position to offer forces in support of an American-supported intervention could it not be said (as Travers does of our mission in Afstan) that "Canadians are in Darfur to please Uncle Sam"?  Especially when the first Canadians are killed?

But I do not think Travers and his ilk have the brains--or intellectual honesty--to analyze anything realistically or to draw reasonable conclusions.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## North Star

What is disappointing in the Canadian press is the complete lack of analysis on the "peace" deal itself.

The Sudanese People's Movement/Army and Khartom government may have signed on, but that may actually mean very little. The Justice and Equity Movement (JeM) under the leadership of former a former Sudanese politician who was muscled out by Bashir, has refused to sign. None of their strategic goals have been addressed, and it appears will not be for the foreseeable future. It is therefore within their interest to collapse the deal and recapture international attention. Meanwhile, the level of control Khartom has over the Janjaweed militias hasn't really been assessed. Does Khartom actually have the "will" to "disarm" their former allies? Do the militias themselves feel satisfied with the results of the fighting? Probably not. 

So, we have one whole side left out of the deal, and another that can't seem to control it's own proxy forces. Now, throw in to this mix Al-Qaeda and the transnational Fundamentalist-Islamist movement. They are very hostile to the idea to any intervention and have even made declarations stating that should western forces show up in the Sudan, they consider it another "front" against the west. Given suspicions about the Janjaweed's cross membership in Al-Qaeda and the Mujaheedeen (cultivated during OBL's years in the Sudan), is it wise for us to get involved?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Someone needs to direct Ms. McQuaig to the editorial...yet more shockingly inaccurate commentary from "academics" and the press.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1147470613160&call_pageid=970599119419



> Surely we can spare 600 of our 18,000 troops to do what we do best — peacekeeping, says Linda McQuaig
> 
> May 14, 2006. 01:00 AM
> 
> Leaving aside politics, it's hard to imagine why Canada is sending troops to Afghanistan and not to Darfur.
> It's not clear what good we're doing in Afghanistan, where we're aggressively going after "scumbags" — according to our top general, Rick Hillier — as part of Washington's dubious "war on terror."
> Compare this to the life-saving role we could play in Darfur, in western Sudan.
> One can quibble over whether what's happening in Darfur is a genocide or just a series of massacres, but there's no disagreement that hundreds of thousands of people are at risk of being slaughtered by vicious, government-backed militias known as the janjaweed.
> Some 200,000 people have already been killed and another 2 million driven from their homes.
> An international intervention in Darfur could make an enormous difference, possibly even averting a Rwanda-style genocide.
> While the janjaweed, mounted on horseback and camels, easily kill and terrorize the unarmed people of Darfur, they're no match for a modern army.
> Peter Langille, a defence analyst at the University of Western Ontario, notes that the Canadian army's fighting vehicles, the Coyote and Lav III, are equipped with top-of-the-line sensors and *firepower that could easily stop the janjaweed in their tracks.*
> Canada is well equipped to play a leading role in a UN mission to Darfur. Such a mission could be carried out by a special UN standby force known as SHIRBRIG, which was created in 2001 to deal with just this sort of crisis.
> Canada was one of the moving forces behind SHIRBRIG, and one of 15 nations agreeing to support it. A Canadian general heads it up.
> But Ottawa has refused to authorize Canadian troops for a SHIRBRIG mission to Darfur, to assist overwhelmed African Union troops.
> Langille argues that a SHIRBRIG force of some 6,000 troops — with Canada contributing about 600 — could head off a genocide and get food to millions who may soon starve.
> But there's *strong political resistance from Canada's military establishment, which has worked doggedly — and successfully — to get Canada out of UN peacekeeping* and involve us more in the "big leagues" of U.S. military operations.
> Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, a *former general who's part of the military establishment*, insisted last week that with 2,300 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, we're stretched too thin to get involved in Darfur.
> But the Canadian army has 18,000 troops. Langille notes that in the mid-1990s, we managed to deploy more than 4,500 troops abroad with the same size army — and a much smaller defence budget.
> We could certainly spare 600 out of our 18,000 troops for a UN mission to Darfur.
> *But that might revive powerful feelings in the Canadian public about the vital role Canada can play in UN peacekeeping, feelings that our military leaders want to extinguish.
> As long as our military establishment is calling the shots, playing in the "big leagues" with the Americans will be the top priority, even as the defenceless die in Darfur.*



Emphasis is mine...

I do find it interesting that she seems to be calling for the use of "firepower" to deal with the Janaweed... Is she advocating the invasion of the Sudan in the absence of a UN-organized deployment?

Linda, read the Ruxted editorial regarding the complexities of Darfur and a potential deployment and please try to remember who really "calls the shots" regarding military deployments - it certainly isn't anyone in uniform.  Your editorial is based on half-truths, a selective memory and out and out slander.  Once again the media fails to meet even the low standard I've set for it.  :


----------



## Good2Golf

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Someone needs to direct Ms. McQuaig to the editorial...yet more shockingly inaccurate commentary from "academics" and the press.
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1147470613160&call_pageid=970599119419
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely we can spare 600 of our 18,000 troops to do what we do best — peacekeeping, says Linda McQuaig
> 
> May 14, 2006. 01:00 AM
> 
> Leaving aside politics, it's hard to imagine why Canada is sending troops to Afghanistan and not to Darfur.
> It's not clear what good we're doing in Afghanistan, where we're aggressively going after "scumbags" — according to our top general, Rick Hillier — as part of Washington's dubious "war on terror."
> Compare this to the life-saving role we could play in Darfur, in western Sudan.
> One can quibble over whether what's happening in Darfur is a genocide or just a series of massacres, but there's no disagreement that hundreds of thousands of people are at risk of being slaughtered by vicious, government-backed militias known as the janjaweed.
> Some 200,000 people have already been killed and another 2 million driven from their homes.
> An international intervention in Darfur could make an enormous difference, possibly even averting a Rwanda-style genocide.
> While the janjaweed, mounted on horseback and camels, easily kill and terrorize the unarmed people of Darfur, they're no match for a modern army.
> Peter Langille, a defence analyst at the University of Western Ontario, notes that the Canadian army's fighting vehicles, the Coyote and Lav III, are equipped with top-of-the-line sensors and *firepower that could easily stop the janjaweed in their tracks*.
> Canada is well equipped to play a leading role in a UN mission to Darfur. Such a mission could be carried out by a special UN standby force known as SHIRBRIG, which was created in 2001 to deal with just this sort of crisis.
> Canada was one of the moving forces behind SHIRBRIG, and one of 15 nations agreeing to support it. A Canadian general heads it up.
> But Ottawa has refused to authorize Canadian troops for a SHIRBRIG mission to Darfur, to assist overwhelmed African Union troops.
> Langille argues that a SHIRBRIG force of some 6,000 troops — with Canada contributing about 600 — could head off a genocide and get food to millions who may soon starve.
> But there's *strong political resistance from Canada's military establishment, which has worked doggedly — and successfully — to get Canada out of UN peacekeeping* and involve us more in the "big leagues" of U.S. military operations.
> Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, a *former general who's part of the military establishment*, insisted last week that with 2,300 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, we're stretched too thin to get involved in Darfur.
> But the Canadian army has 18,000 troops. Langille notes that in the mid-1990s, we managed to deploy more than 4,500 troops abroad with the same size army — and a much smaller defence budget.
> We could certainly spare 600 out of our 18,000 troops for a UN mission to Darfur.
> *But that might revive powerful feelings in the Canadian public about the vital role Canada can play in UN peacekeeping, feelings that our military leaders want to extinguish.
> As long as our military establishment is calling the shots, playing in the "big leagues" with the Americans will be the top priority, even as the defenceless die in Darfur.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis is mine...
> 
> I do find it interesting that she seems to be calling for the use of "firepower" to deal with the Janaweed... Is she advocating the invasion of the Sudan in the absence of a UN-organized deployment?
> 
> Linda, read the Ruxted editorial regarding the complexities of Darfur and a potential deployment and please try to remember who really "calls the shots" regarding military deployments - it certainly isn't anyone in uniform.  Your editorial is based on half-truths, a selective memory and out and out slander.  Once again the media fails to meet even the low standard I've set for it.  :
Click to expand...


Teddy, it really, REALLY pains me to see the press throw out the "_what are we doing/achieving in Afghanistan_" crap and imply that we are wasting our effort there and could spend it better where we could operate more like the apparent center of demographical Canadian values would like us to be -- boy scout-like peacekeeping...a notion that is well, well past its prime!!! Perhaps Ms. McQuaig could read some of the writings of one of her contemporaries to get a better understanding of the question she asks as to "*...what good we are doing in Afghanistan, ...* then move on to considering the entire situation in a more considered manner:

Christine Blatchford has written about a significant contribution that mainstream Canadian Press almost seems (dis?)honour-bound to ignore!  Small strategic team making big difference



> *Small strategic team making big difference*
> 
> May 8, 2006 - Globe and Mail, A1
> 
> By Christine Blatchford
> 
> The smallest and arguably most influential group of Canadians working in Afghanistan was born about a year ago in an informal meeting in Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier's car.
> 
> And, in a lovely Canuck touch, the discussion between General Hillier and Colonel Mike Capstick unfolded as they went through the drive-through of an Ottawa Tim Hortons.
> 
> Gen. Hillier told Col. Capstick that he'd been talking to Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, who had asked, "Whatever happened to those guys who were always around?"
> 
> "Those guys" were senior Canadian military people working for Gen. Hillier during his stint, in 2003-2004, as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force, now run by NATO, which has been in Afghanistan since 2002 at the request of the Afghan government and with the blessing of the United Nations.
> 
> Gen. Hillier asked Mr. Karzai if he wanted more guys like that. He said he did, and last June, Col. Capstick found himself assigned to find them.
> 
> The resulting group of 16 -- they are French and English; navy, air force and army; male and female -- is known as the Strategic Advisory Team, or SAT.
> 
> And while Canadian journalists embedded with the 2,300 troops in Afghanistan regularly detail how the military effort is progressing, or not, almost no one has reported on the SAT soldiers who are embedded with Afghan leaders trying to rebuild their country.
> 
> Divided into three teams, the soldiers' chief task, as Andy Tamas puts it, is to strengthen the institutions, frail as they may yet be, of the Afghan state.
> 
> If Mr. Tamas is uniquely qualified -- he has 35 years under his belt in the development field and was working in Afghanistan on two UN projects in 1998, the time of the Taliban -- he is also uniquely positioned to assess how Canada's least well-known asset in that impoverished and beleaguered country is doing.
> 
> Mr. Tamas, 62, is one of only two civilians on the SAT.
> 
> The other is Elizabeth Speed, a public servant who has worked for two decades in the federal Department of National Defence.
> 
> Mr. Tamas is the only team member who had never worked intimately with the military before, not to mention, lived alongside them as he does now, in a small compound near the Canadian embassy in Kabul's Wazir Akbar Khan district.
> 
> "It's been a double immigrant experience for me," he says. "I'm in Afghanistan and I'm living with another tribe [soldiers], so to speak."
> 
> At bottom, the Canadians are embedded in three key areas: with the Afghan National Development Strategy and the 18-member "working group" of Afghans led by Ishaq Nadiri, President Karzai's senior economic adviser; in the civil service commission, where they are helping locals tasked with building a public service that is fair and open to all Afghans; and in Mr. Karzai's office, where they assist the chief of staff and function as a sort of kitchen cabinet.
> 
> In a country that has been at war one way or another for almost three decades, where tribalism is the tradition, and where just four years ago virtually nothing remained of the government that had operated in the 1960s, the Canadians are there to help Afghans, as Mr. Tamas says, "turn their 'we-gotta-fix-everything now' list into some kind of organized, doable sequence."
> 
> "There is a tendency to drop everything to deal with short-fuse tasks," says Lieutenant-Commander Marta Mulkins, one of three Canucks embedded in the working group. "We help mitigate some of these by asking how it fits into the plan." That is, implementing the goals of the Afghanistan Compact agreed upon with the international community in London this past January.
> 
> "One can understand that in a country where folks have lived day-to-day for so long," LCdr. Mulkins says, "maintaining a strategic view on anything has to be relearned."
> 
> She calls it "a hopeful process and one which does stand a chance," chiefly because of the "smart, educated and highly motivated people with whom we work" and because of the international oversight "which links funding to progress made by the country towards the Afghanistan Compact goals" of security, stability, governance, rule of law and human rights and economic and social development.... [more at GlobeandMail.com]



Many of you have mentioned the clear fact here numerous times yet much media sees fit to ignore a "small detail":

The Sudanese government has not approved non-AU UN members to contribute to any peacekeeping force whatsoever.

Yet, large portions of the media like to portray our contributions in Afghanistan as an "occupation" of a sovereign country.  They conveniently ignore that NATO and coalition forces are there in support of UN SCRs  #*1368*, *1373*, *1378*, *1383*, *1444*, *1589* and most recently (Jan 31, 2006) *1659* (a resolution that endorses an activity that I was directly involved with, and am justifiable proud to have contributed to).  The coalition forces continue to serve the country at the request of the democratically-elected government of Afghanistan.  

As far as I know, there is no such willingness on the part of the Sudanese government, a chartered member of the UN, to allow non-AU nations within the borders of its nation.  

If UN member nations thought that it was the right thing to do to enter the Sudan without the country's invitation, then at the very least it should be done under the UN's authority (most likely through its' Security Council's endorsement).  Otherwise, the Western world is guilty of unilaterally acting without international endorsement.  This seems to be more than a bit hypocritical of the media.

I'm not at all against taking acting to stop what has the potential to be a repeat of the genocide that we say in Rwanda.  If the Sudanese government is somehow complicit in allowing this to occur because it will not authorize non-AU peacekeepers, then that is an issue that must be clearly addressed before further action can be considered and planned for.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## MarkOttawa

One wonders how Ms. McQuaig would consider a NATO force in Darfur "UN peacekeeping".  In any event as of this August our forces in Afstan will be part of a NATO force mandated by the UNSC--so what is the problem there?  But I'm sure such facts are irrelevant to Ms McQuaig's agenda.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

My apologies--I was wrong that SHIRBRIG is UN-oriented and not NATO.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## medicineman

I seem to recall this is how we ended up in the mess that is still Somalia, and the Balkans - by allowing foreign policy to be controlled by CNN (not to mention the Film Actors Guild  ;D).  What I find rather ironic now is that the drought and famine in Sudan in the 90's was going on and nobody gave a rat's because of Somalia.

MM


----------



## GO!!!

It seems to me that if the goal was to prevent the infiltration of armed janjaweed into certain areas of Sudan, the correct response would be of sending a great number of section sized patrols (be they military or PMC) to live in the affected areas, armed with a prepondrance of dismounted firepower and round the clock fast air and indirect fire on call. 

The Janjaweed enter into a certain area and are immediately engaged by marksmen/snipers at range, immediately before being incinerated by high accuracy indirect fire or fast air. The friendlies could have access to a large, airmobile QRF and a strong point if they got in over their heads. The end result would be a huge number of enemy killed, at a relatively low cost to the west (say 25 sections of light infantry, coy size QRF, helo tpt and M777 equipped battery.

Each time a camp is attacked by the janjaweed, they would be hunted and killed. Eventually, they would run out of morale or men.


----------



## Long in the tooth

I once wasted several valuable hours reading "Shooting the Hippo" by Linda McQuaig.  Without going into to much detail, let it suffice to say that aside from her "voodoo economics" viewpoint (which include a policy of hyperinflation to solve our unemployment policies), she is also economical (selective) with the facts.  I give about as much credence to her expertise in military and foreign afairs as I do my cat.


----------



## George Wallace

KISS!

I don't think KISS would work just as you seem to think in this instance.

What is the population of this country?

How many cities, towns, villages, and camps are there in this country?

How large a territory do you figure on covering?

What is the Strength of the Enemy (janjaweed)?

Who equips the janjaweed?

Who fininaces the janjaweed?

How mobile are the janjaweed?

Where are their home bases?

What support would the Government of Sudan give you?

What support would the local provincial and municipal governments give you?

What support would village elders give you?

How long do you figure on preparing for this Op?

How many villages do you figure on covering with only 25 Sections?

How long do you figure on staying in the Sudan?

There are a lot more questions.......................


----------



## NL_engineer

Take a look at this map http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/su.html, even if we do go in, we will probably be there for a wile; or until the US takes care of some of the nabours.

If we are going to deploy, I hope the Government has answered Georage Wallace's questions.

just my $0.02


----------



## GO!!!

George,

The gist of my suggestion was that if Canada is to make a contribution to Sudan, it should be in the form of plenty of well armed men, whose only mission is to kill the janjaweed - no humanitarian mission, no aid, no blue helmets. Cut out the cancer and let it heal.


----------



## tomahawk6

The only hope for Sudan is regime change and thats not going to happen. Africa's many states have shown their inability to govern their people in a fair and equitable manner. If the people had a chance to vote I wonder how many would vote for a return of their colonial masters ?


----------



## Kirkhill

Judging by the Sierra Leone experience, quite a few Tomahawk6.

The problem is the "Imperialists" are no longer interested and, as in the days when the winds of change blew, it is the minority that decides the situation in any event.  What is it in Northern Ireland - 250 active IRA members,  a couple of thousand facilitators and cast of thousands cheering them on from the cheap seats?


----------



## George Wallace

Back to Dallaire:

Monday, 15 May 2006
Canada should spare troops for Darfur: Dallaire  
CTV.ca News Staff

Retired Canadian general Romeo Dallaire thinks Canada has the capability to send troops to the troubled Darfur region of Sudan despite concerns that the country does not have the manpower for another military mission.

Speaking on CTV's Question Period on Sunday, Sen. Dallaire agreed that the Canadian Forces have been stretched thin by years of budget cuts and the ongoing mission in Afghanistan.  But, he argued that pullbacks from other missions meant Canada could spare a force for Sudan.

"I think it is almost reflective of a banana republic if we can't, as a leading middle power, be able to move forces in those two mission and do it with the capabilities we have," he said.

"In the current situation, after the last two years where the Canadian Forces have been pulling out of UN missions in order to lick their wounds, I believe we can go in as part of a developed world contingent to reinforce the African Union (peacekeepers) for a short period of time."

More than 200,000 people have been killed and two million driven from their homes in Darfur because of a campaign of government-sponsored terror against non-Arab tribes. A ceasefire between government-backed militias and rebels went into effect last Monday and the government has indicated it would be open to UN peacekeepers getting involved.

On Monday, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told a Senate committee that Canada is stretched too thin to send troops to Darfur. But, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday that deployment was a possibility, although unlikely.

Dallaire said Canada has not done enough to prevent the ethnic cleansing.

"We, like the rest of the developed world, did not do anything for Darfur...we sort of pussy-footed with the Sudanese government in regards to holding them accountable for what they and their militias were doing."

Rock uncertain on outcome of peace accord

Allan Rock, Canada's outgoing ambassador to the UN, said it was too early to know if the recent peace accord will succeed.

"It is just word on paper unless it is implemented," Rock told Question Period on Sunday.

"This morning there are fresh reports of attack by militia on civilians.  The agreement provides those militia are to be disarmed."

Rock, who was in Nigeria to witness the signing of the agreement, said it was crucial that other nations get involved in making sure the treaty holds.

"There's reason to doubt the sincerity of the government of Sudan, based on the record.  That's why the international community and the United Nations are going to have a very significant role to play in making sure that there's follow-through and implementation.

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060514/qp_dallaire060514


----------



## George Wallace

From a link on the same page:    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060508/darfur_update_060508?hub=QPeriod&s_name=&no_ads=

UN humanitarian chief flees Darfur refugee camp
Updated Mon. May. 8 2006 11:38 PM ET

Associated Press

NYALA, Sudan -- The UN humanitarian chief hurriedly left a Darfur refugee camp Monday when demonstrators demanding the deployment of UN peacekeepers attacked a translator, accusing him of supporting the feared Janjaweed militia, a UN spokeswoman said.

Jan Egeland cut short his visit to Kalma camp, near the city of Nyala in south Darfur, spokeswoman Dawn Blalock said. Some in a crowd of about 1,000 protesters manhandled a translator in Egeland's entourage who they suspected had previously worked for the pro-government militia blamed for widespread atrocities in Darfur, she said.

The demonstrators thought the translator had misinterpreted what they were saying to members of Egeland's entourage, Blalock said.

The translator was not injured, but colleagues put him into a van for his own safety, Blalock told The Associated Press by phone.

The demonstrators then picked up sticks and broke the windows of the van and another vehicle in Egeland's convoy, which left the camp to return to Nyala.

The translator, who was not identified, is employed by Oxfam which had several staffers travelling with Egeland. The British-based non-governmental organization (NGO) promptly withdrew its six staffers from Kalma camp.

"We did not evacuate,'' Blalock stressed. "The program was cut short because tensions were too much.''

Egeland, the UN undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs, had gone to Kalma to meet leaders of at least 90,000 residents of the camp as well as representatives of the NGOs. His visit came days after Sudan's government and the main rebel group in the country's western Darfur region signed a peace agreement to end fighting which has killed nearly 200,000 people since 2003.

An Associated Press reporter in the camp said Egeland was met by a huge crowd chanting pro-UN, pro-U.S. and anti-government slogans.

The demonstrators, mostly women, shouted: "Yes to international troops!'' -- a reference to the western proposal for UN peacekeepers to be deployed in Darfur.

As the entourage was leaving the camp, they attacked a UN vehicle with sticks and knives, because they thought the translator had said something that did not reflect what they had said in Arabic against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. The violence prompted Egeland and his entourage to quickly leave the camp.

Until the signing of the peace accord on Friday, the Sudanese government had refused to host a large UN peacekeeping force to take over from the relatively small African Union operation that is now operating in Darfur.

Blalock said there had been tension in Kalma camp because of the absence of a camp co-ordinator. The government expelled the last co-ordinator, an official of the Norwegian Refugee Committee, in early April, she said.

After his arrival in Darfur on Sunday, Egeland warned that the peace treaty would not be easy to implement.

"We are now in the centre of the war which is still going on,'' Egeland told Associated Press Television News. "The world should have no illusions that peace will break out easily here in Darfur. We have to have an enormous effort from the international community and the parties themselves to enforce this peace agreement.''

Egeland was speaking during a visit to another camp for some of the two million people who have fled their homes during the three-year rebellion and counterinsurgency. Another 180,000 have died, mainly from disease and hunger.



The United Nations says that rebel-held areas near the camps that Egeland visited Sunday had seen major attacks by the pro-government militia that had forced some 200,000 people to flee in the past three months.

Combatants seemed to have been expecting a treaty to come out of the long-running negotiations in Nigeria and were jockeying to take control of territory before a ceasefire.

Egeland said Sunday that thousands of people had been displaced by fighting in recent days and added there could be more fighting.

Aid workers have repeatedly complained that the government has prevented them from working, and that fighting has made it impossible for them to help civilians.

Egeland was barred by the Sudanese government from visiting Darfur and Sudan's capital of Khartoum in April.

Decades of low-level tribal clashes over land and water in Darfur erupted into large-scale violence in early 2003 when members of the African ethnic tribes rose in revolt and demanded regional autonomy. The government is accused unleashing the Janjaweed who have been blamed for widespread killing, rape and destruction.

The government has repeatedly denied supporting the Arab militia.



This is not a less active State than Afghanistan.  There are just as many convoluted military and terrorist problems here as there are in Afghanistan.  For any Leftie, Opposition Party member, Tree Hugger, member of the Press, or any other who may think that moving our Troops from Afghanistan to Darfur will be safer and that we can fill a more 'Humanitarian' role there with our 'Kinder, Gentler Army', the facts don't support it.  It is just as dangerous and perhaps even more so, than Afghanistan.  We can't be taking on ever problem of the world on a whim.  Let's start with one and sort it out, before we move on to another.  Don't start on one and drop it for another.  It will solve neither.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

I was in back in the 90's when our UN deployments had eaten so much of our operating budget that units were forced to cut training to support the troops overseas.  The good Senator wants a return to those bad old days?  Our training is what keeps us alive.  Skimp on training, just to afford bodies on the ground, and you will get bodies IN the ground.  I hope Mr Harper holds firm on not gutting our capacity on another long term deployment like Darfur.  At a time when the CF is trying to rebuild after decades of having its infrastructure gutted, we cannot allow ourselves to be committed overseas to the point that we lack the ability to handle new recruits, maintain training schedules and standards, and respond in force to domestic emergencies.  Being so committed abroad that we are essentially paralyzed at home is not a viable defence policy.


----------



## Journeyman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sen. Dallaire agreed that the Canadian Forces have been stretched thin by years of budget cuts and the ongoing mission in Afghanistan.





> "I think it is almost reflective of a banana republic if we can't, as a leading middle power, be able to move forces in those two mission and do it with the capabilities we have," he said.


I see the identical logic arguing with a 9 year old: "You can't go to the store because it's closed." "I know, but I _want_ to go to the store"  The reality is acknowledged, then ignored :



> "In the current situation, after the last two years where the Canadian Forces have been pulling out of UN missions in order to lick their wounds, I believe we can go in as part of a developed world contingent to reinforce the African Union (peacekeepers) for a short period of time."


 Pulling out observers in ones and twos does _not_ free up additional personnel to knit a new battalion, I don't care where you learned math.



> Allan Rock, Canada's outgoing ambassador to the UN, said it was too early to know if the recent peace accord will succeed. "It is just word on paper unless it is implemented."


And that's different from how many _countless_ UN resolutions, declarations, and hand-wringing photo ops?

The likelihood of seeing any measure of success in Darfur is a dubious hope. It will require combat troops, with an unambiguous mandate to _stop_ the militias. Believing this will happen without employing firepower (aka "killing") is delusional. There must be a reality check that involves someone pointing out the emperor's nakedness - - the African Union has accomplished nothing. Accept the reality that the genocide will continue without developed nations' combat efforts.....and the inevitable, and already heard, wail that such efforts amount to racism.

Is the UN capable of such unvarnished truth? No. 
Can Canada support such a deployment right now? No. 
Would Canada be willing to commit to such an operation, if it could? "You bet! Our (mythical) peacekeeping culture demands it....we'll form a committee to conduct a staff check on this "combat stuff"...well actually, maybe we could provide Comms, we've done that before...no? how about Logistics?.....and some staff officers, lots of staff officers...OK, we can provide two staff officers....but someone else has to get them there." 

In the end, I think the key phrase is...


> "*I think it is almost reflective of a banana republic...*"


 Oui, mon general.... truer words have seldom been spoken in our nation's capital; this is known as "reaping what you sow." Please remember that expression if pronouncements from your Liberal-sinecure pulpit _do_ contribute to putting additional Canadian troops into such a no-win deployment.  But that's unlikely, because the UN's inability to apply hard solutions, the Sudanese government's refusal to apply necessary measures, and the inevitable end state of the genocide will keep our banana republic-like diminished military capabilities from being showcased before the world.

Is anyone else out there feeling embarrassment?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Journeyman: Actually I'm embarrassed to live in a banana monarchy.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> I'm embarrassed to live in a banana monarchy.


Well, technically....it's a _cabane à sucre _ monarchy.......a  constitutional _cabane à sucre _ monarchy ;D


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Please post all replies to the "The Truth About Darfur" Editorial here.


----------



## Centurian1985

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "We did not *evacuate*,'' Blalock stressed. "The program was cut short because tensions were too much.''



Reminds me of another famous quote - "we are not retreating, we are advancing to the rear..." 

e·vac·u·ate (ĭ-văk'yū-āt')  
v., -at·ed, -at·ing, -ates.
v.tr.
To empty or remove the contents of.
To create a vacuum in.
To relinquish military possession or occupation of (a town, for example).
To withdraw or send away (troops or inhabitants) from a threatened area. <--- I think this applies. 
To withdraw or depart from; vacate. <--- likewise.
To excrete or discharge waste matter from (the bowel, for example). <--- good possibility 'because tensions were too much'. 
v.intr.
To withdraw from or vacate a place or area, especially as a protective measure. <--- definately aplies
To excrete waste matter from the body.


----------



## military granny

What do all you fine folks think of these comments by him.

"I think it is almost reflective of a banana republic if we can't, as a leading middle power, be able to move forces in those two mission and do it with the capabilities we have," he said.

"In the current situation, after the last two years where the Canadian Forces have been pulling out of UN missions in order to lick their wounds, I believe we can go in as part of a developed world contingent to reinforce the African Union (peacekeepers) for a short period of time."


----------



## Infanteer

Here we go again....


----------



## Centurian1985

military granny said:
			
		

> What do all you fine folks think of these comments by him.
> "I think it is almost reflective of a banana republic if we can't, as a leading middle power, be able to move forces in those two mission and do it with the capabilities we have," he said.
> "In the current situation, after the last two years where the Canadian Forces have been pulling out of UN missions in order to lick their wounds, I believe we can go in as part of a developed world contingent to reinforce the African Union (peacekeepers) for a short period of time."



1) We can do more than two missions with our current capabilities - what matters is whether the missions are within our capabilities!     
2) I would like to know which missions in the last years we have 'pulled out of to lick our wounds?' - more rhetoric?
3) Go in as part of a developed world contingent?  Excellent.  But it would help if he could name countries willing to go in with us.


----------



## North Star

A very good rebuke. If only all Canadians read and thought critically about defence issues wuch as this one.


----------



## Armymatters

The Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies recently published a commentary on Darfur and the possibility that if Canadians are deployed to Sudan, they may face Al-Qaeda:
http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_African_Jihad.htm
The most important part of the commentary is here:


> Bin Laden qualified his offer of support by noting that it was not his intention to defend the Khartoum government, but to defend Islam. How can you send fighters to a regime that you just announced you don’t particularly support? What would you expect to happen to them once they arrive? If this message is genuinely from bin Laden, it suggests that the terrorist leader has become delusional in his search for a cause to sustain his movement. There is a crime in Islam called fitna; it means creating discord amongst Muslims, and it is one of Islam’s greatest offences. Bin Laden apparently believes that sending Muslims to fight other Muslims is a suitable aim for his movement. Neither Sudan’s government nor the Darfur rebels desire the assistance of al-Qaeda. Should bin Laden’s followers head to Darfur there is no doubt that a hot reception awaits them.


----------



## paracowboy

Armymatters said:
			
		

> The Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies recently published a commentary on Darfur and the possibility that if Canadians are deployed to Sudan, they may face Al-Qaeda:
> http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_African_Jihad.htm
> The most important part of the commentary is here:


I disagree with that quote. Bin Lyin'underarock would be quite welcome in Khartoum after the amount of money he has spent on the place. He has friends in the Khartoum dictatorship, and shares goals with it.


----------



## Kirkhill

Just in case anyone is interested in the peace that needs to be kept in Darfur......



> ....Two of the main rebel factions fighting the Sudanese government and its allied militias have turned on each other, spurred by ethnic tensions and what appears to be a relentless grab for more territory. Now the rebels have unleashed a tide of violence against the very civilians they once joined forces to protect.
> 
> "Right now, we don't have any security problem with the government forces or with the janjaweed," said Lt. Col. Wisdom Bleboo, the commander of 140 African Union troops based in nearby Tawila, referring to the Arab militias that have terrorized the people of Darfur in recent years. "It is only the fighting between the rebel factions that is causing us trouble."
> 
> The tactics of the rebels have grown so similar to those of their enemies that an attack on this dusty village on April 19 bore all the marks of the brutal assault that first forced its people to flee their homes three years ago. Soldiers in uniform, backed by men toting machine guns on camels, flooded the village, burning huts, shooting, looting and raping.
> 
> Only this time, the soldiers were not government troops, as they had been before. Nor were the men on camels and horseback the fearsome janjaweed, who often destroy villages alongside government forces in a campaign of state-supported murder and rape that the Bush administration has called genocide......



http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/pop/articles/19sudan.html

Or if that job isn't to your liking how about this one.  It seems the Germans don't want it either.



> German Congo mission faces opposition fire
> BERLIN (Reuters) - The German government on Friday defended plans to deploy troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo in the face of fierce opposition from critics who called the mission pointless and ill-conceived.
> 
> In a speech to the Bundestag lower house of parliament, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said German involvement in the Congo was justified, but critics demanded more details on a mission that has proved controversial in a country with a strong pacifist streak.
> 
> Germany plans to deploy 780 troops to help keep the peace during and after elections scheduled for July 30. ......



http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=746832006&source=somnia

16 nations on top of 17,000 UN troops.

So if you get tired of Afghanistan and Darfur isn't your cup of tea maybe you want to try 4 months (extendable) in tropical Congo.  Stay tuned for additional posting opportunities.


----------



## Bradbury

I wrote a letter to Dallaire (Sorry for not attaching all of his appropriate titles) a month or two ago, and just recently received a reply, (We adressed the topic of the Election and Sudan)

  I am 100% behind Dallaire and his desire to intervine in Sudan/Darfur.  We do not need to allow genocide to be carried on any further.  If intervention is a role Canada and or the UN decided to partake in, I would sign up after I am finished course.  This is Genocide people, lets end it.

Pte. Bradbury


----------



## MarkOttawa

There will be no 





> developed world contingent



From the horse's mouth: 



> No NATO troops have been or will be deployed to Darfur.


http://www.nato.int/issues/darfur/index.html

Moreover they are not wanted: 



> "UN diplomats say the force is expected to be largely drawn from African, South Asian and Islamic nations so as to reduce opposition to the move in Khartoum, while the United States and NATO would provide logistical support behind the scenes."


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060517.DARFUR17/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

Bradbury said:
			
		

> I wrote a letter to Dallaire (Sorry for not attaching all of his appropriate titles) a month or two ago, and just recently received a reply, (We adressed the topic of the Election and Sudan)
> 
> I am 100% behind Dallaire and his desire to intervine in Sudan/Darfur.  We do not need to allow genocide to be carried on any further.  If intervention is a role Canada and or the UN decided to partake in, I would sign up after I am finished course.  This is Genocide people, lets end it.
> 
> Pte. Bradbury



If you or Senator Dallaire have been paying attention to the ground truth about the Sudan (as discussed here and in other places), then you realize you are calling for an invasion of a sovereign nation by Canada, alone, without international sanction or approval.

*The fact this nation you propose to invade is halfway around the world, is full of armed militias and a functioning military, has the tacit backing of China and an undeveloped infrastructure should also help guide your thinking a bit.*


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Why is it that everybody who opposes us being in Afghanistan, a place where our own national security and treaty obligations sent us, wants us in Sudan, where we have neither?  We have supplied materiel and funds for the African Union troops, and if they request technical assistance, I'm sure we can shake loose some technical advisers, but the boots on the ground have to be African, or this mission will not work.


----------



## a_majoor

And of course, the people who want us to go to Dafur want us to go under the command of the UN:

http://freewillblog.com/  27 May 2006



> *United Nations: The World's Mall Cops*
> 
> While much of the world rushes toward the sound of screaming and gunfire...
> 
> Many dead in chaotic East Timor, where Australian forces are seeking to halt the bloodshed....They'll be joined by New Zealand troops, finally deployed following days of Clarkish dithering....Forces from Malaysia and Portugal are also soon to arrive.
> 
> ...one force flees, profoundly useless in a crisis:
> 
> *The UN is planning to evacuate the majority of its 300 to 400 staff in East Timor, possibly from today.*
> 
> A liberal friend of mine, when asked why she was obsessed with defending the United Nations, once said that it was because "it's all we have", apparently unaware of the fact that countries can take action for themselves.



Once we have rebuilt the Forces so we can "take action for ourselves", then we can talk.


----------



## pbi

Here is some late news on the situation, available at:http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/06/07/darfur-wed.html



> *UN peacekeepers heading to Darfur, group agrees*
> Last Updated Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:06:28 EDT
> CBC News
> The UN Security Council and the African Union have agreed that a UN force should take over peacekeeping in Sudan's Darfur region, once they have the approval of the Sudanese government.
> 
> They also agreed Wednesday to quickly reinforce the African troops now on the ground.
> 
> The decision came Wednesday when a high-level Security Council delegation met with the African Union Commission, the executive body of the 53-member AU.
> 
> "In Darfur, we share the same point of view," said commission chairman Alpha Oumar Konare. "We need to hand over the baton to the UN. There is a necessity today to implement the Darfur Peace Agreement."
> 
> But extra troops are needed, he said.
> 
> Optimistic about UN force
> 
> "The AU today does not have the resources to be there," Konare said. "We have to be clear about that. We don't have the capacity to face a peacekeeping situation or an extended conflict."
> 
> The group was optimistic that Khartoum would agree to a UN force, despite its previous reluctance to accept outside help.
> 
> Khartoum's agreement was necessary, Korare said, because "Sudan's sovereignty has to be respected. We have to have a dialogue with Sudan. The troops are not coming to start a war with Sudan."
> 
> Said Djinnat, commissioner for the AU Peace and Security Council, told the Associated Press he was working to upgrade the 7,000-member UN force so it has the ability to carry out all the requirements of a peace agreement signed May 5 by the Sudanese government and the largest rebel group in Darfur.
> 
> NATO supplying support
> 
> Djinnat said several battalions are likely to be added to the AU force over the next few months.  "I can tell you that it could be raised to the level of 10,000," he told AP.
> 
> The additional troops would likely come from Rwanda, Nigeria and Ghana. NATO would likely provide helicopters and other logistical support, while the AU police force in Darfur will also likely be doubled to 2,000.
> 
> The next step is the arrival Friday in Khartoum of a joint UN-AU team that will hold talks with the Sudanese government next week and then head to Darfur to make a technical assessment for a possible UN peacekeeping mission.
> 
> The team will then report back to the Sudanese government and its own leaders.
> 
> Britain's UN ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, head of the Security Council delegation, said the Security Council and the AU agree that the "transition should take place, and that by the beginning of next year there should be a United Nations operation, and it should do so recognizing that it will need to have a strong African character."



It looks like there was (and is...) no desire to have non-African troops involved. On top of that, (as a number of posters have pointed out...) there was no resolution to even permit our presence under the UN. Far better, I think, that we end up giving some technical or log help under the NATO umbrella mentioned above. Hopefully the Darfur ranters will take note.

Cheers


----------



## Journeyman

pbi said:
			
		

> *Hopefully the Darfur ranters will take note*.


The eternal optimist, eh  

According to  today's BBC, the ongoing talks see the United Nations taking over the "peacekeeping" operation [my emphasis - - with 200,000 dead and 2 million displaced since 2003, even the NDP would be hard-pressed to call this _peacekeeping_ :]. But Sudan is still not buying in, saying any extra UN money should go to the AU. So don't pack your rucks just yet.

*If* the UN takes over, it will be to merely add its legendary command capabilities and administrative efficiencies onto the dogpile, since AU troops will remain the basis of the field force. Maj-Gen Ihekire, the AU's Nigerian Force Commander, justifies their failure: "If someone hasn't got wings and you say he has failed to fly - I don't think you can call that failure." I would have thought that if one is tasked to stop the killing...and the killing isn't stopped....there might be an appropriate word for that, such as "failure." [I've been known to use words like "responsibility" and "leadership" too, but I'm old-fashioned that way]

So you would have an AU-based force, which acknowledges that it does not have the capability to solve the problem, but now operating under UN command - - the people who have recently demonstrated a complete absence of: 
-resolve in Rwanda, 
-new thinking in Cyprus, 
-economic responsibility with Iraqi oil, 
-combat effectiveness in the Congo
....need I go on?

No, what I get out of the CBC report is more grist _for_ the "deploy CF to Darfur" dingbats advocates, whose understanding of the situation is only headline deep. If one actually reads the articles, it appears less likely CF troops will be deploying there (unless we just ignore that troublesome Sudanese sovereignty thing....as the Liberal Defence Critic is wont to do). The headline, however, will have the soapbox experts shouting that now there's no reason to stay in Afghanistan, when we can be blue-hatted, loved-by-all, peacekeepers in sunny Darfur.  :

[Now, to hedge my bets, don't discount  Op AUGURAL  (support for Sudan ops, predominantly in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) expanding   ]


----------



## pbi

From Tuesday's Ottawa Citizen at: http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060608/cit/060608bq.htm



> Dallaire should show some courage himself
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Last week, Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire slammed Prime Minister Stephen Harper for what he called "an acute lack of courage." His wording was somewhat convoluted; however, it seems he was attempting to say that the prime minister was exploiting divisions within the Liberal party regarding the current mission in Afghanistan for short-term partisan reasons, and this equated to a lack of "courage."
> 
> If my interpretation is correct, and a review of his comments would suggest that is the case, the hypocrisy contained in his comments is blatant and disturbing, to say the least.
> 
> In Senator Dallaire we have someone who, two years ago, prior to his accepting a partisan appointment to the Senate, was part of the chorus rightly calling for western military intervention, primarily from NATO countries, to stop the genocide taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan. On taking his seat in the Senate he immediately abandoned his professional judgment and limited operational background gained from his experience commanding the largest operational failure in the UN's history.
> 
> He could have been a strong voice for intervention by professional militaries to stop the genocide, but instead opted to abandon his principles and, displaying "an acute lack of courage" himself, vocally supported a flawed Liberal foreign-policy decision to merely help the inadequate African Union peacekeeping force with some cash, vehicles and a handful of advisers, saying that was enough for Canada to contribute.
> 
> To make matters worse, following a short visit to the Darfur area he yet again displayed an astounding lack of military judgment -- or succumbed to partisan pressure, or both -- when he opined that the situation for the victims of the genocide was improving. The fact that fewer victims were being slaughtered because the genocide was working and therefore there were fewer people left to kill was presumably not considered.
> 
> In a bizarre change of heart, the senator went on to suggest that those of us who continued to call for western intervention were recommending a racist solution: "Anybody who says that the era of the white man going into Africa and sorting out their problems ... should remain is someone who's totally disconnected from the reality of Africa" was his response.
> 
> Senator Dallaire held his anti-western-intervention opinion for the relatively short period prior to the defeat of the Liberal government. Then, completing a 360-degree change of course he returned to his original call for western intervention in Darfur -- presumably ready to accept the mantle of racist by his own definition. His weak excuse for the change of heart was that the situation in Darfur had deteriorated since his visit, a statement not substantiated by the facts, which suggests a lack of military awareness when he visited the area, or once again "an acute lack of courage" to disagree with his party's stand on Darfur.
> 
> Lest the reader assume that this is a partisan rebuttal to Senator Dallaire's inconsistent utterances on the tragic situation on Darfur, let me state that I disagree with the current government's policy regarding the crisis. It has been stated on a regular basis that due to our current commitment in Afghanistan the Canadian Forces would be incapable of deploying a substantial force to Darfur. This is only the case due to the outdated procedure of limiting a unit's overseas tour to six months. This was the policy from the 1960s to the 1990s, as it was usual for the UN Security Council to renew the authorizing mandate for each UN peacekeeping mission every six months.
> 
> It drove UN commanders crazy, as it meant all your units left at the same time and every six months you had new inexperienced units feeling their way. Fortunately, a number of national contingents were chronically late arriving in theatre, so there was some staggering of the end-of-tour rotation dates thanks to their inefficient arrival. There was no "tour length" in the First and Second World Wars. Units deployed to Korea for a minimum of one year.
> 
> My view will be highly unpopular with those soldiers currently serving in Afghani-stan, but I contend that it would be possible, if we are serious about putting boots on the ground in Darfur, to extend the current tour of duty for our soldiers in Afghanistan to one year and deploy the unit currently training to replace them in August to Darfur. I am not recommending that this be done, but because it could be, the excuse should not be made that we are incapable of sending a significant unit of 1,000 soldiers to Darfur.
> 
> Meanwhile, Senator Dallaire should take his lead from his Liberal colleague Senator Colin Kenny, who frequently comments that the Senate should be a non-partisan body as much as possible -- frequently setting an outstanding example himself.
> 
> If there is a clear "acute lack of moral courage," it is demonstrated by those who know better than partisan politics dictate and capitulate to their own self-interest.
> 
> Retired general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of the UN's Sector Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war.



Hmmm. The knives are out. What do we all think about Gen Lew recommending that rotating TFs do a year in theatre?

Cheers


----------



## Gunner

> Hmmm. The knives are out. What do we all think about Gen Lew recommending that rotating TFs do a year in theatre?



It provides operational flexibility in terms of force generation/force employment but there are significant effects on personnel (both during the year and after the deployment).  Recent US Army and US Marine reporting indicates there is a move towards a shorter deployment schedule, similar to our current doctrine.  Is it worth it for us to change it?

Source - See the DOD Law of War Amendment



> 2-War's Toll On The Living Spurs Call to Shorten Army Tours.
> 
> The amendment's easy passage demonstrated how concerned lawmakers from both parties have been over the adverse impact that year-long tours in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on Army active-duty and reserve troops -- and their families. The Marine Corps, by comparison, typically deploys units for seven months at a time.
> 
> The amendment demands an Army study weighing the potential benefits and drawbacks of reducing deployment times. The review would begin 90 days after enactment of the authorization bill.
> 
> It also includes language that urges the Army secretary to consider the benefits six-month deployments would have on morale, recruiting, retention and readiness.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Goes without saying that year long deployments would hamperthe ability of many reservists to support missions and increase the burden on Regular Force units. The cons are obvious.

Mackenzie certainly pulled no punches in this article re: Dallaire. But doesn't seem to explain the pros of year-long deployments other than vaguely.


----------



## LIKELY

+1 on the 1 yr tour(although the wife would hate it and no kids)

Unfortunately

+1 with Uncle Lew too. I was appalled at the Sen.'s change of heart/mind/tactical awareness.


----------



## Old Sweat

The only (dubious) advantage I can see in a one year tour at this stage is that it would allow the government to deploy a contingent to Darfur. Balance that against the havoc taking on another major commitment would create and the lack of flexibility we would have to cope with a major crisis and it becomes a not very good idea.

I am a bit surprised at the nasty tone of some of the comments Lew made about Romeo, which are out of character. I suspect there is a degree of exasperation at the blatant political flip-flopping in the senator's position coming to the fore here.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Dallaire is becoming more and more incoherent and thus a perfect Liberal. I predict his run for the leadership.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I can see it now:

Ding, ding, ding,

In this corner in the blue trunks weighing in at ...pounds is ....


----------



## COBRA-6

I think 6 month tours are too short when you consider all the work that goes into force generation, training, leave, handover, HLTA, etc... 8 or 9 months may be a good compromise. More return on investment, so to speak.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Keeping in mind that the work up is 3-4 months in some cases.  Added together your looking at 10 months or 1 year and 4 months.


----------



## Lost_Warrior

> Keeping in mind that the work up is 3-4 months in some cases.



We were told by our SSM that the work up training for Afghanistan that will be deployed with R22R is 11 months, on top of a 6 month tour.  Thats almost 2 years.


----------



## Burrows

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> We were told by our SSM that the work up training for Afghanistan that will be deployed with R22R is 11 months, on top of a 6 month tour.  Thats almost 2 years.


More like 1.5.


----------



## Sapper41

While I do not agree with tour rotations longer than 6(ish) months much of what Lewis Mackenzie makes sense too me.  Deploying troops to Darfur is a matter of will.  The CF could do it if we went to a higher mobilization of the reserves for subsequent rotos.  It would be confusing for NDP types to argue, mobilization for 'Peacekeeping'.  But it also might look a lot like a draft or conscription IE political suicide to a minority government.  Like most things in life it's not a matter of can't, it's more won't.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Sapper41 said:
			
		

> ... Deploying troops to Darfur is a matter of will.  The CF could do it ...



Leaving aside the international politics/international law (which says, pretty clearly, that Canada *may not do it* without the explicit permission of Sudan’s government - permission which, equally explicitly, Sudan (a sovereign state) has withheld), I have a few questions:

•	How many rotations?

•	To accomplish what, exactly?  (Well, not exactly, just roughly.)

•	How shall we get there and how shall we sustain ourselves there?

•	Who is going with us?

It is not that I object to going to Darfur; quite the contrary: I believe a *crime against humanity* is being committed and I believe we, the United Nations, have a duty to invade Sudan, defeat its murderous government, rescue Darfur, etc, etc, etc.  I am about 99.99% certain that the UN will not do this – it is not Canadian will which is lacking, it is global will.

Sudan is, probably, pretty easy to sort out.  We just need a fairly small _‘Western’_ (America, Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Singapore will do nicely) force to invade/defeat a Muslim nation – part of the _umma_ – and then occupy it for 20+ years because that is what it will take, at minimum, to start, much less do the job.

I have another idea: send India, under some sort of UN mandate – maybe we revive 50 year _trusteeships_ or something.  The Indians have a large, capable army, good civil servants to do some nation building and they are just as likely as the _‘West’_ to “save” Darfur and Sudan.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I have another idea: send India, under some sort of UN mandate – maybe we revive 50 year _trusteeships_ or something.  The Indians have a large, capable army, good civil servants to do some nation building and they are just as likely as the _‘West’_ to “save” Darfur and Sudan.



I get it!! They could even make a 'Bollywood' movie out of it!!

"You say Sedan, I say Sudan" -Starring Hrithik Roshan and Peggy Mason. Directed by Romeo Dallaire. Produced by Jack Layton with a supporting cast of (mis)leading actors from the Polaris Institute of bad acting. 

Story Line - Former Jewel of the Empire rescues jewel of the Nile in Sudan. 


Edited to add alternate title: " You say Sudatenland, I say Sudanastan"


----------



## Kirkhill

> maybe we revive 50 year trusteeships or something



I say Edward, mandates?    Everything old is new again.


----------



## Sapper41

Just to clarify my intent was to show the enormity of the task and what it would take to achieve it.  No one in opposition will admit what 'peacekeeping' in Sudan will actually mean. Occupation of Sudan, a whole lot of killing and a whole lot of nation building... not necessarily in that order.  

Until African governments stop using world bank money to buy arms Africa and it's people are in for generations of conflict and genocide. Most western armies are deathly afraid of Africa, not to mention Islamic Africa.  

Lefties may want to get into Darfur, but they have no idea what they would be getting the CF into.  The firepower required and the sheer number of casualties such a mission would generate would indeed require a level of mobilization not seen since Korea.  The optics of a generally white western country invading yet another (70%) Muslim country to show them how to live will ignite yet more violence and terrorist acts.  On this point alone I'm sure governments have said yikes and used troop shortages as the issue.


----------



## GO!!!

+1 to all Sapper41.

We should also be considering our national interest in Darfur, ie, there is none.

I propose that we send Romeo Dallaire to Darfur with a blue baseball cap and a copy of the Canadian Constitution. Perhaps he can finance some development from the sales of his book, and the large, unearned salary that he recieves as a senator.    >


----------



## TCBF

"I have another idea: send India, under some sort of UN mandate – maybe we revive 50 year trusteeships or something.  The Indians have a large, capable army, good civil servants to do some nation building and they are just as likely as the ‘West’ to “save” Darfur and Sudan."

- As well, the Indians don't have a history of bashing themselves over every minor ROE 'incident'.


----------



## North Star

It's about time someone took Dallaire to task for his constant change of opinion. As for not pulling punches, good for Lew.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Dallaire spewing his rhetoric again....and this from the biggest coward seen in recent times, he had the chance to grab the big brass ring and failed killed his troops and killed civilians for his lack of courage. Go get him lew!

  1  year ouch, seems doing 90 day rotos would be better go in every 18 months stay so fresh no work up needed and your family and unit could loose you for 90 days and not need to replace.


----------



## COBRA-6

The Fins often do tours 1 to 2 years in length, but they work a schedule of 6 weeks in theatre, 2 week at home. That might be another option...


----------



## a_majoor

So long as there is a general refusal to see or understand that proposing intervention really means promoting an invasion of a sovereign nation, there will be a constant chorus of calls for us to go.

Should the government cave and actually send a TF to Dafur, it will suddenly be the "unilateral" Conservatives conducting an "illegal" (actually true) operation, etc. Should the government fall and an alternative party gain power and send a TF, the inevitable combat, casualties etc. will be the fault of the Americans......

The idea of India going in and doing the job is intriguing, to say the least, and as a fellow "Anglosphere" nation they would be able to get and use technical support from the other members of the club. However, the same question of interest would also bedevil the Indian government, what possible reason would they have or want to intervene?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Totally off subject........however, I've heard both speak. I would pay $100.00 to hear the same speech, I've already heard, from Mac, but a dozen donkeys couldn't drag me to hear Dallaire again. The first grips and holds the audience with knowledge and kindred experience. The other spews political rhetoric and partisan posturing. He has never had a real connection to the troops. The first speaker has been firm in his beliefs and the second has done lieberal acrobaticts, doing constant backflips to appease his political masters that appointed him to the exhalted and toothless, albeit quite well paying , position of Senator. He should have taken his soldier's pension and gone to Fiji, never to be heard from again.


----------



## sgtdixon

Daillaire Accusing Someone of Cowardice and Lack of Action....
 Pot this is Kettle, radio check, over.


----------



## manhole

we have a friend who served in Rwanda.............he has absolutely nothing good to say about Dallaire and loathes the man.   I trust our friend's opinion because he has first-hand knowledge of Dallaire's behaviour.   Ask the Belgians what their opinion is ...........

Ubique


----------



## pbi

Wow...great stuff so far! A couple of random stream of consciousness thoughts:

The USMC in Afgh when I was there (04-05) were doing seven months as the norm. This appeared to work for the Marine Inf Bn that was there, but  I have to wonder what the morale effect in the CJTFHQ was (I never brought it up...) on Army guys there for a year with very good chance of an extension with little notice, or a short turnaround;

I have heard both Dallaire and Mackenzie speak at different times and places, and I much preferred Dallaire.(at the time I heard him, which was 1998...) The two were regular speakers at USMC C&SC Quantico (that's where I heard Dallaire) and competed for top spot as the most popular speaker of  the year. Dallaire held the US military audience spellbound, and provoked much active debate afterward; and

I'm much in favour of seeing the Indans take on Darfur. I had the great pleasure to serve alongside the Indian Army on ONUMOZ in Mozambique 1993: a very professional and capable army, with a good ethno/religious mix of Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, Jains, etc. that might be helpful in the Sudan situation. I visited one of their field units a couple of times and I was highly taken by the order, professionalism and very strict discipline. And, as one poster noted, they are not at all afraid to use force. (My Indian friends couldn't understand all the upset over what happened in Somalia-one told me had deployed to a riot back home and shot 20 people, at least) Of course, randomly shooting 20 people may not be the be the best course of action in all cases...

(OK-well..that was three random thoughts...)

Cheers


----------



## paracowboy

on India:

I can't see them going into a Muslim nation. They have enough trouble keeping Kashmir quiet, even with their new cooperation from Pakistan. Not to mention the Bangladesh border, and normal sectarian violence.

Not only would an operation in Sudan not be in their interests, it would fly directly contrary to it.


----------



## pbi

Yes, but if Africa cannot produce any more forces, and "Europeans" (by which I include North America, Brazil, Argentina and AUSNZ are not wanted, there are not a lot of sources of good troops IMHO.

Cheers


----------



## 2 Cdo

Good job Lew! Daillaire really needs to STFU and leave soldiering to SOLDIERS! :threat:


----------



## rifleman

I've always thought that we could send all the forces on operations and give 6 month tours of Canada. This of course would cause the need for a new Domestic Tour Medal


----------



## GO!!!

Several points,

I've heard Dallaire speak recently here in Edmonton; it was revolting. He, in fifty minutes, did a hatchet job on the US, the war on terror, anyone "who uses violence" as a method of achieving political goals, and the tories. 

He then stated that we should be "addressing the root causes of terror" and not deploying troops unless it was in our nation's defence.

For his finale, he told some stories about Rwanda (leaving out the parts where he failed to do his job and let his troops get killed) and proceeded to shed some crocodile tears for the Rwandans. Not a word about the Belgian Paras. Not a word of the crisis of leadership the whole mission had. He then pocketed his ten thousand dollar speaker's fee and signed some books (for another modest fee).

The man's only skills (IMHO) are that he is a skilled orator and actor. His lack of military, leadership and ethical skills speak for themselves.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

So you didn't pretend to get a book signed and give him a throat punch?


----------



## GO!!!

Quagmire said:
			
		

> So you didn't pretend to get a book signed and give him a throat punch?



In a testament to my self control and manners, no.

I was tempted to ask him a few pointed questions, but given the adoring clutch of senior officers shamelessly competing for a picture with him, decided better of it.

Opportunity lost? Perhaps.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Yes I think you did.  At the very least it would have been nice to watch him squirm.


----------



## Chubbard

I must be missing something here, and I am assuming that you folks know something abou Dallaire I didnt learn from his book or the CBC. Could someone explain how poor leadership killed the Belgians, I thought that they where supposed to secure a building or something and got overwhelmed.


----------



## pbi

Chubbard said:
			
		

> I must be missing something here, and I am assuming that you folks know something abou Dallaire I didnt learn from his book or the CBC. Could someone explain how poor leadership killed the Belgians, I thought that they where supposed to secure a building or something and got overwhelmed.



I think we did this one already, didn't we? At: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35643/post-290702.html#msg290702 and a couple of others, IIRC?

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I seriously doubt anyone would call themselves a numpty in there own book.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

GO,  very well said, I know him well and you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## GAP

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/06/20/sudan.darfur.ap/index.html[/color]]http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/06/20/sudan.darfur.ap/index.html


Sudan won't allow U.N. force in Darfur

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 Posted: 1634 GMT (0034 HKT) 


"We will not accept colonial forces," in Sudan, President Omar al-Bashir said• 

Sudan, eastern rebels set truce 

KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) -- President Omar al-Bashir vowed on Tuesday that he will never allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur, his strongest rejection yet of the United Nations' plan to try to halt violence in the war-torn region.

"This shall never take place," al-Bashir said of the U.N. deployment. "These are colonial forces, and we will not accept colonial forces coming into the country."

"They want to colonize Africa, starting with the first sub-Saharan country to gain its independence. If they want to start colonization in Africa, let them chose a different place," he told reporters at a press conference alongside South African President Thabo Mbeki.

Al-Bashir has shown great reluctance over the past months to allow peacekeepers into Darfur, and Tuesday's comments were his most direct rejection.

The U.N. wants to send a beefed-up peacekeeping forces to replace a 7,000-strong African Union force in conflict-wracked Darfur that has largely been unable to stop the violence there.

Nearly 200,000 people have been killed and more than 2 million displaced in Darfur since rebel groups made up of ethnic Africans rose up against the Arab-led Khartoum government in early 2003. The government is accused of responding by unleashing Arab militias known as the janjaweed who have been accused of some of the worst atrocities -- but it denies any involvement.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


----------



## Kirkhill

The next word I want to hear out of Jack's mouth:

"INVASION!!!!"


----------



## MarkOttawa

Talking about a serious Canadian military role is nonsense anyway as the UN  has made it clear it does not want Western boots on the ground (full text not online).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060517.DARFUR17%2FTPStory%2FTPInternational%2FAfrica%2F&ord=426383&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false



> UN diplomats say the force is expected to be largely drawn from African, South Asian and Islamic nations so as to reduce opposition to the move in Khartoum, while the United States and NATO would provide logistical support behind the scenes.



And NATO is not interested in providing boots on the ground.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-24T160837Z_01_L24517616_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SUDAN-DARFUR-NATO.xml&archived=False



> The African Union has accepted a NATO offer to extend its assistance in Sudan's violent Darfur region, the Western military alliance said on Wednesday, stressing its presence there would remain small.
> 
> NATO provided training and transport to African Union troops struggling to quell the violence there earlier this year and has signalled its willingness to provide more help..
> 
> "It means a limited number of NATO personnel there. From what has been agreed now between NATO and the AU it would not require a significant expansion of the numbers we have now," he [NATO spokesman James Appathurai] said, adding NATO has had at most 15 trainers on the ground.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Letter just sent to the Star:

'Jim Travers writes (July 8) 
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1152309009577&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467
that one government justification for updgrading the Canadian Air Force's airlift capability is that this would allow "a more satisfying role for this country in, say, Darfur..."  He then maintains this is a false justification since "Fighting the U.S.-led war on terror is more central to Ottawa's interests than losing Canadian lives trying to save some in Africa."

This constant talk by our pundits--and many politicians--of a possible major Canadian role in Darfur is simply silly.  The government of Sudan has made it clear it will not accept an UN force for Darfur.  There is no chance the UN Security Council will authorize a force without Khartoum's agreement.  Such an authorization would in effect be approval to invade Sudan; China (with large oil interests in Sudan) and Russia (with both energy and arms sales interests) would certainly veto any such resolution.

In any event, UN officials have made it clear that should a UN force ever be approved for Darfur the "boots on the ground" should come from African, Muslim and South Asian countries--not western ones, for reasons that should be obvious.  All that is wanted from the west (read NATO) is logistical and other kinds of support.  

So there is, contrary to the Darfur straw-man raised by Mr Travers, no realistic possibility for any susbstantial number of Canadian soldiers being needed for Darfur.  Let them get on with the job in Afghanistan without this continual musing that they might be better employed in a mythical mission in Darfur.'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace

Well, Darfur is in the limelight again. 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060709/east_sudan_060709/20060709?hub=World


> The only security in the region is 7,000 poorly equipped troops of the African Union, struggling to patrol an area larger than France.
> 
> The union wants the United Nations to take over security and send in up to 20,000 UN troops backed by NATO forces.
> 
> However, Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has continually rejected a U.N. deployment, making efforts to bring in the troops more difficult.
> 
> "The U.N. is going to go in," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Jendayi Fraser said. "And it would be in the interest of the government of Sudan, I believe, to be seen to be proactive rather than having been pushed into a situation that is inevitable."


----------



## GAP

Just seen on CTV that the African Union is asking the UN to have NATO and others physically go into Sudan...


----------



## MarkOttawa

NATO has for some time agreed to provide logistic, transport and other support, but has also made it clear there will not be NATO "boots on the ground".  The current situation in Afstan will only reinforce that position.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

Watch that change...


----------



## George Wallace

GAP said:
			
		

> Watch that change...


Yes.  Especially since we have made a commitment to the NATO Rapid Reaction Force, that was supposed to be prepped to go into Darfur several years ago, or any other Hot Spot deemed necessary by NATO (This has nothing to do with the NATO commitment to Afghanistan or the Balkins.)


----------



## GAP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes.  Especially since we have made a commitment to the NATO Rapid Reaction Force, that was supposed to be prepped to go into Darfur several years ago, or any other Hot Spot deemed necessary by NATO (This has nothing to do with the NATO commitment to Afghanistan or the Balkins.)



I'll just bet any Liberal out there trying to get reelected, and of course, Jack baby, will be powering up their whine machines for this one. They have made so many "hoof and mouth" statements about Darfur, they have to back this request by the African Union to the UN with everything they have got. 

Strange though, After seeing it on CTV, it seems to have gone to ground....nada in any papers I have seen...anybody seeing anything out there??


----------



## MarkOttawa

This is all that is envisaged for NATO in Darfur, and I cannot see its changing significantly:



> Western powers plan a robust NATO-backed UN force to deploy to the devastated western region of Darfur, but Sudanese veteran leader Omar al-Beshir has been strongly against it.


http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1734345,00050006.htm



> The African Union has agreed to a UN force, which would include African soldiers as well as Asian troops, presumably from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. Nato nations have been asked to provide air support, communications and other logistics but not troops on the ground.
> 
> But no force can enter without the consent of the Khartoum government.


http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=93896&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## medicineman

Funny how badly the AU want this but, unless there is some sort of SCR to allow the troops to go in without the Sudanese government's permission, it's still going to be a non-starter.

I too am awaiting Mr Layton's wind up with baited breath.  Should be good for a laugh if nothing else...

MM


----------



## tomahawk6

Too bad we couldnt get Libya and Chad to invade Darfur supported by NATO air.


----------



## medicineman

That would be almost amusing.

MM


----------



## MarkOttawa

It would be an interesting "peacekeeping" mission:

"Bloody battle in northern Darfur"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5165856.stm

Excerpts:
"More than 80 people have been killed as rebels fight each other for territory, according to sources within the African Union peacekeeping mission.

In early May, under pressure from the international community, the Sudanese government signed an agreement with one of the region's rebel movements.

But the deal has not been implemented and security has worsened.

Darfur's Sudan Liberation Army says it took up arms three years ago to fight for greater power and wealth for their people.

Offensive

Now the rebels have split and the SLA are fighting amongst themselves with a brutality that has driven thousands more people from their homes...

Two months ago, in their haste to get a deal, the international community pushed through a peace agreement involving just one of Darfur's rebel factions - that of Mr Minnawi.

The size of that mistake is now becoming clear.

The conflict's victims who still live in overcrowded camps have rejected the deal.

Western donors now find themselves promoting the agreement alongside the Sudanese government and Mr Minnawi's SLA - a rebel force that seems more determined to settle scores than implement the deal."

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Blackadder1916

*U.N. Votes To Create Darfur Force*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060831/wl_nm/sudan_darfur_dc_18

By Evelyn Leopold (Reuters) Aug 31, 2006

The U.N. Security Council on Thursday voted to create a United Nations peacekeeping force in Sudan's Darfur region, despite the Khartoum government's strong opposition.

The vote was 12 in favor, with abstentions from Russia, China and Qatar, the only Arab council member.

The troops will not be deployed until Sudan agrees. The United Nations wants to replace or absorb an African Union force in Darfur, which has only enough money to exist until its mandate expires on September 30 and has been unable to end the humanitarian crisis in the lawless west of the country.

The resolution calls for up to 22,500 U.N. troops and police officers and an immediate injection of air, engineering and communications support for the 7,000-member African force.

The measure, drafted by Britain and the United States, is designed to allow planning and recruitment of troops for an eventual handover.

Since the signing of a fragile peace pact in May between the government and two rebel groups, fighting has increased and the Sudanese military has said it wants to move 10,000 troops to Darfur to counter rebels who have refused to sign, raising fears of a full-scale war and thousands of additional deaths.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said he was pleased with the council decision. "It is important that we move immediately to implement it fully," he told the council. "We cannot afford to delay." 



Is this more p***ing in the wind or can an effective force be raised and deployed?  Considering the difficulty there was in getting promises of troops for a beefed-up UNIFIL (Lebanon), who will (or can) step up to the plate on this one?


----------



## KevinB

Pissing in the Wind -- since it is "waiting" for the Sudanese gov't to kay it before it is deployed...


----------



## Donut

That is perhaps the best example of UN impotence I've ever seen.

"We'll pass a resolution over your objections that won't allow us to act untill you've removed your objections.  Aren't we tough?"

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the UN is far less then the sum of it's parts.


----------



## Journeyman

Pissing in the wind......while assuming that someone else will supply the urine!

The African Union could barely scrape together 7,000 almost completely useless troops......out of an entire continent (with a still rapidly growing population of 680 million). They didn't want outside assistance, saying Africa could stand on its own two feet.

And now they want 22,500 troops and police officers?!  :rofl: 

While it may be shameful, scandalous (oh, pick any old negative word)....the world simply does not care. Sometimes realistic appraisals are harsh.

Also, as I-6 mentioned "The troops will not be deployed until Sudan agrees." 
Fighting _increased _ since the last attempted "peace agreement." And since they now want to redeploy 10,000 troops for further combat operations...they aren't agreeing anytime soon.



> U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said he was pleased with the council decision. "*It is important that we move immediately to implement it fully*," he told the council. "*We cannot afford to delay*."


 I don't know what his rush is - - the US has been a strong supporter of the waffling for years. No interest before - - less interest now.

As for UN's utility, perhaps the words of that wise philosopher, Al Pacino, are fitting: "I'd take a flamethrower to this place!" (as LtCol Frank Slade, _Scent of a Woman_)


----------



## GAP

Maybe they can use the "peacekeepers" Israel & Lebanon don't want.

Also Jack will apply


----------



## North Star

Um...how long has the Darfur crisis been going on?

So much for fast, effective diplomacy. I bet Khartoum is quaking in its boots.


----------



## patrick666

*Dallaire critical of Canada's absence in Darfur  * 
CanWest News Service
Published: Saturday, September 09, 2006 
© CanWest News Service 2006

Some backround on the situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict


Even as our Armed Forces confront the Taliban in Afghanistan, Canada can and must do more to stave off humanitarian disaster in Darfur, says Senator Romeo Dallaire.

Dallaire, a retired Canadian Forces lieutenant general, said Friday that Canada has the resources to sustain a 600-person force in Darfur where two million people have been driven from their homes and an estimated 200,000 killed.

Canada's unwillingness to get involved in Darfur shows "absolute, abject lack of leadership," Dallaire told about 100 students and staff at Concordia University in Montreal.

"If a country massively abuses its own people or is not capable of stopping the massive abuse of its people, the international community has a responsibility to protect," Dallaire added.

A member of the UN Advisory Committee on Genocide Prevention, Dallaire was commander of the UN Mission in Rwanda in 1993-94 when it was unable to intervene as 800,000 Tutsis and progressive Hutus were massacred.

Dallaire suggested a racial double-standard was at play in preventing the developed world from intervening in Rwanda as there appears to be in Darfur.

Is there "a pecking order in humanity ... where the black African doesn't count anymore?" he asked. "What happens to three million people who have nothing, to the women who are being raped as they try to get wood outside their compounds?"

Canada told the UN in May that Ottawa supports sending UN peacekeepers to Darfur, but made no commitment of a Canadian Armed Forces role.



Do you think we have the capability? Is it because we are in a "state of armed conflict"? 

I read his book, thought it was an amazing story, but could he be almost in the same situation?


----------



## Trinity

IMO... I think our verbal commitment to Darfur is just that... knowing that
the UN will never act on it.

It makes us look good without having to do anything.


Does Dallaire suggest we invade another country?
At least we have been asked to go to Afghanistan by
the lawful government.


----------



## patrick666

There are many nations in this world, many with international peace-keeping capabilities and and I agree, our verbal committment, is just that. We can't just go around the world pulling children out of the water and rescuing kittens out of the trees. While I do understand, because of his experience, he more than likely feels very strongly about the situation in the Sudan. 

Could this be another Rwanda - the UN failing, yet again, to prevent or provide support against a genocide in the making.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I've no doubt his concern is genuine, however, the tone of his article all but proves he's still a slave to the party that made him a senator.


----------



## paracowboy

paracowboy Critical of Dallaire's Presence in Senate


----------



## larry Strong

What are we going to do, invade Sudan? They have made it abundantly clear the UN is not wanted there!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060904/sudan_au_060904/20060904/


----------



## Journeyman

paracowboy said:
			
		

> paracowboy Critical of Dallaire's Presence in Senate


 :rofl:

Emptied that mouthful of beer _just_ in time


----------



## tomahawk6

The Myth of St Romeo by George Koch and John Weissenberger doesnt hold Dallaire in much respect. Kind of like Bosnia.


----------



## patrick666

For which reasons? I really can't remember the details of his book, just the vague storyline and a few situations, etc.. 

It just seems like the cycle of genocide is repeating itself and a popular point of view seems to be, out of sight out of mind.

I remember hearing the Americans saying something about going to the Sudan? .. or was that simply a verbal agreement as well.


----------



## tomahawk6

Here you go.

http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotlight/2005/04/12/myth050412.html



> It appears Dallaire even helped trigger his personal nightmare: the mission's collapse. On the genocide's second night, he sent a lightly armed squad of Belgian blue-helmets into the chaos, even though radio stations were blaming the Belgians for the president's assassination. These men -- 10, as it turned out -- were seized and disarmed by Hutu army extremists.
> 
> Dallaire soon learned of their capture, driving right past the building where they were held while heading for one of his meetings. As Dallaire dallied with Bagosora, the 10 were massacred and mutilated (it's uncertain in which order). Dallaire made no serious attempt to help his men, several of whom reportedly remained alive for hours. The Belgians later insisted they could have mounted a commando-style rescue.
> 
> (To this day, Dallaire is reviled in Belgium, which launched an inquiry into the episode. Dallaire refused to testify, a fact oddly omitted in his book.)


----------



## Trinity

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotlight/2005/04/12/myth050412.html




interesting read


----------



## paracowboy

Trinity said:
			
		

> interesting read


and the prevailing view of every Rwanda vet I've spoken with. (I'm not saying they *all* agree with it. Just every one I've spoken with.)


----------



## pronto

Go Paracowboy!

I find it is safest to just tune out whenever you hear the word "Dallaire" (even though he was a gunner)... That way you won't hear the BullSh*t and scream at the TV/Radio/Newspaper/Computer/et cetera. I find if I refer to "senator numpty" it helps my stress levels. 

For God's sake don't read the _Shake Hands_ book... It'll just make you evacuate from every orifice.


----------



## patrick666

> The Canadian peacekeeper not only shook hands with the devil, he gave him the thumbs-up plus a lift between levels of Hell.



So it would seem. A very good read, indeed. Maybe he views this as some sort of way to re-establism himself as a rambo of peace.


----------



## tomahawk6

Dallaire like others is trying to improve his spot in history through spin and revisionism. Reminds me of President Clinton.


----------



## patrick666

Is there anything being done about the conflicts in Africa by any other international military or are we simply leaving them to their means. Seems to be one of the few civil wars the world has not invested effort in.


----------



## tomahawk6

The NATO countries just cant put a peacekeeping force everywhere in the world. You have to pick and choose the places where you can make a difference. This could be strategy of potential enemies to tie down troops in peacekeeping missions so they are unavailable for a mission where they could really make a critical difference.


----------



## patrick666

Good point. Many places require many needs, and you are right, sometimes there are priorities.


----------



## paracowboy

Patrick H. said:
			
		

> Is there anything being done about the conflicts in Africa by any other international military or are we simply leaving them to their means.


here's a crazy idea: how about if you go to BBC.com, CTV.ca, or any other news agancy's website and do some checking for yourself?


----------



## a_majoor

In a way, Dafur would be a hideous "worst of all possible worlds" assignment; we would have to fight our way in, deal with Afghanistan level intensity combat in a hellish desert environment at the end of another long logistics chain and have to listen to the same wankers who whined and cried that we WERN"T going to deploy saying "This is not the right mission for Canada" while running and hiding from the evidence that they did indeed say this was the right mission.

As satisfying as being able to grab "them" and rub their faces into it, the price we would have to pay is far too high in blood and treasure. Besides, the "progressives" have demonstrated they are no longer capable of observing the world, or interpreting and learning from their observations. Create an "International Brigade" for "Progressives" to save Dafur and let Darwin take care of them.


----------



## geo

France went in to Africa - not sure they are still there
Most African countries have grave suspicion / mistrust of Euro/American countries and prefer African union countries peacekeeping forces - but those are underequipped and underqualified and under motivated.......... IMHO


----------



## larry Strong

According to the French Army home page there are 1200 troops in Chad, by the looks of the break down it's mostly Air Force including a dozen Mirage F1's


----------



## TCBF

"Dallaire like others is trying to improve his spot in history through spin and revisionism. Reminds me of President Clinton."

- Of the two, President Clinton is in the tightest spot right now: Monica Lewinski and Mrs. Clinton are still on this side of the grass.  Most of the people who have a real grievance agaist Senator Dallaire are in mass graves.


----------



## TCBF

"As satisfying as being able to grab "them" and rub their faces into it, the price we would have to pay is far too high in blood and treasure. Besides, the "progressives" have demonstrated they are no longer capable of observing the world, or interpreting and learning from their observations. Create an "International Brigade" for "Progressives" to save Dafur and let Darwin take care of them."

- Now THAT is a FANTASTIC idea!  We need a 2nd Mac/Pap Bn!  This will draw the action oriented progressives out of school and into the dirt.  They can listen to Toto sing "Africa" on their MP3 players between bouts of getting their arses kicked in Darfur.  Like the earlier Mac/Pap Bn, this will be a great way of getting rid of a generation's worth of the most dangerous of our own Commie rabble rousers: the ones who would take up arms.

- Better to let foreigners kill them 'over there' than have our sons and daughters be forced do it here later on.


----------



## EXMPptbo

You would think Rwanda would cure us of thinking the UN or anything UN sponsored would work in Africa. There is no cleaning up Darfur without tackling the Govt. of Sudan and no-one seems to have the balls for that as far as the UN is concerned. Our soldiers would be in harm's way for no good reason because they would not be allowed to do anything of substance. Like UNIFIL in the middle east they would only be there for appearance only. No vote will ever go through the security council or the general assembly as the Arab states won't let it. Darfur is genocide pure and simple and everyone knows it but the fix is in because it's just Africa. (their viewpoint, not mine)


----------



## geo

Going to Africa to become Sitting Ducks is not in our best interest - least not mine anyway.....  Given that the Sudanese gov`t is directly linked to what is going on in Darfur, we'd have to declare the country a "failed state"... like Rwanda, like Somalia..... and I don't think anyone has the stomach for that at present..... 

So long as the country does not have strategic value to the "1st world", this 3rd world country will continue to be living hell.


----------



## Cloud Cover

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Now THAT is a FANTASTIC idea!  We need a 2nd Mac/Pap Bn!  This will draw the action oriented progressives out of school and into the dirt.  They can listen to Toto sing "Africa" on their MP3 players between bouts of getting their arses kicked in Darfur.  Like the earlier Mac/Pap Bn, this will be a great way of getting rid of a generation's worth of the most dangerous of our own Commie rabble rousers: the ones who would take up arms.



And when they get into serious trouble on day 4 of their little expedition, you'll just be over there saving their asses and finishing the job for them, while the survivors that ran away tell you how to do it right.


----------



## cplcaldwell

I don't think Senator Dallaire is out of line at all. 

He has the sheen of the glorious defeated to him, sort of a latter day Robert E Lee. He did the job with what he had, and for the most part, based on the limitations of resources, the idiotic mandate and the sheer magnitude of the tragedy, failed.

He is quite right to raise hackles on Darfur, from everything I see in the media it's a real mess. The point is, unless some nasty imperialistic nation invokes the right to self-defence, the African Union, the UN and the Sudanese are not going to give in for any number of reasons.

Senator Dallaire should be screaming about this, maybe after he screams loud enough some real arm twisting will begin. At some point in time after that we may actually see the genesis of a solution. Thousands will die in the interim.

As for a new "Mac Pap" battalion. Given the magnitude of the problem. Shouldn't we really be talking in terms of a new "Mac Pap" DIVISION?


----------



## patrick666

> So long as the country does not have strategic value to the "1st world", this 3rd world country will continue to be living hell.



Unfortunately, truer words never spoken.

The latest celebrity hype is to "help Africa" spearheaded by the Brad and Angelina types on some sort of personal crusade to revoke the tyranny of centuries passed with a blank cheque. Unfortunately, these funds and aid programs only serve and support militia governments with arms to contine the slaughter.


----------



## Journeyman

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> *....sort of a latter day Robert E Lee.*



I will bitch-slap you into the middle of next year if you ever again _dare_ to compare Senator Dallaire to that fine gentleman from Stratford Virginia!

Heretic!


----------



## cplcaldwell

Why?

It's narrow comparison but it has validity. 

Lee had respect of many, adversaries and allies for his whole life becuase he used the tools he had to do the job he felt (knew) was his duty. So did Dallaire (perhaps except that he does not have your respect).


----------



## 2 Cdo

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> I don't think Senator Dallaire is out of line at all.
> 
> He has the sheen of the glorious defeated to him, sort of a latter day Robert E Lee. He did the job with what he had, and for the most part, based on the limitations of resources, the idiotic mandate and the sheer magnitude of the tragedy, failed.
> 
> He is quite right to raise hackles on Darfur, from everything I see in the media it's a real mess. The point is, unless some nasty imperialistic nation invokes the right to self-defence, the African Union, the UN and the Sudanese are not going to give in for any number of reasons.
> 
> Senator Dallaire should be screaming about this, maybe after he screams loud enough some real arm twisting will begin. At some point in time after that we may actually see the genesis of a solution. Thousands will die in the interim.
> 
> As for a new "Mac Pap" battalion. Given the magnitude of the problem. Shouldn't we really be talking in terms of a new "Mac Pap" DIVISION?



Senator Daillaire should just sit quietly in the corner and shut his gob! ANYTHING he says is not worth listening to! :threat:


----------



## a_majoor

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> As for a new "Mac Pap" battalion. Given the magnitude of the problem. Shouldn't we really be talking in terms of a new "Mac Pap" DIVISION?



Show me 20,000 "Progressives" who are willing to step up to the plate and take real action (as opposed to whinging from the sidelines) and I will form the training cadre.

In fact, I wonder if it would even be possible to form a Progressive battalion of modern Canadian size (@ 550 soldiers).

Lucky for all of us there are plenty of not so progressive Canadians who are willing to put on the uniform and stand up for what needs to be done, and people in the political arena who can make realistic cost/benefit calculations so the lives of our servicemembers are not wasted on some quixotic quest with little or no connection to our national interest.


----------



## Journeyman

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Lee had respect of many, adversaries and allies for his whole life becuase he used the tools he had to do the job he felt (knew) was his duty. So did Dallaire (perhaps except that he does not have your respect).


Perhaps I should have included a ";D" to indicate my initial degree of seriousness. Since you wish to drag this out, however, you are correct; I do not respect Dallaire. Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe respect must be earned. 

I worked for him when he commanded 5CMBG - - and I respected him immensely. 

I watched Rwanda, and knew many of the troops who were sent from the recently disbanded Airborne, and I pitied him. 

I've since watched the abysmal level to which he's sunk into mindless, destructive partisan politics and I've lost all respect for him.

If I may echo the sentiment of MGen Lew MacKenzie (yet again): http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060608/cit/060608bq.htm


----------



## cplcaldwell

*Journeyman*, thank you for the reply.

I figured your initial blast was a bit of a  ;D, so I didn't go there. Not to worry. Sometimes these boards are a contact sport!

I see your point, 


> I've since watched the abysmal level to which he's sunk into mindless, destructive partisan politics and I've lost all respect for him.


given your obvious familarity with the subject. I respect your opinion.

I can't get to the MGen MacKenzie link but I am sure it's instructive.

*a_majoor*. Perhaps I too should have included  ;D in my reference to the "Mac Pap" !

_Dragging out complete, let's move on._


----------



## scoutfinch

JM:

Before we start accusing Dallaire of playing destructive partisan politics, let's not forget that MGen MacKenzie also was actively involved in the Progressive Conservative party before its demise.  He is equally *guilty* of engaging in partisan politics post retirement.  (I  say *guilty* with emphasis because there are no prohibitions on former soldiers being politically active.) 

Do not misconstrue this comment as an attack on MGen MacKenzie as I hold him the highest regard and have been privileged to be acquainted with him for over 20 years.


----------



## Journeyman

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> *I can't get to the MGen MacKenzie link but I am sure it's instructive*


Quoted verbatim at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44896/post-392052.html#msg392052



			
				scoutfinch said:
			
		

> *Before we start accusing Dallaire of playing destructive partisan politics, let's not forget that MGen MacKenzie also was actively involved in the Progressive Conservative party before its demise*.


...but if one _agrees_ with the partisan, it's not destructive.   <<<------please note.

In the case of Dallaire's politics, I was referring to:

- 2004 (prior to his Senate appointment), Dallaire calls for western/NATO military intervention to stop the genocide

- as Senator, toeing the Liberal party line to merely provide the useless African Union force with some logistic support and "a handful of advisers," he states that those calling for "western intervention were recommending a racist solution: 'Anybody who says that the era of the white man going into Africa and sorting out their problems [is] disconnected from the reality of Africa'." 

- The Liberal defeat brought his current, renewed call for western intervention in Darfur. (Does this now make him a racist?  : )1


His logic, and hence suitability to provide any political leadership for my country, is dependent solely upon which way the wind is blowing.

If one does a search of "Dallaire" on this site, there are 5 pages of results; I think I'm done here.2 

---------------------
1. See link above
2. Yes, I know my opinion is valued [my mom thought so, anyway]....but really, I'm done


----------



## MarkOttawa

So do "progessives", whilst wanting us out of Afstan, want us to invade Sudan?  Wouldn't we then also be war-mongering as Bush's poodle?

 Sudan legislator sees conspiracy in UN move for Darfur mission
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/12/news/darfur.php



> A senior Sudanese lawmaker on Tuesday accused Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, of spearheading a conspiracy against the African country over a plan to deploy UN peacekeepers in the war-torn Darfur region.
> 
> The *United States is leading the conspiracy* [my emphasis--and it is true that the US is trying, along with the UK, to get something done while other countries are really not doing anything], which "began as a political campaign in the UN and is now taking the form of a military intervention," Ismail Haj Mussa, a senior member of the Sudanese Parliament, told Radio Omdurman, a state-run station.
> 
> The United Nations has been trying to persuade Sudan to allow the world body to take over an African Union peacekeeping force that has been unable to stop the violence in Darfur. But President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan has repeatedly rejected the proposal, saying that it would violahis ate the country's sovereignty. He has warned that *his army would fight any UN forces sent to Darfur* [my emphasis]...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## TCBF

"As for a new "Mac Pap" battalion. Given the magnitude of the problem. Shouldn't we really be talking in terms of a new "Mac Pap" DIVISION?"

- Back in the day, yer home-grown commie had a little more intestinal fortitude - hence the Mac-Paps.  Nowadays, our cocktail socialists want us to fight their revolution for them.


----------



## a_majoor

TCBF said:
			
		

> "As for a new "Mac Pap" battalion. Given the magnitude of the problem. Shouldn't we really be talking in terms of a new "Mac Pap" DIVISION?"
> 
> - Back in the day, yer home-grown commie had a little more intestinal fortitude - hence the Mac-Paps.  Nowadays, our cocktail socialists want us to fight their revolution for them.



Sounds about right. Here are some pictures of these sort of people in action in the United States

http://www.zombietime.com/anarchist_bookfair_march_18_2006/

http://www.zombietime.com/anarchist_bookfair_march_18_2006/

The death squads would be so busy laughing the people of Dafur might have a chance to run away.......


----------



## Cloud Cover

Can we photo shop some pics of Jack Layton and Stephen Staples in there?


----------



## warspite

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Show me 20,000 "Progressives" who are willing to step up to the plate and take real action (as opposed to whinging from the sidelines) and I will form the training cadre.
> 
> In fact, I wonder if it would even be possible to form a Progressive battalion of modern Canadian size (@ 550 soldiers).


Simple... press gang the NDP conventions ;D
The mind may not be willing but the flesh is able.


----------



## GAP

September 13, 2006 edition

Pressure ratchets up over Darfur
an update

A deadline is raising tensions and stakes in a UN-Khartoum showdown.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0913/p01s02-wogi.html?s=hns

UNITED NATIONS, N.Y. – With time running out on the African Union's peacekeeping force in Darfur, the United Nations may find out if the international community has the ability to stop renewed genocide. 
A decade after the world looked on as hundreds of thousands of people died in Rwanda and Bosnia, Sudan's region of Darfur is emerging as a test of whether the world can do better this time. Key governments are pressing Sudanese authorities in Khartoum to accept an extension of the African Union force's mandate that runs out at the end of the month. Such a move, international leaders hope, would give time for a more sizable UN force, already approved by the Security Council, to prepare and deploy. 
More on link


----------



## TCBF

Right.

1 and 2 Bdes get the 'Ghan, 5 Bde gets Darfur. Everybody gets happy.  

Next.


----------



## cplcaldwell

This one is for Journeyman.....



> *Dallaire wants young to rally for Darfur intervention*
> 
> Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA — Roméo Dallaire wants young Canadians to go out in the streets and promote international action to end what he calls a human catastrophe in Darfur.
> 
> The senator and retired general is promoting a Sunday rally in Toronto that he hopes will draw young people to activism on behalf of the beleaguered region of Sudan.
> 
> He says his hope is that young people can prod the populace and the government into spearheading an international effort to stabilize Darfur and end the fighting which has killed thousands of people.
> 
> Justin Trudeau is to be the emcee of the Toronto rally, one of many scheduled around the world.
> 
> Mr. Dallaire, who led the ill-fated United Nations mission during the Rwandan genocide, is also pushing for a major international force to go into Sudan and stabilize Darfur.
> 
> He hopes Canada will be willing to provide money and up to 600 troops for that mission.



_Reproduced from the Globe and Mail Under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC_


Gotta love that a Trudeau is in there too eh?


----------



## George Wallace

What an opportunity!

If we send a couple of tractor trailers of uniforms and a couple full of boots, we can file them all through   Put them on a bus.  Bus them out to Peason and put them on our Airbus and fly them all over to Darfur.    Problem solved.  Dallaire can go and give them briefings enroute.   ;D  It is after all, a ten to twelve hour flight.


----------



## TCBF

"OTTAWA — Roméo Dallaire wants young Canadians to go out in the streets and promote international action to end what he calls a human catastrophe in Darfur.

The senator and retired general is promoting a Sunday rally in Toronto that he hopes will draw young people to activism on behalf of the beleaguered region of Sudan."

- Anyone showing up with a "Support Belgian Paratrooper Peacekeepers" sign?


----------



## pronto

Aw Poop! I warned you a few postings back - now you've made me (and a lot of others) haemorrhage from all our orifices... You made us think of Dallaire again... Arrrrrgh... _must resist comment on bad,self-serving, smarmy, book.... Must resist urge to write note to senate_
 >

Edited 'cause I can't spell haemorrhage when ticked at Dallaire


----------



## MarkOttawa

The latest from the good Senator (full text not officially online):

History will judge Canada, not Sudan, on the fate of Darfur
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20060914.wxcodarfur14%2FBNStory%2FspecialComment%2Fhome&ord=11580757&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false



> ...Canadians need to realize that a large part of Sudan's intransigence can be directly linked to our own government's unwillingness to accept leadership of a UN mission to Darfur.



Does the Senator really believe that Khartoum has given one moment's thought to Canada's willingness or not to lead a mission in Darfur?



> One of the underlying justifications of Sudan's refusal to accept a UN mission is its professed fear that letting the United Nations in means letting the United States and other major powers into the area.



No it's not. The US and NATO have made it clear they will not put boots on the ground (they are rather pre-ocuppied elsewhere for one thing). What other major powers is the Senator dreaming about? He lists below some states that might be considered major powers as states that should contribute to a force; would not Sudan also reject these countries?



> Canadian inaction enables the Sudanese to continue balking on this point.



Strange that I have seen no reporting anywhere in the international media about this grievous consequence of Canadian inaction.



> It is not only the responsibility of the U.S. and other Security Council members to solve the crisis in Darfur. Their efforts to protect the millions of displaced and menaced people living in Darfur by passing Resolution 1706 have been commendable. It now falls to Canada, as a leader of the world's middle powers, to take charge of the mission, prepare for deployment of Canadian Forces and rally other middle powers -- such as Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, and the Scandinavian countries -- to commit the resources and troops needed to stop the slaughter.



So, now that the UNSC is stalemated by Khartoum's refusal to accept a UN force, Canada will just whistle up those middle powers, take command of their forces, and lead them in an invasion of Sudan. An invasion (if it ever happened but it won't) that would be resisted and likely lead to years of bloody insurgency. And all without specific UNSC authorization.

The Senator has also forgotten that the UN does not want troops from the countries he lists (except maybe India); it wants soldiers from African, South Asian and Islamic nations.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Centurian1985

Unforunately, that link brings up... "The page you requested is only available to INSIDER Edition subscribers".  

(Note - Unfortunately, you can register but you only get 14 days access.  Yes I can subscribe to another magazine, but I have enough already thanks.) 

To get to the point, is Canada actually the leader of the 'middle powers' or '2nd world nations'?  When did we get elected leader of the 'middle powers'? and, we got a great life here and we do a lot worldwide, but how does he justify that its our responsibilty as leader of the pack of 'middle powers'?


----------



## FSTO

Any reporter worth his salt would go to google earth and see where the Darfur region of Sudan is situated. Then after they take in the terrain, closest ports and potential staging area in a neighbouring country (and find one who would allow the UN to set up there), they should ask these questions to the good senator. I am VERY interested to hear his answers.


----------



## GUNS

Canadian's are all shagged up, they want to pull us out of a country, that wants us there and send us to a country that don't want us there.

Got that comment from my favourite Mess bartender.


----------



## pronto

Arrrrgh. Canadians do NOT want us out of Afghanistan. 

Journalists, intelligentsia, fellow-travellers, party apparatchiks, left-leaning, tree-hugging, granola-crunching, sandal-wearing, poncho-sporting wackos want us out of Afghanistan.

If we believe the silly surveys, preposterous polls - yes indeedy, that is the message we're to come away with. I have to be honest, though, GUNS, I have not met a single person in the past two months who wants us out! Seriously! two months worth of people! 

(Of course, I proudly wear an artillery pin on my suit, or a year of the vet pin, or a little mortar, or a 100th anniversary of the Australian Army, but if they can't handle that, too bad!). So we all have to take a pill and not think the average Canadian wants us out.


----------



## GUNS




----------



## Bigmac

As you all have heard the Prime Minister is pushing for UN involvement in Sudan. The CDS anounced recently that our military is tapped out due to our increased involvement in Afghanistan. Can we sustain the mission in Afghanistan and still send a significant amount of troops to Sudan with the UN? What is your opinion?


----------



## 2 Cdo

No, we cannot sustain both. Therfore we should not venture anywhere near Dafur anytime soon.


----------



## Bigmac

Which mission is more important? Fighting Taliban and trying to restore order and government in Afghanistan or preventing the systematic genocide of hundreds of thousands of people in Sudan? I believe our Prime Minister may already be formulating a plan for us to join the UN cause. Recent polls are not favorable for the government due to the loss of soldiers in Afghanistan. I am curious to see if our government will buckle to opinion polls?


----------



## GAP

Politically, the government may have to commit to a small support group (not including existing support group) if only to shut down the opposition.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Bigmac said:
			
		

> Recent polls are not favorable for the government due to the loss of soldiers in Afghanistan.



As would the polls be IF we wandered into Darfur, and started to take casualties! Make no mistake, the situation there would almost guarentee that we would take casualties!


----------



## KevinB

Depends on what they want to do in Darfur.

Canada has 9 Inf BN's, 1 SOF "Group", 3 Armoured Regt and 3 Arty Reg.

The second line (TF2- and TF4-) of operations capability could theoretically take the role.-- That woudl then leave Canada open and have no reserve.

Plus it would be initiating a war of aggression in Sudan...

I would rather operate in Iraq...


----------



## HItorMiss

Sudan... OH HECK NO!

I6 says it better, but the fact remains until the UN is asked to intervene and the mission is mandated then anything we think of doing is an act of aggression against a sovereign nation.


----------



## GAP

We could always pull a NATO... pick a nice, safe cushy position, then refuse to get involved in the other nasty stuff.


----------



## icatq

The key problem is - we have no combat arms pers left. The army will struggle to do Afghanistan until 2009 (and beyond).

It's not that we wouldn't do Sudan, it's that we can't....and no amount of whining by a Liberal Senator will correct this.

Maybe if the Liberals had paid attention when they were in office we would be big enough to do this (oh, and have strat air lift to get there!).


----------



## vonGarvin

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Canada has 9 Inf BN's, 1 SOF "Group", 3 Armoured Regt and 3 Arty Reg.
> The second line (TF2- and TF4-) of operations capability could theoretically take the role.-- That woudl then leave Canada open and have no reserve.


That, unfortunately, is all theory.  The "Inf BN's" are nothing more than force generators for companies and TF HQs.  The SOF Group: unsure.  Arty and Armd regts (in reality, two Armd Recce Regt and one Tank Regt) are all maxed out.
THe second line of operations has recently been "modified", shall we say.  I don't have a link, I've only seen a hard copy (OT: How do I get a hyperlink to my desk without a web cam or scanner?)
BUT, in theory, if they were deployed, they would still be a company as "reserve" (yes, being VERY sarcastic).
Then there's the logistical and command support.
We have definately jumped the shark as an army. (Go to http://www.jumptheshark.com/ for more info on that one) Let's hoping someone stops the bleeding.  It seems as though it's going the right way, though...


----------



## MarkOttawa

A related post at _The Torch_:

 Darfur: Liberal Senator says Canadian military are racist (Sept. 28)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/09/darfur-liberal-senator-says-canadian.html

See also this guest-post at _Daimnation!_:

Darfur update: AU force to be augmented (Sept. 26)
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007665.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## KevinB

VG -- sorry it was more of a tongue in cheek responce.

I am aware of our paper strength versus actual.  

However when we deploy people its skewed anyway -- look at TF1-06 350 crunchies and 1700 watchers...

We could deploy a coy of reservists to Sudan on month long callouts - send a Div HQ and call it a comittment  :


----------



## warrickdll

Perhaps, on the off chance that non-AU forces would be authorized, the government has been considering the 6 pack and the Griffons for this (it seems increasingly difficult politically to send them to Afghanistan)? 

It would have a lower casualty risk but high exposure. An aircraft solution would put more Air Force commanders overseas and wouldn't lean much on Army resources. 

In short, if called upon (big if), we could contribute visible high quality units, and not affect current operations in Afghanistan. Not affect except logistically, fiscally, and... well okay - maybe it would take a lot of effort. But not an impossibility.


----------



## vonGarvin

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> VG -- sorry it was more of a tongue in cheek responce.
> 
> I am aware of our paper strength versus actual.
> 
> However when we deploy people its skewed anyway -- look at TF1-06 350 crunchies and 1700 watchers...
> 
> We could deploy a coy of reservists to Sudan on month long callouts - send a Div HQ and call it a comittment  :



LOL...that's ok.  I just posted in case anyone thought you were being serious 

I know about deployments.  All fat, no lean.

As that burger king lady said "where's the beef?"


----------



## HItorMiss

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> We could deploy a coy of reservists to Sudan on month long callouts - send a Div HQ and call it a commitment  :



Oh god please don't get their hopes up like that it's just cruel to tease. And you know somewhere down the line we'll hear the " Hey I just heard somewhere that the CF was going to do a all Res Tour to the Sudan anyone know how I can get on it? see we told you were just as good!"

No I don't mean the avg Reservist but you all know the type.


----------



## Journeyman

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> * all Res Tour to the Sudan*


Oh man, that could sort out _so_ many issues  >  ....er, cut it out!  Keep it on track, dammit.


----------



## geo

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Depends on what they want to do in Darfur.
> Canada has 9 Inf BN's, 1 SOF "Group", 3 Armoured Regt and 3 Arty Reg.
> The second line (TF2- and TF4-) of operations capability could theoretically take the role.-- That woudl then leave Canada open and have no reserve.
> Plus it would be initiating a war of aggression in Sudan...
> I would rather operate in Iraq...


Infidel,
while I know you've already qualified your answer......
They've already started tapping into TF 4/06, providing an Inf coy as augmentation to 3/07 ..... plus the sqn of Leos & support troops....... 

stretch, and stretch some more 

Chimo!


----------



## TCBF

"No, we cannot sustain both. Therfore we should not venture anywhere near Dafur anytime soon."

- That is because we are war-fighting with a peacetime career system.  Here is how we free up people:

1.  Move all trades to an 'operational merit list.'
2.  Follow a similar to the  US system of 1 tour 'over there', then one year at home where required.
3.  Promote those who do tours - no 'in the window' for those who do not deploy.
4.  Cut the peacetime 'fat' from our establishment and convert those PYs into hard field positions.
5.  DAG all pers twicw a year.  Blow a DAG your hold your merit list for 6 mos.  Blow two DAGs in a row and 'toured' pers get to pass by you.
6.  Compete for postings: those just off tour can say "I want to go THERE" and bounce out someone who is unfit or dagged Red.
7. If a single person of your trade and rank has not 'toured' since you have, they either tour next, or drop out of the merit list.  Promote combat experience ONLY.

Reward operational service at the expense of the office-working 'chosen ones.'


----------



## 2 Cdo

TCBF said:
			
		

> "No, we cannot sustain both. Therfore we should not venture anywhere near Dafur anytime soon."
> 
> - That is because we are war-fighting with a peacetime career system.  Here is how we free up people:
> 
> 1.  Move all trades to an 'operational merit list.'
> 2.  Follow a similar to the  US system of 1 tour 'over there', then one year at home where required.
> 3.  Promote those who do tours - no 'in the window' for those who do not deploy.
> 4.  Cut the peacetime 'fat' from our establishment and convert those PYs into hard field positions.
> 5.  DAG all pers twicw a year.  Blow a DAG your hold your merit list for 6 mos.  Blow two DAGs in a row and 'toured' pers get to pass by you.
> 6.  Compete for postings: those just off tour can say "I want to go THERE" and bounce out someone who is unfit or dagged Red.
> 7. If a single person of your trade and rank has not 'toured' since you have, they either tour next, or drop out of the merit list.  Promote combat experience ONLY.
> 
> Reward operational service at the expense of the office-working 'chosen ones.'



While I agree in principle with rewarding those who deploy versus those who knowingly avoid overseas deployment, what is your plan for those who are in non-deployable positions, ie. instructors and those who are medically broken? It seems that if we start punishing all who don't deploy we might run into problems getting anyone to work for the schools in the CF!


----------



## geo

The problem I would have with Sudan is that the Gov't of Sudan doesn't support the concept of a UN force there in the 1st place............ and only grudgingly tolerate the AU troops that are there.

Having our troops anywhere near there without a clear mandate is just going off half cocked and just looking for trouble.


----------



## vonGarvin

I don't think he's advocating punishing those in the training system as instructors, after all, they are the ones who "pump out" the soldiers who deploy.  Can't have "junk" producing soldiers, lest we get get junk "out there".


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

I stumbled upon this from a couple of days ago - written by a couple of "activists"...  My emphasis added:



> Canada must lead in Darfur
> 
> Ben Fine and Josh Scheinert
> National Post
> 
> 
> Monday, September 18, 2006
> 
> 
> On August 31, the United Nations moved one step closer to bringing about an end to the crisis in Darfur, Sudan. It passed Security Council Resolution 1706, calling for up to 20,600 troops and police to help stabilize the troubled region and protect its vulnerable civilians.
> 
> To make this protection a reality Canada will have to answer the call.
> 
> Currently, violence in Darfur continues, displacing and uprooting thousands of innocents. There are 3.6 million Darfurians dependent on aid, which is at its lowest amount since the conflict began, due to a lack of funding and security. The number of weak and unprotected people increases every day. But the UN resolution has given us an opportunity to step in. It is time for Canada to offer troops and resources -- to do more, in other words, than making ephemeral statements outlining our concern for the people in Darfur.
> 
> Resolution 1706 refers to Sudan's "responsibility to protect" its civilians, a Canadian diplomatic initiative adopted by the UN's General Assembly one year ago. Given that Sudan has manifestly failed to protect its population from ethnic cleansing, the resolution rightfully "invites" the Sudanese government to consent to the troop deployment, rather than requiring it.
> 
> The success of the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) deployment to Darfur depends on military and diplomatic leadership. Troops and resources from developed nations are vital if UNMIS is to fulfill its ambitious mandate. Diplomatically, the mission requires the leadership of nations other than Great Britain and the United States, both of which are militarily tied down elsewhere.
> 
> Enter Canada. A recently publicized report states that in addition to the troops in Afghanistan, the Canadian military has a 1,200-strong task force reserved for international crises such as Darfur. As well, *Canada could supply a squadron of CF-18 fighter jets (12-18 aircraft) and the appropriate support and logistics elements in order to ground Sudanese aircraft, preventing attacks on civilians.*
> 
> What is more, we have the world behind us. *Nations from around the world have grown impatient with Sudan's constant rejection of the need for an international protection force in Darfur. Sweden and Norway are prepared to contribute. African nations are already there; Asian troops are in south Sudan. All that's missing is a credible leader.*
> We have the resources. We have the allies. The question thus becomes, do we have the will to lead? Canadian citizens do. Yesterday, "Global Day for Darfur" rallies were held around the world, and Canadians gathered in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal and Halifax to call for Canadian leadership in Darfur.
> 
> There is, therefore, no more fitting time than now for the Government of Canada to take the lead in bringing about an end to an awful humanitarian crisis. This is the moment for Canada to prove itself and its ideals to the people of Darfur, to the international community and, most importantly, to us -- Canadians at home who know our country can and should be doing more.
> 
> - Ben Fine, the executive director of STAND (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur) Canada is a student in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. Josh Scheinert, STAND Canada's communications director, is a student at Osgoode Hall Law School.



So, these two - who would more than likely oppose our operations in Afghanistan - are calling for Canada to invade Sudan? Unilaterally if required...?  Do they not have one brain cell between them?  Bloody hell...  :


----------



## Teflon

Why do so many people who oppose our so called "illegal occupation" of Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan government keep screaming that we against the wishes of the Sudan government sent troops (ie:invade) Sudan?


----------



## 2 Cdo

Teflon, because they are ignorant and stupid!


----------



## Yrys

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5390974.stm

UN 'must drop' Darfur peace force

Top UN officials say the world body must abandon efforts
 to pressure Sudan to accept UN peacekeepers in Darfur.

UN Sudan envoy Jan Pronk says the existing African Union
 force should instead be strengthened.


----------



## geo

Enpowering the only show in town is the ONLY angle that currently makes sense.

Though I do not keep my hopes high that they will come to anything constructive.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Some in US promote an air campaign, as in Kosovo:

We Saved Europeans. Why Not Africans?
By Susan E. Rice, Anthony Lake and Donald M. Payne
Monday, October 2, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100871.html



> ...
> After swift diplomatic consultations, the United States should press for a U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by U.N. member states, collectively or individually. International military pressure would continue until Sudan relented.
> 
> The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy -- by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.
> 
> If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it. Impossible? No, the United States acted without U.N. blessing in 1999 in Kosovo to confront a lesser humanitarian crisis (perhaps 10,000 killed) and a more formidable adversary. Under NATO auspices, it bombed Serbian targets until Slobodan Milosevic acquiesced. Not a single American died in combat. Many nations protested that the United States violated international law, but the United Nations subsequently deployed a mission to administer Kosovo and effectively blessed NATO military action retroactively...
> 
> _Susan E. Rice, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was assistant secretary of state for African affairs from 1997 to 2001. Anthony Lake, a professor at Georgetown University, was national security adviser from 1993 to 1997. Donald M. Payne is a Democratic representative from New Jersey._



Note the authors are all Democrats, advocating war.  Of course no UN military mission deployed to Kosovo--it was NATO's KFOR.  Odd mistake for such people to make.  KFOR is still there; I wonder why all those Canadian politicians who demand an "exit strategy" for Afstan did not demand one when Canadian troops joined KFOR?  The strategy was eventually just to remove them when we felt we had done enough and let others continue doing the job.
http://www.nato.int/kfor/
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Operations/quadrant_e.asp

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Blackadder1916

Bush Says U.N. Should Not Wait On Darfur  
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_sudan_darfur_2;_ylt=As1w2IqicnzJJRtZSFoMS9YGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

October 2, 2006 (AP) 
President Bush said Monday the United Nations should send a peacekeeping force to the troubled Darfur region of Sudan as soon as possible without further delay.

"The United Nations can play an important role in helping us achieve our objective, which is to end human suffering and deprivation," Bush said as he dispatched special envoy Andrew Natsios to the region. "In my view, the United Nations should not wait any longer ... ."

The Sudanese government has thus far resisted mounting international pressure to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur. Bush contends the U.N. should deploy such a force anyway.

Natsios said he had been going to Sudan for 17 years and "I know leaders in all regions of the country and I'm going to use those contacts and that history to move this process along."

"I think what our objective is, is not just to have a temporary fix for two months, but to try to deal with the root causes of this so we don't have another fourth war in five years, should we end this one successfully," Natsios said in an Oval Office session with Bush and reporters.

More noisemaking in advance of the mid-term elections or do they actually think they effect change without having to provide resources?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well if the Francophones can have Romania, Egypt, Thailand, etc in it, then just get various nations to agree to go, have them join the AU as observer nations and viola! You have a robust AU force, then you tell Sudan to go piss up a rope.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor

Part of that has to do with domestic politics. The Democrats insist that only the UN has the authority to take actions like intervening in Dafur, OIF, liberating Afghanistan etc.

OF course, anyone who actually takes the time to be informed will know what the actual record of the UN is in this and so many other cases. I think the thrust here is to give the UN yet another public humiliation (i.e. they can hardly organize a coffee break, much less rescue people suffering from Genocide) which the American public will see and say WTF? to the Democrats. This also defangs the arguments that the "UN could have" arguments for all but the most completely tinfoil protected.

OF course, should the UN actually get off it's collective ass, then there will be some real hope for that organization. Recent events suggest it is a spent force, who's time has passed, however.


----------



## Kirkhill

Its all good.


If the other guy doesn't go to war - we would have.
If the other guy goes to war - we wouldn't have.
If the other guy goes to war - we would have gone to war someplace else.
If the other guy goes to war - we would have done it differently.
If the other guy goes to war - we would have done it faster
If the other guy goes to war - we would have done it cheaper
If the other guy goes to war - we would have killed fewer civilians
If the other guy goes to war - we would have made fewer enemies.

Behold the nature of political discourse and pass the vomit bucket.


----------



## MarkOttawa

a_majoor: The Democratic authors of the Washington Post piece above are advocating that the US take military action *without* UN Security Council authorization, if necessary.  As the Clinton and Chretien governments (with others) did in Kosovo.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

Gee, it's true then...  : Stupidity knows no borders.


----------



## Kirkhill

> "In the absence of Sudan's consent to the deployment of UN troops, any volunteering to provide peacekeeping troops to Darfur will be considered as a hostile act, a prelude to an invasion of a member country of the UN," the Sudanese letter said.



http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/05/sudan-united-nations.html

I know we have got threads on Darfur, Sudan, Afghanistan, UN Peacekeeping and Jack - but this touches them all.

If we sign up to support the UN by offering to provide troops for Darfur, merely putting our signature to that peace of paper will be deemed an act of war by the government of Sudan - friend of Al Qaeda and militant islamists everywhere.

We don't even have to put a boot on the ground, or even cast off a line from Halifax dock or lift a tire off of Trenton.  Putting pen to paper will make us a target for the Sudanese government. 

Over to you Jack.  Do you want to stand on principle and make us a target, inflame the arab world and see Canadians come home in caskets?

Now, if we had enough troops, equipment, money, support etc it would be a grand thing to do.  Seeing as how we have none of the above the discussion is moot in any event.


----------



## bilton090

Al Qaeda Jack sould read that !


----------



## a_majoor

Something about the fun people we would possibly be meeting should we ever go to Dafur. Although this is not verified, it has a ring of truth based on other reports.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2409336,00.html



> *'We burnt their homes and killed all the men, women and children'*
> By Martin Fletcher
> 
> For three years, this Arab shepherd says, he was forced to raze the villages of black Africans in Darfur
> 
> OUTSIDE the back window Bakerloo Line trains rattle past. Downstairs someone makes tea. But in the upstairs living room of a nondescript house off Lambeth Road in South London a slight, softly spoken young man tells a story of atrocities in a far-off land that is anything but mundane.
> 
> Dily, a Sudanese Arab, recounts how for three years he and his fellow Janjawid charged the farming villages of Darfur on their camels and horses, raking the huts with gunfire and shouting: “Kill the slaves. Kill the slaves.”
> 
> He reckons he attacked about 30 villages in all, and cannot count the people he shot. The villages were invariably destroyed, he says. The homes were burnt to the ground and the men, women and children killed — sometimes with the help of government airstrikes. If there were survivors “they would be left there . . . They couldn’t get help. Sometimes they made it to camps but mostly they died of thirst or starvation”.
> 
> Dily is a rarity in that wretched conflict. Filled with disgust, he finally escaped the Janjawid’s clutches and last month, with the help of “people smugglers”, reached Britain, where he is now seeking political asylum. He expresses remorse. He is willing to talk, and the story he tells flatly contradicts the Sudanese Government’s claims that it has no control over the Janjawid — the predominantly Arab “devils on horseback” who have driven two million of Darfur’s black Africans into camps and killed at least 200,000.
> 
> He says the Government deceived innocent Arab shepherds like himself into joining the Janjawid, saying they had to defend their communities against attack by Darfur’s black African rebel groups. He says they were trained and armed by Sudanese soldiers, ordered by the Government to attack Darfur’s villages and given military support when necessary. The Janjawid was formed for ethnic cleansing, he insists. “Why (else) would you attack villages, kill people, displace them and kill them in their thousands?”
> 
> Dily is not his real name, and he would be photographed only with a scarf around his face and a baseball cap pulled low over his eyes. His wife and young child remain in Sudan and he fears for their safety if he is identified.
> 
> Nor can Dily’s story be independently verified, but he specifies names, places and events, speaks with the accent and idiom of the area he says he comes from, and has persuaded Darfuris living in Britain that he is genuine.
> 
> “He’s for real,” said Ishag Mekki, the deputy chairman of the Darfur Union, which represents Darfuris in Britain. James Smith, the chief executive of the Aegis Trust, a pressure group which campaigns against genocide, concurs: “We’ve checked his credibility as much as we can and we’re convinced he is who he says he is.”
> 
> Dily, who is in his early twenties, rarely smiled and fidgeted nervously with his hands as he spoke through an interpreter. He said he was tending his family’s camel herd in northern Darfur when rebel groups began attacking government targets in 2003: severe droughts had set black African farmers against nomadic Arabs and the rebels accused the Government of siding with the Arabs.
> 
> Dily said he was pressed to join the Janjawid by tribal elders, who were under pressure from government officials. “We were told we were Arab nomads and we had to protect our lands and our cattle,” he said.
> 
> Dily and about 20 other youths from his area rode off on their camels to a training camp near the town of Kebkabiya where they joined hundreds of other Janjawid recruits. He says uniformed Sudanese soldiers spent about 20 days teaching them how to use guns — a Kalashnikov in his case — and attack villages.
> 
> Those with camels were separated from those with horses. They were organised into battalions of more than 500 men each. They were paid two million Sudanese pounds — roughly £500 — for the use of their camels and promised a monthly salary of 500,000 Sudanese pounds.
> 
> Then they were unleashed. Apart from occasional visits home, Dily and his battalion — led by a former bandit — spent the next three years on the move, destroying one village after another. “The Government said attack all villages. The local commanders decided which,” he said.
> 
> The battalion would send scouts to check whether there were armed fighters in the targeted village. “If there were no fighters we just attacked straight away. If there were we had to be more cautious.” Sometimes they used satellite telephones to request airstrikes by the Sudanese military helicopters before attacking. “We would see smoke and fire and then we would go in.”
> 
> The attacks usually started early and lasted most of the day. The commanders said the villages had to be destroyed, and they did not spare women or children. “Mostly they said “Kill the blacks. Kill the blacks,” Dily said. “The majority of (the victims) were civilians, most of them women.”
> 
> Dily said he never raped a woman but other Janjawid did. “They took girls and women away, just out of sight, and started to rape them. Sometimes you heard gunshots if they refused.” They took away the cattle. Some were drunk.
> 
> Dily said he felt no elation during or after the attacks. He and his colleagues did not even know what they were fighting for, but faced execution if they disobeyed orders. “I hated the war and I hated the killings and decided to leave and to leave Sudan altogether,” he said.
> 
> One night he slipped away from the camp, risking death and knowing that he might never see his wife and child again. He hid in the mountains for three days, then made his way to the town of Kutum. A fellow Arab drove him to Mellit, and from there he was smuggled by car to the Libyan border for 500,000 Sudanese pounds. He was determined to reach Britain because, he was told, “it’s different from other European countries. They look after refugees”.
> 
> He borrowed money from friends of his father in Tripoli’s Sudanese community and paid $1,200 (£640) to reach Italy on a small boat packed with 25 other illegal immigrants. He paid another $200 to reach Paris by train and $300 to be smuggled into Britain in a lorry carrying boxes of bottled water.
> 
> He arrived somewhere — he thinks Oxford — on September 20. He was arrested and sent to Croydon to apply for asylum. He is now living in a hostel, haunted by memories of burning villages. “Anybody who participates in war has to feel sorry for what happened,” he says.
> 
> The Aegis Trust plans to present Dily’s testimony to the International Criminal Court as evidence of genocide by Sudan’s leaders, who are still refusing to let United Nations troops into Darfur. “Everything this man says confirms that the Government of Sudan, contrary to its protestations, has been organising and supporting the Janjawid’s ethnic-cleansing operations from the beginning,” said Dr Smith, of the Trust.
> 
> Told of Dily’s testimony on a BBC Newsnight programme, Hilary Benn, the International Development Secretary who has just returned from a visit to Sudan, said: “It’s clearly very serious evidence and I would urge that that information is passed to the International Criminal Court investigators.”
> 
> THE CONFLICT IN DARFUR
> 
> February 2003 The Darfur Liberation Front, later the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), claims discrimination by the mainly Arabic Government against black Africans
> 
> Spring 2004 Government is accused of using Arab militia — Janjawid — against SLA
> 
> January 2005 UN reports that Government and militias collaborated to commit atrocities, but “genocidal intent appears to be missing”
> 
> May 2006 Government and SLA sign peace deal, promise to disarm the Janjawid
> 
> August 2006 Janjawid still armed. UN resolution calls for a peacekeeping force
> 
> September 2006 African Union ignores order to leave
> 
> October 2006 Bush imposes further sanctions


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and since China gets oil from Sudan in exchange for military support, you can guess who will veto any SC resolutions against it.


----------



## Journeyman

Colin P said:
			
		

> and since China gets oil from Sudan in exchange for military support, you can guess who will veto any SC resolutions against it.



 I suspect that any veto to such a resolution would cause a massive sigh of relief from the UNSC. They get to say "hey, we tried our best," knowing full well that implementing such a resolution is a non-starter.


----------



## muffin

Copied under Fair Dealings etc...

from http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/19/darfur-un.html

UN can play a role in Darfur: Sudanese official
Last Updated: Thursday, October 19, 2006 | 9:57 PM ET
The Associated Press

The Sudanese government is willing to discuss United Nations support for the African Union's struggling peacekeeping force in Darfur, a senior government official said Thursday.

The government in Khartoum has staunchly opposed a UN Security Council resolution to replace the 7,000-strong AU force with about 20,000 UN peacekeepers, saying it would violate Sudan's sovereignty.

The ill-equipped and underfunded AU force has been struggling to bring peace to Darfur, a vast region of western Sudan where more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced in three years of fighting.

Instead of replacing the force with UN peacekeepers, the Sudanese government appears to be pushing for a stronger AU force to counter Western accusations it is letting the situation in Darfur deteriorate. Aid groups say the humanitarian crisis is edging toward an all-time low.
*
"We are not averse to the idea of discussing what kind of support the AU can receive in terms of troops, material and funding from the UN," said senior adviser to the president Ghazi Saladdine after meeting with the U.S. special envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios.*

"Ultimately, we want to have an effective force in Darfur," said Saladdine, one of the hard-liners of the ruling National Congress Party.

Natsios, due to leave Khartoum on Friday, held talks with several high-ranking officials during his one-week visit but did not meet with President Omar al-Bashir. He did not speak to the media.

Several Western officials, including Jan Pronk, the head of the UN mission to Sudan, view a reinforced AU mission as one way to overcome the diplomatic deadlock on how to solve the Darfur crisis.

More in article.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fu*K them, keep the AU there and beef them up with a crapload of advisers driving tanks, APC and helo gunships, it will save everyone the grief of going through another round of pointless UN talks. The "new and improved" AU can go in there and kick some butt, so what if Sudan declares war on the rest of Africa, world etc. an all out war will last how long? I am sure the Chinese will have a talking to them and demanded that they shut up and worry about pumping oil. The countries backing the AU quietly tell China that their investments in the Sudanese oil fields will be safe.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Okay, while I have some problems with Gen Dallaire's positions on Darfur, I have tried not to question his professionalism until now.  I held the high and mighty rank of coporal (that's sarcasm folks), and learned a bit about our deployable troop levels.  Now Senator Dallaire received a far more extensive military education than I did, so how is it he thinks we can scrape up enough troops to send a battlegroup to Darfur?  The PPCLI are just back from Afghanistan, and working up for another roto, the RCRs are deployed in Afghanistan now, the Engineers have been rotating through since forever, and now we have armored deployments added to the Afghan mix.  We have the bulk of our Infantry either deployed, or on workup/depressurizing cycles between workups, and the remainder trying to scrape together enough cadre to handle the influx of recruits that we are getting, while maintaining the already overstressed training schedules for the troops already in harness.  Where are the troops to invade Darfur supposed to come from?  Without leaving Canada unable to meet its internal, let alone international commitments, we do not have the ability to send more than a token force anywhere, let alone invade a hostile nation that has made it quite clear we are not welcome.  Now granted, I didn't spend much time with officers above the rank of Captain, but those that I did speak with generally had a firm grasp of reality, and a better grasp of the logistics of force projection than I did (hence the bars on the epaulets), so I wonder what happened to Romeo?


----------



## geo

mainer....
The Engineers - yup
The Armoured - they have been there all along, doing the Recce & observation side of their business.  The addition of the Leo will only put the strain on ONE unit, where all our expertise of Tank usage has been concentrated.


----------



## GAP

October 25, 2006 at 12:00 p.m.
Sudan would allow vast increase of African Union forces in Darfur
Meanwhile, UN diplomat expelled by Sudan will remain in charge of mission.
By Arthur Bright  | csmonitor.com
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1025/dailyUpdate.html?s=rel

According to a British newspaper, Sudan is willing to allow almost triple the number of African Union forces operating in Darfur in order to protect civilians there.

In an interview with the Guardian, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir said that a larger African Union (AU) force could receive logistical support from European and Arab countries, but UN forces would not be allowed in the country for fear of "such troops becoming a target of attacks and part of the conflict, not the solution."

Denying reports that the Arab League had suggested he accept troops from Arab or Muslim countries outside Africa, [Mr. Bashir] insisted any non-African help for the AU be confined to equipment and logistics.

Asked if the AU could [increase] its troop strength to 20,000, the president said: "We have no objection to the AU increasing its troops, strengthening its mandate, or receiving logistical support from the EU, the UN, or the Arab League for that matter, but this must of course be done in consultation with the government of national unity."

Currently, there are 7,000 AU soldiers in Darfur. The UN passed a Security Council resolution in September to replace the AU troops with some 20,000 UN peacekeepers, but Khartoum has refused to allow them into the country. The Christian Science Monitor reports that it is believed about 22,000 government and government-allied troops are currently in Darfur, an area the size of Texas.

The Associated Press reports that Mr. Bashir also recently declared the government was working to expel foreign media and relief groups in Darfur. Bashir told the Sudan News Agency that the government was trying to "rid [refugee] camps of those exploiting the suffering of the people, those suspicious organizations who are part of a series of conspiracies.... We have promised before God not to let Darfurians' suffering be a pretext for foreign intervention or a subject for hostile media."
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa

I just wonder where all those extra AU troops might come from and how effective they might be.  Pure propaganda. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

Wouldn't it be nice to take these AU troops, maybe starting a battalion at a time, to WATC for a prolonged period of work up training? Questions about their efficiency would be rapidly reduced, and exposure to being in a professional military setting and a stable democracy might bring about some long term changes in that part of the world as well.

I'd like to do the same with ANA troops and perhaps send Afghan police to the RCMP depot (or Aylmer police college or some place similar) for many of the same reasons. 

While not a 100% solution, this sort of training regime would ensure the local forces are far more effective and interoperable than otherwise possible.

We are quite wealthy enough to do this, on our own if necessary, but with the financial help of our allies as a desirable end state.


----------



## Kirkhill

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be nice to take these AU troops, maybe starting a battalion at a time, to WATC for a prolonged period of work up training? Questions about their efficiency would be rapidly reduced, and exposure to being in a professional military setting and a stable democracy might bring about some long term changes in that part of the world as well.
> 
> I'd like to do the same with ANA troops and perhaps send Afghan police to the RCMP depot (or Aylmer police college or some place similar) for many of the same reasons.
> 
> While not a 100% solution, this sort of training regime would ensure the local forces are far more effective and interoperable than otherwise possible.
> 
> We are quite wealthy enough to do this, on our own if necessary, but with the financial help of our allies as a desirable end state.



Another great idea Arthur - although, as you suggest, it will require more money. I understand that the Government is already investing more in facilities at the Regina Depot to increase the capacity of the place to produce the necessary increase in RCMP numbers.  To add formed numbers of Overseas personnel would increase the demands pretty significantly I would think.  Similarly at WATC.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would seem that much of the problems of the ANP, Afghan government, is from the failure of government infrastructure. Training senior civil servants and accountants in basic management would likely help solve some of the pay and equipment issues.


----------



## McG

It seems things are changing, but there still are many "ifs."


> Sudan agrees in principle to UN peacekeepers
> Updated Fri. Nov. 17 2006 8:25 AM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> Sudan reversed its long-standing opposition to welcome United Nations support for the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur, one of the world's bloodiest conflict zones.
> 
> "It is agreed in principle that, pending clarification of the size of the force, we should be able to take it forward," UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said late on Thursday at the end of a major diplomatic meeting on Darfur in Addis Ababa.
> 
> "The troops should be sourced from Africa as far as possible and the command and control structure would be provided by the UN," he said, adding the force would include as many as 17,000 troops and 3,000 police.
> 
> The outgoing UN chief convened the meeting between Sudanese officials and African Union, Arab League, European Union and UN leaders in an attempt to end bloodshed in the vast Sudanese region.
> 
> Sudanese diplomats said Thursday they needed to consult with their superiors in Khartoum before giving unreserved support to the plan.
> 
> But it was clear there were still disagreements over the size and shape of the force.
> 
> The leaders did not pinpoint a timetable for the force to start work partly because Sudan had some uncertainties, including the question of who would be in command.
> 
> Sudan's UN ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad told reporters after the meeting that the peacekeepers will be African while the UN would provide the logistical support.
> 
> "If you have a predominantly African force, then you expect to it to be led by an African commander," he said.
> 
> He also expressed reservations over the size of the force.
> 
> "The UN says 17,000 (troops), that figure is very high. We think 11,000 to 12,000."
> 
> Sudan is expected to respond to the latest proposal before the AU Peace and Security Council meets on Nov. 24 to discuss Darfur.
> 
> The AU force mandate expires on Dec. 31.
> 
> The UN Security Council voted in August to replace the AU's underpowered force of 7,000 troops with 20,000 U.N. peacekeepers.
> 
> But Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir repeatedly rejected their deployment, and this paved the way for new proposals for a "hybrid" alternative in which the United Nations would boost the AU force.
> 
> In recent days, pro-government militia forces known as janjaweed have ramped up attacks in Darfur villages, killing dozens of people, international observers said Wednesday.
> 
> In one raid, rebels described seeing janjaweed militiamen force children into a thatched hut, then set it on fire, killing parents who tried to rescue the children.
> 
> Human Rights Watch has called for a significant increase in the size of the Darfur peacekeeping force.
> 
> The New York-based advocacy group said it has documented renewed aerial bombing attacks on civilians both in Darfur and inside neighboring Chad since late last month.
> 
> The aid agency Doctors Without Borders, or Medecins Sans Frontieres, also reported that thousands of people have fled their homes and refugee camps in Darfur.
> 
> The agency warned that it was becoming increasingly difficult to provide aid to the victims because of the violence.
> 
> The gravity of the conflict was underscored on Thursday when UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland cut short a planned three-day trip to Darfur after government officials warned the areas he wanted to visit were too dangerous.
> 
> "This is my fourth visit to Darfur, and I have never before seen such a bad security situation," Jan Egeland said from El Geneina, capital of West Darfur.
> 
> "There are too many armed elements in and around the camps threatening the inhabitants and preventing us from going in."
> 
> Egeland said aid workers in West Darfur were prevented from travelling on roads because they were being attacked.
> 
> After years of low-level clashes over water and land, rebels from ethnic African tribes took up arms against Sudan's Arab-dominated central government in 2003.
> 
> Khartoum is accused of unleashing the janjaweed militiamen, who are blamed for the atrocities in a conflict that has killed some 200,000 people and driven 2.5 million from their homes.
> 
> The Sudanese army has dismissed the accusations, saying the charges are politically motivated.
> 
> The conflict has been exploited by rebels from Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic, and ethnic violence mirroring attacks in Darfur has travelled beyond Sudan's borders into both Chad and Central African Republic in recent weeks.
> 
> With files from The Associated Press


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061117/darfur_peacekeeper_061117/20061117?hub=World


----------



## MarkOttawa

MCG: Too many "ifs", esp.



> Sudanese diplomats said Thursday they needed to *consult with their superiors* [my emphasis] in Khartoum before giving unreserved support to the plan.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## warspite

And the light is green....
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/22/sudan-darfur.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

Warspite: Not really; see:

Darfur update: Don't believe any headlines saying major breakthrough
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008497.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## warspite

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Warspite: Not really; see:
> 
> 
> Darfur update: Don't believe any headlines saying major breakthrough


Lesson learned


----------



## Haggis

Posted IAW the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act

Sudan: U.N. forces not needed in Darfur (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/01/10/3277406-ap.html)

By NEDRA PICKLER

KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) — Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir said Wednesday that African Union forces can maintain order in Darfur and United Nations forces are not needed. 

“Our experience with U.N. operations in the world is not encouraging,” al-Bashir told an Associated Press reporter Wednesday at his residence. 

“There are sufficient forces in the Sudan from African countries to maintain order and they can provide order. All we need is funding for the African troops.”


----------



## a_majoor

Haggis said:
			
		

> “Our experience with U.N. operations in the world is not encouraging,” al-Bashir told an Associated Press reporter Wednesday at his residence.



He got that right! 



> “There are sufficient forces in the Sudan from African countries to maintain order and they can provide order. All we need is funding for the African troops.”



And someone like himself to administer the funds, no doubt.


----------



## GAP

China set to step into Darfur crisis
12-day African tour: Hu to meet with Sudan's President 'to promote peace'
Peter Goodspeed, National Post Published: Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Article Link

China's President Hu Jintao launched a 12-day, eight-country tour of Africa yesterday that could hold out hope of finally resolving the conflict in Darfur.

During his third trip to Africa in as many years, Mr. Hu is expected to spend two days meeting General Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese President, in Khartoum. Chinese officials have pointedly noted the two leaders will discuss ways "to promote peace and stability in Darfur."

The simple fact China is ready to discuss what it has long regarded as a Sudanese internal affair may serve as a warning to Gen. Bashir that he can no longer stall on implementing a UN Security Council resolution calling for the introduction of UN peacekeepers in Darfur.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell

I see this as _strategic_ bad news.

China and India both need resources.

Africa is a resource rich continent.

China also has an enormous pool of resources on its border – in the _Stans_ of central Asia and in Central and Eastern Siberia.

While I sympathize with the Darfur dilemma, especially with the West’s fervent desire to avoid that particular _tar baby_ lest it get stuck and dragged deeper and deeper into Africa’s apparently intractable problems, I cannot believe that we should give China _carte blanche_ in the region.

We should promote India as Africa’s _saviour_.

India is too poor to advance its own case in Africa but Indian diplomatic, administrative and military skills coupled with Western money could turn the trick.  Strengthening India (especially at the expense of China) while, simultaneously offering Africa a prospect of decent administration is in our common, Western best interest.  On that basis I doubt George W. Bush will act.


----------



## GAP

I fear you are correct. There is such a fear of becoming embroiled in another conflict, the west (read US) just wants somebody else to deal with it, especially with the Democrates coming into power. Right now it's easier to look the other way, and hope the sh*t happens under the Democrat's umbrella. Let them deal with it. 

And deal with it they will have to. This is the cold war revisited, except with China as the adversary. Global politics is alive and well.


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't disagree with the sentiment regarding China's influence in Afghanistan.  Nor do disagree with the notion that action needs to be taken and that that action can include India.

I am starting to get a bit concerned though that there seems to be an increasing tendency to view India as Mikey.

For those that may have forgotten or not seen it Mikey was the kid brother in a TV ad for cereal.  Two older brothers were fighting over who should be the first to try this new cereal that Mum had just bought.  "I don't wanna. You try it." "I don't wanna. You try it." "Hey.  I know. Let Mikey try it."

There is a tendency to think that if only we had enough young bodies then we could solve the world's ills and build Jerusalem on Darfur's burnt and sandy hills, and elsewhere.  India appears to have a suitable supply of the necessary ingredient therefore we should welcome them into the fold and immediately send them off to save Black Muslim Africans from Arab Muslim Africans.

Both Jack Layton and George Bush are alike in this worldview.  One that springs from the same source.  Manchester.  Where the newly enriched middle class met the New Light preachers and decided they didn't have to wait for the next world and God's judgement to make things better in this world.

This thinking led British reformers to promote the dispatching of missionaries and settlers to improve the rest of the world and required the governments of the day in Britain to create a central government in India where there had been none.  It also promoted the notion of intervention and settlement in the Dark Continent.

This converted what had been a nicely functioning and profitable trade enterprise of trading posts into financially draining and politically taxing empire.

During the successful commercial phase, when influence was expanding, Indians were recruited by their own leaders as well as the East India Company to maintain Domestic security.  Up until the late Victorian and possibly even until World War I - many Indians would not cross "Black Water" - ocean water.

Relatively few Indians ever left India to take up service in other areas of the Empire although even a few could have a major demographic impact on a small island.

India contributed forces to Mesopotamia in 1915, as well as the rest of the Middle East and some went on to the Western Front.  But, again, that was a small portion of the Indian population. It was drawn from a small segment of Indian society,  a segment that had be largely anglicized in its views and aspirations.  Also the India of that time included Baluchistan that was part of the Sultan of Oman's traditional sphere of influence and that were soldiers, seamen and considered Mesopotamia "local".

You want a cure for Darfur? Build a railroad.  Complete the Cairo to Capetown rail link and have the railway company supply its own PSC for security.  Then you can service the oil lines, get to the oilfields and mines, and people.  And more importantly, people can get away from their misery.

We talk about refugees as if they were a bad idea.  Historically that is the most common adaptive mechanism we have.  Our feet let us move from threats.

Once we have moved from the threat then our brain lets us adapt to a more secure but different environment.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, is an opinion piece from a recent (30 Jan 07) edition of the _Globe and Mail_ by former Justice Minister and well known human rights advocate Irwin Cotler:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070130.wxcodarfur30/BNStory/specialComment/  


> Darfur's pain is the West's shame
> *The international community must stop this 'go slow' genocide, says MP and human-rights activist IRWIN COTLER*
> 
> IRWIN COTLER
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> 
> Tragically, incrementally, the genocide in Darfur has moved into high gear, mocking the lessons of history while betraying the people of Darfur.
> 
> For history's enduring lesson is that the genocide of European Jewry occurred not only because of the ideology of hatred, but also because of crimes of indifference and inaction. Indeed, we have witnessed in our own days appalling indifference and inaction that took us down the road to the unspeakable -- the genocide in Rwanda.
> 
> Darfur is in "freefall" or "meltdown," as chief UN aid co-ordinator Jan Egeland recently put it. We know that:
> 
> More than 450,000 Darfurians have died in this genocide by attrition. The media have been repeating for 20 months now that 200,000 have died, but recent evidence of 450,000 is compelling;
> 
> There are four million people, as Mr. Egeland put it, now on a desperate life-support system. Again, the media mantra for those 20 months has been that two million people have been displaced, ignoring the additional numbers of both displaced persons and those in desperate need of assistance;
> 
> These four million Darfurians are now being joined by one million in Chad, and another one million in the Central African Republic. The humanitarian life support system is itself on life support;
> 
> Mass atrocity has increased dramatically, including systematic rape, indiscriminate bombardment and burning of villages, forced expulsions, and more assaults and killings of aid workers;
> 
> The Darfur Peace Agreement of May, 2006, between Sudan and the main Sudan rebel group, is being violated daily and is itself in a "coma," as attested by Jan Pronk, the UN representative in Sudan, while the just-brokered Darfur ceasefire has already been violated.
> 
> In a word, we know that the genocide by attrition, or "go slow" genocide as it has sometimes been called -- a description that itself reflects the banality of this radical evil -- has moved into high gear.
> 
> It is our responsibility to shatter the silence, to break down the walls of indifference, to stand with the people of Darfur. But while words are important, while UN Security Council resolutions are necessary, while the normative adoption by the UN of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is crucial, words, resolutions and doctrines are not enough. What is of the utmost urgency is immediate international action to stop the genocide.
> 
> What is desperately needed is a "Darfur Summit" involving leaders of the African Union, the European Union, the UN and NATO, convened for the express purpose of putting a "Save Darfur" action plan into effect and not adjourned until that plan is adopted.
> 
> Meanwhile, Canada, in concert with the international community, can exercise the moral, political and diplomatic leadership to save Darfur. Here's how:
> 
> 1) The robust UN peacekeeping force authorized by the UN Security Council must be deployed quickly to take over from the underfunded, undermanned African Union mission in Sudan (AMIS);
> 
> 2) Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir has called the UN peacekeeping force a "colonialist" initiative and "Zionist plot," denies atrocities are occurring and threatens to withhold consent for the force's deployment. The resolve of the international community must be clear: to put the UN force on the ground with the consent of the Sudanese government if possible, but without it if necessary. Stopping genocide cannot be held hostage to the perpetrators of genocide;
> 
> 3) The mandate of the AU mission has been extended to March. But plans, announced four months ago, for sending 1,200 more troops to join the 7,200-member force and broadening the mandate, have yet to be realized. This mission has courageously stood as the only line of defence for millions of Darfurians. But it has neither the numbers nor the mandate to stop the killing, and is itself increasingly under attack. Until such time as the UN peacekeeping force is deployed and operational, the international community must immediately reinforce -- and fund -- an expanded AU mission;
> 
> 4) The demand by the UN Security Council in 2005 that the Sudanese government cease offensive military flights must be enforced by the immediate establishment of a "no-fly" zone, supported in particular by France and Germany;
> 
> 5) The Security Council, the EU, and their individual members must also enforce and enhance the sanctions adopted by the UN Sanctions Committee against the named Sudanese violators;
> 
> 6) Sudanese officials responsible for the perpetration of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide must be brought before the International Criminal Court;
> 
> 7) The Darfur Peace Agreement, which only a robust UN force can enforce, must not be allowed to unravel;
> 
> 8) Human security is more desperate, and humanitarian assistance more urgent, than ever. Attacks on NGOs doubled in 2006 from 2005; attacks against members of the AU peacekeeping force are up by 1,000 per cent. There is no humanitarian access for the more than 60 per cent of people who desperately need it, with the deadly threat of starvation and disease;
> 
> 9. Individual Security Council members must pressure Sudan directly to accept the UN peacekeeping force and end its military offensive. China has particular leverage as Sudan's paymaster and largest trading partner;
> 
> 10. As the International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch recently recommended, the Security Council, with European support, must move quickly to establish a new UN peacekeeping mission with a strong civilian-protection mandate in Chad and the Central African Republic, aimed at deterring the movement of insurgent armed groups across the borders. The NATO-ready rapid deployment force of some 30,000 might be an expeditious way of both augmenting the African mission and underpinning the UN peacekeeping force.
> 
> As the student posters cry out at the "Save Darfur" rallies: "If not us who, if not now, when?"
> 
> _Irwin Cotler, a former justice minister of Canada, is the founder of the Save Darfur Parliamentary Coalition._



I have a few comments and questions:

First: These are ringing words; a veritable *call to arms* -  _” It is our responsibility to shatter the silence, to break down the walls of indifference, to stand with the people of Darfur. But while words are important, while UN Security Council resolutions are necessary, while the normative adoption by the UN of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is crucial, words, resolutions and doctrines are not enough. What is of the utmost urgency is immediate international_ action_ to stop the genocide.”_

And what is the *action*, what is of the _utmost urgency_?  A conference!  But not just any conference, Mr. Cotler says: _” What is desperately needed is a "Darfur Summit" involving leaders of the African Union, the European Union, the UN and NATO, convened for the express purpose of putting a "Save Darfur" action plan into effect and not adjourned until that plan is adopted.”_ Oh, good!  That's real action!  A conference: for shame Mr. Cotler!  Is that best you can do?

Second: Mr. Cotler advocates that: _”… Canada, in concert with the international community, can exercise the moral, political and diplomatic leadership to save Darfur.”_

We are to display _moral leadership_; that’s par for the course for the Pink Lloyd Axworthy wing of the Liberal Party of Canada which raised Canada to the status of *moral superpower* - even as it emasculated our diplomatic and military services.

We are to display _political leadership_ – shades of Stephen Harper!  This would involve undoing all that _Saint Pierre_ Trudeau did; he stated, explicitly, in the 1970 White Paper ‘Foreign Policy for Canadians,’ that Canada was a poor little country which could not afford the responsibilities of being a ‘leading middle power.’  Canadians would rather, Trudeau suggested, live off the fat of their own land and let others do the heavy lifting.*

We are to display _diplomatic leadership_, too – anything and everything, it seems, *except military leadership*.

Third:  Cotler says: _” The robust UN peacekeeping force authorized by the UN Security Council must be deployed quickly to take over from the underfunded, undermanned African Union mission in Sudan (AMIS) … The resolve of the international community must be clear: to put the UN force on the ground with the consent of the Sudanese government if possible, but without it if necessary. Stopping genocide cannot be held hostage to the perpetrators of genocide …”_

What role, if any, is Canada to play in this; will we promise much, again, and, again, deliver all possible aid short of real help?

*"If not us who, if not now, when?"*  Indeed, Mr. Cotler; and *thank you* and your colleagues in the last two Liberal governments for depriving Canadians and Canadian governments of the tools needed to do the job.


----------
* The 1970 White paper was a resounding failure for two primary reasons:

1.	It was an ill considered, amateurish, indeed sophomoric exercise – reflecting far too much of Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s second rate ‘intellect’ and far to little of External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp’s department’s knowledge; and

2.	Nixon’s 1971 shift in US policy – which was, almost certainly in my opinion, provoked by Trudeau’s uncoordinated, unwelcome and unwise _about turns_ – knocked the underpinning’s of Trudeaus’ so called policy out from under.

*Pierre Elliot Trudeau was a fool, as well as being a petty, pompous, provincial poltroon.*


----------



## MarkOttawa

So Mr Cotler wants a UN invasion (though he does not call it that) if necessary. Somehow I don't see too many countries volunteering.  Or China and Russia allowing the Security Council to authorize such action in any event.

What dream world does he live in?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with the sentiment regarding China's influence in Africa Afghanistan.  Nor do disagree with the notion that action needs to be taken and that that action can include India.
> ...



Is that what you meant to say, Kirkhill?



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> I am starting to get a bit concerned though that there seems to be an increasing tendency to view India as Mikey.
> 
> For those that may have forgotten or not seen it Mikey was the kid brother in a TV ad for cereal.  Two older brothers were fighting over who should be the first to try this new cereal that Mum had just bought.  "I don't wanna. You try it." "I don't wanna. You try it." "Hey.  I know. Let Mikey try it."
> 
> There is a tendency to think that if only we had enough young bodies then we could solve the world's ills and build Jerusalem on Darfur's burnt and sandy hills, and elsewhere.  India appears to have a suitable supply of the necessary ingredient therefore we should welcome them into the fold and immediately send them off to save Black Muslim Africans from Arab Muslim Africans.
> ...



I don't disagree with this.  No matter from whence the idea springs (and I do not agree with the Bush/Layton _alliance_ POV) the idea of India as our new _secret weapon_ must be tempered with reality re: India's capabilities.

My, personal assessment is that we ought to do what we can, short of explicit unfriendly acts, to discomfit and _contain_ China.  Given the geopolitical and demographic realities, the only country in the whole world which can act as a counterbalance to China is India but India is weak - in part because it lacks Mackinder's _hinterland_ with all that implies, including resources and even _lebensraum_.

I propose to 'give' Africa to India.

Africa needs and desperately craves good government, well better government and, I am told by colleagues who ought to know that anything is better than the _status quo_.  India can provide better, maybe even good government.  (As a parenthetical aside: the impetus for the African 'independence' movements in the '50s was, largely, the result of Africans being exposed to India in WWII.  Educated Africans were amazed and inspired by the accomplishments and politics of the Indians.)

India needs resources.  An African _empire_ can provide them.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You want a cure for Darfur? Build a railroad.  Complete the Cairo to Capetown rail link and have the railway company supply its own PSC for security.  Then you can service the oil lines, get to the oilfields and mines, and people.  And more importantly, people can get away from their misery.
> ...



Agreed!  Much better than Mr. Cotler's conference - see above.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> We talk about refugees as if they were a bad idea.  Historically that is the most common adaptive mechanism we have.  Our feet let us move from threats.
> 
> Once we have moved from the threat then our brain lets us adapt to a more secure but different environment.



A whole new topic but, again, I agree.


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Is that what you meant to say, Kirkhill?



It was indeed mate.  Freudian slip



> My, personal assessment is that we ought to do what we can, short of explicit unfriendly acts, to discomfit and _contain_ China.  Given the geopolitical and demographic realities, the only country in the whole world which can act as a counterbalance to China is India but India is weak - in part because it lacks Mackinder's _hinterland_ with all that implies, including resources and even _lebensraum_.
> 
> I propose to 'give' Africa to India.
> 
> Africa needs and desperately craves good government, well better government and, I am told by colleagues who ought to know that anything is better than the _status quo_.  India can provide better, maybe even good government.  (As a parenthetical aside: the impetus for the African 'independence' movements in the '50s was, largely, the result of Africans being exposed to India in WWII.  Educated Africans were amazed and inspired by the accomplishments and politics of the Indians.)
> 
> India needs resources.  An African _empire_ can provide them.


  

Now there's a good idea.  Western backing for Indian companies to set up operations in Africa.  I note that a privatized Indian steel manufacturer has just bought British Steel with all its international operations.  Indians into Africa via Kenya and Tanzania, as well as South Africa, all (I believe) with sizeable communities of Indian expats.  Uganda used to have one.  Link via Oman, Aden, Socotra, Ethiopia, possibly Madagascar and various offshore islands, as well as the Indian Navy buttressed by the USN and the USMC.... 

India's hinterland.  China gets western investment dollars to spend in Africa if it plays by the same rules. (Or should we encourage them to focus on working Co-operatively with BOTH Russia AND The West.)


----------



## Kirkhill

And Edward, it seldom warrants responding to your posts because I agree with so many of them.



> ” The robust UN peacekeeping force authorized by the UN Security Council must be deployed quickly to take over from the underfunded, undermanned African Union mission in Sudan (AMIS) … The resolve of the international community must be clear: to put the UN force on the ground with the consent of the Sudanese government if possible, but without it if necessary. Stopping genocide cannot be held hostage to the perpetrators of genocide …”



Somebody really SHOULD do something - but pleased be advised if anybody is going to die it won't be Canadian soldiers - the rest of you will have to make the necessary sacrifices.

Idioten.  The hale gang o' them.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This is an Associated Press article from today’s (3 Feb 07) _Business Week_.com; it is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act:



> Chinese leader tours copper-rich Zambia
> 
> By JOSEPH J. SCHATZ
> 
> LUSAKA, Zambia
> 
> Chinese President Hu Jintao on Saturday was bringing his eight-nation African tour to Zambia, a copper-rich country where China's growing clout has prompted charges of exploitation and emerged as a volatile political issue.
> 
> Huge photos of Hu and Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa greeted motorists on Lusaka's main roads in preparation for the tightly orchestrated three-day visit, which follows stops earlier this week in Cameroon, Liberia and Sudan.
> 
> Hu has used the tour to cement China's increasing economic and political ties and its fast-growing role as a foreign donor throughout the continent.
> 
> Hu was expected to attend talks with the recently re-elected Mwanawasa and a state banquet. The Chinese delegation asked for strict security measures and said Hu would not take questions from the media.
> 
> Mwanawasa has cultivated close ties with China, which has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Zambia's copper sector, an industry that accounts for 60 percent of the impoverished nation's exports.
> 
> China also has become a major foreign aid donor to Mwanawasa's cash-strapped government. Chinese investment in Zambia now totals more than $500 million, according to China's state-run news agency, Xinhua.
> 
> Hu's visit to Lusaka is expected to focus on new Chinese aid initiatives for Zambia and the inauguration Sunday of a new economic partnership zone in Zambia's Copperbelt province, which has become a key source of copper for China's growing economy.
> 
> But the Chinese delegation canceled plans to visit the Copperbelt province, where 51 Zambian workers died in a 2005 explosion at a Chinese-run mine.
> 
> Accidents and concerns over poor working conditions at Chinese-run copper mines -- plus resentment over an influx of Chinese traders into the local apparel industry -- fueled political backlash over the Chinese presence in last September's presidential elections.
> 
> Opposition challenger Michael Sata won support in urban areas after lashing out at what he called "exploiter" Chinese investors and threatening to recognize Taiwan, which China regards as a rebel province. This sparked an unusually public verbal dispute with the Chinese ambassador to Zambia.
> 
> "They're not here to develop Zambia, they're here to develop China," said Guy Scott, a Sata ally who represents Lusaka's central district in parliament.
> 
> The government has not invited Sata's party to public events during Jintao's visit due to its anti-China sentiments, according to the state-owned Daily Mail newspaper.
> 
> China's involvement in Zambia dates back to the early 1970s, when the Chinese government built a railway linking central Zambia to the nearest port city of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. Since the late 1990s, trade has soared.
> 
> At last year's conference between the Chinese government and African heads of state in Beijing, Zambia and China forged an agreement on a new $200 million copper smelter, to be built by China Nonferrous Metal Mining Group.
> 
> The Beijing government has conducted road-building and water supply projects, and also sent Chinese physicians to practice in Zambia -- important projects in a country where more than 70 percent of the population lives in poverty and the health care system faces serious shortages of doctors and nurses.
> 
> Hu's visit was preceded by a raft of new Chinese commitments, including the release of more than $6 million for the construction of a new soccer stadium in the mining town of Ndola and a $39 million grant for road building.
> 
> While many Zambians welcome the Chinese presence, many take a more wary view.
> 
> Joan van Otterdijk, a Zambian textile and clothing shop owner in Lusaka said cheap, low-quality Chinese-made textiles being sold by Chinese traders in Lusaka are "destroying our business."
> 
> He said China should concentrate on the mining sector "rather than putting themselves into these local businesses."



The key bit is this:



> "They're not here to develop Zambia, they're here to develop China."



The Chinese are willing, indeed eager to offer the Africans the one prize we, in the West, have denied them: a secure, stable market for their resources.  There are strings.  Free trade must, after all, work both ways or it’s neither free nor even trade.  If the Africans want/need to exploit their resources now they have to accept that the Chinese will do real, long term damage to Africa’s cotton/textile industries.

India needs those resources, too – perhaps even more than China.

Sorry, Mods: we're drifting off track but Zambia isn't that far from Sudan and Africa's problems are not confined to Sudan, either.


----------



## Kirkhill

Cameroon and Zambia are both Commonwealth countries.  (So is Tanzania for that matter).  The best strategy would be to re-engage them with Commonwealth investment offered under Commonwealth values, now that they have had a chance to see what Chinese values look like.  

But it needs to be done quickly while the situation is still fluid.

(Perhaps Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand - and some of those incredibly wealthy island tax havens scattered around the globe - could pony up an investment fund or two, backed by Commonwealth laws and Commonwealth enforcement.   Canadian company acts beyond the pale then the local workers can sue them in a Canadian court.  Where would they prefer their case to be heard: Ottawa or Beijing? )


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Cameroon and Zambia are both Commonwealth countries.  (So is Tanzania for that matter).  The best strategy would be to re-engage them with Commonwealth investment offered under Commonwealth values, now that they have had a chance to see what Chinese values look like.
> 
> But it needs to be done quickly while the situation is still fluid.
> 
> (Perhaps Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand - and some of those incredibly wealthy island tax havens scattered around the globe - could pony up an investment fund or two, backed by Commonwealth laws and Commonwealth enforcement.   Canadian company acts beyond the pale then the local workers can sue them in a Canadian court.  Where would they prefer their case to be heard: Ottawa or Beijing? )



India is a member of the Commonwealth, too.  Perhaps ABCNZ + Singaporean money and Indian ABC (administrative, bureaucratic and commercial) knowhow could combine for Africa's benefit and 'our' security.


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> India is a member of the Commonwealth, too.  Perhaps ABCNZ + Singaporean money and Indian ABC (administrative, bureaucratic and commercial) knowhow could combine for Africa's benefit and 'our' security.



Roger that, absolutely.

Bermuda, Turks and Caicos and some of the others aren't hurting for investors money either.


----------



## a_majoor

As a leading member of the "Mikey" group, I agree with much of what is being said about India here. We might not need to do more than supply "seed money" for India, their culture is more open and flexible than China's (that British influence?), and they do not have the weight of the state hanging over their economy to anywhere the same extent that the Chinese do. (The thread on the growth of the 
PLAN in International Situation and World News http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/55433.0.html points out some of the long term difficulties China is going to face).

I would also venture to say that inviting India to hook up with us (either Canada alone, or better yet, the rest of the Anglosphere) in a free trade agreement would also provide a huge boost to India without requiring them to get deeply involved in Africa. The reasoning is similar to what happened in Japan during the late 1920's and early 1930's. The Imperial Japanese Army considered the best course for the Empire was to reach into China and Russia for land, resources and markets, while the Imperial Navy favored taking territory, resources and markets from the more established European Empires. 

The factors which tipped things to the Imperial Navy included the time and effort required to extract resources from Siberia (which was mostly undeveloped) compared to taking already developed resources from the European Empires, and the rather negative results of military encounters with the Soviets. India would probably rather deal with modern nations with developed resource industries and markets like Canada and Australia rather than watch their time, energy and resources disappear into the African sinkhole.

In the longer term, India will have to deal with Africa, since India will need both more markets and resources than we can provide, as well as to ensure freedom of the seas when accessing markets in the Atlantic Ocean basin. We just need to get them ready.


----------



## GAP

Canada commits $48M to help keep peace in Darfur
Updated Thu. Mar. 1 2007 7:57 PM ET Canadian Press
Article Link

OTTAWA -- Canada has committed $48 million to support African Union peacekeeping efforts in the troubled Darfur region of Sudan.

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay announced the funding late Thursday amid continued civil strife in Darfur.

"Canada is gravely concerned about the ongoing international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses in Darfur, and condemns continued ceasefire violations by all parties," MacKay said during question period.

He said the new funding is aimed at helping the African Union mission in Sudan to "enhance the protection of civilians and to facilitate safe, unhindered humanitarian access to affected populations in urgent need."

Since 2004, Canada has pledged more than $190 million to the African Union mission in Sudan, and has provided military equipment, helped train African peacekeepers, and provided food, water, sanitation, and basic health care.

Canada has also sent several dozen military observers to Sudan


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201089.html



> ...the EU has provided most of the financing for the AU force now in Darfur - some [US] $530 million since 2004 - and the bloc's special peace support fund for Africa has run dry.
> 
> EU foreign ministers are expected to seek extra funding Monday from the EU aid budget and from the coffers of its 27 member governments...



So on a per capita basis Canada--$190 million--is providing a huge deal more that the EU. No notice of that in our media.

Meanwhile, Sudan's president is continuing his dance of the seven veils with the UN:



> Sudan's president is sending a letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressing his commitment to the deployment of several thousand U.N. peacekeepers to help end the violence in Darfur, Sudan's U.N. envoy said Friday.
> 
> The deployment would be the second step of a three-stage U.N. plan that would culminate in a 22,000-strong joint UN-African Union peacekeeping mission...
> 
> Al-Bashir's letter expresses his commitment but also raises "issues of operational, technical and legal aspects" of the proposal, Sudanese Ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem told The Associated Press. He declined to elaborate...
> 
> The first phase _ a "light support" package adding some equipment, military officers and U.N. police to the AU operation _ is nearly almost complete. The second phase is a "heavy support" package that includes the deployment of more than 3,000 U.N. military, police and civilian personnel...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Canada gave more than a 1.2 million per Canadian in this one gift, how does that compare to the EU's contribution of 530 million in terms of population?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Colin P said:
			
		

> Canada gave more than a 1.2 million per Canadian in this one gift, how does that compare to the EU's contribution of 530 million in terms of population?



We gave $36+ Trillion!?! ($1.2 Million each from 30+ Million Canadians)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sorry my bad, doing math without coffee is a crime...... :-[


----------



## Edward Campbell

Colin P said:
			
		

> Sorry my bad, doing math without coffee is a crime...... :-[



Sorry, I should have put a 'smiley' up there; I'm not trying to be a smart-ass.

I do not want to detract from your very valid point that Canadians, person-for-person, are doing much more than the Europeans.  _Canada's new government_ needs to get off its new arse and tell the world.


----------



## Avor

> What do you all think of the situation in Sudan? What do you think oughta be done?



We should get together with our international friends, and go old school on Sudan. You know, roll in the tanks, bomb the crap outa them, and shoot anybody who even looks at your the wrong way. Then when's it's all over, stick a flag in the ground, draw a line in the map and dare anybody to do something about it.

I'm not kidding, Sudan has failed Daefur, ethnic cleansing, rampaging warlords, famine, screw that. I honestly think we should role in, carve Darfur out of Sudan, and fix it.


But that's just my personal opinion  :


----------



## Edward Campbell

Avor said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I'm not kidding, Sudan has failed Daefur, ethnic cleansing, rampaging warlords, famine, screw that. I honestly think we should role in, carve Darfur out of Sudan, and fix it.
> ...



We - the big “we” comprising the West and the Arabs – have been _”fixing”_ Africa for a couple of thousand years.  Africa is the only place on the globe which, despite millennia of _”fixing”_ keeps sinking deeper and deeper into whatever black holes can be found – social, political, economic, pandemic, you name it.

What makes you think “we” can, now, suddenly, magically, _”fix”_ Darfur?


----------



## a_majoor

Sad to say, but the only way to ensure a long term "positive" outcome involves doing what we are already doing in Afghanistan and our American bretheren are doing in Iraq: a form of enlightened colonialism in the form of regime change and nation building.

Should "we" ever be so foolish as to undertake those missions in the Sudan, you can scroll to back issues of Canadian and American MSM vehicles and simply substitute "Sudan" for "Afghanistan" or "Iraq". A few minor details may have to be changed, such as substituting the "Brutal African summer" for the "Brutal Afghan winter", but a simpls cut and paste program will do.

My sarcasm meter is on high right now, because you and I both know that actual action on our part is ALWAYS greeted with cries of "It can't (shouldn't) be done" by the nay sayers, defeatists and lefty fellow travellers.

When Canada finishes the job in Afghanistan in ten or so years, we can look at the state of the Forces, the national piggy bank and our collective national interest to see if there is a compelling _Canadian_ reason to enter Dafur........


----------



## Colin Parkinson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We - the big “we” comprising the West and the Arabs – have been _”fixing”_ Africa for a couple of thousand years.  Africa is the only place on the globe which, despite millennia of _”fixing”_ keeps sinking deeper and deeper into whatever black holes can be found – social, political, economic, pandemic, you name it.
> 
> What makes you think “we” can, now, suddenly, magically, _”fix”_ Darfur?



Well a couple of the ex-British Colonies are still doing OK, Kenya, SA, Tanizina


----------



## MarkOttawa

A guest-post at_ Daimnation!_

Darfur: Who's helping...
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009085.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FascistLibertarian

It is really depressing that this threat has been going on for so long

My personal suggestion (and I make no claim to be an expert)
1) No fly zone over the country (with exceptions for passanger planes etc)
The US could set this up within a week if they really wanted to.
2) Western countries should provid the logistical help and funding.
ie I think a CF company strength deployment working for logistical purposes would be much more helpful than if we say sent special forces or a battalion of reg force infantry (not that we could at present)
3) We need responsible Muslim countries to provide the boots on the ground.

Here is the root problem as I see it: Democracy does not work in ethnically/religiously/racially diverse countries which have been created by external forces as a minority will have the power and does not wish to give it up.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is an opinion piece by Gerald Caplan – a well known _talking head_ and one of the Canadian left’s _great and good_:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=6ff40ce4-800b-4f14-a9b2-87f841ddcc82


> Shaking hands with another devil
> 
> *Gerald Caplan, National Post*
> Published: Thursday, March 29, 2007
> 
> Terrible crimes often create terrible dilemmas. In 1994, for instance, Canadian General Romeo Dallaire had to negotiate in Rwanda with men he knew were organizing one of history's worst genocides. Negotiations are now going on with the leaders of North Korea, and the world is holding its breath praying that the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), the child-molesters of northern Uganda, will return to the bargaining table. There are increasing calls to open talks with elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
> 
> Dallaire wanted to kill Rwanda's militant Hutu ringleaders, Bush wanted to take out North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, many want the LRA leaders to be tried by the International Criminal Court, and Stephen Harper vows never to trust the Taliban. But in every case, "jaw jaw," as Churchill described it, was deemed a better option than war war. Better to get a deal, stop the horrors being perpetrated, even if it meant granting impunity to monsters.
> 
> Does this theory explain why the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have been playing footsie with the Sudanese government of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for the past three years? Does the international community believe that he'll eventually rue his ways and end his vicious attack on the Darfur region of his country? If so, when do we finally admit that this strategy has failed?
> 
> Recall that it was these same five permanent members of the Security Council that repeatedly refused General Dallaire's pleas for more troops to end the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. As a direct result, as many as a million defenceless Tutsi were killed.
> 
> The council recently passed its seventh resolution calling on the government of Sudan to halt the attacks it's been organizing on the people of Darfur. U.S. President George W. Bush has formally accused the al-Bashir government of committing genocide. The conflict has gone on now since late 2003. Every resolution threatens that the "international community" will intervene in some ill-defined way to stop the carnage -- so long as the Sudanese government agrees. Similarly, the failed peace treaty that was drawn up after excruciatingly long negotiations last year was negotiated between the Darfur rebels and the al-Bashir government. "Who else can you negotiate with?" defenders of this jaw-jaw strategy will ask. Yet as everyone involved knows, Sudan's government has lied about every commitment it's ever made and has openly shown its contempt for world opinion on every possible occasion.
> 
> Darfur is hardly al-Bashir's first great crime against humanity. As head of his country's government for the past 18 years, he led a brutal war against southern Sudan that many also labelled a genocide -- two genocides in a single presidency, perhaps a world record. An agreement was finally reached in the south, after years of torture, rape, and mass murder by Sudanese troops financed by oil revenues from the south. Yet Sudan's government has already violated that agreement. So why is al-Bashir still being treated as a party that needs to be accommodated? Enough is enough.
> 
> It's crystal clear that al-Bashir has no intention of stopping his war against Darfur. And that, apparently, is perfectly alright with the Security Council. Behind all the powder-puff resolutions and the Monty Pythonesque threats to pass even more useless resolutions, each member has its own good reasons of national self-interest not to alienate al-Bashir's government. The Chinese need his oil. The Russians want to continue selling him fighter planes. And the United States is working closely with him on counter-terrorism issues -- even while accusing his government of perpetrating a genocide.
> 
> Why is Canada not speaking up to decry the shameful opportunism and cynicism of the UN's permanent five?
> 
> Someone may want to remind these governments of the late February ruling by the World Court on the Bosnian genocide of 1995. The court ruled that the Serbian government of Slobodan Milosevic had violated the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and was guilty of failing to prevent or stop the killing at Srebrenica. Milosevic is now dead, of course. But the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council are very much alive, actively betraying their responsibility to protect endangered civilians. How will the World Court judge them as they continue to allow the travesty in Darfur to continue?
> 
> _- Gerald Caplan writes frequently on genocide and genocide prevention._
> 
> *© National Post 200*



I have no doubt that this: *” Why is Canada not speaking up to decry the shameful opportunism and cynicism of the UN's permanent five?”* is a true cri de cœur.  The problem is that he has no answers.

If one believes, as I do, as I suspect Caplan does, too, that every preventable human death is a tragedy then what is one to do?  We can send money – but there are so many tragedies that we become immune (and poor).  We can call for _some sort_ of action by somebody else – which is what Caplan is doing here – but that’s actually counter-productive because it is just more of the _jaw-jawing_ which Caplan decries in the _permanent five_; he’s a _guilty_ as they.

Caplan gets the _answer_: jaw-jawing fails us in our *responsibility* to protect.  Logically it is time for war.  Surely there are some crimes against humanity which are so vile that we *must* invade, kill then perpetrators and string their bodies up in their city squares _pour encourager les autres_.  I would be happy to see _someone_ say, at long last, “To hell with the Treaty of Westphalia and its outdated ideas of sovereignty.  Here we come, Mr. al-Bashir; you are dead – we don’t need a trial – consider yourself tried and convicted by your own actions.  All that remains is the destruction of your regime and your public hanging.”

I would be proud if Canada would say that, and, then, *do something* about it.  But Canada will not; Gerald Caplan and his fellow travellers saw to that when they applauded from the safe sidelines which Trudeau and Chrétien emasculated our military and while Mulroney failed to reverse Trudeau’s acts of policy vandalism.

It is time for Caplan to stop _jaw-jawing_ about the problem and start talking about the solution: more Canadian sailors, soldiers and aviators, more equipment and a steely resolve to use them to exercise our *responsibility* protect.

Or, more likely, Caplan will say, “Well, really, you see, it’s someone else’s responsibility – people like Tony Blair and George Bush.”


----------



## MarkOttawa

More bloviating from Softy Lloyd and Allan (he's no) Rock:

Six things Canada should do
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=9f4b639a-e45b-4a4a-bed4-5fbab8b97ff1&p=2

Less than fourteen, at least.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

Just a little update on the Sudan situation:



> Sudan agrees to U.N.-African Darfur force: Saudi Thu Mar 29, 3:09 PM ET
> 
> 
> 
> RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia said on Thursday Sudan had agreed to a joint U.N.-African Union force in Darfur after a meeting with United Nations, African and Saudi officials on the sidelines of an Arab summit.
> 
> "Sudan has now agreed for the U.N. to provide logistical support to help African forces," Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said at a news conference.
> 
> "This means there will be some non-African forces there and this is a breakthrough that never happened before and we hope it leads immediately to a solution to the humanitarian tragedy in Darfur as soon as possible."
> 
> The announcement follows a meeting on Wednesday of Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Arab League chief Amr Moussa, Saudi King Abdullah and Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki, who heads East African body, the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD).
> 
> Bashir told Arab leaders at the summit's opening on Wednesday the United Nations could have a role in providing logistical support for African troops.
> 
> Bashir has long resisted the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers to Sudan's western Darfur region, where the United States says a genocide of the local population has taken place through government support for nomadic militia groups.
> 
> A U.N. plan foresaw a small force of U.N. military and civilian forces moving into Darfur, followed in the second phase by about 2,500 more U.N. troops, and finally by another 10,000 soldiers to form a hybrid force.
> 
> Experts estimate that 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million have fled their homes since conflict flared in 2003 when rebel groups took up arms against the government, accusing it of neglect. Khartoum says 9,000 people have died and denies the genocide allegations.
> Sudan, which has been accused of hindering aid to Darfur, signed an agreement with the United Nations this week to boost humanitarian work in the region.


----------



## armyvern

Cougarshark please edit your post to include the link and ref to the original source.

Thanks

The Army.ca Staff


----------



## CougarKing

Here is the link to the original source for the above article, from Yahoo! News article that quoted a Reuters report:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070329/wl_nm/darfur_sudan_force_dc

I'm sorry, but my "edit" function seems to be disabled.


----------



## armyvern

Ahh...

Sorry, yes it would be.

_Vielen Dank_
Thanks for the link.

The Army.ca Staff


----------



## TCBF

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> Here is the root problem as I see it: Democracy does not work in ethnically/religiously/racially diverse countries which have been created by external forces as a minority will have the power and does not wish to give it up.





- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  Liberty is a well armed lanb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin


----------



## MarkOttawa

Sen. Dallaire still wants Canada, in some miraculous fashion, to punch above its weight:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=ca10701d-3d86-489b-a5cb-1a1888d9bc4c



> While armed intervention by Canada against Sudan's will is not feasible [that's a profound truth - MC], there are numerous steps Canada might undertake, and for which concerned Canadians should push. As a minimum, we must:
> 
> - Take a dynamic lead on the issue. Despite Canada's unfortunate inability to send troops at the moment, Canada's Prime Minister should personally raise the issue with his counterparts at every occasion. Notably, he should press the German Chancellor to put Darfur on the agenda at the upcoming G8 Summit in Germany.
> 
> - Establish a no-fly zone over Darfur. Prime Minister Harper should press other Western leaders, especially from the U.S. and U.K., to iron out the details of this crucial step. *Canada could contribute CF-18s to enforce this zone* [emphasis added], significantly reducing the Sudanese Air Force's ability to harm Darfurians and improving the humanitarian effort in the area. The international community has threatened to enforce a no-fly zone on numerous occasions, so the establishment of one now would boost their badly-damaged credibility.
> 
> - Rapidly deploy a UN Mission to Chad and the Central African Republic to restore stability in these countries and prevent the conflict from spreading to the entire region through a mix of military force, humanitarian aid and planning for a regional solution.
> 
> - Significantly increase funding to the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) and the massive humanitarian effort, above and beyond the $61-million recently pledged by the Canadian government which simply maintains the unconscionable status quo. The Canadian military can also send trainers, advisors, logisticians and personal and technical equipment to reinforce AMIS's capability [does the Senator really think the Sudanese government would permit that, even if we could do it?  Remember the very hard time we had getting them to let the Grizzlies in]. Darfurian lives can be saved and suffering prevented if Canada and others boost their resources.
> 
> - Increase Canada's capacity to work on the issue. With its expertise in human rights law and practice, Canada should be a leader in the global commitment to address this crisis. To do this, we must increase our commitment of staff at Foreign Affairs Canada, at the Canadian Mission to the UN and at the embassy in Khartoum...



See "The Grizzly road to Darfur":
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005238.html

Now for the current reality:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/03/asia/AS-GEN-China-Sudan-Military.php



> China, criticized for its support for Sudan, will boost its military and other cooperation with the African country, state media reported.
> 
> China buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil and sells it weapons and military aircraft, but has been criticized for not using its influence to do more to stop the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region.
> 
> Xinhua News Agency reported late Monday that the countries had vowed "to boost military exchanges and cooperation in various sectors" during a visit by Sudan's Joint Chief of Staff Haj Ahmed El Gaili.
> 
> "Military relations between China and Sudan have developed smoothly," Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan was quoted as saying, adding "China is willing to further develop cooperation between the two militaries in every sphere."
> 
> Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said the two sides "exchanged ideas on the Darfur issue" and called for a solution by political means.
> 
> He said they talked about a plan proposed by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan last year.
> 
> "We hope [hah!] the Sudanese side can show further flexibility on the implementation of the Annan program," said Qin, adding there were no details on whether weapons sales were discussed.
> 
> The United Nations and Sudan agreed in November on a plan backed by Annan for the incremental deployment of a joint African Union-U.N. force of 20,000 peacekeepers, but Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has since backed off the deal, saying he only would allow a larger AU force with technical and logistical support from the United Nations...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Now, see Mark, if we hadn't pulled Talisman out of Sudan, allowing China to buy up the Talisman leases and thus gain influence, we could be telling Talisman to pull out now and thus influencing Sudan's policies just the way the Chinese are now......or would the Chinese just buy up the leases we release now thereby undoing our influence and gaining new influence for themselves, as well as oil and a market for weapons keeping at least some of their labour force in jobs.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Kirkhill: Didn't Talisman end up in Afstan?  You know it's all about oil there too. 
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/ledev1a.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## HeatRoca

Intresting comments. The UK should be more involved seen as how sudan use to be a british coloney and gained independence in the late 50s. anyways back to the topic i think the african union should exercise its powers and sudan more military forces to sudan until the sudanese government stops attacks on civilians and racial and religious prosection to black africans and other ethnic groups in southern sudan.. Also the sudanese army is not a strong fighting force it could easly be taken out


----------



## Edward Campbell

Pro Patria said:
			
		

> Intresting comments. The UK should be more involved seen as how sudan use to be a british coloney and gained independence in the late 50s. anyways back to the topic i think the african union should exercise its powers and sudan more military forces to sudan until the sudanese government stops attacks on civilians and racial and religious prosection to black africans and other ethnic groups in southern sudan.. Also the sudanese army is not a strong fighting force it could easly be taken out



I think the AU has very little power to exercise in the first place.

Second: it lacks the political will to exercise what little power it has.  This (like everything else) is, after all, the fault of colonialism.

Third: even if there was sufficient power and some will, the AU lacks the C3 and logistical wherewithall to manage an exercise of power.

If there is going to be a _solution_ to Darfur, the world will have to look past the AU.

I still say: "Send India!"


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sudan is all about oil, but it doesn't count because the oil is not destined for the US, therefore oil does not matter....I hope that is clear enough for you to understand Leftthink.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Has Sudan accepted even UN logistical support for the AU force or not?

China welcomes agreement among Sudan, UN, AU on Darfur issue
http://english.people.com.cn/200704/12/eng20070412_365985.html



> China on Thursday welcomes an agreement reached in a tripartite meeting among the Sudanese government, the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU), calling for resolving the Darfur issue through equal dialogues.
> 
> Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said this at a regular press conference in response to a question concerning the tripartite meeting .
> 
> *Representatives of the three parties reached the agreement on increasing UN logistic support* [emphasis added] for the AU peacekeeping force in Darfur during a tripartite meeting held in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa on Monday.
> 
> "We hope parties concerned continue to implement the peace plan put forward by by former UN chief Kofi Annan through equal dialogues, and properly settle the Darfur issue so as to promote early peace, stability and development in the region," Qin said.
> 
> The Sudanese government, the UN and the AU worked out last November a three-phase support package concerning the light and heavy logistic supports to be provided by the UN to AU's peacekeeping force in Darfur.
> 
> Source: _Xinhua_



Sudan under new pressure to accept UN peacekeepers
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article1642673.ece



> International pressure is mounting on Sudan to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force in the war-ravaged region of Darfur amid fears of a dangerous conflagration engulfing neighbouring countries.
> 
> The United States said that it would hold off from imposing new sanctions to allow time for a global diplomatic offensive to make Khartoum accept UN peacekeepers to bolster a struggling African Union force...
> 
> President Mbeki of South Africa and John Negroponte, the US Deputy Secretary of State, are the latest high-level envoys to fly into the region to press the case for peacekeepers. Their visits come after bloody border clashes between Sudan and Chad.
> 
> Thirty fighters from both sides were killed in clashes on Monday when the Chadian Army crossed over into Sudan in pursuit of rebels, before being beaten back by Sudanese troops. Sudan accused Chad of violating border agreements while Chad blamed the rebels for the initial incursion...
> 
> Mr Mbeki met President el-Bashir in Khartoum yesterday to *urge him to accept the final stage of the UN peace plan for Darfur, which proposes a force of UN and AU peacekeepers* [emphasis added]. But in a rare rebuke China, Sudan’s biggest ally and trading partner, urged Sudan this week to be more flexible on the peacekeeping plan...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

By the way - don't worry about the CF running out of employment after 2009.  On Duffy's show Dawn Black and Denis Coderre were speculating about the utility of airconditioned tanks in Darfur.  It seems like the Liberals and the NDP already have the plannning well under weigh.  : (Sarcasm implied).


----------



## MarkOttawa

This is some progress, but will Sudan allow anything further?  What it has accepted so far will hardly be enough to be effective.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/349/story/15473.html



> The U.N. chief said Thursday he's encouraged by an agreement with Sudan to beef up the African Union force in Darfur with U.N. forces and equipment, while Britian's ambassador predicted Sudan would also accept helicopter gunships.
> 
> Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters has been trying to assure the Sudanese government that the helicopters are "not for any offensive purpose" because the 7,000-strong AU force is in Darfur on a peacekeeping mission and that will be the U.N.'s role as well.
> 
> "But when you deploy troops you need to have ... mobility with some capacity to deterrence," he said...
> 
> The United Nations and Sudan agreed in November on a three-stage plan to strengthen the AU force, to culminate with the deployment of a joint AU-U.N. force with 17,000 troops and 3,000 police officers. But Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has since backed off from the final stage, saying he would only allow a larger AU force, with technical and logistical support from the United Nations.
> 
> The first phase, a light support package including U.N. police advisers, civilian staff and additional resources and technical support, has already been sent to Darfur.
> 
> The U.N., AU and Sudan agreed on a second phase last Monday - including more than 3,000 U.N. troops, police, and other personnel as well as substantial aviation and logistics equipment - except the attack helicopters.
> 
> Asked whether he was confident that all problems with the second phase were resolved and discussions could now move on to the third phase with the larger U.N. force, Ban told reporters Thursday, "One always needs to have a bit of hope, based on optimism."..
> 
> Meanwhile, Senegal said it may pull its peacekeepers out of Darfur region if the African Union is unable to ensure their safety, an influential Cabinet group in this West African country said Thursday.
> 
> The deaths of five Senegalese peacekeepers in Darfur a little over a week ago brought to 16 the number of peacekeepers killed in the region since African Union forces were sent there three years ago. Senegal has about 500 troops in the AU force...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Darfur realities?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-menard_smith14apr14,0,678630.story?track=ntothtml



> ...ROBERT MéNARD is secretary-general of Reporters Without Borders, an organization that defends press freedoms. STEPHEN SMITH writes on African affairs from Paris.
> 
> DO YOU THINK the United States was wrong to invade Iraq even if it did so with the intention of bringing freedom to the victims of Saddam Hussein? Do you believe that long-standing conflicts in faraway countries cannot be solved with military solutions that fail to address the underlying causes of the crisis?
> 
> If so, how can you imagine that deploying thousands, or more likely tens of thousands, of foreign soldiers in Darfur, a Sudanese province bigger than Iraq, is all it would take to stop the massacre there? When we went to Darfur in March, we were as desperate as anybody about the killings — and we still are. But what we learned in Sudan makes us wary of do-gooders in body armor — and of the double-think of balkanized minds branding as disaster in Iraq what they recommend for Darfur's salvation. We ought to have serious doubts about this new mission to civilize, done up in the latest colors. Without a political solution brokered by the international community, there will be no peace to keep and even less to impose.
> 
> In Khartoum and in North Darfur, we met Sudanese who were traumatized by their country's tragedy, but also much better informed than us. Their views differed, but none of them perceived the conflict as one between "victims" and "butchers." Yet, Manichaeism prevails in the West, where the cause is assumed to be simple: An Islamist Arab regime has decided to exterminate Darfur's black population and is carrying out genocide with the help of the Riders of the Apocalypse, the infamous janjaweed militia. There is hardly any mention in the U.S. or European media of how humanitarian aid organizations — and Darfur's civilians — are also fleeing from atrocities committed by rebels in Darfur opposed to Khartoum.
> 
> [...]
> 
> If indeed the regime in Khartoum is engaging in genocide, then there can be no compromising with it — and regime change must be the order of the day. But myriad independent investigations indicate that about 40,000 Darfurians were killed from March 2003 to December 2004 in atrocious circumstances, and 90,000 more people died of hunger or disease, the indirect victims of the civil war. Since then, the violence has been abating...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So almost 1/2 million people dead in slightly more than a year, the solution, more talk.....as long as it's not me or my family being killed, no need to rush. It's much better now, they are only killing a thousand a month now. :


----------



## Spartan

Figured this should go here. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6559897.stm


> *Sudan agrees to UN peacekeepers*
> An African Union soldier stands guard in the village of Goes Being in Darfur
> The African Union force is struggling to halt the violence
> More than 3,000 United Nations troops will be allowed into Darfur, according to Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol.
> 
> The apparent change of heart comes after months of international pressure, but there is no UN confirmation so far.
> 
> Mr Akol told a news conference that Sudan has now fully accepted the second phase of a UN plan to support 7,000 struggling African Union troops there.
> 
> Under the plan, UN attack helicopters and armoured personnel carriers will also be deployed to help AU forces.
> 
> The four-year Darfur conflict between rebels and pro-government Arab militia has seen more than 200,000 deaths and at least 2.4 million displaced.
> 
> UN DARFUR PLAN
> Map of Darfur, western Sudan
> Phase 1 - UN financial backing for AU mission
> Phase 2 - UN sends logistical and military support
> Phase 3 - UN takes joint command of hybrid force
> 
> A spokesman for the foreign ministry told the BBC that Sudan's acceptance had been passed on to African Union Chairman Alpha Omar Konare.
> 
> Mr Konare is currently in New York to brief UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Security Council.
> 
> UN officials said they were aware of the Sudanese announcement, but had not yet been told anything officially.
> 
> Outrage
> 
> Earlier, British aid agency Oxfam launched an appeal for humanitarian aid for the Darfur region of Sudan and east Chad.
> 
> Oxfam says it needs £5m ($10m) to help displaced people in the region who continue to flee from violence.
> 
> "This is the greatest concentration of human suffering in the world and an outrage that affronts the world's moral values," Penny Lawrence, Oxfam's international director said after a tour of Darfur.
> 
> The international aid agency is currently providing clean water, health and sanitation services to more than 500,000 people in Darfur and eastern Chad.
> 
> "Nearly 1 million people are not getting any aid at all and in some areas the aid efforts is under threat due to increasing insecurity," an Oxfam statement said.
> 
> Visiting US official John Negroponte had also warned Sudan of isolation if it fails to stop harassment of humanitarian workers and rejects the deployment of UN peacekeepers in the war-torn region.
> 
> "The denial of visas and harassment of aid workers has created the impression that the government of Sudan is engaged in a deliberate campaign of intimidation," he said at the end of his tour of Sudan.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Pact reached to send 3,000 peacekeepers to Darfur region
Sudan agrees to first major deployment of UN troops to aid African Union soldiers
AP, April 17
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070417.SUDAN17/TPStory/International



> Sudan agreed yesterday to let 3,000 UN peacekeepers deploy in Darfur with attack helicopters, opening the door to the first significant UN force to help beleaguered African Union soldiers who have been unable to halt the region's four-year war.
> 
> After five months of stalling, the government in Khartoum called for a speedy deployment.
> 
> It hinted it could approve an even larger United Nations force that has been demanded by the Security Council, the United States and others.
> 
> But experts were cautious about the chances for creating that 20,000-strong force, noting that Sudan's leaders have reversed course previously on occasion after announcing vague agreements for action in Darfur...
> 
> U.S. diplomats and UN officials said they would remain cautious until UN peacekeepers are on the ground in Sudan's vast western province, where more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million chased from their homes since the conflict began in 2003.
> 
> "We'll see whether they've agreed when they actually start to deploy," acting U.S. ambassador Alejandro Wolff told reporters.
> 
> The U.S. State Department, responding to the agreement, said the *announcement omitted several key provisions for the UN force's effective operation, including leaving its command and control unspecified and limiting the participation of non-African troops* [emphasis added].



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am sure they are hoping that the UN force will send something that in Sudan's eye will violate the agreement and stall everything again, while they blame the UN.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P: A letter of mine in the _Ottawa Citizen_ today:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=6487e1eb-4e5c-4b9b-9699-722ed511db39



> Why not Darfur?
> 
> Janice Kennedy asks: "Why Afghanistan and not, say, Darfur?"
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/citizensweekly/story.html?id=2d5659df-a7a9-4f32-be3a-00d21af2f07e
> 
> There are very good reasons why.
> 
> The NATO mission in Afghanistan has the unanimous authorization of the United Nations Security Council, and is there at the invitation of the legitimately elected government of the country.
> 
> Meanwhile, the government of Sudan refuses to allow an effective UN force to be deployed to Darfur. Without that permission, peacemaking in Darfur can only take the form of an invasion of Sudan, with no Security Council mandate. Such an invasion would certainly be bloody and raise the wrath of the Muslim world. Hence, there is no appetite in the international community for such a course of action.
> 
> Does Ms. Kennedy think that Canada should invade Sudan on its own?
> 
> If so, how does she propose that we do it?



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the terms: SPLAT!!!! or "Owned" apply to that letter, well done!!!!


----------



## GAP

Why Sudan is now allowing UN troops in Darfur
Sudan announced Monday it would allow 3,000 international peacekeepers in, leading the US and Britain to increase pressure.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor 
Article Link

WASHINGTON - International pressure from the United Nations, Arab leaders, and the United States played a role in Sudan's concession this week to allow 3,000 UN peacekeepers into the country's troubled Darfur region. 

So, apparently, did the image concerns of China – both one of Sudan's biggest commercial partners and an increasingly outgoing international power – as it prepares to host the 2008 Summer Olympics. 

But while some international leaders are jumping to praise Sudan's uncustomary openness to international intervention in Darfur, the US and Britain are seizing the moment to increase pressure on Sudan. 

As the conflict that has left more than 200,000 people dead and 2.5 million displaced continues unabated, questions are surfacing over which approach is likely to stem the crisis most quickly. 

Some experts say Sudan simply continues to play the international community by stringing out its concessions to make them appear to be major breakthroughs, even though they are unlikely to get at the heart of Darfur's strife. 
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa

Sudan Flying Arms to Darfur, Panel Reports
_NY Times_, April 18
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/pop/articles/18sudan.html



> A confidential United Nations report says the government of Sudan is flying arms and heavy military equipment into Darfur in violation of Security Council resolutions and painting Sudanese military planes white to disguise them as United Nations or African Union aircraft.
> 
> In one case, illustrated with close-up pictures, the report says “U.N.” has been stenciled onto the wing of a whitewashed Sudanese armed forces plane parked on a military apron at a Darfur airport. Bombs guarded by uniformed soldiers are laid out in rows by its side.
> 
> The report says that, contrary to the Sudanese government’s earlier denials to United Nations investigators, the freshly painted planes are being operated out of all three of Darfur’s principal airports and used for aerial surveillance and bombardments of villages, in addition to the transportation of cargo.
> 
> The report was compiled by a five-person panel responsible for helping the Council’s sanctions committee monitor compliance with resolutions on Darfur, the war-ravaged region in Sudan. It was made available by a diplomat from one of the 15 Council nations, which believes that the findings ought to be made public...
> 
> The report covers recent conduct, from September 2006 to March 12, 2007, and emerged a day after Sudan announced it was dropping its objections to large-scale United Nations assistance to the overwhelmed African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. Sudan said Monday that it would agree to a force of 3,000 military police officers, along with six attack helicopters and other aviation and logistics support.
> 
> Left uncertain was whether Sudan would drop its longstanding resistance to a proposed 21,000-member joint African Union-United Nations force, to replace the 7,000-member African Union force that has said it cannot curb the violence there.
> 
> Sudan signaled its willingness to accept the interim force at a moment when at least two countries on the Security Council, Britain and the United States, were threatening tough new sanctions because of Sudan’s stalling tactics...



Administration Still Weighing Sudan Options
_Washington Post_, April 18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701853.html



> President Bush will use an appearance today at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to address the crisis in Darfur. But as of late yesterday, administration officials were still weighing how far the president will go after a last-minute gambit by the Sudanese president that seemed designed, at least in part, to head off coercive U.S. action...
> 
> The White House has for months been working on a "Plan B" for Darfur, which contemplates tough financial sanctions and other measures to pressure the government of the Sudanese president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan al-Bashir, if it does not comply with international demands to allow a robust peacekeeping force into Sudan...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Bush Unveils And Delays Sanctions For Sudan
Deferral Made Upon U.N. Chief's Request
Washington Post, April 19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041801022.html



> President Bush unveiled a new package of sanctions against Sudan yesterday for failing to cooperate with international efforts to end what he described as the "genocide" in the Darfur region -- but promptly postponed it to give the U.N. secretary general time to pursue a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
> 
> Until Tuesday night, the White House had been planning to use the speech to impose a "Plan B" for Sudan, a long-anticipated plan that includes new financial sanctions targeting 29 companies owned or controlled by the Sudanese government, as well as three people involved in fomenting violence in Darfur. Bush and his aides have been increasingly frustrated by their inability to prod Sudan to cooperate in efforts to end the humanitarian crisis in the troubled region, where as many as 450,000 people have died and more than 2 million have been made homeless after attacks from government-sponsored militias.
> 
> But the administration plan was upended by a last-minute plea Tuesday from Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, requesting more time to work out a diplomatic solution with Sudan's president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan al-Bashir. Ban bluntly told Rice that now is not the time to be enforcing new sanctions on Sudan, said U.S. and U.N. sources familiar with the conversation...
> 
> Administration officials said they are skeptical of Bashir's intentions, citing the endless haggling over a peacekeeping force for Darfur that is supposed to eventually include more than 20,000 U.N. and African Union soldiers and police officers. Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte called Bush from Khartoum on Tuesday and reported that Bashir was defiant and showed little indication that he would be accommodating, officials said...
> 
> Ban noted that Bashir's agreement this week to allow an initial deployment of 3,000 peacekeepers was his first diplomatic achievement as U.N. secretary general and that it had been greeted favorably by other nations, so a U.S. move to impose sanctions now would undercut that accomplishment. He also said that Bashir is convinced that the United States is acting in bad faith, so any move by the administration would simply reinforce his belief that the international community cannot be trusted, sources said...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Which now explains Sudan’s move, however Bush has also shown them the price of not cooperating. The diplomatic equivalent of standing the back of the room quietly cleaning your fingernails with a big effin’ knife!


----------



## North Star

I think they've done this before. It's a drill for them:

1) Agree to UN troops;
2) Reject Visas for said UN troops;
3) Argue about it for 6 months;
4) Eject a few UN and NGO workers for trumped up charges such as "eating pork" or "drinking" to rile up the Islamists,
5) Apologize profusely for 2, but say no to a force as things have calmed. 
6) Return to 1

Mark my words: by the time we get there, Khartoum will have achieved its goals in the region. After all, who's going to argue for an invasion/regime change with the superpower preoccupied elsewhere?


----------



## cameron

Personally I want nothing more than to see Canadian soldiers serving janjaweed their just desserts.  However, what one wants and what is feasible and practical are often two different things.  It is unfortunate that the U.S and U.K. made the foolish decision to get tied up in Iraq, but what's done cannot be undone, and the fact is with the world's two most powerful western militaries stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Canada's excellent, but extremely undermanned and underequipped military heavily committed in Afghanistan, Darfur is just not possible right now.

Like Muffin said, I hope when the CF's transformation brings Canada to the desired level of military strength that its not too late by then.


----------



## time expired

Folks its a cruel hard world out there,Africa is just trying to fit its population to the economical
and environmental circumstances it finds itself faced with,and troops,money or peace corps,remember
them?,will not change things one iota.This effort by Africans is not a conscious one, but is driven by
disastrous enviromental changes caused by overpopulation,global warming and endemic corruption,
and there is nothing we in the west can do about it.
IMHO we should quit watching CNN and getting in a impotent rage about things we cannot change
I realize that this seems very callous and cynical but after watching African developments since 1945
its very hard to reach any other conclusions.
                                         Regards


----------



## Quag

So maybe Canada can't go in.  But many other nations have the ability and should.  When human rights are being neglected equally or worse than those in countries such as Afghanistan, WE as a whole, as human beings, have a duty and obligation to intervene to ensure that they are protected.  

Saying that, we know Canada doesn't have the numbers of logisitics AT THIS MOMENT.  When things change, I would like to see us there.  In the mean time, there are many nations that could and SHOULD be there doing something.  This is not what human beings should be subjected to ever.


----------



## cameron

Amen to that Quag!  There are a lot of countries other that the USA, UK, Canada and Australia that have large enough and/or capable enough militaries to do something about Darfur.  First of all, South Africa as the regional superpower needs to start pulling its weight in the region, instead of making excuses for its despotic neighbours.  If I remember correctly, the French Foreign Legion (one of my favourite military units) was founded largely for operations in Africa.  For centuries France had no problem using the Legion to defend imperialist interests and to prop up corrupt African dictators whom they supported.  Darfur is an excellent opportunity for a French government to  use the Legion for a truly worthy cause.  India is an emerging superpower, which I would like to see flex its muscles more, not just for the sake of flexing them, but what sense does it make having the world's fifth largest navy, and one of the largest, best equipped and best trained army and air force, if your not going to use them to redress some of the world's evils (and be a useful counterbalance to China).  

Closer to my neck of the woods, many of my Latin American neighbours, particulary Brazil and to a lesser extent Argentina, Chile and Peru have large and fairly proficient armies.  It would make Simon Bolivar dance in his grave to see the Latin American militaries he helped spawn shed their 20th century role of oppressors of dissent to take up a new mantle in the 21st century.  This would certainly increase their stature on the world stage.  There is another reason I have singled out some of the countries mentioned above.  Several of them, India, South Africa and Brazil are vying for permanent seats on the UN Security Council.  I am strongly of the opinion that permanent status on the Security Council should not just be some elitist reward that signals one has arrived.  This should be earned by taking an active role, militarily and otherwise, in fighting the world's depravities.


----------



## MarkOttawa

U.S. seeks resolution that would extend peacekeeping in southern Sudan to push Darfur force 
AP, April 24
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070424-0055-un-sudan.html



> The United States sought to use a U.N. resolution that would extend the U.N. peacekeeping mission in southern Sudan to press for the deployment of 20,000 U.N. troops in Darfur.
> 
> But the strategy is likely to face difficulties from Security Council members who want to keep two operations separate.
> 
> Meanwhile the United States and Britain have almost completed another proposal calling for sanctions against Sudan if the country doesn't agree to the U.N. force for Darfur.
> 
> The push for new sanctions was announced after a confidential U.N. report charged that Sudan's government has been flying arms and heavy military equipment into Darfur in violation of Security Council resolutions and is impeding peace efforts by using aircraft with U.N. markings.
> 
> The United Nations has 12,700 troops in southern Sudan, where they are monitoring a 2005 peace deal that ended a 21-year civil war between the mostly Muslim north and the Christian and animist south.
> 
> The U.N. chief has recommended extending the mission another six months, but on Monday the United States circulated a draft resolution that authorizes the troops to stay just three more months – until July 31.
> 
> The U.S. proposal also expresses the council's intention to deploy 20,000 U.N. peacekeepers to reinforce the struggling African Union force in Darfur...
> 
> The United Nations has 12,700 troops in southern Sudan, where they are monitoring a 2005 peace deal that ended a 21-year civil war between the mostly Muslim north and the Christian and animist south.
> 
> The U.N. chief has recommended extending the mission another six months, but on Monday the United States circulated a draft resolution that authorizes the troops to stay just three more months – until July 31.
> 
> The U.S. proposal also expresses the council's intention to deploy 20,000 U.N. peacekeepers to reinforce the struggling African Union force in Darfur...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## career_radio-checker

Quag said:
			
		

> So maybe Canada can't go in.  But many other nations have the ability and should.  When human rights are being neglected equally or worse than those in countries such as Afghanistan, WE as a whole, as human beings, have a duty and obligation to intervene to ensure that they are protected.



The British foreign policy marched to similar tune in the 19th century. We (and most certainly Africa) know it as imperialism, but the British justified it as 'civilizing' these despotic countries. Time expired is right, this stuff happens you just have to let it go. We may see it as 'protecting the human rights of a targeted people' but I guarantee you that the Africans will just see the 'white man' coming back to Africa with bigger guns. Africa is on its own now, and the best way to solve African problems is with African solutions and African troops. Of course we can support a mission financially and logistically, but that's it.


----------



## Quag

I couldn't furthur disagree from you CRC.  First off, what does human rights have anything to do with Imperialism.  I'm sick and tired of the Imperialism arguments.  Wake up world, we are an Imperialistic and Capitalistic world, and its not changing.  But that has nothing to do with human rights.  While the human rights may be violated due to imperialistic ways, it doesn't excuse the wrongs that are being committed.  And no, we still have a duty under the human condition to intervene.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Quag: If human rights are the deciding factor, why do not "we" (whoever we may be) intervene in Chechnya?  Or Tibet?  Or the DPRK?  Or Kashmir?  Or Sri Lanka?  Or Zimbabwe?  Or...All, of course, without UN Security Council authorization.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quag

Well in my personal opinion (as skewed as it might be), that is the million dollar question.  If you read my post before it, I realize that Canada and other countries cannot logistically intervene, however there are other countries that should.  If nothing else, Canada should acknowlege the fact that there are massive violations of human rights occuring in these countries and call for UN and other international support.  Just my two cents...throw it out or tear it up but I'm not changing my stance here.


----------



## Quag

I should add that I do realize that Canada has acknowledged, just added the point for emphasis, to make the point.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The same sort of analysis applies to all those in Canada demanding action:

Next stop Darfur?
http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20070604-104906-1235r



> Joseph Biden wants the United States to intervene with military force to stop the genocide that he and George W. Bush say is going on in Darfur.
> 
> "We should enforce a no-fly zone, impose multilateral sanctions through the U.N., lead negotiations among all the parties for a lasting peace settlement, find the forces for a peacekeeping mission and, if necessary, commit U.S. troops on the ground," he said in a statement.
> 
> Mr. Biden is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a candidate for president, and he deserves to be taken seriously. My questions for him: How many U.S. troops would you put "on the ground"? For how long? What is your strategy for winning? And do you have an exit strategy absent victory?
> 
> These are questions that many people, including Mr. Biden, have asked quite reasonably about Mr. Bush's decision to intervene with military force in Iraq.
> 
> Mr. Biden acknowledges there are "logistical obstacles and humanitarian concerns involved in this approach." No kidding. Darfur is far distant from U.S. bases or the open sea, it has little physical infrastructure, and the Sudanese government and some indigenous peoples would likely be hostile.
> 
> Russ Feingold, Mr. Biden's colleague in the Senate who thought about running for president but decided not to, takes another view. He reacts positively to Mr. Bush's "long overdue" strengthening of sanctions on the Sudanese government, but in his view it is not enough.
> 
> "In order for the initiatives announced today to be effective," he says, "the administration must redouble its diplomatic efforts at the United Nations, and in particular with reluctant Security Council members, to ensure these initiatives are complemented by similar multilateral measures. This administration must work in concert with the international community if targeted sanctions and economic pressure are to have any meaningful impact in reversing the humanitarian crisis and ending the genocide in Sudan."
> 
> My questions for him: *Why do you suppose that redoubled diplomatic efforts will do anything to persuade China, which buys oil from Sudan, to cooperate? What do you do if it continues to be impossible to get the Security Council to authorize sanctions* [emphasis added]? What steps are you prepared to take to enforce sanctions?
> 
> Mr. Biden at least realizes that in a less-than-perfect world, with many evil persons doing evil things, military action is sometimes necessary to stop them. Mr. Feingold seems to assume diplomatic suasion is all that is needed, at least for now. But their two different approaches have two things in common.
> 
> One is that *it is better to intervene where we don't have major security interests than where we do* [emphasis added]. Mr. Feingold opposed from the beginning our intervention in Iraq, and Mr. Biden, who voted for the Iraq war resolution, now wants us to move toward withdrawing. Yet Iraq is in a critical part of the world for us, and a speedy withdrawal from Iraq would be, as the Iraq Study Group concluded, a terrible blow to our national interest.
> 
> Any intervention in Darfur, through sanctions or military force, would be strictly humanitarian, like our interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. We had few national security interests there -- local civil wars were unable to embroil Europe in crisis. But Bill Clinton decided to intervene militarily, and most Democrats supported him. They approved our intervention there precisely because it was humanitarian and not in pursuit of security interests...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The same sort of analysis applies to all those in Canada demanding action:
> 
> Next stop Darfur?
> http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20070604-104906-1235r
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Probably.  It and the Horn of Africa.  But only after Agence France Presse declares victory in Iraq.  (See this....http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/56384/post-574914.html#msg574914)

The Republicans will then have successfully completed an unpopular war against one enemy while the Democrats get to launch a popular war against the same enemy.  And the Army stays employed.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Sudan and UN reach new peacekeeping deal for Darfur
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/18/africa/18nations.php



> Let's see what in fact happens, though on the surface this looks like progress:
> 
> The United Nations Security Council and the Sudanese government on Sunday hammered out the major details of a proposal to send more than 20,000 peacekeeping troops to Darfur, clearing the way for a joint force with the African Union, which will be led and paid for by the United Nations.
> 
> After a two-hour meeting with senior Sudanese officials in Khartoum, the delegation from the Security Council announced at a news conference there that it had *reached an agreement for the force to be under United Nations command, though its day-to-day operations would be run by the African Union* [? emphasis added]. The issue had been a sticking point for countries that might contribute troops to the operation but balked at being under African Union command.
> 
> After meeting with Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, and foreign minister, Lam Akol, the Security Council ambassadors said at the news conference that senior Sudanese officials had made an unconditional commitment to the new force.
> 
> "I can tell you that the foreign minister told us in no uncertain terms that the government of Sudan accepted the hybrid operation without any conditionality," said Dumisani Kumalo, South Africa's ambassador to the United Nations. "The president himself just confirmed the same thing to us."
> 
> The statement appeared to lay to rest momentarily concerns that Sudan would insist that only African troops be allowed to serve in the peacekeeping force, which will shore up a beleaguered African Union force of 7,000 troops struggling to maintain order in the lawless region...
> 
> *The new force is not expected to be sent until next year* [emphasis added], but when it does it will face chaos in Darfur and an even more complicated military and political environment than at the start of the conflict. The rebel groups are fractured, tribal militias fight among themselves and there is no currently recognized cease-fire.
> 
> Emyr Jones Parry, Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, said reaching a new cease-fire agreement and new negotiations for a political deal to end the conflict were paramount. "There isn't going to be an enduring peace unless there is a political settlement," Jones Parry said.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

Climate change behind Darfur killing: Ban Ki-moon  
Washington, AFP:  
Article Link

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.  

 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column published on Saturday.

UN statistics showed that rainfall declined some 40 per cent over the past two decades, he said, as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons.

"This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming," the South Korean diplomat wrote.

"It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought," Ban said in the Washington daily.

When Darfur's land was rich, he said, black farmers welcomed Arab herders and shared their water, he said
More on link


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

Canada can't sustain another major operation. Or correct me if i'm wrong.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Your not wrong, figure that you will need a 4 to 1 ratio for a long term deployment, 3 to 1 for a short term. That's 3-4 guys for each guy on the ground. so a 1,000 man strong force requires a 3-4,000 man miltary to sustain it.


----------



## MarkOttawa

An update:

The real situation (June 21):

Sudan denies acceptance of UN command of hybrid force in Darfur
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article22472



> June 19, 2007 (KHARTOUM) — Sudanese President Omer al-Bashir has denied the acceptance of deploying a hybrid peacekeeping force commanded by the United Nations in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, local media reported on Tuesday.
> 
> The Alwan daily *quoted Bashir as saying that the hybrid force to be deployed by the UN and the African Union (AU) in Darfur will be commanded by African and its troops would mainly come from African countries* [emphasis added].
> 
> "The agreement signed by Sudan with the AU Peace and Security Council stipulates appointment of an African commander for the troops in Darfur," al-Bashir told a meeting of local political leaders in Medani, the capital of Gezira State in central Sudan.
> 
> He disclosed that a Nigerian general had been chosen for the post, adding that only technical and civilian personnel could be sent by non-African countries to join the peacekeeping force according to the agreement.
> 
> *A delegation of the UN Security Council announced following their meetings with Sudanese officials in Khartoum last Sunday that they had reached an agreement for the hybrid force to be under UN command* [emphasis added].
> 
> After meetings with Bashir and Foreign Minister Lam Akol, some members of the UN delegation said that Sudanese officials had made an unconditional commitment to the new force.
> 
> At a two-day meeting in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa last week, the AU, the UN and Sudan reached an agreement on the deployment of the hybrid peacekeeping force in Darfur.
> 
> The Sudanese government has said that it is up to the UN now to adopt a resolution to finance the 20,000-strong force.
> 
> (Xinhua)



The diplomatic front (June 26):

Little Visible Progress on Darfur at International Conference
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/world/africa/26darfur.html



> PARIS, June 25 — They came, they met, they agreed that more must be done, but a gathering here aimed at solving the crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region ended Monday with little visible progress...
> 
> ...there was no announcement of which countries would contribute soldiers, *nor was there any signal that China had softened its resistance to levying sanctions on Sudan* [emphasis added], a measure that would require Chinese acquiescence to win approval from the Security Council. China is a staunch ally of Sudan and major buyer of its oil...



A realistic appraisal of the situation:

Platitudes won't save Darfur
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=0030f3a1-b076-4f7c-a1ed-07ddee63fe2b



> On the weekend, following an international conference in Paris on the Darfur crisis, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the world cannot "continue to sit by" while thousands more are killed and millions displaced from the troubled Sudanese region. She called on the world's powers to "redouble" their efforts to end the genocide there...
> 
> *Since the Western powers are unwilling to invade Darfur, or even to send in a peacemaking force without the approval of the Sudanese government *[emphasis added--that would effectively be an invasion too - MC], they need the co-operation of the Khartoum regime or the intervention of the African Union (AU) to bring relative peace. But the Sudanese government was not invited to the Paris talks and the AU boycotted them because it has been adamant since the crisis began that no non-African nations should intervene...
> 
> ...There is already an agreement on an international peacekeeping force in place between Khartoum and the UN. It was worked out nearly two months ago.
> 
> However, both sides now blame the other for the fact it has not been implemented. And there is no end in sight to the impasse.
> 
> The West could pressure China -- Sudan's strongest ally -- to stop sheltering it at the UN Security Council. China has used the threat of its veto at the UN to deflect stronger measures against Sudan because it has oil China wants.
> 
> But Ms. Rice's own State Department is reluctant to force China's hand on Darfur because what it really wants is China's influence with the North Koreans to stop Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program -- a direct security threat to the U.S., unlike Darfur.
> 
> We are not advocating a Western-led invasion of Darfur. But short of military intervention, all the summits and high-sounding promises in the world probably cannot do anything to end the massacre. And *since the G8 leaders stated plainly at their meeting in Germany earlier this month, "we underline that there is no military solution to the conflict in Darfur," there are few options of real substance left* [emphasis added]...



And a mindless, meaningless threat in the best Canadian diplomatic tradition:

Ottawa warns Sudan to keep vow on Darfur force  
Will consider imposing sanctions if troops aren't allowed to deploy
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/229347



> Canada will consider imposing sanctions on Sudan if it refuses to allow a United Nations-backed military force to stop the bloodshed in Darfur, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay says.
> 
> MacKay, in Paris for an international conference on Darfur, said "there are appropriate actions that can be taken" if President Omar al-Bashir refuses to let a joint African Union-UN force deploy in the country to stop four years of killing by mostly Arab janjaweed militias. Those consequences include economic sanctions that have been approved by the UN Security Council, he said.
> 
> Canada's response to the meetings *was in line with the U.S.* [trust the Star to bring that up], which warned that Sudan has a history of backtracking on its promises...
> 
> MacKay said that despite the absence of firm accomplishments coming out of the one-day summit organized by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, there is reason to hope a new approach, if not a breakthrough, could be on the horizon. He said Russia and China, both of which hold economic sway with Sudan, are "more engaged than we've seen previously [come on now, Mr MacKay]."..



That'll really set them quaking in their Guccis in Khartoum.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well a threat is better than a stern disappointment which is what PMPM would have said.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P: Mr Martin actually would have said it was "unacceptable" :
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/weinreb040805.htm

But our current foreign minister also uses this terribly harsh condemnation (a favourite of his department)--see last para here:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/weinreb040805.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

Perhaps reality is sinking in here as well; even the Left seems divided as to what to do:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/06/butting-heads-over-darfur.html



> 26 June 2007
> *Butting Heads over Darfur
> *
> It may come as a surprise to some that NGOs that fly under the umbrella of "Aid Groups" are in the midths of a dispute with Human Rights groups over how to deal with the Darfur crisis. The squabble isn't trivial ... in fact, it is centered around a fundamental question; Does one use a hammer or a carress to save Darfur?
> 
> David Reiff offers an impartial analysis:
> 
> Generally, humanitarian aid groups see nothing wrong with advocacy organizations like Save Darfur campaigning to mobilize world public opinion about the plight of the Darfurians (though some of the mainline relief NGOs, notably Doctors Without Borders, have disputed the assertion that what's going on in Darfur is, in fact, genocide). But they are quick to point out that human-rights activists do not remain on the ground in Darfur and do not have the burden of looking after the immediate needs of the refugees and the internally displaced. To the relief groups, the chief danger of an outside military intervention is that, to paraphrase that infamous remark by the American officer in Vietnam, the interveners will destroy Darfur in order to save it.
> 
> Pro-intervention advocates in the human-rights community, in contrast, tend to take the view that relief workers are being too cautious. They point out that the same anxieties were voiced by many aid groups during the Bosnian war and in the run-up to the war in Afghanistan, and that, given Khartoum's refusal to curb its murderous surrogates in Darfur, outside military intervention is the only viable solution both practically and morally. In their view, allowing the current political and military situation to continue so that humanitarian aid can be dispensed may have short-term benefits, but it condemns the Darfurians to a future of endless human destruction. Far from helping, they argue, relief without intervention amounts to keeping people alive now so [that] the Sudanese government forces can kill them later — a Band-Aid on a cancer, as some activists put it.
> 
> There is no question that both sides believe they are acting morally. And, in fairness, it should be noted that there are some in the humanitarian aid community who do favor outside intervention, even if they have been reluctant to voice this view publicly.
> 
> 
> What a world ... it's bad enough that "right" and "left" can't talk to each other long enough to save Darfur ... it's even worse when the self proclaimed "do gooders" can't even agree among themselves.
> 
> In the end, it's entirely possible that nobody will save the hapless victims of Darfur until someone, somewhere, calls in the cavalry and the real professional fixers, NATO Troops, come and clean up everyone’s mess.
> 
> Posted by Paul at 9:43 AM


----------



## 3rd Herd

The Usual Disclaimer: 
From www.kelownadailycourier.ca
World
EU planning to send 3,000 peacekeepers to Chad to help refugees from Darfur
By The Canadian Press
Monday, July 23, 2007

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - European Union countries agreed Monday to start planning for a possible 3,000-member peacekeeping mission to Chad to help provide security and aid to tens of thousands of refugees fleeing the conflict in neighbouring Darfur.

A meeting of EU foreign ministers said any mission had to be backed by the United Nations "with a clearly defined exit strategy" and in co-operation with the African Union, neighbouring countries and humanitarian aid groups.

Monday’s green-light will allow EU experts to gather information and data on what countries could provide forces for the mission and allow the United Nations in New York to start drafting a resolution for it.

Amnesty International appealed to the EU countries to act fast. The London-based rights group said 170,000 refugees from Darfur have fled into Chad because of violence and abuse "carried out by janjaweed militia and rebel movements."

The four-year conflict between Sudan’s ethnic African rebels and its pro-government janjaweed militia has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced 2.5 million in Darfur.

Several EU countries, led by Germany and including the Netherlands, Estonia and Greece, have expressed reservations about sending troops to Chad, said diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

But French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, supported by Britain and Sweden, is eager to push ahead with planning, which could lead to a final EU decision on sending troops before the end of the year.

Chadian President Idriss Deby last week said he supported an interim EU peacekeeping force.

A 7,000-member African Union force has been unable to stop the fighting in Darfur. The conflict there has spilled into the Central African Republic as well as Chad. Both countries have also faced attacks from rebels inside their borders.

The UN Security Council is considering a 26,000-member "hybrid" African Union-UN peacekeeping force for Darfur; the interim EU operation would be a companion effort. The mission would eventually hand over to a UN-African Union peacekeeping force.http://www.chroniclejournal.com/includes/datafiles/CP_print.php?id=55517&title=EU%20planning%20to%20send%203,000%20peacekeepers%20to%20Chad%20to%20help%20refugees%20from%20Darfur


----------



## MarkOttawa

That EU force will sure help in Darfur.  Talk about avoiding an issue in order to feel good--Taliban Jack would be proud.

Meanwhile the "hybrid" AU/UN force for Darfur is still a mirage:
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article22962



> July 21, 2007 (KHARTOUM) — The Sudanese government warned the UN Security Council from adopting a resolution on the UN-AU hybrid force without its approval.
> 
> Sudan’s permanent representative to the UN, Ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem said in press statements that his government submitted a list of its reservations on the proposed text of the resolution.
> 
> The UN Security Council (UNSC) is working on a resolution authorizing up to 26,000 troops and police in Darfur.
> 
> But several council members and Sudan expressed reservations on some parts of the resolution particularly the threat of further measures" if any of the parties "fail to fulfill their commitments or cooperate fully."
> 
> The Sudanese government objected to the mandate allowing the force to “use all necessary means” to protect civilians.
> 
> Abdalhaleem said that the proposed text “brings back the same controversial issues that caused disagreement between Khartoum and some UNSC members”.
> 
> Sudan’s envoy said that the text of the resolution places the force under the UN command against the will of Khartoum which insists on the “African nature of the force”.
> 
> Abdalhaleem cautioned that unless Sudan’s concerns are adressed the resolution will "have the same fate as resolution 1706".
> 
> On Friday a State Department official, speaking to Sudan Tribune on condition of anonymity said that the US wants a resolution that clearly provides for “U.N. command and control with a single chain of command and a Chapter VII authority to use all means to protect civilians”.
> 
> “Our position on this is not negotiable” the official added.
> 
> It is not clear how the differences between UNSC and Khartoum can be bridged...



Anyway it's all black propaganda by the Bush/Blair axis:
http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnB268062.html



> Most of Darfur is now secure and peaceful, and the region's negative image is due to "black propaganda" spread by the United States and Britain, senior Sudanese officials said on Sunday.
> 
> Following a tour of Darfur's three war-ravaged states, *President Omar Hassan al-Bashir rejected foreign intervention * [emphasis added] in the four-year conflict, in which international experts say 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million more displaced...
> 
> "There has been a lot of black propaganda about Darfur and Sudan, lies, hypocrisy, speaking about racial cleansing," said Interior Minister Zubeir Bashir Taha.
> 
> "The Bush-Blair axis has been responsible for this black propaganda and we'd like to show them this is not the case."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So that means we can cut off all the aid to Africa......... :


----------



## brihard

All the usual disclaimers...




http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/31/darfur-force.html

Link to security council draft resolution

*Security Council approves peacekeeping force in Darfur*

The UN Security Council has approved a plan to send just under 20,000 peacekeeping troops to Darfur who will be authorized to use force in the troubled region.

The force — a hybrid of UN soldiers and African Union troops —would be under the command of both the United Nations and the AU.

It will consist of up to 19,555 military personnel, including 360 military observers and liaison officers. As well, 3,772 police personnel and 19 police units of up to 140 personnel each will be deployed.

The conflict in the region has claimed the lives of more than 200,000 people and forced millions to live as refugees since it began in 2003.

According to the proposed resolution, the force will be allowed "to take the necessary action" to protect its personnel, support the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement and protect civilians.

The CBC's Neil Herland said that means the peacekeepers will have the right to "shoot and kill anyone who tries to harm civilians and anyone who tries to harm the mission itself."

The resolution sets a clear timeline, with the first command centre to be set up in Darfur for October. The first peacekeepers are set to hit the ground in December.
Activists 'clamouring for' operation: Ban

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called it a "historic and unprecedented operation" that will send "a clear and powerful signal" of help to the people of Darfur.

"This is something that activists have been clamouring for," Herland reported. "They've demanded the United Nations Security Council intervene in this case and it's literaly taken four years for this to finally happen."

Herland said one of the main reasons UN intervention has been delayed is that China has been reluctant to intervene in what it views as a domestic affair. China has veto power on the security council.

But their stance appeared to change after activists began urging people to boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics over their unwillingness to get involved.

The UN and western governments had pressed Sudan for months to accept a plan for a large joint force of 20,000 UN and AU peacekeepers to replace the overwhelmed 7,000-strong African force now in Darfur.

Sudan initially accepted the hybrid peacekeeping plan in November but then backtracked, before finally agreeing earlier this month.


----------



## Haggis

Jack Layton will be all over this like stink on a monkey.  He'll spout the usual "now we can pull out of Afghanistan, right away, and go into Darfur to do the right thing" rhetoric.  This mission is "the right mission for Canada" he'll proclaim.

So what happens then in Afghanistan?  Stay tuned, folks!


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:
			
		

> Jack Layton will be all over this like stink on a monkey.  Now we can pull out of Afghanistan, right away, and go into Darfur to "do the right thing".  This mission is "the right mission for Canada".
> 
> So what happens then in Afghanistan?  Stay tuned, folks!



I think your prediction is exactly right. This will be a focus of the next campaign, particularly from the NDP.

Not that I'm at all against a mission in Darfur- but right now it's not something we could manage.


----------



## Haggis

Brihard said:
			
		

> Not that I'm at all against a mission in Darfur- but right now it's not something we could manage.



Correct.  Given the propsoed numbers this could be a sizable contingent, almost on the scope of Op PALLADIUIM.  The trouble is that we are in an either/or situation.  We have the horsepower to contribute to only one "big" sized mision at a time without _significant_ Reserve augmentation.


----------



## HItorMiss

OH here we go........ :


----------



## Quag

Brihard said:
			
		

> Not that I'm at all against a mission in Darfur- but right now it's not something we could manage.



I agree completely with this statement.  Something should be done in Sudan, but we simply cannot contribute at this time.


----------



## brihard

Quag said:
			
		

> I agree completely with this statement.  Something should be done in Sudan, but we simply cannot contribute at this time.



Wise leadership would attempt to get as many of the troops as possible from black African nations; impress upon the Sudanese government that there is much support for this in their own regional neighborhood. That said, the NDP will of course be shouting for a retasking of the VanDoos, practicality notwithstanding.

I would also anticipate major contribution from south west and south east Asian nations... if I recall correctly, Pakistan and Bangladesh have been pretty decent about contributing to past missions- they at least have some experience to go on.


----------



## Quag

I agree.  Actually, call me crazy, but I did some reading into the issue, and part of the problem was that at one time the Darfur government would only allow black African soldiers to intervene.  Am I out to lunch here?


----------



## davidk

Brihard said:
			
		

> I would also anticipate major contribution from south west and south east Asian nations... if I recall correctly, Pakistan and Bangladesh have been pretty decent about contributing to past missions- they at least have some experience to go on.



Pakistan and Bangladesh contribute in great numbers because it pays the bills. They may have experience, but I'd hesitate to say that they'd be the troops I'd want for the mission...


----------



## armyvern

Whooo...

I'm pensionable on on 12 Jan. Somehow, today ... with this ... the date feels closer!! 

You just know what's going to happen with this ...


----------



## Haggis

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> OH here we go........ :



 You know I speak the truth. 

Maybe I should've been clearer.  The Cbt Arms are not the problem, though.  There's loads of bayonets who would/could go (Reg and Res).  It's the CSS world that's woefully short of pers and, as you know, the CSS makes up more than half of the A'stan contingent.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Canada willing to send aid to Darfur; troops doubtful*
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press, 31 Jul 07
Article link

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government appears willing to send more humanitarian aid to the war-ravaged Darfur region of Sudan, but *it's not saying if Canada will contribute troops to a peacekeeping mission approved Tuesday*.

International Co-operation Minister Josee Verner, who's in charge of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), said *the Conservative government has not yet been asked to contribute more food or soldiers to the international effort.*

"We are ready to respond to any requests in terms of humanitarian assistance," she said following a news conference Tuesday to announce a separate aid commitment to Africa.

She deferred questions about troops to either Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor or Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, both of whom were unavailable.

Verner announced CIDA is setting aside $125 million over five years for a UN-sponsored school food program, but the money will spent in African countries other than Sudan.

A spokesman for MacKay said *it will be a few days before the UN issues formal requests for support* and until then the government wasn't going to speculate.

"Canada is already quite active in the region," said Andre LeMay.

"What are they going to ask us for? We don't know."

The UN Security Council approved plans Tuesday to send a peacekeeping force to Darfur. The resolution is co-sponsored by Britain and France and would see the deployment of about 26,000 troops in Sudan's western region.

When it's up and running later this year, it will be the international body's largest peacekeeping force.

Troops belonging to an African Union force have not been able to stop the violence said to have left 200,000 dead and two million homeless.

The resolution gives UN troops the power to use force to protect civilians and aid workers from violence. In addition, there is call for peace talks to proceed.

*There are 31 Canadian Forces members currently serving in Sudan as part of a UN mission. Most of them are military observers deployed throughout the southern region of the country. Six soldiers serve as staff officers at UN Headquarters in Khartoum and El Obeid, Sudan.*

_(POSTER NOTE:  Is this from the CF Operations web page on Sudan here out of date, then, or did the reporter not check?)_

Opposition parties have repeatedly criticized the Conservative government for not paying more attention to the crisis in Darfur. At the one point, *the NDP even suggested Canadian troops be pulled out of fighting in Afghanistan and redeployed to Darfur as peacekeepers.*

*Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, has said the army has it's hands full keeping up with the Afghan deployment and doesn't have the troops to spare for missions elsewhere.*

Verner said Canada spends $59 million a year on aid to western Sudan, making it the third largest recipient of Canadian international aid. Afghanistan is the No. 1 recipient.

The executive director of the UN's World Food Program, Josette Sheeran, said no one should underestimate the contribution Canada has made to easing the suffering of people driven from their homes in Darfur.

"Our program feeds two million (people) a day in Darfur," she said. "If we weren't there with the support of the government of Canada and others, those people would starve."

Sheeran insisted the UN has seen some successes in the region which erupted in fighting in 2003. The agency believes it's been able to cut acute malnutrition by half.

She also praised Canada's separate renewal of its school food program. In the past, Canada has contributed to similar feeding programs in Ethiopia, Mali, Senegal and Tanzania, among others.

Sheeran says the pledge is important to help the UN agency plan for the long-term. 



Meanwhile, here are links to UN News Service story,  UN Sec Gen statement, and Security Council news release - official resolution to follow when posted to UN site


----------



## Franko

Besides, the AU has stated in the past that it does not want non-African forces deployed in significant numbers to Darfur.

They see it as an Africa Union problem and want to take care of it themselves. I say have at 'er.

Regards


----------



## CBH99

I don't mean to sound overly or unrealistically optimistic, but having just returned from Sudan a month ago - I think I can comment.

From a threat perspective, the threat from Sudanese troops & Janjaweed isn't very much at all.  The government backed troops all wear uniforms (Identification is relatively easy, compared to enemies in Iraq & Afghanistan) - and aren't very well equipped at all.  Despite the rhetoric of arms sales from China, most of them don't even have basic motor transport.  They do have access to some old, ragged pickups - and a FEW new land rovers - but all in all, they go on foot just about everywhere they go.  They use old, poorly maintained Russian weaponry, and their training is next to nil.

The Janjaweed often ride on horseback, and are well documented in the documentary that just came out called "The Devil Came on Horseback" - produced by a retired Marine who was deployed to Darfur as an observer.  (The name is escaping me right now, sorry).  They often ride on camels and donkeys, and don't typically have access to motor transport either.  (Any trucks or jeeps are typically used by government troops).

As for heavy weaponry, the Sudanese air force is somewhat well equipped on paper.  They have access to an undisclosed number of MI-24 Hinds, as well as various cargo aircraft.  A document depicting their air force numbers can be found here:

http://www.angelfire.com/ab/mazin/SudanAirForce.html

The entire time I was in Sudan, I never saw one fast moving tactical fighter - and I was near military installations for a vast majority of the trip.  One common understanding amongst many interested persons is that their air force suffers from a huge lack of spare parts and attrition, and has chronic problems securing spare parts, training, and maintenance for their air force.  They have painted some of their cargo planes a UN white scheme, however this lack of spare parts and training has kept a vast majority of their aircraft grounded.  Due to harsh weather conditions, many of their aircraft are unairworthy (Sand & Dust like you wouldn't believe, mixed with sandstorms straight out of the movies) - so even if they magically acquired training, maintenance, spare parts, etc, etc - the aircraft wouldn't fly anyhow.  (I saw an MI24 Hind that was almost completely buried in sand, to give you an idea...)

The real problem for any UN/AU force that deploys there isn't going to be a challenge from the Janjaweed & government troops.  Their numbers are in the 20,000 range - however most of them are deployed outside of Darfur, throughout the rest of Sudan.  Many of those troops border Chad, Ethiopia, and Eritrea - where tensions have been brewing lately due to concerns over the situation in Darfur.  So, out of the 20,000 person force at the disposal of Khartoum, most of it is preoccupied at the borders.

As I said above, the main challenge for any UN/AU force isn't going to be an armed threat from the goverment troops & Janjaweed.  What is going to be a real challenge is the terrain (As mentioned, lots of sand & dust) - VERY little water - and MILLIONS of displaced persons.  Something that not many people know, but is a HUGE challenge in dealing with this problem, is there is a pre-meditated "repopulation" of Darfur occuring right now, as Arabs quickly move in and set up villages.

Millions of people have been forced to evacuate the Darfur area, due to the violence.  Something most people don't realize though is that Sudan has formally encouraged Arabs living in neighbouring countries to move back to Sudan, and repopulate Darfur.  So even when the government troops are pushed back and the area is made safe, there is nowhere to go for the millions of people who were forced from their homes.  The area where they once called home has now been resettled by Arabs, leaving a lingering question:  What do we do with the millions of people who now have no home country, and no place to return to?

The challenges that face the UN/AU troops are numberous, no doubt.  They face more humantarian challenges than they do military challenges though, and it is going to be interesting to see how the international community figures this one out.  The international community has ignored this problem for so long that it is now going to be almost impossible to come up with a easy-to-apply solution.  Some out of the box thinking is definately going to be required.

As for the Canadian Forces contribution, I honestly don't see the CF straining to make a committment.  As stated before, the CF only has enough horsepower to support one "big" operation at a time.  However, the CF would most likely not need to commit a sizeable contingent to the UN mission in Darfur, it simply wouldn't be needed.  Most of the work that will be done will be reconstruction, humanitarian, and enforcement of any progress that is made - something that can be done by other countries.  From my experience on the ground, I surely doubt there will be much of a military conflict at all.  (I wish I could go into a lot more detail, and tell you guys everything I experienced and witnessed while there, but that would take a helluva long time.)

It'll be interesting to see how this one works out...


----------



## Franko

CBH99,

So do you think the LRA and the SPLA are still factions which the UN and AU forces will have to contend with at the same time as the Darfur problem?

As far as I know Joseph Koney is still at large and wanted for atrocities as well as adding instability to their neighbors to the south in Uganda

Thoughts?

Regards


----------



## GAP

Does anyone want to bet that one of the suggestions will be that we (NATO) let Germany leave, as it looks to be doing, and go to Darfur, and that Canada, who has done so much in Kandahar, take a rest and do the German's assignment in Afghanistan. This should make a good soundbite for Jack.

CBH99, nice to have some real live input from someone with boots on the ground....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Who will take our post?


----------



## 3rd Herd

Some thoughts,
okay Jack gets his wish,we cut and run from Afghanistan. I see a major creditability issue looming. GAP brought up an interesting idea in the Germans. For one the professional army has respect going back almost a hundred years. Next the Germans were not historically a colonial power in Africa. Therefore there is none of that colonization perception. Reading CBH99 post it comes to mind the Germans were very quick to adapt successfully to the geographic conditions about sixty years ago. Finally it would give the German military itself a big boost.


----------



## Michael OLeary

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Next the Germans were not historically a colonial power in Africa. Therefore there is none of that colonization perception.



Togoland - http://www.mgtrust.org/togo.htm



> Togoland (now Togo) was a German possession pre-1914



Cameroon - http://www.mgtrust.org/cam.htm



> The German colony of Cameroon had French Equatorial Africa to the north and British Nigeria to the west.



German East Africa - http://www.mgtrust.org/gea.htm



> German East Africa comprised the territory occupied today by Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania.



German SW Africa - http://www.mgtrust.org/gswa.htm



> German colony of South West Africa (now Namibia)


----------



## 3rd Herd

Yeah I was waitting for that Micheal. In part it goes back to the German "political loss" of WW1. Up until the news of the armistice was signed there were still winning. They did not lose through force of arms, they lost through politics. Also to a certain extent their colonial management ideology worked in a varied manner. One was a measure of respect to the coloureds, not equal status but still a difference from other empire builders.Further differences include the use of corporal punishment, Germans had a reluctance to use this. Again back to 1914-1918 look at the native troops that fought with the Germans, they could have disappeared as has happened with both the British and French. The Germans in the second for the most part had an excellent relationship with tribal/ethnic groupings in the Saharan/ Nile area. Partly because either the British or Italians with their Anglo/Roman superiority made any change more appealling. To reiterate in both cases the military was for the most part correct and professional.

German Colonies were also established in the Pacific and China.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Haggis said:
			
		

> You know I speak the truth.
> 
> Maybe I should've been clearer.  The Cbt Arms are not the problem, though.  There's loads of bayonets who would/could go (Reg and Res).  It's the CSS world that's woefully short of pers and, as you know, the CSS makes up more than half of the A'stan contingent.


not quite the R22er is 60 pers short (CBTA) for thier upcoming roto and searching the army with a fine tooth comb to find the troops,  LFWA is in the same boat with TFA 1-08, the problem is and I dare say this reservists (at least out west) are finally getting tired of the old rhetoric "deployment not employment" only to get to the trg base and find they are now in a replacement pool. (Track 4 for TFA 1-08 is currently 100 All arms short)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

If TF 1-08 is short (and I think your refering to 2VP and if not I apologize) why do we have an extra platoon from which to draw from (that has not been yet)?


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Not sure if it's 2 VP or 1 RCHA all I got from the OPS WO today was the call from LFWA was for 100 All arms. Could have been inflated we all know how comd likes to do that sort of thing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Weird.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A guest-post at _Daimnation!_:

Darfur: I sure hope I was wrong
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009891.html

And a wild idea:

Darfur: New Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW) might make sense
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/08/darfur-new-air-expeditionary-wing-aew.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters

I would like to have Layton et. al. explain how deploying to Sudan would be better than Afghanistan.  Do they have some sort of guarantee from the Sudanese government that Canadians wont get killed or injured ?  Are the people in Sudan meek unarmed weaklings or peace-abiding religious monks who would never shoot at a foreigner?  A mission to Sudan would be no better then our current one in Afghanistan, and doubtful if it would be any safer.


----------



## The Bread Guy

UNSC Resolution #1769 (2007)
http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/f/N0744552.pdf


----------



## 3rd Herd

> _Edit to remove quote for PERSEC reasons._



Just look for those who know how to march on graduation parades, they already have the military training. ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today;s _Ottawa Citizen_ is an analysis of the situation in Darfur:

http://digital.ottawacitizen.com/epaper/viewer.aspx


> ANALYSIS: CRISIS IN DARFUR
> *Will she finally see peace?*
> 
> Is a 26,000-strong UN force finally going to bring relief to the millions of victims in Darfur’s conflict? It’s a modest first step, observers tell *CHRIS COBB*, but don’t hold your breath just yet
> 
> With files from Agence France-Presse and Reuters
> 
> The situation in Darfur is so hopelessly chaotic that the prospect of a massive United Nations peacekeeping force, coupled with fresh diplomatic efforts this weekend, are arousing barely a glimmer of optimism that people there will stop killing each other. Four years of fighting in the semi-arid Sudanese province have killed at least 200,000 and have left two million others homeless. Rape, torture, random slaughter, kidnapping and all manner of other brutality has been perpetrated by a dozen or more battling factions — notably, the pro-government Janjaweed, nomadic Arab tribesman who observers say are armed by the government and used to “cleanse” the province of non-Arabs. The government denies any involvement in the Janjaweed’s brutality.
> 
> On Tuesday, the United Nations agreed to send 26,000 troops to Darfur, an area roughly the size of France, to boost an existing force of 7,000 ill-equipped African Union troops whose efforts to stabilize the region have failed.
> 
> The UN resolution, championed by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and backed by U.S. President George W. Bush, is, at best, seen by experts as a small step forward into a complex morass that runs the gamut from local tribal rivalries to highstakes international deal making. The UN resolution needed agreement from all five permanent members of the Security Council — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China — but China, with major energy interests in the oil-rich country, backs the Sudanese government, which in turn accommodates China’s interests. This mutual interest has, say observers of the UN, given the resolution fewer teeth than Mr. Brown, especially, wanted.
> 
> “The Sudanese government has been playing the Chinese like their own cello in the Security Council,” says Fen Hampson, director of Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. “Britain was willing to compromise because they realized that best was going to become the enemy of the possible. So it’s not a great resolution by any means, it’s just a very modest step in the right direction.”
> 
> Dealing with the various factions and complex and constantly changing intertribal rivalries in the Darfur conflict is the major stumbling block to any short-term ceasefire, let alone lasting peace, says Mr. Hampson.
> 
> “It’s like dealing with Jell-O,” he says. “You hit it with a hammer and it flies in different directions. The (Sudanese) government obviously has some leverage over the Janjaweed, but it’s not clear how much. It’s a highly factionalized, intractable conflict. The other problem from the beginning is that Sudan regularly falls off international radar. One hopes this latest resolution keeps the spotlight on Darfur and puts pressure on all the parties. It’s the only way this will move forward.”
> 
> This weekend’s meeting of the various Darfur rebel factions in Arusha, Tanzania is key to any future progress, adds Mr. Hampson. Rebels, split into about a dozen groups, are meeting to work out a single negotiating position for peace talks with the government, and a date and venue for the negotiations.
> 
> Meanwhile, implementation of the UN resolution by Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir will show how serious the Sudanese government is taking the new initiative, says Mr. Hampson.
> 
> “If they start dragging their feet, which they are quite capable of doing, the peace talks will go nowhere,” he said. “And then you’ve got a real problem, because the Sudanese government pretty much decides where the peacekeeping force can go. It’s a peacekeeping force in a straitjacket.
> 
> “But peacekeeping will only work if there is a peace to keep,” he adds, “and the only way we’ll see movement in that direction is if there is movement in the negotiations.”
> 
> Mr. Hampson’s colleague, international law specialist Chris Penny, says the UN resolution is the best option under delicate circumstances and should lead to a reduction in violence in places where the UN troops are allowed to operate.
> 
> “The question is, does the violence just get pushed elsewhere?”
> 
> But Mr. Penny sees the resolution as a potentially viable compromise.
> 
> “It leaves control with the Sudanese government,” he said, “but at least it’s a little more constrained than it was. It’s a signal, albeit not as forceful as it might be, that this is an issue of international concern and it’s a signal that China is on board more than it has been.”
> 
> The UN Security Council could impose a tougher resolution on Sudan, as it did on Iraq after Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait in 1990.
> 
> “But invasion would not necessarily be successful,” said Mr. Penny. “You’re seeing in Iraq how difficult it is to consolidate peace when people don’t want you there. So although the authority exists, it’s not practical to expect it will be used any time soon.”
> 
> Sudan is seen by the United States as an exporter of terrorism, but much of the involvement of the otherwise engaged Bush administration has been prompted by the influential Christian right in the United States, which says minority Christians in Darfur are being victimized by Sudanese government forces and need protection.
> 
> But it’s clear that Gordon Brown is leading the current initiative, says Stephen Lewis, Canada’s former ambassador to the UN.
> 
> Mr. Lewis, who retired last year as the UN Special Envoy on HIV-AIDS in Africa, says Mr. Brown’s intervention is “the single most hopeful thing that’s happened around Darfur in the past three or four years. His determination to turn Africa around runs through his veins.”
> 
> Mr. Brown is the only G8 leader who has been consistently public in his commitment to Africa during the past several years, says Mr. Lewis.
> 
> “He has never flagged on education, conflict, poverty and disease in Africa,” he adds. “One gets the impression he is carving out a position for the United Kingdom that is independent of U.K. involvement in Iraq, and part of that is his commitment in Darfur.”
> 
> But whatever the UN resolution achieves, cautions Mr. Lewis, will depend on how the resources are given to the 26,000 troops, most of whom will be African.
> 
> “They will need logistical help, food and transport,” he says. “It will take a significant financial commitment, and whether they get it or not will be the true test of whether this is real or another fly-by-night proposition. But I’m inclined to think Brown is very serious about it.”
> 
> Mr. Lewis urged the Harper government to commit money to the UN’s Darfur effort. (This week, the federal government added $48 million to the nearly half a billion dollars it’s given for humanitarian aid for Darfur over the last three years.)
> 
> “And we should do everything in our power to provide the kind of development aid to relieve the suffering and do something about the sexual violence,” he says. “There is a small nation of seriously traumatized women in Darfur, which is an ongoing aftermath of this crazed, brutish and depraved behaviour. We should be taking the lead on these gender issues.”
> 
> A Darfur peace deal was reached with the Sudanese government in Abuja, Nigeria in May 2006, but it was only endorsed by one of three negotiating rebel groups. Violence has since spiralled and splinter factions have flourished.
> 
> “The most immediate hurdle remains the rebels’ lack of unity and political vision,” said a report published last month by the Small Arms Survey.
> 
> In an interview with the BBC’s Africa network, Sudan analyst Julie Flint says the peace talks under way this weekend have little hope of success either because the rebels represented at the talks in Tanzania are only part of a complex situation on the ground in Darfur.
> 
> “In looking at this as a government-rebel problem, we’re addressing the wrong problem,” she said. “I would bet you money that most of the people who have died this year in Darfur have been Arab militias and government soldiers. The worst fighting has been between Arab groups once armed by the government now fighting each other.”
> 
> After a day of preliminary meetings, the talks kicked off in earnest late Friday, but without the Sudan Liberation Army led by Abdel Wahid Mohammed Nur, the founding father of the rebellion and a member of Darfur’s largest tribe. Mr. Nur’s faction contests the legitimacy of the many splinter rebel groups and also argues talks with the government should only be considered once the new “hybrid force” of UN and AU peacekeepers is deployed.
> 
> “The more you recognize individuals as faction leaders by inviting them to talks like those in Arusha, the more factions there will be, and consequently disorder on the ground,” his spokesman, Yahia Bolad, told Agence-France Press.
> 
> Fen Hampson agrees that the talks are fragile, but he is slightly more optimistic.
> 
> “The key is to use this UN resolution to gain some political momentum,” he says. “The peace process in difficult conflicts often has modest beginnings. And you’ve got to start somewhere.”



If we care anything at all about the fate of poor, abused black people – an assumption I am not prepared to accept at face value – then we need to consider this:

_*But whatever the UN resolution achieves, cautions Mr. Lewis, will depend on how the resources are given to the 26,000 troops, most of whom will be African ... “They will need logistical help, food and transport,” he says. “It will take a significant financial commitment, and whether they get it or not will be the true test of whether this is real or another fly-by-night proposition. But I’m inclined to think Brown is very serious about it” ... Mr. Lewis urged the Harper government to commit money to the UN’s Darfur effort. (This week, the federal government added $48 million to the nearly half a billion dollars it’s given for humanitarian aid for Darfur over the last three years.)*_

We could put 100,000 African Union troop sin/around Darfur and they will be 100% ineffective unless and until they have:

1. A proper, functioning C3I system – which (a) non AU force(s) will have to provide for them;

2. A proper, functioning logistical system, stretching all the way back to rich, well stocked depots - which (a) non AU force(s) will have to provide for them;

3. A proper, functioning operational level surveillance and reconnaissance system - which (a) non AU force(s) will have to provide for them; and

4. A proper, functioning political _guidance_ system – which the inept, corrupt UN cannot provide to *any* mission.

Should Canada 'help?'

How?

Sending money and helping to staff the political guidance system is the best bet. We *might* be tempted top send scarce signals and logistics soldiers – we should resist temptations.  there are brigades of underemployed French, German, Italian and Spanish signals and logistics units; let them do something for a change.

There are many hell-holes in the world, Darfur is, arguably, not the worst. We (Canada as represented by the Chrétien and Martin administrations) picked Afghanistan in general and Kandahar in particular as *our* hell-hole: let's see that through rather than hopping, like a dilettante, from the one celebrity obsessed cause to another.


----------



## vonGarvin

Shared in accordance with the usual agreements.  From this site:  http://www.ndp.ca/page/5564


"“This U.N. resolution is a long-overdue opportunity for the international community to protect millions threatened by the severe humanitarian emergency in Darfur,” said NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Alexa McDonough. “The government of Canada must show its commitment to halting the devastating violence gripping the lives of Sudanese civilians by supporting this vital mission.”

“After months of Conservative government lip service about Canadian leadership on the world stage, it’s time for Prime Minister Harper to put his money where his mouth is. We’ve waited years for this international consensus and we need an immediate response from the Harper government,” added McDonough. "


More on site

MY COMMENTS

What does the NDP think of THIS UN resolution:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/517/70/PDF/N0651770.pdf?OpenElement
"Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides to extend the authorization of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), as defined in resolution 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003), for a period of twelve months beyond 13 October 2006;
2. Authorizes the Member States participating in ISAF to take *all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate*;
3. Recognizes the need to further strengthen ISAF, and in this regard calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to ISAF, and to make contributions to the Trust Fund established pursuant to resolution 1386 (2001);
4. Calls upon ISAF to continue to work in close consultation with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General as well as with the OEF coalition in the implementation of the force mandate;
5. Requests the leadership of ISAF to provide quarterly reports on implementation of its mandate to the Security Council through the Secretary- General;
6. Decides to remain actively seized of this matter."

Well?  I'm waiting....


----------



## prom

well after reading the statement im surprised that the NDP never said pull out the troops and send them to Darfur. For the mean time it seems that they only request "committing to the provision of critical financial, diplomatic and logistical support for UNAMID".


----------



## TN2IC

You watch... the NDP will say something. I have one of those "feelings".


----------



## Sig_Des

TN2IC said:
			
		

> You watch... the NDP will say something. I have one of those "feelings".



Is that like one of those feelings in your gullet of something to come, tastes a little like bile?


----------



## TN2IC

Well Sig Des... I finally got one of those "feelings" issued to me the day. I just had to use it today. It seems to be acting funny.  ;D


----------



## HItorMiss

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> Is that like one of those feelings in your gullet of something to come, tastes a little like bile?




I thought that was the burrito I ate...ooooh boy did I mess that one up  ;D


----------



## Greymatters

Their only purpose is to 'show up' whatever government is currently in power... dont expect anything too brilliant.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an _on point_ (in my view) comment by url=http://www.cmss.ucalgary.ca/people/huebert]Rob Huebert (UCalgary/CMSS)[/url]:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070807.wcosudan07/BNStory/National/home


> Want to help? Sure, but consider all the costs of sending troops to Darfur
> 
> ROB HUEBERT
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> 
> August 7, 2007 at 3:06 AM EDT
> 
> The announcement that several states will be deploying troops to the Darfur region of Sudan is a very positive development for that war-ravaged country. This breakthrough, however, creates a difficult situation for Canada. There will now be calls for us to contribute as well. This is a noble sentiment, but any future decision must be made with a full understanding of the costs to Canada. Many assume such a mission would be preferable to our mission in Afghanistan, but a close consideration of the Sudanese reality does not support such a conclusion.
> 
> For example, it is assumed the Sudanese intervention will be a traditional peacekeeping operation. This is based on the belief that the current negotiations will lead to a peace settlement between the rebels and the government. Unfortunately, this flies in the face of all previous actions by the regime in Khartoum, which has shown no hint of giving up its policies of genocide and destruction any time soon. The sad reality is that Khartoum will not end such horrific policies until it is forced to. And this means that to solve the "problem" of Sudan will require the use of military force. Thus, any Canadian deployment that is to be meaningful would probably be more violent and dangerous than the current deployment in Afghanistan.
> 
> Another assumption is that the intervention can, or will, be done without the Americans. Regardless of one's view of U.S. foreign policy, the reality remains that if the U.S. does not commit troops any mission is likely to be unsuccessful. Canada has already discovered it cannot deploy by itself as it attempted to do in Central Africa. The power needed to successfully force the Sudanese government to stop its atrocities and those of the militias could only be provided by the United States, if it is willing to deploy.
> 
> A third assumption is that Canada can support both the Afghan mission and a deployment to the Sudan. If the Canadian commitment to either is to be meaningful, and not simply tokenism, this is simply wrong. Had the Canadian military not faced significant cuts in the 1990s, it could be possible to talk of both a meaningful Afghan and Sudanese mission. But with today's troop levels, Canada has limited choices. It can either pull out of Afghanistan when its official commitment ends in February, 2009, and redeploy to the Sudan or it can make one mission its main priority and send token forces to the other.
> 
> The costs of the first option should be made clear. If Canada pulls out of Afghanistan in 2009, there is a real possibility other contributing states may also re-examine their decision to stay. Likewise, a Canadian withdrawal will be interpreted by the fundamentalists' forces in that country as a victory. Correctly or not, the decision to redeploy will be seen as a reaction to the recent casualties suffered by Canada. And if al-Qaeda, in turn, comes to believe Canada is a "soft target" the chances of an attack on Canada itself increase.
> 
> Broadly speaking, the discussion of committing forces to Sudan is understandable. Canadians do not want to see the agony of the Sudanese people continue. But until Canada succeeds in rebuilding its forces (assuming that it is allowed to continue to do so), it will be faced with making hard decisions. A commitment to remedying the crisis in Darfur is noble, but it comes at a greater cost than most Canadians are aware. Any decision must be made on the basis of the existing facts and not on wishful thinking.
> 
> _Rob Huebert is associate director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary._



Like most Canadians I am appalled at the ongoing problem in Darfur and, like most Canadian, I want to “do something” to:

1. Relieve the suffering of the people by practicing the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) about which so many people – so very many of them Canadians – have preached for so long;

2. Stop the marauding of the _Janjiweed_ militia; and

3. Prevent further such depredations by governments or thugs or both.

I think I and people like me (and DFAIT, DND and the PCO are chock-a-block full of ‘em) know *how* to do 1 and 2. That is to say that we understand how to conduct the logistical/relief and military operations required.

I doubt anyone in the liberal, democratic West has really thought through item 3. The Bush administration’s Iraq model appears less than ideal. The allied Afghanistan model appears too hard and time consuming for many people – including most Canadians.

That being said, in addition to the cogent points Huebert makes (the awful consequences of ‘obeying’ the will of the people as expressed by parliament and the lack of capacity to continue is Afghanistan and do anything much in Darfur) we need to consider Prof. Roy Rempel’s view that for too long too much of our foreign (and defence) policy has been set  by the media – through its 24/7 coverage of photogenic disasters – and by our dominant “value” off being morally superior to the Americans.

We can, and in my opinion should, send money to help the people of Darfur. We can, and in my opinion should, send money to the UN force – for equipment and logistics. We *might* be able to send a few civilian and military experts to help plan, control and manage the operation.

We cannot, in any militarily useful way, contribute much of anything – including air transport, C3I/IT or logistics support units to the UN mission. Simply stretching the CF for the sake of political _optics_ (making some Canadian fell better about themselves) is poor public policy.


----------



## Greymatters

"For example, it is assumed the Sudanese intervention will be a traditional peacekeeping operation. This is based on the belief that the current negotiations will lead to a peace settlement between the rebels and the government. Unfortunately, this flies in the face of all previous actions by the regime in Khartoum, which has shown no hint of giving up its policies of genocide and destruction any time soon. The sad reality is that Khartoum will not end such horrific policies until it is forced to. And this means that to solve the "problem" of Sudan will require the use of military force. Thus, any Canadian deployment that is to be meaningful would probably be more violent and dangerous than the current deployment in Afghanistan."


A much ignored fact - the government had the same fairy-land viewpoint about Bosnia in 1992, and look how that turned out!


----------



## KevinB

Greymatter -- Chpt 7 is not "PeaceKeeping" but PeaceMaking -- think Somalia.

IMHO to me fighting in Africa for a white nation is lose-lose.
  To be effective one will need to kill a lot of blacks which regardless of the fact they are de facto terrorists does not play well in the media.
Think the Canadian populace is fickle on Afghan? I give it 60 days from the day a CF solider put his boots on the ground (IF)


----------



## CBH99

Sorry not to have replied sooner to the posted questions...

One thing that I don't think anybody has realized yet, is that Africa is a world all on its own.  When in Africa, a common saying is "TIA" - which is the acronym for "This is Africa".  Basically, everytime something unbelievably stupid, violent, repulsive, challenging, or unfair happens - most people (especially foreigners) simply refer to the good ol' saying of TIA.  At least it was a common saying when we were in country with the film crew.  And, it made perfect sense every single time it was said.

The problems facing the mission in Darfur are biblical, and that is no stretch.  We (the international community) obviously have an obligation to act, for both moral and political reasons.  However, it should be confirmed before anything is done, that we are not going to solve all of the problems facing Darfur.  I'll go into some of the problems that we observed as film-makers that were in the country, because these are problems that will undoubtedly challenge any UN/AU force that is deployed.  Not only that, but there are many problems that I still haven't heard mentioned in any newspaper, or acknowledged by any government.


1.  Geographical Problems.  Darfur is an arid, dusty wasteland with very, VERY little water.  This creates a lot of sustainability problems for the people of Darfur, and any visiting military force.  Global warming (Climate change, whatever the heck you wanna call it) - has almost completely dried up many of the lakes throughout most of Sudan, especially in the arid regions of Darfur.  Some lakes have been dried up altogether, and each year Darfur receives less precipitation than the year before.  Anybody who has been there can see how low the rivers are, and how much strain is being put on water availability.

This puts a huge wrench in any plan to 'calm down' Darfur - a lack of a basic human necessity.  Not only does Darfur suffer from a huge water shortage, but there is absolutely no water treatment/management systems in place, which compounds the problem even more.  Any UN/AU force is going to realize that the really big problems come after the Janjaweed are killed/defeated.....a population returning to an area that has very little of a basic human need, water.  Hard to grow crops in dusty, dry conditions - very little rain - and low running rivers make irrigation almost impossible.  So even if the military threat is defeated, Africa will present another set of problems as soon as your ready for em'.

2.  The Khartoum regime is/has going to throw a wrench into the UN operation every chance they get.  The UN will have to fly in everything it will need and be almost completely self-sufficient, since it cannot rely upon the Khartoum regime for anything.  I remember when I was in country, the government would claim on a daily basis that they were running extremely low on jet fuel, and could not spare any for our helicopter.  However, at the same time, they would be fuelling MI24 Hinds, MI17 HIPS and various cargo planes.  Every time we requested/offered to purchase fuel for our helicopter to assist in the making of our documentary, they would magically run out of jet fuel while simultaneously making sure plenty was available for their own aircraft.  

When we requested fuel so that we could fly our helicopter out of the country, the shortage of jet fuel magically disappeared...

Case in point;  The UN should not and cannot rely upon the Khartoum regime for anything.  If the UN wants to be successful, it will have to be almost 100% independent.

3.  The SPLA - Sudan People's Liberation Army.  These will undoubtedly be considered friendly forces for a few reasons, however they offer their own set of problems as well.  Unlike the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the SPLA is fractured into dozens of different militias, all with the same goal.  The SPLA-based militias, although split and fractured, are all united in their fight against the government forces.  I say they would undoubtedly be considered friendly, because they are friendly towards the AU force already in theatre - and actually do their best to fight off the government forces when given the opportunity.  

As mentioned above though, they are split.  Not even the SPLA can definitively say how many factions it has broken into, since radio communications are essentially non-existent.  Some of the groups are fortunate enough to have one or two pickups, but for the most part they travel on foot everywhere they go.  They are anti-government forces, who have provided aid to UN/AU personnel already in the country.  Their lack of leadership is where the real challenge lies though, and corridinating them to be effective will likely take some leadership/technological support.  This is a problem that can be easily solved and used to the advantage of UN/AU forces -- however, it will be tricky to track down and find out exactly how many factions the SPLA has broken into, and establish some sort of leadership for them to follow.

To put their lack of technological progress into perspective;  besides using donkeys and camels as a form of transportation, and mostly travelling on foot, we observed 2 groups of SPLA fighters using SMOKE SIGNALS to communicate.  They would use the smoke signals to communicate, then quickly scurry and reposition themselves incase any government aircraft came to investigate.  Due to a lack of radios to communicate and coordinate, they would rely on smoke signals to confirm each other's position and process basic communication;  which, ofcourse, was very easily detectable by government forces.

To their credit, they often emerged victorious against any Janjaweed or government forces.  Like a true insurgency, they used the government weaponry as their own, and scavenged battle sites for useful weaponry.

4.  Arabization - a huge problem that I still haven't seen mentioned in any of the newspapers of journals.  Basically, while the government forces have been killing/slaughtering many of the non-Muslim tribes throughout Darfur - the government has simultaneously been encouraging Muslims from other countries to move into Darfur.  The idea is to "Arabize" the entire region of Darfur, and effectively replace Darfur's traditional/Christian population with a Muslim one.  

As hundres of thousands of people have been killed/slaughtered, and millions of others forced into camps or to flee across borders....the government has been inviting tens of thousands of Muslims in neighbouring countries to come and fill the void.  The idea is to Arabize the region, to allow the government to exert control within Darfur without the problems it currently faces.  Even now, as I write this, Muslims from neighbouring African countries are starting to trickle into Darfur - building homes and villages, while being protected by the Khartoum government forces and Janjaweed.  

So even if the UN/AU force magically had the power to instantly defeat the military threat posed by the government forces and Janjaweed, the void that was left by the displaced persons has already started to be filled by Muslims from other countries.  Where are the displaced persons supposed to return to, if their homes have already been taken over by Muslim based tribes?  This is going to be a tricky challenge for any boots on the ground over there - do we forcefully displace civilians, in order to make room for people who were there themselves before they were forcefully displaced??  Ugh - welcome to Africa.

Oh yeah, how could I forget about the very profitable human smuggling trade, and rape camps.  My fingers are getting tired, so I'll sum this one up kinda quick:  Thousands of women and girls are taken against their will, and forced into sexual slavery.  These sex slaves are used by government forces and Janjaweed, and are often kept in "rape pens" with government forces.  (As they were in Shake Hands With The Devil).  These women and girls are beaten, raped, tortured, and used as chattle amongst government forces.  The women/girls who are lucky enough to escape their villages with their freedom are often hunted down and raped/tortured/murdered sometime afterwards.

The women/girls that are not kept by the government troops are usually killed, or sold to human smugglers.  Human smugglers often fly into/out of Khartoum, in which the girls are then sold as a product - usually elsewhere in Africa.  These smugglers operate with relative immunity from the government, and actually purchase their slaves from government-based contacts.  Since human smugglers are often flush with cash, the Khartoum government actually benefits from the presence of human smugglers within the city/country.  The women/girls often end up either sold to brothels within Khartoum, forced into rape pens for government soldiers within Khartoum, or flown elsewhere.  

My fingers are getting tired, so I'll add more a bit later sometime.  I guess to end this ramble on a good note, I should mention -- as somebody who has been inside Sudan, and more specifically Darfur, and as somebody with past CF experience, I honestly believe the military challenge is a relatively easy challenge to overcome.  Its the mountains of other challenges that aren't even getting mentioned in the papers that are going to be the real kicker.  The threat from government forces & Janjaweed is relatively minimal, but I'll go into the details of their capabilities a bit later sometime.

If all of the above seemed a bit pessimistic and depressing, I do apologize, however, just remember..."TIA".


----------



## CBH99

One more thing before I hit the sack...

A fantastic documentary that came out recently about the crisis in Darfur is called "The Devil Came On Horseback", by former Marine Capt. Brian Steidle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UyvoSaocUQ

Anyhow, night everybody'.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A letter of mine in the _Globe and Mail_:
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070808/LETTERS08-1/Letters/commentLetters/commentLetters/6/6/10/



> Off the Darfur hook?
> 
> By MARK COLLINS
> 
> Wednesday, August 8, 2007 – Page A16
> 
> Ottawa -- Rob Huebert's analysis of whether or not Canada should make a substantial troop contribution to the United Nations mission in Darfur (Want To Help? Sure, But Consider All The Costs Of Sending Troops To Darfur - Aug. 7)
> http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070807/COSUDAN07/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/4/4/6/
> 
> rests entirely on a false premise. The UN force is to be made up predominantly of African troops, and Sudan has a veto over which countries can participate. Khartoum certainly would not accept any substantial ground-force contributions from the West; in fact, any Western assistance would consist of headquarters, support and logistics personnel.
> 
> So there is no question of Canada's being forced to choose between having troops in Darfur or Afghanistan, as Mr. Huebert suggests. Whether we have the military capability to provide the much more limited type of assistance in Darfur is another matter.



The title is the _Globe's_--mine was "Western troops not wanted in Darfur".

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More facts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080800309.html



> A large number of countries from Africa, several from Asia, one from the Middle East and *none from the West* [emphasis added] were included in a preliminary list of nations that have offered military and police personnel for the 26,000-strong joint African Union-United Nations force, issued by the U.N. Peacekeeping Department and the new Department of Field Support...
> 
> A large number of countries from Africa, several from Asia, one from the Middle East and none from the West were included in a preliminary list of nations that have offered military and police personnel for the 26,000-strong joint African Union-United Nations force, issued by the U.N. Peacekeeping Department and the new Department of Field Support...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

A guest-post at _Daimnation!_:

Lies, damned lies, statistics...
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009949.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ruxted

Link to original article

*The Sand Trap of Darfur*

After four years of delay and neglect, the United Nations has finally authorized a Chapter VII mission to the troubled Darfur region of the Sudan. As most readers are aware, this is the scene of an ongoing genocide perpetrated against the Black African inhabitants of the region by the predominately Islamic Arab population of the Sudan. Complex forces are at work here, ranging from shifting demographics within the region and the rising demand for the limited supply of water, to the desire of outside nations (particularly China) for the oil wealth of the Sudan. All have worked against the international community's ability to take effective action in the Darfur region.

Arabization is another huge problem that has not been discussed in the media. In the intervening four years, while hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced in Darfur, Sudan has simultaneously been encouraging Muslims from other countries to move into Darfur. The idea is to Arabize the entire region of Darfur, and effectively replace Darfur's traditional population with a Muslim one.

The authorization of a Chapter VII mission by the United Nations is no reason to celebrate. The mission is limited by the restrictions on the use of force that have effectively hobbled many UN missions. There is no authority to directly challenge or change the government of the Sudan, or disarm the offending militias and brigands who have perpetrated the slaughter. 

In addition to the political limitations of the mission, Darfur is a very inhospitable place. Geographical isolation, harsh climate, limited infrastructure, long supply lines, and an uncooperative Sudanese government will make supplying and supporting any sort of mission in Darfur extremely challenging, to say the least.

Canadian politicians and activists have clamoured for years for Canada to “do something” about Darfur. The Ruxted Group is sure that these same politicians, academics and journalists will now use the existence of a Chapter VII authorization to demand Canada shift its focus from the unfinished business of Afghanistan to the unstarted business of Darfur. While Ruxted is moved by the plight of the people of Darfur, we must point out the differences in the two missions so the people and Government of Canada can have an informed debate as to what sort of support (if any) we should provide this mission.

In Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces are engaged as part of a multifaceted international mission to rebuild a shattered society. We are working with traditional NATO partners with whom we have long relationships and experience, and with whom our forces are well accustomed to working. The non-NATO partners of ISAF include Australia, another long standing ally and partner of Canada, and various Eastern European nations eager to become closer partners of NATO, the EU and other western institutions. These nation’s armies already share many technical and cultural affinities with their ISAF partners. We can take advantage of the superb logistical capabilities provided by many of our partners, and use the local infrastructure, including seaports in Pakistan and a system of highways between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and within Kandahar province itself to support our mission.

In Darfur, any participants in a Chapter VII mission will be part of a large heterogeneous force composed of forces drawn from various African Union nations, and presumably bolstered by large contingents from other developing nations like Bangladesh. While their soldiers may be individually brave and determined, their military forces are poorly trained and ill equipped for the challenge. They do not have the command or communications capabilities to operate large multinational coalitions. They do not have the logistical skills or equipment to operate at extended ranges or for prolonged times from their bases, and they do not have the right equipment to send into an area with limited infrastructure and severe climate. There is no plan to rebuild the destroyed villages, restructure the political system or otherwise remove the causes of the conflict. As in Afghanistan, the enemy can resort to small scale sniping and bombing attacks which might not defeat the force militarily, but may erode the political will to continue at home. 

While there is no doubt that Canada could provide some of the elements lacking in the elements of a proposed Chapter VII force in Darfur, we are unable to support any substantial Canadian force in Darfur. Decades of neglect have deprived the Canadian forces of the strategic air or sea lift for our own forces, much less the vastly larger force envisioned for Darfur. Even the recently announced purchase of C-17 transport jets and the upgrade of the C-130 Hercules fleet would only just meet Canada’s needs, and the completion of the conversion to these new airplanes is still several years down the road. The naval leg of our support structure is more than a decade away, even if Gen. Hillier's “big honking ship” plans were to be started today.

Aside from the issue of supporting such a force, Ruxted must ask how our intervention in Darfur would benefit Canada? Afghanistan has provided a safe haven for terrorist groups that have threatened Canada and killed thousands of innocents throughout the world. Stabilizing Afghanistan deprives terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda of their safe havens and discourages other failing states from becoming terrorist havens. The creation of a stable Afghan state ruled by a legitimate, consensual government will also help dampen the cycles of violence which are rippling through the Islamic world and spilling out into other areas. As a leading middle power, our efforts in Afghanistan help protect us and stabilize central Asia, maintaining the conditions required for the peace and prosperity of literally billions of people.

Darfur offers no such rationale for Canadian efforts. The Government of the Sudan is hostile to the endeavour, and can be expected to obstruct the efforts of the Chapter VII mission. Since the Sudan has the support of China, any attempts to increase the UN presence and effectiveness in Darfur are likely to be unsuccessful, especially after the end of the 2008 Olympics. Even without these difficulties, with no plan to rebuild the region or restructure the political environment, there is literally nothing to stop the genocide from resuming once the force is withdrawn. With the mission hobbled by the terms of the resolution, there would be no "exit point" from Darfur, no set of conditions to define when the mission is complete. 

Ruxted contends that Canada is a leading middle power, capable of effecting change in the world. This is only possible when Canadians choose to use their wealth and privilege in well-considered operations, in concert with our friends and partners, for clearly defined goals. Afghanistan meets all these conditions, and should continue to be the focus of Canadian attention, military, development and diplomatic efforts to 2009 and beyond. Darfur meets none of these conditions, and would end up being a sand trap for Canadian resources and efforts.

This sounds cruel and hardhearted, but it is not. Ruxted is appalled by the suffering of the people of Darfur, but understands that Canada is unable to make a meaningful military contribution. This is especially true given the toothless Security Council resolution and the dreadful combination of terrain, climate and distance in the mission area. Wishful thinking is not a firm base on which to conduct foreign policy or military operations; pretending that the Canadian Forces can make a difference in Darfur is wishful thinking taken to ridiculous extremes. There are other, non-military steps we can take. These need to be examined without the usual self-serving clamour of the chattering classes, and if feasible all our energy directed to these ends.

To call for Canadian blood to be spilled in the sands of Darfur in an open ended mission for no result is perhaps the greatest folly our politicians, academics and journalists could commit. The Ruxted Group asks all Canadians to look at the evidence and weigh Canada’s abilities and interests dispassionately. Only then can we discuss what Canada can do for the people of Darfur.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ruxted: I'm afraid you're taking a Canadian straw-man rather too seriously:

Facts about Darfur
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009923.html

Darfur: I sure hope I was wrong
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009891.html

But then:

Darfur: New Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW) might make sense
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/08/darfur-new-air-expeditionary-wing-aew.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Greymatter -- Chpt 7 is not "PeaceKeeping" but PeaceMaking -- think Somalia.
> 
> IMHO to me fighting in Africa for a white nation is lose-lose.
> To be effective one will need to kill a lot of blacks which regardless of the fact they are de facto terrorists does not play well in the media.
> Think the Canadian populace is fickle on Afghan? I give it 60 days from the day a CF solider put his boots on the ground (IF)



Infidel-6, I wasnt talking about the Chapter specifically, but more about the lack of awareness and fear of consequences that many politicians and government officials have about most any operation regardless of Chapter it works under.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Fisking Michael Byers--a letter sent Aug. 18 to the _Globe and Mail_ but not printed:



> Prof. Michael Byers, in his interview with Michael Valpy ('This is Stephen Harper's war', August 18),
> http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070818/SHUFFLE18/Comment/comment/comment/2/2/11/
> 
> is either terribly ill-informed about the role the United Nations, and German, troops have played in the Congo--or else he is being very economical with the truth. First Prof. Byers says that "A couple of years ago, a very large UN peacekeeping force brought relative peace to the Congo..." Not quite. The force, MONUC, has been in the Congo since Novermber 1999 and is still there. While there may be relative peace in the Congo the situation is still unstable so the force will likely stay for some time to come. And, by the way, MONUC has sustained 109 fatalities.
> 
> Prof. Byers then says "...there was a core, 2,000-soldier contribution from Germany." Wrong again. MONUC has had no German troops. There were German troops in the Congo but they were only there from July to November 2006 and they were not part of the UN force. Rather they were part of a separate European Union force that was authorized by the UN Security Council to deploy briefly to support MONUC during the period before and after Congo's July and October 2006 national elections. The EU force totalled some 2,400 personnel of which only 780 were German. Moreover not all the EU troops were actually in the Congo; many were stationed in neighbouring Gabon on standby.
> 
> Prof. Byers goes on to claim that the German troops played an important role in training developing country troops with the UN force and turning them into much better soldiers. That is simply false. The German troops with the EU force had no such role during their short presence in the Congo.
> 
> Given the complete inaccuracy of what Prof. Byers says about what the Germans did in the Congo, it is astounding that he should hold up that fictional role as a model for what he thinks Canada should be doing in Darfur. He also ignores the simple fact that the Sudanese government will not allow any large contingent of Western troops into the country as part of the UN force for Darfur that the UN Security Council recently authorized.
> 
> One cannot but be amazed that one so fast and loose with facts is employed as a professor of global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia.
> 
> References:
> http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/monuc/facts.html
> http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1091&lang=EN
> http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EVOD-6QQGL9?OpenDocument
> http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2084630,00.html
> http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/Aussenpolitik/RegionaleSchwerpunkte/Afrika/Kongo-Einsatz.html
> http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070808/LETTERS08-1/Letters/commentLetters/commentLetters/6/6/10/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## BKells

The Ruxted Group said:
			
		

> Aside from the issue of supporting such a force, Ruxted must ask how our intervention in Darfur would benefit Canada? Afghanistan has provided a safe haven for terrorist groups that have threatened Canada and killed thousands of innocents throughout the world. Stabilizing Afghanistan deprives terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda of their safe havens and discourages other failing states from becoming terrorist havens. The creation of a stable Afghan state ruled by a legitimate, consensual government will also help dampen the cycles of violence which are rippling through the Islamic world and spilling out into other areas. As a leading middle power, our efforts in Afghanistan help protect us and stabilize central Asia, maintaining the conditions required for the peace and prosperity of literally billions of people.



Your argument, here, is logically flawed. Your reasoning is that the mission in Afghanistan benefits Canada because they have "threatened Canada and killed thousands of innocents throughout the world." Threatening isn't anything to worry about, because terrorism relies on threats to achieve it's goal of terrorizing peoples. It's nothing new, and certainly doesn't justify an intervention. So, threats aside, the mission in Afghanistan benefits Canada more then a mission in Sudan would because of "thousands of innocents killed throughout the world." This is where your reasoning is in error. The conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan has, since 2003, claimed the lives of over 450,000 people (UN estimate, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001775.html). 

You state that the mission in Afghanistan is of more tangible benefit to Canada then a mission in Sudan would be. The argument about security is valid, however do you not think that the crisis in Sudan poses a threat to the stability of the African continent? The massive number of displaced persons caused by the conflict is bound to destabilize the neighbouring countries of Egypt and Ethiopia, both border-countries of the region you carlessly describe as the "Islamic world." (Is India, merely a thousand kilometres from Afghanistan, part of the Islamic world?)

Your humanitarian, liberal internationalist argument about the plight of the Afghan people in favour of the Sudanese people is flawed because there is a greater, direct threat to the life of the people of Darfur. Your argument about security is valid, but not does not substantiate your position in light of the equally valid security concerns posed by the genocide in Darfur.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

BKells said:
			
		

> Your humanitarian, liberal internationalist argument about the plight of the Afghan people in favour of the Sudanese people is flawed because there is a greater, direct threat to the life of the people of Darfur. Your argument about security is valid, but not does not substantiate your position in light of the equally valid security concerns posed by the genocide in Darfur.



I disagree, the only reason the same kind of genocide is not happening in Afghanistan is because we are already there.

Make no mistake, we would be declaring war on a sovereign country, one that China just might side with.....................can you live with the repercussions?


----------



## HItorMiss

BKells said:
			
		

> in light of the equally valid security concerns posed by the genocide in Darfur




In all honesty I fail to see what risk there is to Canada's security in terms of the Genocide. other then offending our western sensibilities and risking how we like to feel that we are the "Good" guys. I am not saying that the mission is any less deserving that is not my call to make, though my opinion is that it is not but that's a personal opinion based on the entire African continent honestly. Now if you are going to argue the Islamification of the Darfur region and the Sudan in specific  as a risk to the security of Canada then I can understand but that's a bold call to make because then you are inferring that the Islamic religion is a risk to the Security of the World. It would be a postion I agree with but I don't think that is what you meant.


----------



## Donut

BKells said:
			
		

> Threatening isn't anything to worry about, because terrorism relies on threats to achieve it's goal of terrorizing peoples.



You can't place the threats out of the terrorism context...threatening IS terrorism!  Force or threats of force to compel an action by individuals or by governments, paraphrasing several UN Conventions against Terrorism (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_conventions.html)

 These offences are implicitly included in the Canadian Criminal Code under legislation enacted 18 Dec 2001 
"... the Criminal Code (is) amended to establish provisions aimed at disabling and dismantling the activities of terrorist groups and those who support them. These include:

defining "terrorist activity" in the Criminal Code as an action that takes place either within or outside of Canada that: 
is an offence under one of the UN anti-terrorism conventions and protocols; or..."

So don't go saying that threats are nothing to worry about; an organization that has explicitly threatened our nation to achieve a political goal is a terrorist organization, one that has killed our soldiers, our allies soldiers, and civilians of any number of nations.

PMT


----------



## tomahawk6

Bad things happen to good people all the time. The US and its allies do not have unlimited resources and cannot intervene in every case of genocide. Its always seems to be the defenseless people being victimized. Perhaps we should at least provide arms so these people can protect themselves. Perhaps just the threat might be enough to end some of this suffering. Or else the UN should hire PMC's and contract out the work.


----------



## Infanteer

BKells said:
			
		

> Your humanitarian, liberal internationalist argument about the plight of the Afghan people in favour of the Sudanese people is flawed



Oooohhh.  Someone's got college.

Other than poking fun at the fancy talk I think Mr Kells is basically on the money.  This is a weak article on Darfur, especially when it tries to condemn it while pumping Afghanistan at the same time.  I mean, don't go to Darfur because it is "a very inhospitable place" with "geographical isolation, harsh climate, limited infrastructure, long supply lines, and an uncooperative Sudanese government will make supplying and supporting any sort of mission in Darfur extremely challenging, to say the least."  That description seems to describe a place that starts with "A" and ends with an "-fghanistan".  As Mr. Kells points out, there isn't much one can say in defence of the mission in Afghanistan that isn't applicable in Sudan (see below) aside from the fact that ABCA is cool, NATO is alright, and the UN sucks; which Ruxted is apt to point out (I think is a key point for us to consider).  Afghanistan and Iraq are incredibly difficult missions for us in the West; Sudan would be another one and I think we can all agree it would be an unmitigated disaster under the UN.  The ABCA/NATO could simply bomb the bad guys out of Khartoum and go in with a more aggressive mandate, but with two wars on our hands, do you think we want another one (especially the Americans)?

The reason I roll my eyes (like this  :) when some expert from the left brings up Darfur is that they use it to attack the Afghanistan mission and/or the Canadian government.  In doing this, these donkies completely miss the fact that going into Sudan would be no different than going into Afghanistan.  I suspect it would be worse as every loonie in Egypt and the larger Middle East will quit Iraq and head down to Sudan to earn their 72 virgins.  Let's see:

Isolated corner of Islam - Afghanistan check; Sudan check.

Islamist government implementing Sharia - Afghanistan check; Sudan check.

Civil War between rival ethnic groups - Afghanistan check; Sudan check.

Massive civilian displacement and death - Afghanistan check; Sudan check (I'm not going to do a body count because numbers are irrelevant).

Presence of support (in some way) for extremist Islamist ideology/groups - Afghanistan check; Sudan check.

Proximity to an ideological center if militant Islam - Afghanistan check (Pakistan); Sudan check (Egypt).

Anyone remember bin Ladin and Co.'s prior address?


----------



## a_majoor

The one key difference between Darfur and Afghanistan is location. While Darfur can (and probably is) a catalyst to destabilize neighbouring African nations, the ripple effect is quite limited on a global scale. 

Afghanistan, on the other hand, is bracketed by Iran, the 'Stans, China, India and Pakistan, and the 'Stans are part of Russia's "Near Beyond". Ripple effects in Afghanistan impact directly on 3 nuclear powers, one potential nuclear power and indirectly on yet another. Afghanistan also sits near the seams of several of Huntington's "Civilizations", several sects of Islam, and over two billion people between China and India alone. Just based on those factors, devoting resources to Afghanistan has a far higher ROI than any amount of resources devoted to Darfur.

We need to make choices, and the choices we make need to be based on logic and reason. While genocide is terrible wherever it occurs, the highest priorities lie with looking after our own interests first and foremost, and stabilizing a pivot point between hostile and nuclear armed civilizations should certainly take a far higher priority than almost anything else.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Peopel are ignoring the fact that the Sudanese government will simply not accept substantial units of ground troops from any Western nation as part of the hybrid UN/AU force.  So all talk about such a major Canadian role is utterly unreal--unless someone is proposing that Canada invade Sudan on our own (no other Western country would be prepared to join us).  See:

Facts about Darfur
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009923.html

As for the number of dead in Darfur, see:

Lies, damned lies, statistics...
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009949.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## BKells

Is invading a country for the purpose of protecting civilians without precedent? FRY was such a case. There is a multitude of literature (see: Responsibility to Protect) which argues that a country's sovereignty is forfeit once it commits acts of genocide and other such atrocities upon its own peoples; moreover, it is our duty to intervene in such a circumstance.


----------



## MarkOttawa

BKells: I do urge you to read the links above.  So Canada does it alone?  

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## KevinB

I'm all for invading Sudan with PMC's, this Iraqi gig is looking shaky after the 08 election in the US.

 On a serious note now - it would be worse than either Iraq or Afghanistan.
In Iraq as much as we dont like it the majority voted and elected their guy when we tossed out the old, we faired slightly better in Afghanistan as our guy got elected. But both are areas which will require major efforts still.

In Sudan we will be forced to oust the Sudanese gov't (now wait - aren't people bitching at us for this "war of agression" stuff already?) and the resulting quagmire will be unfathomable - since we woudl then have to forceable partition the Darfur area from the rest of Sudan, equipt an effective army there - and then hope that it does not decide to get some payback, and as we see daily in Iraq, (and last time I looked BigRed and I are about the only ones capable of giving the birds eye view from here) when the apple cart upsets and the downtrodden get power - then they tend to ensure it cant happen again - simply by killing as many of the former opressors as possible.

Its got secular nigthmare and islamofacist disaster all written down in advance.  Now since we see the fatc that pretty much everyone but the ABCA nations dont pull their weight in Afghanistan (and Canada noticeably vacant from Iraq) - who would do the work?

 Admittedly I think the only logical force IF the powers that be, where to decided something has to be done, would be BlackWater and their Greystone TCN army.  The "do'er" nations are tapped out with Iraq and Afghanistan, and none of the EU will help, even in their backdoor of FRY they relied on NATO (cough the US Army cough) to do the heavy work.

I think it should be done from a moral standpoint - but then we will be kicking doors all over Africa for the forseeable future.  If YOU can mobile the public support fine - but I dont support the cut and run method espoused by some in the Left's wings - since as we have seen in Afghanistan - when the going gets tough (and it will be tough) the Left is out complaining about the warmongering Right, ignoring that they where part and parcel of the decision to act intially...


----------



## Donut

One of your best analyses yet, I6.


----------



## Infanteer

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> One of your best analyses yet, I6.



+1.  Spot on I6.


----------



## FredDaHead

From cbc.ca



> Canada's top diplomat in Sudan and her European Union counterpart are being expelled from the country for what was described as "meddling in its affairs," the country's state news agency reported Thursday.
> 
> No specific reason was immediately given for why Nuala Lawlor, the acting charge d'affaires for Canada, and her counterpart were ordered to leave within 72 hours.
> 
> Many Western countries have criticized the Sudanese government's role in the war-torn Darfur region.
> 
> McGuffin said Lawlor is the sole diplomat in the Canadian Embassy as it goes through a shift. A new charge d'affaires is set to arrive in September.
> 
> The Foreign Ministry did not identify the other diplomat, but a diplomatic listing recorded Degerfelt Kent as the head of mission for the European Union.
> 
> The two were summoned separately to the ministry on Wednesday and handed their expulsion notes, the official SUNA news agency reported, citing Foreign Ministry spokesman Ali Al Sadeq.
> 
> The spokesman said the two were "involved in activities that constitute an intervention into the internal affairs of the Sudan, a matter that contradict their diplomatic duties and mission."



More on link.


----------



## geo

Well, that should indicate how willing Sudan is to the suggestions of Europe & North America on how to deal with Darfur.

Guess the Sudanese gov't will continue it's gunboat diplomacy behind closed doors


----------



## HollywoodHitman

Pretty clear indication as well as to how the Sudanese Gov't would view the Liberals and Bloc's calls to take us out of Afghanistan and put us into the Darfur....That would mean we'd be invading a country that doesn't want us there.....I wonder how that'd look to all the tree huggers.


----------



## FredDaHead

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> Pretty clear indication as well as to how the Sudanese Gov't would view the Liberals and Bloc's calls to take us out of Afghanistan and put us into the Darfur....That would mean we'd be invading a country that doesn't want us there.....I wonder how that'd look to all the tree huggers.



They'll call for us to go in there up until the moment our troops have boots on the ground. At that precise second, they would start bitching and whining for us to leave because the legitimate government doesn't want us there.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Further to this:

Lies, damned lies, statistics...
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009949.html

Death rate declines in Darfur
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-darfur26aug26,1,4364749.story?ctrack=1&cset=true


> ...
> At the peak of the Darfur crisis three years ago, health experts estimated that 6,000 to 10,000 people were losing their lives each month to disease, hunger and violence. Today, thanks to a drop in violence and improved healthcare, that figure is estimated at 100 to 600 a month, based on United Nations mortality estimates, news reports and interviews with U.N. officials, aid workers and Western diplomats...
> 
> "Violence has subsided in the first part of 2007 and this definitely has affected the death toll," said Ali Hamati, the U.N. spokesman in El Fasher.
> 
> Those who have reviewed the U.N.'s weekly compilations say violence-related casualties this year have averaged 100 to 200 a month, with the largest number of recent deaths arising from inter-tribal clashes in southern Darfur. Overall, civilian casualties in Darfur were down 70% in the first half of 2007, compared with the same period last year, U.N. figures indicate.
> 
> Officials emphasized, however, that even with the drop in fatalities, violence and insecurity in Darfur remain a problem...



But not I would say an over-arching crisis.  I wonder if any Canadian media will cover the story.

But still we get this Canadian polling silliness:

Canadians Consider Military Mission in Darfur
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=16946 


> ...
> If the United Nations (UN) asked Canada for military support in Darfur, I would support sending Canadian troops to help out



How many? For how long? With what role? Etc. What a stupid question. And what about?

Facts about Darfur
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009923.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Will any Western countries offer and will Sudan accept them?

UN still seeks specialized troops for Darfur force
Reuters, Aug. 30
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30176248.htm



> The United Nations is short of aviation, transport and logistic personnel necessary for the functioning of a new force of up to 26,000 troops and police in Sudan's Darfur region, according to a report issued on Thursday.
> 
> U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who issued the report, said the Aug. 31 deadline for troop contributors would have to be extended because "offers are still lacking for some critical military capabilities."
> 
> He did not give a new date for the recruitment of up to 19,555 military personnel to help quell rising violence...
> 
> Infantry troops, mainly from Africa, for the Darfur force have been offered in sufficient numbers but some contingents lack "the equipment necessary to implement their required tasks," the secretary-general said.
> 
> And Ban said there had been enough offers for the more than 6,000 civilian police requested, but most of them came from a few countries. Peacekeeping officials were searching for a more "diverse police component," he wrote.
> 
> VISAS AND OVERFLIGHTS
> 
> Ban also asked Khartoum to speed up granting visas for visits by troop and police contributors and lift the limit of overflights and aircraft allowed to land in Darfur "in order to facilitate the timely deployment of UNAMID," the U.N.-African Union Mission in Darfur.
> 
> "I call on member states to urgently provide the outstanding military contributions that are critical for UNAMID to fulfill its challenging mandate," he wrote...
> 
> Ban said that setting up preparations for the force, which would absorb or replace the 7,000 under-financed and under-equipped African Union troops now in Darfur, was "enormously complex" in the poor, arid region with little infrastructure...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070930/ap_on_re_af/sudan_darfur

HASKANITA, Sudan - Rebel forces stormed a small African Union base in northern Darfur and killed at least 10 peacekeepers, leaving behind charred armored vehicles and bombed out barracks in an unprecedented attack on the beleaguered mission that threatened upcoming peace talks.

More than 30 peacekeepers were still missing by late Sunday, indicating the death toll from the attack could rise significantly.

About 1,000 rebels from the Sudan Liberation Army attacked the base outside the town of Haskanita Saturday after sunset when Muslims break their daytime fast for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, AU officers told The Associated Press Sunday at the scene of the attack. The rebels eventually stormed the base early Sunday, they said.

"We battled for hours, but when we ran out of ammunition, we took refuge in this ditch," said a Nigerian peacekeeper who would only give his first name, Aboubakar, because he was not authorized to speak to the media. He showed a corner of the camp riddled with bullet marks and mortar holes where the AU troops mounted their resistance.

Some of the surviving peacekeepers appeared shellshocked and said it was difficult to describe the intensity of the onslaught.

The rebels used armored vehicles and rocket-propelled grenades, an indication that they are more heavily armed than previously believed, peacekeepers said.

The AU troops said they initially repelled the assailants. But the rebels eventually overran the camp at around 4 a.m., peacekeepers said as they recovered from the fighting.

The Sudanese army routed the rebels early Sunday and the remaining AU peacekeepers were evacuated under the protection of the army. By afternoon, some government troops could be seen plundering goods from the burned-out camp as an AU armored vehicle smoldered nearby.

Rebels looted several AU armored vehicles and jeeps and took a large amount of ammunition from the base before the Sudanese army drove them out, AU soldiers said.

"This is the heaviest loss of life and the biggest attack on the African Union mission," said AU spokesman Noureddine Mezni. "Our troops fought a defensive battle to protect the camp, but 30 vehicles eventually stormed it. ... The camp is completely destroyed."

At least 200,000 people have been killed in more than four years of conflict in Darfur, a region of western Sudan. The government is accused of unleashing Arab militias known as the janjaweed to fight ethnic African rebels. The janjaweed are accused of the worst atrocities of the conflict including rape and mass killings of innocent civilians.

Darfur rebels also have grown increasingly hostile to the AU peacekeepers, saying the force is not neutral and favors the government side. Several ambushes of AU forces in the past year have been blamed on the rebels.

But Saturday's raid was the first time since the AU mission was deployed in June 2004 that one of its bases has been overrun, though soldiers have been regularly attacked. There are about 6,000 AU peacekeepers in the region currently.

The announcement that new peace talks to solve the conflict will open on Oct. 27 in Libya has sparked a flurry of fighting between rebels and Sudanese government forces as each try to improve their position ahead of the conference.

The attack came as rebels appeared to flee the area around Haskanita because of a large government offensive there over the past two weeks, AU soldiers said.

AU officers said they had observed several Sudanese helicopter gunships and MiG-19 fighter jets taking off for the Haskanita area early Sunday from their base in southern Darfur. U.N. resolutions forbid all military flights over Darfur.

By midday Sunday, plumes of smokes from several burning villages in the same area could be seen rising into the air. Forces from the Arab-dominated government have been accused of indiscriminately targeting ethnic African Darfur villagers on suspicions they support the rebels.

About 150 peacekeepers, most from Nigeria, had been stationed at the Haskanita base, but they had been grounded since June because of the insecurity in the area. 

"This is a terrible incident. We're still trying to understand what happened," said Gen. Martin Agwai, the AU force commander, as he inspected the destroyed base. 

As the last AU peacekeepers evacuated the camp late Sunday, Sudanese government troops and militias could be seen patrolling the area. Other government troops were sifting through the camp's debris amid the burning tents and a smoldering AU armored vehicle. Some soldiers carried away mattresses, fans and other gear. 

"It may not be the right political thing to say, but the government forces saved us," said an AU officer at Haskanita, who also asked not to be named because of military regulations. 

Speaking in Ethiopia, the AU's top peace and security official, Said Djinnit, said 10 peacekeepers were killed in the attack. AU officers said the dead included a police officer from Senegal, two military observers from Botswana and Mali and seven soldiers from Nigeria. At least seven peacekeepers were wounded. 

"Some fled on foot and by car and have called us," the AU officer said. "But we're very worried for some of them." 

Senegal's foreign ministry confirmed the death of one of its peacekeepers and reiterated a warning that it might pull out its troops if the situation appears too insecure. 

The U.N., AU, France and Britain all strongly condemned the attack Sunday. 

The Sudanese army also deplored the attack, saying it offered protection to the evacuating peacekeepers. Despite a few sporadic gunshots, the army appeared in control of the area Sunday. 

The Darfur situation had been expected to improve after U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited Sudan early in September and announced new negotiations with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to settle the conflict. 

Al-Bashir announced a cease-fire earlier this month, but violence increased in the ensuing weeks. 

The underfunded AU force has been unable to stem the fighting in Darfur and will soon be merged into a much more powerful AU-U.N. joint force. 

Rebel commanders told AP a few days earlier that they had been involved in heavy battles against government-allied forces in the Haskanita area for the past two weeks. 

"The government has massed five or six janjaweed units who are converging on us," said Abdelaziz Ushar, a commander in the rebel Justice and Equality Movement, which fights alongside the SLA. 

JEM rebels said they had evacuated Haskanita a couple of days ago, and AU peacekeepers in the camp said they suspected a splinter faction known as SLA-Unity had conducted the raid. 

JEM strongly condemned the attack. 

"JEM is not certain about the exact culprits in this senseless attack," the group said. There was no comment from SLA-Unity.


----------



## tomahawk6

Rebels or pro-government forces posing as rebels ? The government doesnt want peacekeepers in the region. I'll take off my tin foil hat now. I agree with CSA that Darfur while a human tragedy a peacekeeping mission would be long term and thankless. Why not invade Burma/Myanmar ? Unfortunately for western forces to be committed the bottom line has to be national interest. For the west there isnt the national interest in Darfur or Myanmar.


----------



## armyvern

I wonder just how much coverage this anti-blue incident will garner in the Canadian Press.

Will it serve as the wake-up call for all those radical left-leaning lunatics that being in the good 'ol UN blue hat does not ensure 'peace' and 'protection'?

Another incident which shatters the image of peacekeepers dutifully standing between the disgruntled handing out white lillies and releasing doves.

There are plenty of precedents they've chosen to ignore -- including against Canadians; if only they would learn. I doubt this will do much to rid them of their stereotypical view. Sadly.

My thoughts and prayers to the fallen peacekeepers. May their families have comfort in their servcie to humanity and in their aiding of the oppressed.


----------



## McG

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> AU officers said they had observed several Sudanese helicopter gunships and MiG-19 fighter jets taking off for the Haskanita area early Sunday from their base in southern Darfur. U.N. resolutions forbid all military flights over Darfur.





			
				CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Those would see our forces disengaged from "deadly Afghanistan" to pursue the path of light and right and good, handing out teddy bears and digging wells in Sudan with nary a chance of casualties would be best to read this closely, then reconsider their desires.


They would probably also be upset that we would need Air Defence systems on a "Peacekeeping" mission.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

A sad and confusing situation to say the least.  I will admit that I don't know Sudan intimately, but seeing the rebels attack the AU in that manner seems a little odd.  Better do some reading.

It goes to show that you need to go in ready for pretty much anything (including an attack by armoured vehicles).  Looks like those AU guys were outgunned and outnumbered.


----------



## tomahawk6

Or they fell for a ruse.


----------



## Long in the tooth

Army Vern - you got that right.  There is absolutely no upside to committing our troops to the Sudan.  The word that comes to my mind is 'Somalia' X 10.  In Astan we have some control over conditions.  Perhaps the touchy feely NGOs should spearhead a peace movement and see how far it gets.  'peace good, peacekeeping/making/enforcing troops bad'.  I bet that even if CF Forces weren't there and the NGOs took casualties it would still be DNDs fault......


----------



## medicineman

It will be interesting to see what kind of spin (if any) is put on this by not only the media, but by the pro-interventionists in the Opposition.  Like something along the lines of "it wouldn't have happened if we were there because our vehicles outclass their's" or "it was because of inter-African tension and we're much more neutral".  A small side bar from that - aren't the AU using a pile of Grizzlies we gave them a couple of years ago?

I don't see things getting much better out there with what is planned - I tend to agree that it could turn into another Somalia if the mission isn't well thought out, prepared both in personnel and materiel and prepared to use whatever means are necessary to carry out the mission, not matter who gets smacked.

My couple of copper bits.

MM


----------



## armyvern

Yep, Canadian Grizzlies & Canadians training them on their use.

Op Augural

and as observers:

Op Safari


_Edited to include hyperlink_


----------



## CBH99

This doesn't come as a complete shock to me at all...while we were in country, we were "unofficially" under the protection of whatever nearby AU forces were in the area.  We had fairly good communication with local members & commanders, and for the most part felt fairly safe when they were around.

However, one thing to mention is how woefully under-equipped the AU forces are.  They ran out of ammunition, and I'll betcha dollars to donuts that a good portion of the AU armoured vehicles weren't operable.  Even with the donation of the armoured vehicles from Canada a year or so ago, the amount of dust & sand tends to clog things up pretty quickly -- and the clusters of AU soldiers don't exactly have access to regular, quality maintenance.

As for the government forces coming to the rescue...it no doubtedly was done with some hesitation.  The government forces do not want any AU/UN forces present in the country - however, not providing any aid and leaving the AU forces out on a limb isn't good for international relations.  And international relations is exactly what the government of Sudan needs right now.  When China starts to hesitate to sell people weapons, you know you've for a PR problem on your hands...


----------



## charlesm

One Grizzly that may need some 3rd Line Maintenance.

Picture is from CNN and AP Photo.


----------



## medicineman

On the bright side, looks like it's back in its original camouflage scheme...

MM


----------



## midget-boyd91

A question that comes to my mind is what happens after a sizeable UN force is deployed into Darfur, most likely hopefully on a Chapter 7 mission.  Is there going to be a repeat of Somalia where the world is crying for intervention only to change their minds and cry to leave once casualties start coming in? Is it going to be another stand-and-watch-but-don't-help mission? This latest attack just shows all those who doubt that UN will face violence in Darfur that they are wrong and the UN will in fact be caught in the fighting. Are people going to ccry to leave Darfur if 71 Canadian soldiers are killed there?


----------



## medicineman

My guess is yes - they'll start flying off the handle at how this turned into a "combat" mission as opposed to a peace keeping mission.  Either that, or the government in power won't let our people go in unless it's a very blue mission with our pers in some rear with the gear capacity if it looks remotely scary.  

MM


----------



## tomahawk6

This is an example of why peacekeepers dont go into places like Darfur unless peace has been agreed. You just end up in the middle shot at by both sides.


----------



## geo

Well, after this, guess the NDP will shut up about having Canadian troops going into a shooting war....
Wonder where they'll think of sending us next


----------



## midget-boyd91

geo said:
			
		

> Wonder where they'll think of sending us next


Unemployment offices?


----------



## geo

Oh ye of little faith!


----------



## medaid

It will look like another Medak if the stupids that are arguing for peacekeeping deployment to dDarfur (note to self thats DARFUR with a CAPITAL D) don't get their heads out of their donkeys...


----------



## GK .Dundas

MedTech said:
			
		

> It will look like another Medak if the stupids that are arguing for peacekeeping deployment to darfur don't get their heads out of their donkeys...


Those people you mention will either say you're exaceratting or Medak never happened at all.It's not they don't get it....they simply refuse to get it.Because that would require them to reexamine their corevalues  and that they will never do


----------



## GAP

Army-controlled Darfur town razed
Last Updated: Sunday, October 7, 2007 | 2:08 PM ET CBC News 
Article Link

A Sudanese town that came under government control last week in the troubled Darfur region has been all but destroyed, the United Nations said Sunday.

Most of Haskanita has been burned down and its market looted, the UN mission in Sudan said.

The only buildings still standing are a mosque and a school, Reuters reported.

Sudanese government forces took control of the town last week after unidentified rebels attacked a nearby African Union base on Sept. 29, killing 10 peacekeepers.

A UN statement confirmed rebel reports issued Friday that the settlement had been razed but did not repeat accusations from rebels that the Sudanese army was responsible.

More than 7,000 residents of Haskanita were reported to have fled after their homes were torched. It was unclear if anyone was killed or injured.
More on link


----------



## GAP

Sudanese oil field attack threatens peace talks
Article Link

A Darfur rebel group accuses foreign oil companies of sponsoring violence and tries to force them out of Sudan.
By Arthur Bright
After launching a deadly attack on a Sudanese oil field earlier this week, a Darfur rebel group is promising to target oil fields across the country. The Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), an Islamist rebel group in Darfur, hopes to drive out foreign oil companies, which the group says are funding government violence in Darfur. The raid and threat of ongoing violence may also damage peace talks scheduled to begin this Saturday in Libya. 

JEM says its attack on the Defra oil field in Sudan on Tuesday is "only the beginning" of a campaign to drive foreign oil companies out of the country. The raid left 20 Sudanese soldiers dead and five oil workers were taken captive, reports Reuters. 

"This is only the beginning," said Ahmed Tugud, the chief negotiator of the Justice and Equality Movement. "We will carry out attacks across Sudan and our main target will be oil fields." ... Tugud said the Defra attack was meant as a message to China, which JEM accuses of arming the Khartoum government. "All the weapons we took from the soldiers were Chinese. The Sudan government is using the oil money it gets from China to buy weapons to kill our people," Tugud said. 

JEM commander Abdelaziz el-Nur Ashr told Agence France-Presse that the captives – two of whom of are foreigners – were "safe and in good condition." But he warned that the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, which operates the Defra oil field, would face further attacks if it did not leave within a week. 

"We give them seven days from today (Thursday) to leave, we have the ability to stop their activities in the field," Ashr told AFP. He claimed that at least eight other nearby oil fields have already shut down fearing attacks. ... The JEM commander told AFP: "We want China, India and Malaysia to stop oil business because Khartoum is using the oil money to buy arms and kill the people in Darfur. This is our country and they must go." 

The Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, AFP notes, is a consortium of largely foreign oil companies including China's CNPC, India's ONGC, and Malaysia's Petronas. The field is source of more than half of the 500,000 barrels of oil produced per day in Sudan, most of which go to China. In response to the attack, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said that China's oil workers in Sudan were safe, though he called on the Sudanese government to work to ensure that safety continues, writes Xinhua. 

Meanwhile, a Sudanese military official told the Associated Press that while an attack on Defra did take place, it was not a rebel victory. "It was insignificant," he said. "From a military point of view, they have done nothing." The AP also reports that the Sudanese media described the foreign captives as a Canadian and an Iraqi, but a JEM commander gave their nationalities as Egyptian and Iraqi. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs is aware of the rebel group's claims, but could not confirm them. 
More on link


----------



## GAP

Darfur mission may fail, warns UN  
Article Link

The joint UN-African Union peacekeeping mission to Darfur may fail unless countries can provide helicopters and lorries, a top UN official says. 
Foot-dragging by Sudan over the make-up of the force could also threaten the mission, he warns. 

The 26,000-strong force is aiming to bring security to the region after more than four years of conflict. 

The deployment is scheduled to begin in six weeks, but could be delayed if the necessary equipment is not received. 

Jean-Marie Guehenno, head of the UN peacekeeping department, told reporters the force needed six attack helicopters and 18 transport helicopters. 

Ticking clock 

He also expressed concern that the Sudanese government had yet to authorise the make-up of the deployment. 
More on link


----------



## mckee19

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060507/layton_darfur_060507/20060508/
I've done a bit of reading on this topic recently, i am wondering what you guys think about some of Laytons comments on the topic in this article IE.

"Our view is that this is exactly the kind of peacekeeping role that Canadians have always supported,'' Layton said Sunday. "Canada invented the concept of UN-led peacekeeping forces under (then diplomat Lester) Pearson'' in the 1950s.

and further down the link Dawn Black Black said that once Canada fulfils its commitment in Afghanistan in February, "we may want to look at returning to a more traditional kind of work that we could do and do very well in Darfur.''

those type of comments make me think they see our military as nothing more than humanitarian aid workers with rifles. To me the military is combat orientated and does humanitarian aid when needed, not the other way around.


----------



## geo

"bull_hockey"
To have a formula for peacekeeping, you need to have both parties interested in having peace.
The Sudanese government, the government of a sovereign country, does not want us there, else they would have asked the UN. For Canada to show up on their doorstep with a military / police force would be tantamount to an invasion - which the Sudanese gov't would be in it's rights to oppose with force.

For Canada to drop Afghanistan (where the democraticalt elected Afghan gov't invited us in) in order to go to the Sudan (where the non-democratic government certainly has not invited us in) makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.


----------



## tomahawk6

Pretty sad when the nations of the EU cant come up with a dozen helos for this mission. Doesnt bode well for the success of the EU as a whole.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/15/europe/EU-GEN-EU-Chad-Darfur-Spillover.php



> BRUSSELS, Belgium: The launch of a European Union peacekeeping mission to help refugees from Sudan's Darfur could be delayed unless governments come up with helicopters, the EU's top soldier said Thursday.
> 
> "What could happen if we don't get them right now is some delay in the action," said Gen. Henri Bentegeat ahead of meetings next week to fill gaps in the force. The EU mission will aim to improve security and make it easier for aid groups to do their work in refugee camps in the unstable regions where Darfur meets Chad and the Central African Republic.
> 
> An Irish general will command the force, and a large contingent is expected to come from France, which already has troops in the region under cooperation agreements with its former colonies.
> 
> The Irish Department of Foreign Affairs said Tuesday that the first EU troops would arrive in December but most would be deployed in January — weeks later than originally hoped.
> 
> "Today we can still envisage the deployment of the force in early December, on condition of course that certain essential, crucial elements are provided," Bentegeat, chairman of the EU's military committee, told a news conference Thursday.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Failure Looms for Darfur Peacekeepers
_Spiegel Online_, Nov. 23
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,519330,00.html



> ...at the end of July, the United Nations Security Council decided  to boost the AU mission with 12,500 soldiers, 6,400 police and a mandate with teeth. UNAMID, the hybrid UN-African Union mission in Darfur, came into being; at $3.5 billion for the first year alone, the most expensive UN mission ever. Germany, too, wants to participate, and the parliament in Berlin decided to send 250 Bundeswehr soldiers to Darfur. Even the Sudanese government agreed to the mission, with *the condition that the overwhelming majority of the international troops in Darfur had to come from Africa* [emphasis added].
> 
> But since then, Khartoum has done everything in its power to hinder the mission. It has gotten so bad that Jean-Marie Guéhenno, UN Under-Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, warned last week in New York that the UN mission to Darfur may be facing failure before it has even begun.
> 
> [...]
> 
> The Islamist government of Sudanese President *Omar al-Bashir has shown extreme reluctance to allow non-African soldiers into his country. The UN, though, is insisting. There are no African units, it points out, that can do the jobs assigned to those soldiers waiting to enter Sudan: special forces from Nepal, engineers from Norway and infantry from Thailand* [emphasis added].
> 
> Sudan's calculation is clear: Only a streamlined, efficient fighting force could earn enough respect in the region to put a halt to the fighting and disarm the Janjaweed. But Khartoum has no interest in seeing the war end. The African countries attached to UNAMID have already shown that they have little interest in confronting Sudan directly. The first soldiers sent -- a 22-person unit -- weren't even able to get enough fuel for their reconnaissance airplane. The mini-force hardly left Fashir, the capital of northern Darfur, and operated out of an office that suffered from frequent power outages.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...even if the UN/Africa force gets the green light from Khartoum, it is not clear that it could ever be effective. The logistical hurdles are immense. Most of the equipment for the force -- including weapons, materiel and food -- is to be shipped in to Port Sudan on the Red Sea. From there, it is a 10 day journey to Darfur, in the western part of Sudan, Africa's biggest country by area. But the biggest problem is that of supplying the troops with water...
> 
> The skepticism, in short, is everywhere. Few are willing to put much faith in a group of 26,000 soldiers asked to control a vast area full of rebels, government-sponsored troops and common criminals...
> 
> UNAMID is set to begin implementing its mandated tasks no later than the end of this year. Ongoing resistance by Khartoum, however, make that timeline unlikely. But even if the full allotment of UN and African troops are allowed to take up their positions, it is unclear that the conflict in Darfur will come to an end anytime soon.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Failure looking more likely:

Sudan Continues to Obstruct Peacekeepers, U.N. Official Charges
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702656.html



> UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 27 -- Sudan's government has imposed a series of new bureaucratic obstacles that undermine the ability of a U.N.-backed peacekeeping mission in Darfur to protect civilians and its own troops there, according to the United Nations' top peacekeeping official.
> 
> Jean-Marie Gu¿henno, the U.N. undersecretary general for peacekeeping, told the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday that *Sudan has insisted that international troops provide Sudan the authority to "temporarily disable" the mission's communications network if Sudanese forces are engaged in a military operation and to provide advance notice of all the mission's troop movements* [emphasis added].
> 
> The latest Sudanese restrictions came to light just five weeks before a joint U.N./African Union mission of 26,000 peacekeepers is scheduled to formally replace a smaller African Union force in the Darfur region. The moves threatened to derail a U.S.-backed diplomatic effort at the United Nations to restore calm in one of Africa's deadliest regions.
> 
> Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, Sudan's ambassador to the United Nations, denied that his government was dragging its feet, saying that Gu¿henno was blowing out of proportion a "small technical" dispute. The ambassador said the U.N. peacekeeping department has developed a habit of blaming Sudan for its own failure to meet its schedule for deploying a force in Darfur.
> 
> Gu¿henno said Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir is backtracking from his commitments to support an international mission in Darfur, and the undersecretary appealed to the Security Council and influential African governments to persuade Khartoum to cooperate more fully. "A strategic decision on the part of the government of Sudan is necessary if we are to achieve our common goal: peace and security in Darfur," he said...
> 
> In recent weeks, Sudan has engaged in bureaucratic delays that raise concern about its commitment to the new peacekeeping mission, Gu¿henno said. *Khartoum has yet to grant the mission authority to conduct night flights in Darfur or to deploy six helicopters in an airfield close to its headquarters in El Fasher. The government has impounded U.N. communications equipment in the El Fasher airport for weeks, and has yet to grant land for encampments in the towns of El Geneina and Zalingei* [emphasis added]. "If the government doesn't give us the land we need immediately, we will have to hold back some units," Gu¿henno said.
> 
> *Khartoum refused to authorize the participation of non-African troops whose role is vital to the mission's success, according to Gu¿henno. The new Sudanese demands, he said, "would make it impossible for the mission to operate* [emphasis added]."
> 
> Gu¿henno also raised concern about new reports that two Darfurian rebel factions have threatened an advance unit of Chinese military engineers. And *he faulted the U.N. membership for failing to provide the mission with trucks, as well as transport and attack helicopters* [emphasis added]. "Do we move ahead with the deployment of a force that will not make a difference," Gu¿henno asked, "that will not have the capability to defend itself, and that carries the risk of humiliation of the Security Council and the United Nations, and tragic failure for the people of Darfur?"



Haven't seen anything about this in Canadian media.  No wonder our ideologically-blinded naifs think Canada should save Darfur (rather than Afstan).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters

The same old game we've seen in half a dozen countries previously.  Why do they do act that way?  Because they can.  Limp-wristed UN diplomacy at its best, all carrot and no stick.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile, next door:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL3061884420071130



> N'DJAMENA (Reuters) - Chadian anti-government rebels on Friday declared a "state of war" against French and foreign military forces in an apparent warning to a European Union peacekeeping force that plans to deploy soon in eastern Chad.
> 
> *French troops and aircraft are stationed in Chad under a bilateral defence accord* [emphasis added]. The EU force, around half of which will be French, is preparing to deploy near the eastern border with Sudan in coming weeks to protect refugees and aid workers.
> 
> French President Nicolas Sarkozy played down the threat by the Chadian rebel group Union of Forces for Democracy and Development (UFDD). He said it would not jeopardize the EU deployment in Chad, which is mandated by the United Nations.
> 
> The UFDD said in a statement that it now "considers itself to be in a state of war against the French army, or against any other foreign forces in the national territory".
> 
> UFDD fighters have been battling government forces loyal to President Idriss Deby in eastern Chad since the weekend in fierce clashes that have shattered a month-old peace accord between Deby's government and his main rebel foes.
> 
> Both sides have said hundreds of combatants have died.
> 
> The EU force for Chad, which will also send soldiers to the northeast of the Central African Republic, is intended to try to help contain a widening conflict in Sudan's Darfur region, which has pushed armed raiders and refugees across the border.
> 
> It will complement a bigger United Nations/African Union peacekeeping force planned for Darfur, where political and ethnic conflict triggered by a 2003 rebellion has killed at least 200,000 people, U.N. experts say...
> 
> France is providing around half of the up to 3,700 EU peacekeepers who are due to start arriving early next year in eastern Chad on a U.N. mission to protect camps housing more than 400,000 Chadian and Sudanese refugees...



More on the EU force:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/01/europe/EU-GEN-Ireland-EU-Darfur-Spillover.php



> The European Union peacekeeping force supposed to protect refugees from the Darfur conflict could be delayed for two more months because it still lacks helicopters and hospital facilities, the Irish government and army announced.
> 
> The approximately 4,300-member force, under Irish command but drawn largely from France, was supposed to begin deploying next week in Chad and the Central African Republic along their borders with Sudan.
> 
> But Irish Defense Minister Willie O'Dea — who has been critical of EU colleagues' unwillingness to contribute air support — said the first EU troops would not arrive until January at the earliest. They would go only if other EU nations contribute approximately 15 helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft and field-hospital support, he said Friday.
> 
> "It would be foolhardy and reckless in the extreme to go in without proper logistical and air support," O'Dea said in an interview.
> 
> The chief spokesman for the Irish Defense Forces, Commandant Gavin Young, said *most troops might not arrive until March* [emphasis added]...
> 
> Confirmation of the delays followed two EU-level meetings this month that failed to secure commitments for the needed equipment. Helicopters would make it possible for the small EU force to cover a border region that stretches from the southern edge of the Sahara Desert into central African jungle.
> 
> *O'Dea, who has previously criticized Germany and Italy for refusing to contribute helicopters* [emphasis added], said the EU force must have them to function effectively and to have the ability "to get out of a dangerous spot quickly."..
> 
> *France already has 1,100 troops in Chad, a former French colony* [emphasis added--rasion d'état, what?]. It is expected to contribute about half of soldiers to the EU force, which is headquartered in Paris.
> 
> The EU force is supposed to complement a 26,000-member United Nations-African Union force destined for the Darfur region of Sudan itself. *That largely African force also has yet to deploy, in part, because donor nations have not supplied sufficient equipment, including helicopters. Sudan also is refusing to accept U.N. soldiers from Western nations* [emphasis added]...



Peacekeeping in Africa sure is a messy business.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

But I suppose those opposed to our Afstan mission think Canada can somehow "do something" militarily significant in Darfur:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/World/996841.html



> European countries look unlikely to meet an urgent UN call to provide military helicopters for a peacekeeping force planned for Darfur, saying their armies are already stretched by missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo and other hot spots.
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/67913/post-645632.html#msg645632
> 
> More than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million uprooted from their homes in Sudan’s western Darfur region since a rebellion broke out in 2003, and many European governments have said they support deploying the peacekeeping force.
> 
> Despite the verbal support, no one has offered any of the 24 helicopters sought by UN officials.
> 
> "There’s something like 12,000 military helicopters in Europe, so it’s bizarre that not one has been found available so far to commit to this force," said Thomas Cargill, Africa program manager at Chatham House, an international affairs think tank in London.
> 
> He said European countries risk undermining their credibility "if they commit themselves to resolving a crisis but then can’t commit themselves to providing the necessary hardware."
> 
> The joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force of 26,000 soldiers is scheduled to take over from a smaller AU force in three weeks.
> 
> But UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday that it is essential the force be equipped with 18 transport helicopters and six light attack helicopters. Without them, he said, the force will not be able to protect its own soldiers, let alone civilians...
> 
> Publicly, European government ministers have said they are doing everything they can to get the Darfur mission off the ground, along with *a separate, 4,000-strong EU peacekeeping mission in Chad and Central African Republic, which border Sudan* [emphasis added].
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/64763/post-642746.html#msg642746
> 
> But officials said Friday they cannot meet the UN request.
> 
> *Poland said it is sending four transport helicopters and four attack helicopters — similar to those the UN wants for Darfur — to Afghanistan* [emphasis added].
> 
> "These helicopters were long ago tabbed for the Afghanistan mission," Foreign Ministry spokesman Piotr Paszkowski said. "We aren’t particularly rich in helicopters."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6

Doesnt look like this UN/EU force wont  go as they are without helicopters - it shows the weakness of the EU. Rotary wing aviation isnt as critical on the continent but when you are going to the UW they are essential. To cut corners in a military sense helicopters lose out to fixed wing aviation due to tight defense budgets.


----------



## MarkOttawa

An opinion piece that sums things up well (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/09/opinion/edreeves.php



> The brutal regime in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, has orchestrated genocidal counter-insurgency war in Darfur for five years and is now poised for victory in its ghastly assault on the region's African populations.
> 
> United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769, adopted in July, authorized a force of 26,000 troops and civilian police to protect Darfur's civilians and the humanitarian groups serving some 4.2 million desperate people. Without protection, these groups will be forced to withdraw. But Khartoum has obstructed the force authorized by the UN, and final success in these efforts seems within grasp.
> 
> On Nov. 26, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, the UN undersecretary for peacekeeping, raised the prospect that the UN-authorized force for Darfur may have to be aborted because of Khartoum's actions.
> 
> Guéhenno asked a question that answered itself: "Do we move ahead with the deployment of a force that will not make a difference, that will not have the capability to defend itself and that carries the risk of humiliation of the Security Council and the United Nations and tragic failure for the people of Darfur?"
> 
> The unprecedented UN/African Union "hybrid" mission for Darfur (Unamid) has been badly hurt by the refusal of militarily capable nations to provide the two dozen helicopters required, at the least, for operations in Darfur. *No NATO country has offered even one helicopter* [emphasis added] - a sign that, despite fulsome rhetoric, these nations' real concern for Darfur is minimal.
> 
> But it is Khartoum's brazen obduracy that threatens to leave the people of Darfur without protection.
> 
> Months after Resolution 1769 authorized the present peace support operation to Darfur, and more than a year after a previous council resolution authorized a similar operation, Khartoum is still objecting to the roster of countries that are to provide troops, police and specialists.
> 
> *Khartoum refuses to grant landing rights to heavy transport aircraft or allow night flights (critical for both civilian protection and medevac needs); refuses to grant adequate access to Port Sudan and refuses to grant adequate land or water rights in arid Darfur. Khartoum also demands the right to shut down Unamid communications during its own military operations - an unacceptable condition* [emphasis added].
> 
> What will happen if the UN gives up on Unamid? Utter catastrophe. A weak, undermanned African Union mission currently serves as the only protection in Darfur. This demoralized force is barely functioning, simply trying to hold on until Dec. 31, when its mission is supposed to fold into Unamid.
> 
> But given Khartoum's obstructionism, this transfer will be at best symbolic: There may be UN sponsorship, but no meaningful deployment of UN troops or resources.
> 
> Once it is clear that a meaningful Unamid is not deploying, African nations will quickly withdraw their overmatched troops, which have already endured an unconscionable number of casualties.
> 
> With no international presence - by the UN, the AU, or aid organizations - nothing will constrain Khartoum, or the rebels, or various armed elements and bandits.
> 
> Confrontations between Khartoum's forces, including its Janjaweed militia allies, and increasingly militarized camps for displaced persons will escalate quickly. Khartoum is likely to use its bombers and helicopter gunships in such battles, ensuring massively disproportionate civilian casualties.
> 
> Unamid was badly conceived. Its command-and-control structure is ambiguous. It relies too much on African nations that cannot provide enough fully-equipped, self-sufficient troops and civilian police.
> 
> The "hybrid" nature of the mission was itself a poorly calculated concession to Khartoum. But this mission is now the only arrow in the quiver: There is no other force on the horizon, no other means for protecting civilians and humanitarians. *If NATO nations aren't prepared to provide 24 helicopters, they are hardly likely to participate in any non-consensual deployment of force to Darfur* [emphasis added].
> 
> Unamid must succeed. If it does not, how long it will be before Darfur slides into cataclysmic destruction, with no means of halting that slide?
> 
> This is the stark choice before the international community: Is it prepared to see the mission fail? Or will it rally the resources and exert the pressure on Khartoum, both of which are critical to the mission's success?



And this is interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1197954000&en=34ed4febf7d06fc2&ei=5070


> ...
> Khartoum is now refusing to accept some non-African peacekeeping units — including a Thai infantry battalion and a Nepalese special forces unit — in what is intended to be a joint United Nations-African Union force...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_ (note Foreign Minister Bernier's bit about possible CF commitment):

Canada and Darfur
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/canada-and-darfur.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Trying to get the UN force together:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801621.html


> ...
> The pace of deployment, she says, is being determined by the military contributions of U.N. member states and by the attitude of Sudan's government. She points to progress -- more Rwandan and Nigerian troops on the ground, the arrival of part of a Chinese engineering unit. She also outlines a number of obstacles.
> 
> "There is still the issue with the helicopters," says Lute [head of U.N. peacekeeping operations]. The U.N. force requires 24 -- six to eight of which are supposed to be gunships. The Europeans have plenty but no interest in lending them.
> 
> The *United States is pushing for contributions from China, Ukraine, Poland and South Korea, with little result* [emphasis added--I am shocked, shocked; and the Koreans are just leaving Afstan]. "No one other than the U.S. is helping much here," says a frustrated Bush administration official.
> 
> And ultimately, according to Lute, "if we don't have the active support of the host country, we're not going to succeed."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Pikache

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Trying to get the UN force together:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801621.html
> Mark
> Ottawa


I'm not surprised that South korea isn't getting involved. 

After a bad experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the general public isn't fond of anything that smells of Yank adventurism.

Though with a conservative govt recently elected, this may change


----------



## a_majoor

More political theater; the Liberal party is now making noises about Darfur again. They should receive a thrashing in Parliament, since they are the main reason we have no resources to commit to Darfur, and of course there is no serious plan to overcome the obstacles the Sudanese government is erecting against the UN or any sort of long term solution, no linkage to how this relates to our national interests and of course, no "Exit Strategy" that I can see either (anyone want to get a silver numeral "5" on their Darfur ribbon?). We don't even have to go to their record on Darfur while they were in government......


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

Prof. Byers' self-psychotherapy
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/prof-byers-self-psychotherapy.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More reality:

Failure looms in Darfur
Peacekeeping effort in Sudan has no strategic plan: critics
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=195012



> Three years after the United States accused Sudan of committing genocide in Darfur and a full year after the United Nations began pushing to deploy its own peacekeeping force there, the conflict remains one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.
> 
> There will be only about 6,500 UN peacekeepers in Darfur 10 days from now, when a new joint UN-African Union force (UNAMID) is scheduled to take over in western Sudan.
> 
> That's barely a quarter of the promised force of 26,000 peacekeepers who were supposed to replace 7,000 under-equipped, dejected and ineffective African Union troops who have been struggling to stop a conflict that has raged for nearly five years.
> 
> Before the UN even sets foot in Darfur, critics are predicting the mission could become the world's biggest peacekeeping failure.
> 
> It's too big, too disorganized and has no strategic plan. It lacks critical international support and is being hamstrung by the deliberate obstruction of the Sudanese government.
> 
> Last week, a coalition of 35 foreign aid groups working in Darfur issued a report that predicted "the deployment of this force is in danger of failing" and accused the government in Khartoum of "actively undermining the ability of the force to protect civilians."
> 
> "Sudan is saying 'yes' and then doing everything in its power to obstruct and undermine the hybrid force," said Steve Crawshaw of Human Rights Watch.
> 
> "The Security Council has responded to this defiance with hand-wringing but nothing more."
> 
> "If it continues, the UN's hands will be tied as much as the African Union's have been, spelling disaster for the UN and more importantly for the Darfuri people," said Erwin van der Borght, Amnesty International's Africa director.
> 
> The new UN-led force is not expected to reach half-strength until March and UN negotiators are still unable to plan even the most basic elements of the Darfur peacekeeping operation.
> 
> General Omar Hassan al-Bashir, Sudan's President, has thrown as many roadblocks in the way of a UN deployment as possible.
> 
> *He has refused to approve non-African troops for the combined forces, rejecting offers of help from Thailand, Norway and Nepal* [emphasis added].
> 
> He has tried to impose limits on UN flights in Sudan, refusing landing rights to heavy-transport aircraft, restricting helicopter flights, and banning night flying. He has also refused adequate access to Port Sudan and refused to provide land or water for peacekeeping bases in Darfur.
> 
> Sudan has also demanded advance notification of all peacekeeping troop movements, which would cripple any rapid-response measures. It also wants the UN to shut down all communications systems when Sudan is conducting its own military operations...
> 
> ...For the last five months the UN has been unable to find countries willing to supply two dozen helicopters needed to give peacekeepers the mobility they need to police Darfur, a region the size of France.
> 
> NATO members alone are said to own 18,000 helicopters but have not offered a single one for use in Darfur...
> 
> The conflict grows more complex by the day. It is no longer simply a fight between the Sudanese government and its Arab Janjaweed militias on one hand and African rebel groups on the other. The rebel groups and Arab tribes have fragmented and are now fighting among themselves.
> 
> Alliances constantly shift, banditry is rampant and violence threatens to spill over into neighbouring countries such as Chad and the Central African Republic.
> 
> Since the war over Darfur's resources broke out five years ago, more than 200,000 people have died from fighting, famine and disease, and 2.5 million more have been left homeless.
> 
> "While there are fewer deaths now than in 2003-04, the parties have splintered, confrontations have multiplied and violence is again rising," the Belgium-based International Crisis Group said in a recent report.
> 
> "Access for humanitarian agencies is decreasing, international peacekeeping is not yet effective and a political settlement is still far away," it said.
> 
> *Jean-Marie Guehenno, head of UN peacekeeping, has already raised the possibility of abandoning the Darfur deployment* [emphasis added], suggesting Sudanese restrictions on the force's movements and refusal to accept non-African troops could limit the UN's usefulness...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Norman Spector's "Idiocy of the day":
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/MIND.htm

Aid Darfur's outgunned defenders (Barthos)
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/291120



> As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns, "the entire mission is at risk" because fully five months after approving the new force, Security Council members such as the United States, Britain and France still haven't supplied a single one of the 24 transport and attack helicopters the peacekeepers need to provide firepower and mobility. It's outrageous.
> 
> Harper should join Ban in lobbying our allies to do better.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Where are the boots?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010701510.html



> The situation is deteriorating in the western Sudanese region of Darfur and an existing peacekeeping force is too small to deal with it, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Monday.
> 
> Last week a joint U.N.-African Union (AU) mission took over peacekeeping in Darfur from a purely AU force, seeking to end almost five years of fighting. But the swapping of green AU berets for U.N. blue ones is unlikely to bring rapid change.
> 
> "I as the secretary-general and the United Nations as a whole ... must ensure the rapid deployment of hybrid operations as agreed to the level of 26,000 (peacekeepers) as soon as possible," Ban told reporters at his first news conference of 2008.
> 
> "We have now 9,000 re-hatted soldiers in Darfur. That's not sufficient. That is why we are very concerned about the ongoing deteriorating situation in Darfur."
> 
> The so-called hybrid force of AU and U.N. troops replaces a struggling AU mission. The plan is for it ultimately to comprise 20,000 soldiers and 6,000 police, but only a little over a third of those are so far in place...
> 
> Ban said he spoke by telephone with Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir last week and planned to meet with him in person at an upcoming AU summit in Addis Ababa.
> 
> He added that it was crucial for Khartoum to live up to its promises regarding the status and composition of the joint force, whose deployment was approved by the U.N. Security Council on July 31.
> 
> *Bashir has opposed non-African troops, delayed allocating land to the force, demanded the right to disable the mission's communications during "security operations" and refused night flights.
> 
> Ban made it clear that the international community, too, must help the deployment by providing necessary helicopters and other heavy transport vehicles* [emphasis added] seen as vital for the mission to function effectively in a region the size of France...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

And some more to demonstrate that, yes, it is all about oil:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/01/china-bloody-hands-in-darfur.html



> 07 January 2008
> *China: Bloody Hands in Darfur*
> 
> I was wondering why Canada's liberal class has gone silent on Darfur. Now I know:
> 
> _Two weeks ago, Britain introduced a toughly worded Presidential Statement at the U.N. Security Council, demanding that Khartoum's National Islamic Front regime turn over two génocidaires to the International Criminal Court. The first, Ahmed Haroun, who, in a grotesque bit of irony, now serves as Sudan's minister of humanitarian affairs, is accused of having directly orchestrated many of the vicious crimes documented by the U.N. and independent human rights organizations in Darfur. Similarly, Ali Kushayb, a Janjaweed militia leader, is deeply implicated in the most egregious violations of international law--targeted ethnic slaughter and the use of rape as a weapon of war among them.
> 
> The Presidential Statement should've easily passed: The evidence against both men is strong, and because of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1593, the ICC has jurisdiction over the matter. What ended up happening, though, was hardly a surprise to anyone who has watched Darfur closely over the last five years. China threatened to veto the non-binding declaration unless its language was essentially gutted, and rather than force the issue, Britain, France, and the U.S.--as well as the other Security Council members--quietly decided to drop the matter. As a result, not only will Haroun and Kushayb remain free, but the government in Khartoum will feel as if it can block the extradition of those subsequently accused by the Court. The ICC just lost its teeth.
> 
> This under-reported development provides yet another example of China's enabling role in the Darfur genocide. The crimes that China has abetted in Sudan are almost certainly too numerous to detail in any one place, but, here, for easy documentation, is a précis of how the country has come to have the blood of more than 400,000 Darfuris on its hands._
> 
> 
> Much More
> 
> What's interesting is that David Kilgour would post this piece on his site. He's going to make a lot of big time liberals uncomfortable ... after all, China is the promised land to the likes of Chretien, Martin, and the Desmarais clan.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Better than I could have said it: a letter to the editor:

African mission And we may have to kill to save lives in Darfur
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/letters/story.html?id=12236820-1344-447a-96ca-5870b0d07265



> *The Ottawa Citizen*
> Published: Tuesday, January 08, 2008
> 
> Re: We may have to lose lives to save them in Darfur, Jan. 4.
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=dc8a1e81-0f15-4208-b28d-27fc317d2f21
> 
> When Robert Muggah states: " the fact that there is no obvious peace to keep does not mean that protection of civilians cannot be achieved," that is true. But protection is not peacekeeping. The rules of the peacekeeping game are that peacekeepers must be neutral, and may not use their weapons, but for self-defence. And these rules contributed much to the impotence of the UN in the Balkans, until the mission was taken over by NATO, with more robust rules of engagement.
> 
> I am very concerned by calls to protect civilians in the same context as peacekeeping, as it reveals a lack of understanding of peacekeeping. There were three essential conditions to the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Pearson peacekeeping concept: peace, or at least a ceasefire, a will to keep the peace by the former belligerents and an invitation, by the former belligerents, to come help them keep the peace. None of these conditions exist in Darfur.
> 
> How would a UN-African Union force, known as UNAMID, guarantee protection for humanitarian workers and safe corridors to access displaced people? By fighting those who want to harm the protected.
> 
> So the harsh reality is not simply that the international community may lose lives to save them. That is nations, including possibly Canada, would send their soldiers to die. The harsher reality is that the international community may have to kill to save lives.
> 
> Calling a mission to Darfur "peacekeeping" when in fact the role is to take sides, protect selected groups against others and kill when needed, is totally misleading. It may be why some Canadians clamour to trade our combat role in Afghanistan for our traditional peacekeeping role in Darfur. The question really is not do we have the stomach to send our soldiers to die for our noble cause, but do we have the stomach to send them to kill for our noble cause.
> 
> This is not to argue Darfur is not a noble cause. But let us not be so unwilling to face the truth that we call such an adventure peacekeeping. Peacemaking perhaps, protecting the weak maybe, but not peacekeeping.
> 
> Normand Levert,
> 
> Orléans
> 
> Lieutenant colonel (ret'd)



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Anyone still think there's a role for Canadian units?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/09/darfur-peacekeeping.html



> Sweden and Norway have dropped plans to send about 400 troops to the UN peacekeeping force in Darfur because of opposition from Sudan's government, a Swedish Foreign Ministry official said Wednesday.
> 
> The two Scandinavian countries had planned to send a joint engineering unit to the peacekeeping force in the troubled region, but the Swedish and Norwegian foreign ministers said in a joint statement that "Sudan's opposition makes it impossible to maintain the offer of a Norwegian-Swedish contribution."..



As for those "anyones":

Prime Minister taken to task on Sudan crisis
Case made for strengthening mission in Darfur
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=160769

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

A Canadian angle regarding the EU ChadForce?
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2976631&postcount=933



> MoD is going to increase a size of Polish Military Contingent (PMC) to Chad from 350 to 400 soldiers. The mission cost, which is not to last longer than one year is estimated as 100 million PLN (28 million EUR).
> 
> Last Thursday the Parliamentary Defense Commission has been briefed by MoD representatives about a state of preparations to the mission. Deputy minister of defense Stanisław Komorowski said that the contingent has been increased from 350 to 400 soldiers due to our intention of sending two helicopters there. Full readiness of the contingent could be reached in June while its deployement could begin in March/April. But firstly the EU decision needs to be taken about a start date of the mission. This is expected to happen on January 28...
> 
> Chief of General Staff GEN Franciszek Gągor has assured the committee that PMC will stay in Chad for no longer than one year. He also said that some *instructors from other countries, such as USA and Canada, are involved in training of Polish soldiers to the mission*, and that the Polish army builds on experiences of France, Germany and Czech Republic...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

EU almost ready to go into Chad, apparently where the French see real interests and not too much risk:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCyCGpXDoZ0fzs0ZMK0GmQUF9xmw



> France, Belgium and Poland pledged Friday to fill the gaps in a European peacekeeping force for Chad and the Central African Republic, setting the delayed mission on track to be deployed next month.
> 
> The force is meant to protect hundreds of thousands of refugees from strife-torn Darfur and had been due to be deployed in November, early in the dry season when a rise in fighting was expected.
> 
> A row over funding and a reluctance to stump up troops had held up progress, but European Union diplomats said these problems appeared to have been swept under the carpet after a meeting of military experts in Brussels.
> 
> "We have all the means we need," one EU diplomat said.
> 
> "The conclusion is that the EUFOR Chad-CAR operation now has all that is needed to proceed to the next stage, which is for its commander, Irish General Pat Nash, to draw up an operational plan."
> 
> Diplomats here also said that Russia and Ukraine had taken part in the meeting and were examining whether they would provide aircraft.
> 
> "Two third countries invited to the meeting, Russia and Ukraine, announced that they were thinking about a possible contribution in the area of air transport," the diplomat said.
> 
> At the meeting, "their remarks were very short and of a general nature; they didn't go into any detail," he said. Another diplomat suggested that Russia might be willing to supply helicopters.
> 
> *Few details were available about the contributions from France, Belgium and Poland. A French defence ministry source said Paris would provide five helicopters and Poland two* [emphasis added].
> 
> Belgium had announced that it would play a role in setting up the mission's headquarters in Chad, but a Belgian military source said it could also send one or two C130 transport aircraft.
> 
> The contingent is expected to total around 3,500 troops, with *France providing the lion's share of some 2,100 soldiers* [emphasis added], according to new figures given Thursday by French Defence Minister Herve Morin.
> 
> The mission has a UN Security Council mandate to help back up some 300 UN police officers sent to monitor camps for Darfur refugees and internally displaced persons...
> 
> On Thursday, an EU diplomat said that the f*irst elements of the force could be deployed in the first week of February* [emphasis added].
> 
> France, whose Epervier military mission has been in Chad since 1986 and has routinely clashed with rebels there, has been reluctant to play too big a role in the mission but frustration mounted as preparations stalled late last year.
> 
> Members of the European Parliament and non-governmental organisations also voiced fears that confusion could arise as to who belonged to the EU force and the French contingent.
> 
> Aside from a lack of resources, the force was also plagued by a dispute over funding, with Britain -- its military stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan -- reluctant to pay.
> 
> Almost 100 million euros (147 million dollars) has been earmarked for the mission, but military officials say the real cost could be five times that sum.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cameron

I have to +1 many of the comments on this thread.  I'm happy that Sudan will finally be getting what appears to be a credible peacekeeping force (good on those activists who twisted China's arm), but unfortunately Canada just does not have the manpower to contribute right now, and it won't make sense to leave one mission half finished and jump right into another.  The world community has a commitment to the people of Afghanistan just as much as we do to the people of Sudan.


----------



## MarkOttawa

cameron: I don't see from what you're reading here that "a credible peacekeeping force" for Darfur is anywhere near in sight.  To the extent that China's army has really been twisted, the Chinese sure aren't twisting Sudanese arms much.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cameron

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> cameron: I don't see from what you're reading here that "a credible peacekeeping force" for Darfur is anywhere near in sight.  To the extent that China's army has really been twisted, the Chinese sure aren't twisting Sudanese arms much.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Notice I said "what appears to be a credible peacekeeping force" i'm being cautiously optimistic.  And don't expect the Chinese to take a constructive role in ending the Darfur crisis.  China knows it lacks the moral authority to tell anyone about human rights, that's why it takes the stance it does.  But at least they're not obstructing the UN efforts anymore (until after the Beijing Olympics that is).


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't see a "peacekeeping" force for Sudan so much as a conventional force, financed by Europe, creating safe-havens in neighbouring countries that the Darfur refugees can reach.  Chad and CAR essentially are being paid to "donate" space to the Darfurians.  The only question is will the EU be willing to take on the raiders when they come across the border.

The good news is that the French Foreign Legion has been doing that very job in Chad for a very long time.


----------



## sudanrceme

The only way to get non African Troops in Darfur will be to declare war IE: Korea, Somalia.  Sudan keeps blocking all attempts to bring in UN Troops from any where else.

The ex AU Troops now UN Blue Hats are in Dire need of good equipment (their boots are rotting off their feet), Sudan blocks resupply efforts and their every whim.

Canada has the Grizzly  AVGP's over here till Dec 2008, repair parts have been held up by Sudan at points of entry every time they get mad at the UN.

Both Dion and Layton can stop complaining about Darfur and how Canada should do the right thing, They will be in the exact same situation as Somalia and Afganastan.

To get here Canada would have to invade.


----------



## cameron

sudanrceme said:
			
		

> The only way to get non African Troops in Darfur will be to declare war IE: Korea, Somalia.  Sudan keeps blocking all attempts to bring in UN Troops from any where else.
> 
> The ex AU Troops now UN Blue Hats are in Dire need of good equipment (their boots are rotting off their feet), Sudan blocks resupply efforts and their every whim.
> 
> Canada has the Grizzly  AVGP's over here till Dec 2008, repair parts have been held up by Sudan at points of entry every time they get mad at the UN.
> 
> Both Dion and Layton can stop complaining about Darfur and how Canada should do the right thing, They will be in the exact same situation as Somalia and Afganastan.
> 
> To get here Canada would have to invade.



I have to say I agree with you.  You've laid out the stark reality.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More stark reality:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/12/AR2008011202410.html



> A U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force faced the first major challenge to its authority in Darfur, Sudan, this week, enduring more than 10 minutes of hostile fire from Sudanese forces without responding with a single shot.
> 
> The assault Tuesday evening against a clearly marked supply convoy of more than 20 trucks and armored personnel vehicles left a Sudanese driver critically wounded and prompted a formal protest from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. It also gave the U.N.-backed force a humiliating defeat during the critical first weeks of its mission in Darfur.
> 
> The United Nations' chief peacekeeping official, Jean-Marie Guehenno, vowed to "repel" future attacks against U.N. and African Union personnel. But other U.N. officials said the force's Nigerian commander, Gen. Martin Luther Agwai, lacks the firepower to respond forcefully to a larger and better-equipped Sudanese military.
> 
> The incident marked a setback to U.S.-backed efforts to end nearly five years of violence in Darfur through the deployment of more than 26,000 peacekeepers, mostly Africans. The mission replaced 7,000 African Union peacekeepers who had largely retreated to their barracks amid armed attacks.
> 
> So far the new force has about 9,000 peacekeepers, most of whom are African Union troops who *simply replaced their green berets with blue U.N. berets* [emphasis added].
> 
> The United States, the United Nations and other key powers had reason to believe an attack such as Tuesday's was coming. In September, an armed group assaulted an African Union base, killing 10 soldiers near the town of Haskanita. Since then, U.N. leaders have warned of the risk of failure from entering the Darfur conflict without adequate resources to repel an attack. But requests for vital equipment -- including 24 transport and attack helicopters -- have gone unanswered...
> 
> Sudan, meanwhile, has imposed technical hurdles for the mission, including the *recent rejection of a unit of Nordic engineers* [emphasis added], according to U.N. officials. The Sudanese authorities continue to haggle over the force's right to wear the U.N. blue helmets, recruit non-African troops and travel in Darfur without government approval...
> 
> ...in Darfur, an ill-prepared peacekeeping force has entered a live battle zone involving combatants from the Sudanese army, neighboring Chad and a major Darfurian rebel group. Guehenno said: *"There is a combination of factors that may lead to the greatest risk to the United Nations since the 1990s. We have a war ongoing, maybe low intensity, but a war ongoing, especially in West Darfur.* [emphasis added]"
> 
> Sudan's U.N. ambassador, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, initially denied that Sudan played a role in the attack, saying it was carried out by the Chadian government and local Darfurian rebels. "There is a big lie here," he said. "We have no relationship at all whatever with that attack."
> 
> But U.N. officials said a Sudanese commander has admitted that his force fired on the U.N. convoy. Sudan's Defense Ministry acknowledged Thursday that its troops carried out the attack, but it said the U.N.-backed force shared responsibility for the "mistake" because it had failed to alert Sudanese authorities that it was traveling in the area. The United Nations maintains that it provided adequate notice.



M. Dion might look at the risks in Darfur more closely (and he might also explain how he would get the Sudanese gov't to accept Canadian troops--I wonder why our media do not ask that simple question):
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_TwKDVAXUfSZDxRiWuNJ-qkkq0w



> "We are convinced . . . that we will have plenty of things to do (in Afghanistan) that will involve, yes, to take risks. But anywhere we will go - whether Darfur or Haiti - there are always risks."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cameron

You have to realize Mark, opposition politicians like M. Dion aren't concerned with hard questions that don't suit their purposes, they're just concerned with getting into power.


----------



## Canadian Sig

sudanrceme said:
			
		

> Canada has the Grizzly  AVGP's over here till Dec 2008, repair parts have been held up by Sudan at points of entry every time they get mad at the UN.



I was not aware that it was a finite deployment, I thought we had given them away. Anyone know what is supposed to happen to the Grizzlies after Dec?


----------



## George Wallace

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> I was not aware that it was a finite deployment, I thought we had given them away. Anyone know what is supposed to happen to the Grizzlies after Dec?



If you go back and look at the original statements on their being sent there, I am sure that you will find that it was a "loan".


----------



## Canadian Sig

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you go back and look at the original statements on their being sent there, I am sure that you will find that it was a "loan".



True. I guess I just assumed it would be one of those "loans" where we never saw them again.. ;D

Seems to me that the ANA could have made better use of them than their current task.....but that's a different subject all together.


----------



## TCBF

decoy said:
			
		

> ... It's the "killing to save lives" bit that the activist community has a hard time swallowing. It seems like there are two sorts of people in the world: those that think that under certain conditions the use of force is a means to a solution, and those that think unequivocally that it is NEVER a solution. The two are irreconcilable.



- Never a solution until it is THEIR arse on the line.  Different rules apply then.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Is the EU Chad Mission a Camouflage for French Interests?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,531792,00.html



> EU foreign ministers have finally agreed to help victims of the violence in Darfur by sending a peacekeeping force to states neighboring the troubled region. German commentator are skeptical of the true purpose of the mission, pointing to French interests in the country.
> 
> After months of delay, the European Union finally agreed Monday to deploy a 3,700-strong peacekeeping force to Chad and the Central Africa Republic to help humanitarian aid workers and refugees seeking to escape the chaos in the neighboring Darfur region of Sudan.
> 
> The mission was originally meant to deploy in October but faced delays attributed to shortfalls in crucial equipment, especially helicopters. Some governments have blamed the shortage on military commitments elsewhere, especially Afghanistan and Kosovo.
> 
> The force, which has a 12-month mandate, is scheduled to begin deploying in the coming weeks. Timing is of the essence now, but EU foreign policy chief Javiar Solana has said that the troops will "be on the ground before the rainy season."
> 
> French soldiers will make up more than half of the force. Thirteen other countries -- though not Germany -- have also pledged to contribute troops...
> 
> German commentators seem skeptical of the ministers' claim, believing that France's historical ties to its former colony and its interests in the region make its intentions more than just humanitarian...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Oh for Pete's sake.

If it was the Americans intervening it would be them that were being hung out to dry because their motives weren't pure.  If we want purity better send for Gabriel.  

If we want somebody to tidy up a mess, that is available, that knows the turf and has a reason to be there then the French run a close second.

Even Canadians, it seems, are limited in their desire to be doing good for altruistic reasons.  They'll throw a nickel in the plate.  They may even by a meal, but standing with strangers in foreign lands or inviting them into our own land........maybe not so much.


----------



## ModlrMike

Article Link

Chinese enter Darfur
By The Associated Press

DUREIJ, Sudan (AP) -- Their clocks are set on Beijing time, they use state-of-the-art equipment and -- most of all -- they are welcome by the Sudanese government. In just about everything, the Chinese peacekeeping contingent in Darfur is strikingly different from the rest of the U.N. mission here.

The 140 Chinese engineers and troops deployed in Darfur were among the first reinforcements sent by the United Nations, which took over peacekeeping in the western Sudanese region in January.

The Sudanese government quickly approved the Chinese contingent, even as it vetoed contributions from other countries because they were not African -- including a Scandinavian engineering corps.

-----------------------

The first comment in reply to this article invokes the memory of the Trojan Horse. I'm inclined to agree.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More travails for the "hybrid" force:

Sudan army rejects UK peacekeeper (Feb. 14)
http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnL14824859.html



> KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudan's army rejected the appointment of a British officer to an international peacekeeping force in Darfur on Thursday in a move that could strain relations with the U.N. and the UK, a major donor.
> 
> A spokesman said Sudan's Armed Forces would not accept Brigadier Patrick Davidson-Houston as chief of staff to the force commander of the U.N./African Union mission in Darfur.
> 
> "The force is African, so how can the chief of staff be British? None of the forces are British," he told Reuters.
> 
> It was unclear how far the army's refusal was in line with the final stance of Sudan's government, but the armed forces are a substantial force in Sudanese politics and President Omar Hassan al-Bashir comes from a military background.
> 
> A spokesman from the international force, UNAMID, said officials were still hoping to get the appointment accepted.
> 
> "At the moment we are aware that concerns have been raised by the government," he said. "We are working to resolve these."
> 
> A final rejection by Sudan would be seen as a major snub to the UK, which has sent several high-level delegations to Sudan in recent months and gave 84 million pounds in humanitarian aid in 2006-7...
> 
> Sudan's armed forces spokesman said the full reasons for the rejection had been spelled out by Sudan's Major General Majdhub Rahama at a conference on Wednesday.
> 
> Sudanese daily Al-Sahafah on Thursday reported Rahama as saying a British chief of staff would provide an unwelcome "link" between UNAMID and European peacekeepers due to start work in neighbouring Chad.
> 
> Another reason was that the UK had no peacekeepers on the ground in Darfur, the London-based newspaper Al-Hayat reported. *Khartoum has been increasingly sensitive about the involvement of non-African troops in the 26,000-strong peacekeeping force.
> 
> In November, Bashir said he would only accept Chinese and Pakistani technical units already committed, and he specifically rejected an offer of 400 army engineers from Sweden and Norway* [emphasis added].
> 
> Many analysts have accused Khartoum of using the nationality of incoming UNAMID peacekeepers as an excuse to stall on the full implementation of the force. *So far, only 9,000 peacekeepers have been deployed* [emphasis added]...



As for the EU Chadforce:

EU resumes Chad peacekeeping deployment (Feb. 12)



> The European Union resumed deployment Tuesday of a peacekeeping force to Chad, after suspending it at the start of the month when rebels stormed the capital Ndjamena, a military spokesman said.
> 
> "A Hercules C-130 transport aircraft landed at 2:00 pm (1300 GMT) in Abeche with equipment aboard," Lieutenant-Colonel Philippe de Cussac said from the force's headquarters near Paris.
> 
> The flight from an unspecified European country arrived in the main town in the arid east of the central African nation, where a 14-nation EUFOR mission of 3,700 troops to Chad and the Central African Republic will be partly based.
> 
> Deployment began in late January but was suspended from February 1 after an allied group of three rebel forces coming from the troubled east arrived at the gates of the capital on Chad's western border.
> 
> The Chadian army drove the rebels hostile to President Idriss Deby Itno out of Ndjamena after a weekend of heavy fighting on the city streets on February 2 and 3, and the attackers have since withdrawn towards southeast Chad...
> 
> EUFOR is commanded from France by Irish Major General Pat Nash and in Chad itself by French Brigadier General Jean-Philippe Ganascia, who has expressed *hope of getting the force to operational capacity by the end of March* [emphasis added].
> 
> EU diplomats in Brussels and the EUFOR commanders want *the whole force to be in Chad by May and the start of the rainy season* [emphasis added].
> 
> However, the delay caused by the rebel offensive came on top of difficulties among European countries on agreeing on the size of the mission and respective contingents. France will provide more than 2,000 of the troops...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Article Link
> The first comment in reply to this article invokes the memory of the Trojan Horse. I'm inclined to agree.



What comment are you talking about?  There's no comments at the bottom of the article at the link you provided; don't tell me I got to get a paid subscription for that site too?  :

"Mainland Chinese UN peacekeepers"? In the year 1953, that phrase would have been thought of as an OXYMORON.

The PRC really values the influence and the heightened status it has held since it gained UN membership and displaced the ROC/Taiwan in the 1970s as the entity that represents China in the UN, to the point that they are rubbing it in the Taipei govt.'s face with peacekeeping missions like this.  : 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nya2QUMde4&feature=related

How Cold War-era pragmatism changed things; to think the ROC govt. now in Taiwan was an entity which contributed to the Allied effort to help defeat the Japanese in the Pacific/China-Burma-India Theater of WW2. The fact that the UN, influenced by China's veto on the security council and the PRC govt.'s efforts to continually thwart Taiwan's participation in the UN, can continually pretend that the island nation of 21-22 million people does not exist as a defacto independent nation-state can really irk anyone who pays attention to China and the Pacific Rim.


----------



## Yrys

China and Sudan: Natural partners?



> There are times, wandering round Khartoum, when you might almost imagine yourself to be in China. Construction is going on everywhere, and a lot of the buildings
> have huge Chinese characters on them. Then there are the red-painted arches and the lanterns which are still around from the Chinese New Year. The buses are Chinese.
> So are some of the posters. Yet you see very few Chinese people. They seem to have instructions to stay indoors. And they certainly do not want to be interviewed by BBC News.
> 
> We went round to the headquarters of the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation, on a fine site overlooking the Blue Nile. The head of public relations, who was Sudanese,
> agreed to be interviewed. We were standing in front of the building, and he was just answering my second question, when there was an angry shout from one of the windows.
> He hurried off, and came back a few seconds later. "Sorry," he said sheepishly, "they say no." "Who do?" "The Chinese."
> 
> *Immense influence*
> 
> Secrecy seems to be a pattern here. President Hu Jintao came to Sudan last year and signed an apparently far-reaching agreement with the Sudanese president, Omar Bashir -
> yet the details were kept secret. Not surprisingly, when the relationship between the two countries is under the microscope because of the fighting in Darfur, this kind of secrecy
> makes an easy target for China's critics.
> 
> There is a wide range of campaigners and groups, from the left to the religious right in the United States who focus on the Darfur issue. Now they have been joined by Steven
> Spielberg and a raft of Nobel prize-winners and Olympic gold medallists. All of them say China must use its immense influence here to oblige the Sudanese government to stop
> the massacres.
> 
> The US government, urged on by the Darfur lobby at home, has introduced sanctions against Sudan. And it insists the massacres carried out by the ethnic Arab militia groups,
> the Janjaweed, amount to genocide.
> 
> There is absolutely no doubting the enormous clout the Chinese government has in Sudan.
> 
> Nobel laureates
> 
> Yet is the Sudanese government actually capable of stopping the Darfur massacres? Even government officials here find it hard to deny that the Janjaweed had the support
> early on of the Sudanese government, which used it as a weapon in the civil war. But they maintain now that the violence in Darfur is simply lawlessness and banditry. The
> authorities in Khartoum, they say, lack the forces to control them. This is a job which only the new international force, Unamid, can perform.
> 
> Well, of course, the Khartoum government's case would be stronger if it had not given a ministerial job to Ahmed Haroun, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court
> for crimes against humanity. And if it had not appointed a Janjaweed leader, Musa Hilal, to be a special adviser.
> 
> Still, I found the diplomats of various Western countries judged Sudan and the Chinese a little less harshly than the US, the Nobel laureates and Steven Spielberg. Their view
> is that China is slowly coming round to see that it would be better to persuade Sudan to co-operate with the international community. And they believe Sudan is not altogether
> happy to turn its back on Western countries, including the Americans.
> 
> "The West is a more natural partner for Sudan than China," one diplomat said, "and most Sudanese know it."
> 
> Well, maybe. But China is certainly busy setting its stamp on their country.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

Rebadged CF mission for Darfur/Problems for hybrid UN/AU force
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/rebadged-cf-mission-for-darfurproblems.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

Sounds like this deployment is going to be the clusterf*&% everybody anticipated....


----------



## daftandbarmy

Nicholas D. Kristof travels to South Sudan, where he says the second genocide of the 21st century may soon begin.

http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=93df06ab81032fee7ac594ebc542acb7af88f25f


----------



## MarkOttawa

_Plus ça change_...

Scorched-Earth Strategy Returns to Darfur
NY Times, March 2
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/world/africa/02darfur.html?ref=todayspaper



> SULEIA, Sudan — The janjaweed are back.
> 
> They came to this dusty town in the Darfur region of Sudan on horses and camels on market day. Almost everybody was in the bustling square. At the first clatter of automatic gunfire, everyone ran.
> 
> The militiamen laid waste to the town — burning huts, pillaging shops, carrying off any loot they could find and shooting anyone who stood in their way, residents said. Asha Abdullah Abakar, wizened and twice widowed, described how she hid in a hut, praying it would not be set on fire.
> 
> “I have never been so afraid,” she said.
> 
> The attacks by the janjaweed, the fearsome Arab militias that came three weeks ago, accompanied by government bombers and followed by the Sudanese Army, were a return to the tactics that terrorized Darfur in the early, bloodiest stages of the conflict.
> 
> Such brutal, three-pronged attacks of this scale — involving close coordination of air power, army troops and Arab militias in areas where rebel troops have been — have rarely been seen in the past few years, when the violence became more episodic and fractured. But they resemble the kinds of campaigns that first captured the world’s attention and prompted the Bush administration to call the violence in Darfur genocide.
> 
> Aid workers, diplomats and analysts say the return of such attacks is an ominous sign that the fighting in Darfur, which has grown more complex and confusing as it has stretched on for five years, is entering a new and deadly phase — one in which the government is planning a scorched-earth campaign against the rebel groups fighting here as efforts to find a negotiated peace founder.
> 
> The government has carried out a series of coordinated attacks in recent weeks, using air power, ground forces and, according to witnesses and peacekeepers stationed in the area, the janjaweed, as their allied militias are known here. The offensives are aimed at retaking ground gained by a rebel group, the Justice and Equality Movement, which has been gathering strength and has close ties to the government of neighboring Chad...
> 
> Pressure is mounting on Sudan over Darfur. In January, a long-sought hybrid United Nations and African Union peacekeeping force began working in Darfur, but the Sudanese government’s quibbling over which countries the troops will come from and bureaucratic delays have stalled the force’s deployment.
> 
> Sudan’s biggest trading partner and ally, China, has also come under pressure from advocates who have linked the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer to the fighting in Darfur. China has been more publicly critical of the Sudanese government in recent weeks. Sudan has also been trying to improve its relationship with the United States, and last week, President Bush’s new special envoy to Sudan, Richard S. Williamson, visited Darfur and the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, meeting with President Omar al-Bashir. Any improvement in relations, he said, would be contingent on tangible improvements in the humanitarian situation...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

France believes Sudanese troops involved in incident with European peacekeepers
AP, March 4
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/04/europe/EU-GEN-France-EUFOR-Chad.php



> France on Tuesday said Sudanese forces fired on and wounded a French soldier who had unwittingly crossed into Sudan from Chad — the first casualty for a troubled European peacekeeping mission along Darfur's borders. A second soldier was missing.
> 
> Defense Minister Herve Morin said officials were concerned that the missing soldier, seen collapsing in the encounter Monday, might have been killed. The other soldier's wounds were described as light burns.
> 
> Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner contacted the Sudanese government on Monday night.
> 
> "We are worried because two men were targeted with a burst of fire from about 10 meters (yards) away," Morin said. "They found themselves about 10 meters from forces that a priori were Sudanese. They immediately gave their identity and were engaged."
> 
> Sudan's Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that France and the EU had issued an apology. A statement described this "recognition of the mistake and the apology as the right step."
> 
> Sudan will "show all the cooperation with the concerned parties" the statement said, adding that the government has instructed the military in the area to "intensify their efforts in search of the (missing) soldier."
> 
> French authorities were not immediately available to confirm that France had apologized.
> 
> The two soldiers, special forces troops doing reconnaissance, were "unfortunately" not able to fire back after being engaged, the French defense minister said. The two soldiers were two-three kilometers (one-two miles) inside Sudan, Morin said. The border is not marked, he added.
> 
> Later, French troops went to the area to try to find the missing soldier; they were fired on and fired back, said Morin.
> 
> Sudan has been hostile to the European mission that was to involve at least 14 countries and 3,700 troops. The EUFOR mission, being deployed in Chad and the Central African Republic, is aimed at protecting refugees from the neighboring Sudanese region of Darfur and people displaced by fighting in Chad and the Central African Republic, some of it linked to unrest in Darfur. The mission has been delayed by logistical problems and recent fighting in Chad...
> 
> *There are currently 700 EUFOR troops on the ground, mostly French, Irish and Swedes* [emphasis added]...
> 
> About 70 Austrian troops left for Chad Tuesday to join about 75 Austrian soldiers already there, Austria's Defense Ministry said Tuesday.
> 
> A total of roughly 160 Austrian peacekeepers were expected to be in Chad by the end of March. Austrian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Wolfgang Schneider said authorities were aware of Tuesday's incident but that, for now, Austria planned to stick to its deployment and work plan.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Yrys

Sudan 'finds' EU soldier's body



> The body of a French soldier who has been missing since 3 March may have been found by Sudanese authorities. A spokesman for the EU Force in Chad (Eufor)
> said Sudan believed a body discovered near the Chadian border may be that of the missing soldier. The French soldier went missing when his Eufor vehicle strayed into
> Sudan. Eufor has since apologised to Sudan over the border incursion.
> 
> It is the first serious incident experienced since the force deployed. Eufor spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Patrick Poulain said arrangements for formal identification were
> being made. Following the soldier's disappearance, France asked for Sudan's help to find him.
> 
> Eufor is mandated to protect refugees from the Sudanese region of Darfur and the Central African Republic, as well as internally displaced people. The French-dominated
> 3,700-strong force began deploying in eastern Chad and Central African Republic last month.


----------



## MarkOttawa

On and on it goes:
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=593040

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States has called for a new initiative to get a 26,000-strong peacekeeping force on the ground in Darfur, where the 5-year conflict has escalated and malnutrition is rising.

Ambassador Richard Williamson, who took over in January as President Bush's special envoy to Sudan, said countries that are "friends" of the African Union-United Nations force would meet Thursday at U.N. headquarters for the first time to start tackling obstacles to deployment of the hybrid force known as UNAMID.

"Given the humanitarian suffering, given the instability and violence that's going on, its way past time for talk. We have to have action including accelerating deployment of UNAMID troops on the ground," Williamson told reporters Wednesday after meeting U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Sudan's Arab-dominated government has been accused of unleashing the janjaweed militia of Arab nomads to commit atrocities against ethnic African communities in the country's western Darfur region as part of a fight with rebel groups. At least 200,000 people have been killed and 2.2 million displaced since the fighting began five years ago.

The AU-U.N. force for Darfur is *authorized to have 26,000 troops and police, but Ban said only about 7,500 military personnel and 1,500 police officers were in Darfur as of Jan. 31* [emphasis added]. He appealed to all countries that have pledged troops to expedite their deployment _ reiterated an appeal for critically needed helicopters.

At Sudan's insistence, the U.N. Security Council agreed that the force would be predominantly African. But the Sudanese government has refused to approve non-African units from Thailand, Nepal and Nordic countries.

Williamson said he discussed the composition of the force with Sudan's President Omar Al-Bashir in Kharrtoum last week and *asked him for a commitment to allow 1,600 troops from Nepal and Thailand to deploy to Darfur this summer if thousands of African troops are on the ground first* [emphasis added].

"He did not reject it," Williamson said. "We're going to have some follow up discussions."

Williamson said *another 3,600 African peacekeepers would on the ground by the end of May* [emphasis added]...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Yrys

Nomads die retrieving French body



> Four Arab nomads were killed when a grenade went off as they tried to retrieve the body of a dead French peacekeeper, say Sudan's armed forces.
> 
> The Eufor soldier had disappeared on Monday after the vehicle he was travelling in had strayed across the border from Chad into Sudan. An army spokesman
> said the remains of the soldier were found on Wednesday. The nomads went to put the body on a camel but one of the soldier's grenades went off and they
> all died, he said.
> 
> The Sudanese authorities confirmed the body was that of a French peacekeeper who disappeared on Monday after the Eufor vehicle which strayed across
> the border was involved in an exchange of fire with the Sudanese military at a checkpoint. Officials in Khartoum said the peacekeepers opened fire first but
> were forced to flee when the army shot back.
> 
> They said three Eufor vehicles and a helicopter returned 30 minutes later and there was a second exchange of fire. A Sudanese civilian and soldier were
> killed in the incident. Troops in the French-dominated 3,700-strong European force started to deploy to Chad and the Central African Republic last month
> after a brief delay caused by an attempt by rebels to overthrow the Chadian government.
> 
> Analysts say the coup attempt was backed by Khartoum - they say Sudan is against having European peacekeepers stationed on its border.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This headline is typical self-important Canadian conceit:

Canada, U.S. want faster Darfur deployment
Only 9,200 of 26,000-strong force in Sudan
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=151b6c5c-7d7c-43a2-8d05-17002da2aa2d



> Canada partnered with the United States on Thursday in a bid to speed up deployment of a 26,000-strong peacekeeping force to Sudan's Darfur region.
> 
> The United Nations Security Council approved the joint UN-African Union force last year, but equipment shortages and some administrative foot-dragging by the Sudanese government has meant only 9,200 soldiers are on the ground -- and 7,000 of them had been there in an earlier AU force.
> 
> The U.S.-Canadian initiative aims at bringing together what one official called a "captive audience" of countries willing to fill equipment needs.
> 
> Canada has already delivered 105 armoured personnel carriers
> http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005238.html
> as part of a much wider aid package, but the mission still lacks vehicles and helicopters both for ground and air mobility and for firepower.
> 
> Belgium, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Italy were among countries attending the first of weekly meetings Thursday hosted by U.S. and Canadian diplomats at UN headquarters. Russia said Wednesday it is in talks aimed at delivering helicopters...
> 
> At Sudan's insistence, the bulk of troops will come from other African countries, but *a Chinese engineering unit is among the few from outside the continent that have already arrived in the region.
> 
> UN peacekeeping officials say they hope to also deploy troops from Thailand and Nepal -- and raise the on-the-ground strength to about 11,000 within a few months* [emphasis added].
> 
> The UN's peacekeeping division normally handles mission deployments, but the sheer size of this one, plus the need to co-ordinate with the AU, has been overwhelming, insiders say...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Yrys

China talks tough over Darfur



> *China has issued an unusually energetic call to its ally, Sudan, to do more to stop fighting in Darfur.*
> 
> The "humanitarian disaster" in the region was a grave concern to China's government, said its envoy Liu Guijin. Mr Liu called for Khartoum to do more
> to speed up the arrival of peacekeepers in the region but he also criticised Darfur's rebel groups.
> 
> China is a key ally of the Sudanese government - buying its oil, selling it weapons and using its weight at the UN. Mr Liu has just returned from a trip to
> Sudan which included Darfur. He said he had been profoundly affected by things he had seen in the province. He said he was also moved by the stories
> he had heard from Darfuris forced to flee their homes after five years of conflict.
> 
> *Olympic pressure*
> 
> China has been stung by Western accusations that it is colluding with the Sudanese government, and is eager to ensure the issue does not overshadow
> this year's Olympic Games in Beijing.
> 
> Last month, US film director Steven Spielberg pulled out as artistic adviser to the Olympics, saying that China had failed to use its influence on Khartoum
> over Darfur. The BBC's Amber Henshaw in Khartoum says Beijing is keen to defend its economic interests but also wants to be seen to be taking a more
> aggressive stance against Khartoum in the run up to the Olympics. She says when Mr Liu spoke to journalists in Khartoum last week he was much less
> outspoken. Then he pointed out that China was a friend to Sudan and that the Chinese government was already doing a lot to work with the West over Darfur.
> 
> The United Nations says more than 200,000 have died in Darfur during the four-year conflict and at least two million have been displaced and live in camps.


----------



## Yrys

No return for Sudan's forgotten slaves



> Akech Arol Deng has not seen his wife and son since they were seized by Arab militias from their home in south Sudan 19 years ago.
> 
> His son, Deng, was just three years old at the time but Mr Arol is sure they are still alive, being used as slaves in the north. "I miss them so much.
> I really hope that one day they come back," Mr Arol told the BBC News website mournfully in his home of Malualbai, just a few hours' on horseback
> from the Bahr el-Arab river which divides Muslim northern Sudan from the Christian and Animist south.
> 
> Audio slideshow
> Sudan's slave voices
> 
> Some 8,000 people are believed to be living in slavery in Sudan, 200 years after Britain banned the Atlantic slave trade and 153 years after it also tried
> to abolish slavery in Sudan. But rows about money mean no-one is doing anything to free them.
> 
> In the same year that Mr Arol's family was kidnapped, Arek Anyiel Deng, aged about 10, was seized from her home, not far from Malualbai. Arab militias
> rode in to her village on horseback, firing their guns. When the adults fled, the children and cattle were rounded up and made to walk north for five days
> before they were divided between members of the raiding party.
> 
> *Forced conversions*
> 
> Ms Anyiel returned home under a government scheme last year. "My abductor told me that I was his slave and I had to do all the work he told me to
> - fetching water and firewood, looking after animals and farming," she said. "When I was 12, he said he wanted to sleep with me. I could not refuse
> because I was a slave, I had to do everything he wanted, or he could have killed me."
> 
> Such raids were a common feature of Sudan's 21-year north-south war, which ended in 2005. The northern government is widely believed to have
> armed the Arab militias in order to terrorise the southern population and distract rebel forces from attacking government targets.
> 
> According to a study by the Kenya-based Rift Valley Institute, some 11,000 young boys and girls were seized and taken across the internal border
> - many to the states of South Darfur and West Kordofan. The boys generally looked after cattle, while the girls mostly did domestic chores before
> being "married", often as young as 12.
> 
> Most were forcibly converted to Islam, given Muslim names and told not to speak their mother tongue.
> 
> Can Africa escape slavery?
> Sudan: Special report



More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa

The French foreign minister weighs in with the Franco-EU perspective:

Keeping the peace
International Herald Tribune, March 10, By Bernard Kouchner 
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/10/opinion/edkouchner.php



> For months, for years, we have been deeply distressed, yet powerless, with respect to the tragedy in Darfur. Two weeks ago, despite the troubles in Chad, Europe gave itself the means to protect the victims and to rebuild their villages in eastern Chad. At the behest of France, and thanks to the efforts of our European partners, the European Union - implementing a unanimous UN Security Council resolution - launched its Eufor operation.
> 
> There will finally be help and comfort for women - who up to now were raped or killed as soon as they left their camps - and for hungry children.
> 
> This is no small achievement. I've just returned from Goz Beida in eastern Chad, and I will never forget the enthusiastic welcome the European soldiers received from displaced persons and refugees.
> 
> The launch of an autonomous EU operation in Africa, led by an Irish general with a Polish deputy and bringing together troops from some 15 countries, illustrates how far we have come in building a European defense. It is now desired and supported by nations that until very recently remained skeptical.
> 
> We have been working to build a European defense since the 1990s. The Europeans needed military means commensurate with their political ambitions. How could we hope to influence a crisis or negotiations without the means to back up our words?
> 
> "The Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises," concluded the Franco-British Saint-Malo Summit in 1998. The European Security and Defense Policy inscribed in the Lisbon Treaty is finally allowing us to meet this need. In the future, if we wish to do so, the EU will be able to fully assume its role on the international scene...



But what sort of "autonomous action" will those "credible military forces" actually take?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Darfur's return to hell
Children raped. Homes looted. Villages torched. And thousands forced to flee aerial bombings– three months after UN took over peacekeeping
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/darfurs-return-to-hell-794453.html



> The conflict in Darfur has entered a violent and deadly new phase. Another "scorched earth" policy is being unleashed, reminiscent of the worst waves of government-backed violence that brought the Sudanese region to world attention five years ago and led the US to declare that what was happening there constituted genocide.
> 
> Internal reports by humanitarian agencies operating in the region, and seen by _The Independent_, reveal that the active Sudanese government-backed military phase of the conflict, thought to have ended early in 2005, has resumed, with horrifying consequences.
> 
> The brutal new onslaught is centred on western Darfur where clusters of villages have been aerially bombed and, in co-ordinated ground attacks, homes have been looted and burnt to the ground. Hundreds of people are believed to have been killed and tens of thousands forced to flee into neighbouring Chad.
> 
> "The tactics are exactly the same as those the government pursued right at the start of this conflict: aerial bombings, followed by sending in the militias to loot, kill and rape," said one source in Sudan. "It is as ruthless as in 2003."
> 
> The village of Sileah, with a population of 20,000, is among those attacked. When UN officials reached it last week, they found just 300 people left. "These places had been scorched," said Orla Clinton, a spokeswoman for the UN's humanitarian operations. "People pleaded with us for protection. They feel like it has been five years and nothing has changed for them. They are losing hope in our ability to protect them." The UN team said health clinics, schools, water systems and aid agencies' compounds were looted or destroyed...
> 
> And despite high-profile campaigning by celebrities including George Clooney, Mia Farrow and Steven Spielberg, the Khartoum government remains impervious to external pressure. The Chinese government, Sudan's biggest trading partner stung by the threat of Olympic boycotts, has recently joined in the criticism.
> 
> But Sudan is defying the world, and arrogantly parks its bomber aircraft on the same airstrip the new UN peacekeeping force is using at its West Darfur base. Some of the Sudanese-government Antonov aircraft which bombed villages in West Darfur last week have even been painted white, the same colour as the planes used by the UN and aid agencies for delivering food. "The openness with which the government has carried out the air strikes is worrying," one Sudan-based diplomat said.
> 
> The new UN force (Unamid) took over from the underfunded and understaffed African Union mission on 1 January this year. The African Union soldiers had struggled to police Darfur, an area twice the size of the UK, with just 7,500 troops. But despite a commitment to sending 26,000 troops and civilian police, Unamid's numbers are barely higher. An Egyptian company is to arrive in South Darfur this week, *but the full force is not expected to be fully deployed until 2009* [emphasis added--good freaking grief]. The Sudanese government has tried to block deployment at every turn, vetoing non-African troops, blocking supplies and refusing to provide land for new bases. But Western leaders are also accused of failing to follow their words with actions. "We're in the hands of member states," said a Unamid spokesman, Adrian Edwards. "They need to make good their pledges of support."
> 
> It is not just soldiers that Unamid is lacking. *The force requires 18 troop-carrying helicopters and six armoured attack helicopters. So far, they have none* [emphasis added--see second piece below]. Unamid officials say they could have responded to last month's attacks if they had the right equipment.
> 
> Darfur is home to the world's largest humanitarian operation but the growing insecurity has also made it one of the world's most dangerous places...



Canada Announces Additional Funding for Humanitarian Initiatives in Sudan and Chad
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/ANN-312152111-QPS



> The Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of International Cooperation and the Honourable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today announced that the Government of Canada, through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), will provide up to $6 million to humanitarian organizations that help those affected by the ongoing conflicts in Sudan and Chad.
> 
> “The Government of Canada is continuously monitoring the humanitarian situations in Sudan and Chad,” said Minister Oda. “The support to humanitarian organizations we are providing will help meet the basic needs of populations affected by ongoing conflicts. Canada stands ready to react quickly in the face of humanitarian emergencies—when lives are threatened and time counts.”
> 
> Minister Bernier commended today's announcement, saying, "Canada remains concerned by the ongoing violence in Sudan and Chad and its destabilizing effect on the region, and we call for dialogue leading to peace. We also call on all actors to recognize their obligations in ensuring the protection of civilians and providing safe and unhindered access for humanitarian workers who are assisting those in need."
> 
> Canada will provide funds to the following humanitarian organizations:
> 
> * $3.25 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for operations to assist and protect internally displaced persons in Chad and Chadian refugees in the region. The funding will also facilitate the voluntary return of Sudanese refugees to southern Sudan, and will meet the basic needs of internally displaced persons and Sudanese refugees in Darfur and Chad.
> 
> 
> * $1.5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (ICRC) for operations to assist internally displaced persons and refugees in both Sudan and Chad. This money will aid the provision of water and sanitation services, emergency health care, food, shelter and protection.
> 
> 
> * Over $400,000 to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to coordinate emergency services across Sudan.
> 
> 
> * $500,000 to Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) for operations that will provide medical assistance and other humanitarian services to internally displaced persons in Eastern Chad.
> 
> * The remaining $350,000 in aid for humanitarian efforts will be allocated in the coming days to help international humanitarian agencies and non-governmental organizations to meet the urgent needs of the people affected by the crisis in Chad...
> 
> ...*Since 2006, CIDA has provided more than $102 million in humanitarian assistance to Sudan, representing Canada's largest humanitarian commitment to any country* [emphasis added--but Afstan is largest aid recipient with most of the aid not being "humanitarian"]...



Russia to Aid Mission in Chad
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031102901.html



> Russia has approved the deployment of helicopters to bolster a European Union peacekeeping force along Chad's border with the western Darfur region of Sudan, the Russian defense minister said Tuesday.
> 
> The deployment would be the first direct Russian contribution to an E.U. military mission, an E.U. official said, though details of the plan were still being discussed and no timeline was announced. The E.U. force's mission to Chad is to help limit possible spillover from fighting in the Darfur region.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Plus ça change...encore:

Peacekeeping in Darfur Hits More Obstacles
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/world/africa/24darfur.html?ref=todayspaper



> As Darfur smolders in the aftermath of a new government offensive, a long-sought peacekeeping force, expected to be the world’s largest, is in danger of failing even as it begins its mission because of bureaucratic delays, stonewalling by Sudan’s government and reluctance from troop-contributing countries to send peacekeeping forces into an active conflict.
> 
> The force, a joint mission of the African Union and the United Nations, officially took over from an overstretched and exhausted African Union force in Darfur on Jan. 1. It now has just over 9,000 of an expected 26,000 soldiers and police officers and *will not fully deploy until the end of the year* [emphasis added], United Nations officials said.
> 
> Even the troops that are in place, the old African Union force and two new battalions, lack essential equipment, like sufficient armored personnel carriers and helicopters, to carry out even the most rudimentary of peacekeeping tasks. Some even had to buy their own paint to turn their green helmets United Nations blue, peacekeepers here said...
> 
> When previous large missions were organized in Congo, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the central governments in those countries had collapsed or were so weak that they had little choice but to accept peacekeepers. The government of Sudan agreed to accept United Nations-led peacekeepers in Darfur only after a long diplomatic tussle and under a great deal of pressure.
> 
> The progress to get the mission in place has been slow, and much of the blame for this has been placed at the feet of the Sudanese government. For months after the United Nations Security Council approved the force, Sudan insisted on limits on its makeup and independence, demanding the power to dictate which countries contributed troops, to shut down its communication systems when the government carried out offensives and to restrict the movement of peacekeepers at night.
> 
> Ultimately, the government signed a compromise agreement with the United Nations allowing the force to operate, but Sudan was successful in insisting that the vast majority of troops come from African countries, and will be supplemented by soldiers from other regions only if suitable African troops cannot be found.
> 
> This has delayed the force’s mission, because African armies are not usually able to deploy quickly with equipment and training to meet stringent United Nations standards, United Nations officials and Western diplomats said. Sudanese government officials have argued that African troops are up to the job, and that non-African troops would be seen as neocolonial interlopers...
> 
> It is unclear how exactly the deployment of troops in Darfur can be speeded up, give the built-in constraint that African troops be used first. Western activists concerned about Darfur say the Sudanese government is primarily responsible and have demanded that China, Sudan’s main trading partner and one of its suppliers of weapons, join other countries to press Sudan to allow troops of any origin the troops to deploy quickly.
> 
> While the Sudanese government has been blamed for some of the delay, *United Nations requirements have also slowed the force* [emphasis added], some diplomats and political analysts say.
> 
> The deployment “is not principally being delayed by the Sudanese government,” said a senior Western diplomat in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital, who is not authorized to speak publicly. Other problems, like the United Nations bureaucracy and the reluctance of troop-contributing countries, were as much to blame, the diplomat said...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Same old:

Darfur worsens as UN security mission slowed
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=420426



> As the world's worst humanitarian crisis enters its sixth year, aid agencies in Darfur, Sudan, say the challenges are greater than ever.
> 
> The UN peacekeeping operation that was supposed to replace an ineffective African Union (AU) policing operation is already three months late in deploying as the *Sudanese government continues to balk at letting peacekeepers in* [emphasis added].
> 
> After barring international peacekeepers, Sudan finally allowed 7,000 AU troops into Darfur, then refused to let the ill-prepared and poorly equipped force do much.
> 
> In July, under intense international pressure, it reluctantly agreed to the creation of a UN-AU mission.
> 
> But three months after the UN took over in Darfur, it still has only about 9,000 of its 26,000 peacekeepers in the country [*most of those are from the existing AU force*] and is encountering constant roadblocks.
> 
> Omar al-Bashir, Sudan's President, insists most peacekeepers should come from Africa and has *balked at UN attempts to add troops from Nepal and Thailand* [emphasis added].
> 
> When Canada contributed 105 armoured cars to the AU mission, it took the government more than four months to allow the vehicles into the country.
> 
> Last week, when Maxime Bernier, the Foreign Affairs Minister, spent four days in Sudan talking to senior government officials, he announced a US$275-million Canadian contribution to the UN peacekeeping operation.
> 
> He also warned, "Canada's bilateral relations with the government of Sudan depend on the willingness and commitment of the Sudanese government to take steps to address the situation in Darfur."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

I wonder if all the protest pressure on China will have any effect--or just put their backs up:

UN's Ban, U.S. push to add Darfur peacekeepers – and soon
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0409/p02s01-usfp.htm



> Eight months after the United Nations Security Council authorized sending a peacekeeping force to Darfur, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon is warning that security and humanitarian conditions in the violence-torn western province of Sudan are going from bad to worse...
> 
> Worldwide protest campaigns aim to pressure the international community to take action on Darfur, But they have yielded mixed results, at best, in two key objectives: building the UN peacekeeping force and enlisting China to strong-arm Sudan, with which it has close commercial ties, to cooperate more fully on Darfur...
> 
> The peacekeeping mission approved last summer is to be a hybrid force of as many as 26,000 UN and African Union military personnel and civilian police. So far, 9,000 troops have been deployed to Darfur [most were already there with the AU force - MC]. The Sudanese government of President Omar al-Bashir has resisted plans for some of the peacekeepers to come from outside Africa, but Ban says the *government has given the green light to troops from Nepal and Thailand* [emphasis added--that's a reversal].
> 
> The US government – spurred by President Bush's characterization of violence in Darfur that has killed more than 200,000 people as "genocide" – is calling on the UN to accelerate deployment of peacekeepers and to add at least 3,600 troops by June. The US is not offering troops or helicopters – which the Khartoum government would probably not accept anyway – but pledges $500 million to help train, house, and supply the mission.
> 
> While it's important to get more authorized military and police personnel into Darfur, say peacekeeping experts, it's more crucial to train and prepare the troops going in and to ensure they'll have the supplies and the mobility to do their jobs...
> 
> So far, no UN member has stepped forward to offer any of the two dozen tactical and transport helicopters authorized for the mission by the Security Council resolution, the advocacy group Africa Action noted recently.
> 
> Africa Action and other groups are calling on the US in particular to provide "international leadership" by pressing all parties involved in the Darfur crisis to accept and join a peace process, noting that the real answer lies in implementing a political accord among the government and rebel fighters.
> 
> Grass-roots efforts for more action from the international community, especially in getting consistent cooperation from the Bashir government, explain the mounting pressure on China. Activists are playing on Beijing's sensitivity to its image as it prepares to host the Olympic Games this summer. Chinese officials counter that the pro-Darfur activists are exaggerating Beijing's influence over Khartoum.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> I wonder if all the protest pressure on China will have any effect--or just put their backs up:
> 
> UN's Ban, U.S. push to add Darfur peacekeepers – and soon
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0409/p02s01-usfp.htm
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



First: I think we have to appreciate that China, _official China_, really does believe in its doctrine of _"no interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations"_. Of course that applies, above all, to any foreign power that might want to interfere, in any way, with China, but it also means that China is reluctant to interfere in the _"internal affairs"_ of others, including Sudan.

Second: China does not regard the _"suffering"_ of Africa as a grave crisis. Where, some Chinese wonder, was all the international sympathy when the Chinese were starving? Those and other Chinese will say that famine and the like are the consequence of choices being made by the peoples of Chad and Sudan and they can, as China did, change policies and change outcomes, too.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

And I'm beginning to wonder if, in the long run, the Chinese answer isn't the best one?  What is likely to work better- a western "crusader" force invading yet another Islamic nation, picking a side (probably the wrong one) and fighting another long running insurgency. Or letting the locals finally get tired of killing each other on their own and come to terms with what they have done?

I dunno...


----------



## Long in the tooth

Maybe it's just time to accept the fact that the 'white man' can't solve all the world's problems, and maybe we should be addressing those closer to home.  The US effort in Iraq is crippling the economy.  They are adding $800 billion to their debt each year, perversely benefitting the Chinese economy.

I don't see any upside to a western intervention.  I do see the grief of Somalia and Rwanda rolled into one and multiplied by ten.  Let's just be pragmatic and say enough is enough.


----------



## Yrys

Attacks force U.N. to cut Darfur food relief



> (CNN) -- Attacks on its humanitarian convoys are forcing the U.N. World Food Programme to cut the rations it provides to millions of hungry people in Sudan's
> war-stricken Darfur region by about half, the agency said Thursday. The cuts are to start in May, the WFP said, because "banditry against WFP-contracted trucks is
> preventing sufficient stocks of vital food relief from getting through."
> 
> Kenro Oshidari, WFP representative in Sudan, said in a written statement that the Sudanese government provides some police escorts for convoys on the main routes,
> "but unfortunately the frequency is not enough to maintain the food pipeline." Oshidari said a meeting is planned to increase the convoys, and appealed to the rebels to
> ensure security on the roads. "If the security situation on the roads improves, we will be able to restore the ration levels," he said.
> 
> Josette Sheeran, WFP's executive director, issued a statement saying that "attacks on the WFP food pipeline are an attack on the most vulnerable people in Darfur. With
> up to 3 million people depending on us for their survival in the upcoming rainy season, keeping WFP's supply line open is a matter of life and death. We call on all parties
> to protect the access to food."
> 
> Ahead of the rainy season, which lasts from May into September, WFP trucks should be delivering 1,800 metric tons (1,984 short tons) of food to warehouses in Darfur,
> WFP said. However, deliveries have dropped to fewer than 900 metric tons (992 short tons) per day, it said. Since January, 60 WFP-contracted trucks have been hijacked
> in Darfur, the agency said. More than half -- 39 -- are still missing, and 26 drivers are unaccounted for. One driver was killed in Darfur last month, WFP said. The United
> Nations estimates that violence in Darfur has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced at least 2 million.
> 
> The United States has described the violence in Darfur as "genocide," with nomadic Arab militias targeting pastoral black Africans. A U.N. commission concluded in 2005
> that the Sudanese government and militias "conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape
> and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement."
> 
> The WFP also has had difficulty with its trucks elsewhere in Sudan. Last week, a trucker for WFP and his assistant were shot and killed in southern Sudan while they
> were delivering food, the agency said. The incident occurred near Mayom, not far from where two WFP-contracted drivers were stabbed to death last month.


----------



## Yrys

U.N.: 100,000 more dead in Darfur than reported



> NEW YORK (CNN)  -- The number of deaths in Sudan's Darfur region since 2006 may have been underestimated by as much as 50 percent, the U.N.
> undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs said Tuesday In March, international figures, including U.N. data, put the death toll in Darfur at 200,000, with
> another 2.5 million people displaced.
> 
> But 300,000 are believed to have died in the tribal conflict in the past two years, said John Holmes, who also is the United Nations emergency relief coordinator.
> 
> Holmes said sexual violence has increased and food allotments for civilians affected by the civil war will be halved in a few days. Holmes gave the U.N. Security
> Council an update on conditions in the western Sudan region, revisiting a report he gave a year ago. "I am sad to say that the humanitarian situation remains as
> grim today as it was then, if not more so," he said.
> 
> So far in 2008, 100,000 civilians have fled their homes, many not for the first time. The Darfur conflict began five years ago when ethnic African tribesmen took
> up arms, complaining of decades of neglect and discrimination by the Sudanese government. Sudan's Arab-dominated government is accused of responding by
> unleashing tribal militias known as Janjaweed, which have allegedly committed the worst atrocities against Darfur's local communities.
> 
> There also have been intra-rebel and tribal clashes, Holmes added. He blamed the military arm of the Justice and Equality Movement faction of the Sudan Liberation
> Movement for the most recent round of violence, and accused the government of using "disproportionate force" and failing to differentiate between civilians and rebels
> in their response. "Darfur today is still characterized by insecurity, lawlessness and impunity," he said. "A particularly worrying feature is evidence of high levels of sexual
> violence and exploitation in the northern corridor of west Darfur over the past two months."
> 
> This is shown by the increased number of women and girls seeking treatment after sexual brutality, Holmes said. The World Food Programme announced last week that
> it will have to cut back its food distributions in May, partly because of attacks on convoys that reduced the amount of supplies they can get through, Holmes said.
> 
> Six aid workers have been killed so far this year, and 42 humanitarian posts have been attacked.
> 
> The supply line also is hurt by soaring food prices -- the price of staples such as millet has doubled since April last year, Holmes said. While expressing gratitude to the
> Sudanese government for improved cooperation under various agreements, Holmes said there still is no physical access to internally displaced persons and some other
> groups.
> 
> He said he was "saddened and angry" that after five years, there has been no lasting solution to the suffering. He made several recommendations to the government,
> including disbanding the Janjaweed, providing security for citizens, ending impunity for criminals and shouldering more of the financial burden for humanitarian aid.
> Holmes also said rebels must stop their attacks against people and humanitarian convoys.


----------



## trotpacker

When you were in Darfur what type of fighter aircraft did you see operating? Are the Chinese Fantans the only ones the military uses, or do they also use older model MIgs in Darfur ? I guess they dont use the Mig29s for Darfur as that would be technical overkill not to mention expensive for them? Do they use the Fantans for attacks at all?

and the Mi24 helicopter you said was buried in the sand, do they get any of those up in the air for use in attacks?


----------



## Yrys

So much questions for someone that has been here so long, with with such information in the profile  :.

"Temps total passé en ligne:  	9 minutes."

Suggestion : read, then search, then ask if you don't find  ...  ^-^


----------



## trotpacker

there was no request for more information when i signed up? I just came across this website, so I think its normal to post an entry fairly soon no?
 :-*
I have a spent a lot of time in darfur working with IDPs and like to follow the debate. I am fascinated that the IDPs always talk about Antanovs and fighter aircraft but that no one seems to know which fighters the Sudanese use


----------



## Flip

Otto,



> Maybe it's just time to accept the fact that the 'white man' can't solve all the world's problems, and maybe we should be addressing those closer to home.  The US effort in Iraq is crippling the economy.  They are adding $800 billion to their debt each year, perversely benefitting the Chinese economy.



Sorry - gotta disagree.  You have to remember that Africa is Europe's back yard.
If there are refugees, many will end up in Europe. Some will end up here.
There is a cost in not acting. Like 9-11. You can draw a line from giving up on Somalia to the present day.  If governments fail, particularly democracies, other groups will take their place.  Some of these groups will not just stay in their own neighbourhood.

American debt is not just because of war ( about 4% of GDP?).
The debt load is primarily due to a serious trade imbalance.
In short, the American economy is not creating wealth in material goods.

I see not acting as something we can't afford to do.


----------



## George Wallace

trotpacker said:
			
		

> there was no request for more information when i signed up? I just came across this website, so I think its normal to post an entry fairly soon no?
> :-*
> I have a spent a lot of time in darfur working with IDPs and like to follow the debate. I am fascinated that the IDPs always talk about Antanovs and fighter aircraft but that no one seems to know which fighters the Sudanese use



Here is a list of what they may have:

*            Aircraft type                                Qty.           Role* 

Antonov An-24RV Coke                            5      Transport 
Chengdu F-7M Airguard Fishbed               10*      Tactical Fighter 
CASA C-212-200 Aviocar                          2      Transport 
Dassault Falcon 50                                  1      VIP Transport 
Dassault Falcon 20F                                 1      VIP Transport 
de Havilland Canada DHC-5D Buffalo           3      Transport 
de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter 300       1      Photogrammetric Surveyor 
Fokker F.27 Mk 100 Friendship                   1      VIP Transport 
Lockheed C-130H Hercules                        3*      Transport 
Mikoyan MIG-23BN Flogger-H                     3*      Tactical Fighter 
Shenyang F-5/ Chengdu FT-5 Fresce         10*      Tactical Fighter 
Agusta-Bell AB 212                                 10*      Transport 
ICA IAR-330L (Romanian Built Pumas)         12*      Transport / SAR 
MBB Bo 105 CB                                       20*      Transport / Antiarmor / SAR 
Mil Mi-8T Hip                                          6*      Transport 
Mil Mi-24 Hind-D                                     6*      Gunship/Assault 

Source (Defence & Foreign Affairs Handbook) 
* Indicates unverified quantities 


If you really want more accurate numbers, you will have to research Arms Sales of aircraft to the Sudan, Company Sales of the various aircraft lines, Air Disasters and Air Crashes involving Sudan's Air Force, etc. and you may come up with some more accurate numbers.  Currently, many of these aircraft are not flight worthy.  Most that are flight worthy, are maintained by foreign technicians, and flown by foreign pilots.


----------



## GAP

trotpacker said:
			
		

> there was no request for more information when i signed up? I just came across this website, so I think its normal to post an entry fairly soon no?
> :-*
> I have a spent a lot of time in darfur working with IDPs and like to follow the debate. I am fascinated that the IDPs always talk about Antanovs and fighter aircraft but that no one seems to know which fighters the Sudanese use



Empty profile, but you state you worked with IDPs, it would be appreciated if you gave US your insights from personal experience.....educate us!!


----------



## trotpacker

There have been recent attacks (feb) in the west of Darfur that has sent thousands more IDPs fleeing over to Chad. These are similar type attacks to those in 2004 at the start of the conflict. The UN force on the ground was unable to respond militarily because they dont have enough men on the ground, and are only able to fly when they get permission from the Sudanese government, which itself was involved in the attacks.

The situation in Darfur looks to me like it will go on for decades, just as the war in the south did, with IDPs living in camps indefintely whilst the world whines about how awful it is without taking effective measures to stop it. The UN is virtually impotent there.

IDPs talk consistently about coordinated attacks from the ground and the air, and report that they see fighter jets which they universally call MIGs. But the only confirmed sighting of a fighter jet in Darfur as far as I am aware is the Chinese Fantan A5 aircraft. Does anyone know if these are used in attacks ? Or has anyone seen Mig fighters in Darfur? If was known that they were Fantans being used in the violence there would be international pressure on the Chinese to stop helping to service these planes, which they presumably are doing.

That would help the IDPs who are helpless below when the bombing starts.


----------



## MarkOttawa

No surprise:

UN troops overworked and outgunned in the badlands of Darfur
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article3803943.ece



> The peacekeepers could do nothing to stop the huge Antonov aircraft flying over the tiny town of Sileia, close to Sudan’s border with Chad.
> 
> They were too late to stop the Janjawid – the feared Arab militia, some on horseback and some in Toyota pickup trucks – sent in to do the Government’s dirty work, looting or destroying anything they couldn’t carry away. The first soldiers into Sileia, in fact, were Sudanese armed forces who arrived the next day to take control of the town. They painted over graffiti proclaiming support for one of the main rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), and raised the Sudanese flag in the sandy central square...
> 
> Five years ago the people of Darfur could have told the above tale with little variation, except that the peacekeepers were from the African Union, a beleaguered and hybrid force of soldiers and police. On January 1 they were joined by United Nations personnel, which is supposed to swell to a 26,000-strong force eventually monitoring ceasefire violations and protect civilians and aid workers from attack.
> 
> *No one knows when the force will reach full strength. Contributing countries are struggling to meet their commitments; 2,000 troops have joined the 7,000-strong AU force to form the United Nations and African Union Mission in Darfur (Unamid). Most of the latter merely painted their green helmets blue and carried on as before* [emphasis added]...
> 
> Unamid is planning to build a base for monitors in Sileia and is running long-range patrols across the territory to show locals that it is serious about their security. But the force only has 9,000 people to look after an area the size of France. *They still lack the helicopters they need to get around rapidly and even the rations for long-distance patrols* [emphasis added]...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Lovely place for "peacekeeping":

Sudan cuts ties with Chad after Dafur rebels reach Khartoum
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article3911988.ece



> Sudan raised the spectre of all out war with neighbouring Chad today after a whirlwind assault on Khartoum by Darfuri rebels backed by the Chadian government.
> 
> Hundreds of fighters from the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem) launched an attack on Omdurman, which lies across the Nile from the modern capital Khartoum, on Friday evening.
> 
> Sudanese armed forces responded with artillery and helicopter gunships as fighting raged through the weekend.
> 
> It is the first time that the war in Darfur has reached the gates of the capital.
> 
> Analysts and United Nations sources in Khartoum said Khalil Ibrahim, the leader of Jem, wanted to show his strength rather than launch a serious attempt to topple the government.
> 
> But it brings closer the prospect of the region’s proxy war becoming a real war.
> 
> President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan announced he was cutting relations with Chad.
> 
> "These forces are all basically Chadian forces supported and prepared by Chad and they moved from Chad under the leadership of Khalil Ibrahim," he said in a televised address, adding that he reserved the right to retaliate against the “outlaw regime”...
> 
> State TV broadcast pictures of what the Government claimed to be captured rebel vehicles.
> 
> A British resident of Khartoum said things were calm although helicopter gunships continued to buzz back and forth across the city...
> 
> About 200 technicals – pickups mounted with heavy machine guns – made the four-day journey from their strongholds in the Jebel Moon region of West Darfur.
> 
> They crossed into North Darfur and then Northern Kordofan using areas controlled by sympathetic tribes, according to security sources.
> 
> They picked up reinforcements along the way before approaching Khartoum from the west via its historic neighbour Omdurman.
> 
> The city is well-defended with machine gun emplacements on all its major arteries but at times Jem commanders claimed to have captured much of the city before withdrawing.
> 
> Richard Cornwell, an analyst with the Institute for Security Studies, said the attack undermined the government’s image as an all-powerful military force.
> 
> “Overall it’s messy but this is the first time anyone has managed to take civil war to the doorstep of the government so it’s a propaganda victory of sorts,” he said...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile in the south:

New Civil War Feared in Sudan As Town Empties
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/25/AR2008052502972.html



> ABYEI, Sudan -- This contested town along Sudan's volatile north-south border has been obliterated.
> 
> In recent days its mud houses and thatched-roof markets, its schools, hospitals, offices and shops have been shot, shelled and burned to the ground, and late last week Sudanese government soldiers in green fatigues were still roaming the streets, looting satellite dishes, mattresses and cases of orange soda from the smoking ruins.
> 
> More than 100,000 people -- residents of Abyei and surrounding villages who only recently returned home after 20 years of war between the north and south -- are gone, chased away in the worst escalation of violence since the government and former southern rebels signed a 2005 peace deal.
> 
> Sudanese government officials blame southern forces for the destruction, but southern officials, U.N. officials, witnesses and people who fled say it was a systematic campaign by the Sudanese government to depopulate the oil-rich area and take it by force...
> 
> Officials on both sides agree on one point: that perhaps the most dreaded scenario in this conflicted East African country is beginning to unfold -- a resumption of the north-south civil war, which killed an estimated 2 million people, making it one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

The UN in (in)action, China doing its thing:

UN's most expensive mission exposed as farcical shambles
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/uns-most-expensive-mission-exposed-as-farcical-shambles-844232.html



> Almost six months after the United Nations launched its largest, most expensive and most hyped peacekeeping mission, promising to send 26,000 peacekeepers to Darfur, the operation is failing to protect the people it was sent to save.
> 
> Just one third of the military personnel and one quarter of the police have been deployed in what has been billed as the biggest and most important mission in the UN's 60-year history. It is now threatening to turn into its most catastrophic failure. No new equipment has arrived. Peacekeepers have had to paint their helmets blue (or put blue plastic bags over them, tied on with elastic)...
> 
> *To date, not a single additional soldier has arrived* [emphasis added] since the joint UN and African Union mission was born at the start of the year to help protect seven million Darfuris in Sudan's western province from militia and rebel attacks, and banditry...



U.N. Reducing Aid Flights In Darfur for Lack of Funds
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061001007.html



> Humanitarian flights that deliver doctors, aid workers and supplies to remote areas of Sudan's western Darfur region are being cut back because of lack of funding, the U.N. World Food Program said Tuesday.
> 
> With banditry on Darfur's roads on the rise in the past year, aid groups have increasingly relied on helicopters and other flights to gain access to the region, where an estimated 2.5 million people are displaced because of conflict.
> 
> The air transport is provided by the U.N. Humanitarian Air Service. But funding for the service, which costs about $77 million a year, has become tenuous as the conflict has dragged into its sixth year.
> 
> On Tuesday, the air service grounded one of its six helicopters and reduced the number of flights because of lack of funds.
> 
> The United Nations said the air service -- a fleet of 20 planes and six helicopters -- needs an infusion of $20 million by Sunday to maintain full service in the next few months. The program has a total budget shortfall of $48 million this year, U.N. officials said...



China lauds Sudan's "unremitting efforts" in Darfur
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK296664.htm


> ...
> China, a big investor in Sudan's oil industry and its largest weapons supplier, has faced widespread Western criticism that it has not used its influence in Sudan to press for an end to the violence.
> 
> Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping told visiting Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Taha on Tuesday that China appreciated "the unremitting efforts" Sudan has made in Darfur...



I suppose nothing would dissuade Prof. Michael Byers and Steve Staples that UN peacekeeping is the only way to go:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010551.html
http://www.canadians.org/peace/issues/Marching_Orders/index.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

A good article in the _NY Times Magazine_, mostly about southern Sudan but also dealing with Darfur:

The Man for a New Sudan
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine/15SUDAN-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _Daimnation!_:

Darfur: The West gives up
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011534.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Mike Baker

Arab League backs Sudan against genocide charges




> Genocide charges brought against Sudan's president by the prosecutor of the International Court are not acceptable and undermine that country's sovereignty, the Arab League said Saturday.
> 
> Only Sudanese courts have jurisdiction on such matters, the 22-nation group added after an emergency council meeting on Saturday.
> 
> The meeting focused on the charges brought against President Omar al-Bashir. The court is expected to decide within three months on whether to issue arrest warrants for any of the charges.
> 
> "The council decides [for] solidarity with the Republic of Sudan in confronting schemes that undermine its sovereignty, unity and stability, and their non-acceptance of the unbalanced, not-objective position of the prosecutor general of the Internal Criminal Court," the body said in a joint resolution.
> 
> It added that any charges or legal issues related to Darfur should be dealt with domestically, and stressed "the competence of the Sudanese judiciary and its independence and its jurisdiction in achieving justice."
> 
> However, the Arab League didn't name the charges against al-Bashir in the resolution, but instead warned about the possible ramifications they may have on the peace process in Darfur.
> 
> "The council warns against the dangerous ramifications on the current peace process in Sudan by the request made by the prosecutor general," it said.
> 
> Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo filed 10 charges of genocide and crimes against humanity against al-Bashir related to a campaign of extermination the UN says has claimed 300,000 lives and driven 2.5 million people from their homes.





More on link.
-Dead


----------



## MarkOttawa

Another post at _Daimnation!_:

Extending futility in Darfur
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011643.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More at _Daimnation!_:

Darfur update: Pathetic
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012005.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Maybe some progress (usual copyright disclaimer)?

US may airlift African peacekeepers to Darfur 
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=105&sid=1509980



> The U.S. envoy for Africa said Monday that Washington was ready to airlift as many as 4,000 peacekeepers, including Ethiopians and Egyptians, for the joint U.N.-African Union mission to Darfur.
> 
> The mission started deploying in Darfur in January but remains at less than half of its 26,000 authorized capacity, and has complained of Sudanese government stonewalling and transport problems.
> 
> U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer, who arrived here from a trip to Congo, said the Sudanese government has made "important progress" recently in speeding up the deployment of the peacekeepers.
> 
> "There has been important progress," Frazer said. "But we are looking to get at least 3,000 to 4,000 (peacekeepers) in Darfur. We certainly have offered the U.N. to help do airlift if they need to bring in both troops and to move equipment."
> 
> *After Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was accused of genocide in Darfur in July, authorities here eased some procedures including issuing visas for promised troops* [emphasis added]. The move was an apparent response to Western demands for cooperation with the international community.
> 
> Al-Bashir dismisses the charges brought against him by the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, and says his country won't recognize the tribunal. But al-Bashir and his government are also lobbying supporters and others to freeze the international prosecution.
> 
> Sudanese Foreign Minister Deng Alor said the U.S. offer to help ferry more troops and equipment into Darfur was first made in September, during Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Taha visit to New York to attend the U.N. General Assembly.
> 
> *Alor said his government welcomed the U.S. airlift which he expects to take place soon* [emphasis added].
> 
> "I was told anytime from now they will start transporting equipment for Ethiopian and Egyptian troops," Alor told The Associated Press.
> 
> Officials of the U.N.-AU mission in Darfur, known as UNAMID, say they *expect their deployment to reach 15,000 uniformed personnel by the end of this year, or 60 percent of authorized capacity. That boost will be comprised mostly of Egyptian and Ethiopian peacekeepers* [emphasis added].
> 
> The mission officials have scaled back their expected 80 percent deployment target, citing deteriorating security. The force stands now at 11,500 troops...



Via _Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs_:
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotnews_e.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Inching forward:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/19/AR2009011900989.html



> ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- A joint peacekeeping mission for the Darfur region of Sudan will expand to its full strength of 26,000 soldiers and police by June, a top African Union official said Monday.
> 
> The increase will nearly double its present strength, said Ramtane Lamamra, the AU's peace and security council commissioner. A report by a U.N. panel last year said the peacekeepers were unable to monitor an arms embargo, defend themselves or protect civilians. A shortage of manpower and equipment was partly to blame.
> 
> Lamamra's announcement was the first to set a month for the force's expansion to full strength.
> 
> *However, U.N. officials said that having adequate troop numbers would only be the first step. Peacekeepers desperately need logistical help, like helicopters and improvements in roads and airports* [emphasis added]...



US Africom begins 1st peacekeeper supply operation
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZlpCSeKN0DkJCahxrq12qQexw-AD95NKMQ04



> The U.S. Air Force is airlifting heavy machinery to Rwandan troops serving in an international mission in Darfur, the first time the new U.S. Africa Command has undertaken a large-scale peacekeeper support operation.
> 
> A C-17 transport aircraft brought two oversize recovery trucks Thursday [Jan. 15] to Rwandan peacekeepers serving with the United Nations-African Union mission in Sudan's western Darfur region, Africom spokesman Eric Elliott said by telephone from Kigali, Rwanda.
> 
> The supplies were the first part of an airlift of equipment and vehicles for the humanitarian effort in Darfur pledged by President George W. Bush on Jan. 5. The 26,000-strong peacekeeping force in Darfur has struggled with a lack of troops and transport.
> 
> Most of the estimated 240 containers of equipment will be flown in by civilian aircraft contracted by the State Department, but only the U.S. Air Force had the capability to bring in the heavier vehicles, the military said.
> 
> The 20,000-pound trucks being flown in are equipped with cranes and will operate in support of Rwandan peacekeeper convoys to help repair vehicles along their routes, Elliott said.
> 
> Nine of the vehicles will be flown in on a total of five flights that started Wednesday and are scheduled to finish Friday, Elliott said. The civilian part of the airlift is to begin after that.
> 
> The planes, normally based at Travis Air Force Base in California but temporarily based in Djibouti in east Africa, are also carrying in materials requested by the Rwandans such as water purification systems, water trailers, tents and spare parts for vehicles, he said.
> 
> The planes, under the direction of U.S. Africa Command, pick up the supplies in Kigali and then fly them into Sudan, Elliott said.
> 
> "It's going pretty well so far," he said.
> 
> The airlift is the first major mission planned by the air component of Africom — Air Forces Africa, also known as Seventeenth Air Force, which is headquartered at Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
> 
> Africom was formally activated on Oct. 1, 2008 and is based in Stuttgart. Before that, U.S. European Command had coordinated airlift missions for Darfur...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

UN trying to show moxie:

UN peacekeepers ignore Sudan request to leave town
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/02/AR2009020201589.html



> CAIRO -- Sudanese forces bombed the outskirts of a rebel-held town in southern Darfur Monday as the U.N. secretary general said peacekeepers would not heed a government request to leave the area.
> 
> Some 5,000 residents were taking refuge around the peacekeepers' compound, the spokesman for the peacekeepers, Nourredine Mezni, confirmed to the Associated Press.
> 
> Sudan told the peacekeepers on Sunday to leave so government forces could retake the town after rebels seized it. It was Sudan's first such request, U.N. officials said _ and a challenge to the fragile international mission.
> 
> But U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the joint U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force will remain in the town of Muhajeria. He said all sides needed to show restraint and urged the rebels to pull out of town.
> 
> CAIRO -- Sudanese forces bombed the outskirts of a rebel-held town in southern Darfur Monday as the U.N. secretary general said peacekeepers would not heed a government request to leave the area.
> 
> Some 5,000 residents were taking refuge around the peacekeepers' compound, the spokesman for the peacekeepers, Nourredine Mezni, confirmed to the Associated Press.
> 
> Sudan told the peacekeepers on Sunday to leave so government forces could retake the town after rebels seized it. It was Sudan's first such request, U.N. officials said _ and a challenge to the fragile international mission.
> 
> But U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the joint U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force will remain in the town of Muhajeria. He said all sides needed to show restraint and urged the rebels to pull out of town...
> 
> *Sudanese forces frequently bomb rebel areas in Darfur, despite a U.N. Security Council ban on military flights over the region* [emphasis added]. The peacekeeping force is there to protect civilians displaced by the six-year civil war in Sudan's arid western region.
> 
> Two people were injured by an explosion near the town Monday, said a statement by the peacekeepers, which did not elaborate on the cause of the blast.
> 
> Tugod said none of his fighters were injured in the bombing.
> 
> "Bombardment has become a daily program of the Sudanese government," he said speaking from his satellite phone near Muhajeria. He added that government troops were mobilizing in areas south and east of the town but were not yet near it.
> 
> Mezni said the chief of the joint U.N.-AU Mission, Rodolphe Adada, will go to Chad to meet the rebel leadership on how to ensure the safety of the civilians.
> 
> *U.N. and AU officials say they want the peacekeeping force to reach its full capacity of 26,000 soldiers and policemen by June* [emphasis added].
> 
> But Sudan regularly challenges the U.N.'s presence in the country. In January 2008, Sudan's army attacked a convoy of U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur, critically injuring a driver...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Yrys

Q&A: Sudan's Darfur conflict, BBC News, Thursday, 5 March 2009






_Omar al-Bashir says the charges 
reflect Western hostility to Sudan_



The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Sudan's President 
Omar al-Bashir. He denies charges relating to the conflict in Darfur where more than 
two million people have fled their homes over the last six years.

_*So what exactly has Omar al-Bashir been charged with?*_

Five counts of crimes against humanity and two of war crimes in Darfur - a desert 
region of western Sudan roughly the size of France. "He is suspected of being 
criminally responsible... for intentionally directing attacks against an important part 
of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing 
and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property," 
a court spokeswoman said.

The tribunal did not charge the Sudanese president with genocide, as the chief prosecutor 
had wanted. It said it did not find sufficient evidence of a specific intent to destroy ethnic 
groups in Darfur.

*ICC's BASHIR CHARGE SHEET*
*War crimes:*
Intentionally directing attacks against civilians
Pillaging
*Crimes against humanity:*
Murder
Extermination
Forcible transfer
Torture
Rape
Text of ICC indictment


_*Is this the court's first case against Sudan?*_

No, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Ahmed Haroun, Sudan's humanitarian affairs minister, 
and a pro-government militia leader in 2007 - as well as requesting warrants for three Darfur 
rebel commanders last year. But it is the court's first indictment against a sitting head of state.

_*Is Mr Bashir likely to be arrested?*_

Probably not, as the ICC does not have a police force and the warrant will be delivered to 
Sudan's government, which is unlikely to execute it. But he will have to watch where he 
travels in case he is arrested out of the country.

_*What does it mean for the people of Darfur?*_

Jem - the most heavily armed and active of the rebel groups in Darfur - has welcomed the 
warrant as a victory for the refugees and the displaced, and a victory for humanity. 

But as a direct result of the indictment, Khartoum has expelled 10 foreign aid agencies, 
including Oxfam, Care, Save the Children UK and Medecins Sans Frontieres from Darfur, 
who between them supply food and water to some 1.5 million people.

There are also worries that the warrant will do little to bring peace to the region. A few 
weeks ago, Jem signed a deal to pave the way for future talks with Khartoum, which could 
now be in jeopardy.

_*Is there any hope of peace?*_

Sudan's rebel Justice and Equality Movement (Jem) signed a declaration of intent in February 
2009 to pave the way for broader peace talks with Khartoum. But previous peace efforts have 
faltered, as the rebels group have splintered.

The leader of one Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) faction, Minni Minnawi, has signed a deal with 
government. He was given a large budget and became a presidential adviser, but the SLA then 
splintered into a number of factions.

*SEARCH FOR PEACE IN DARFUR*
*May 2006*: Khartoum makes peace with main Darfur rebel faction, 
                        Sudan Liberation Movement; Jem rejects the deal
*May 2008*: Unprecedented assault by Jem on Khartoum
*Jul 2008*: ICC calls for arrest of President Bashir
*Nov 2008*: President Bashir announces ceasefire
*Nov 2008*: ICC calls for arrest of three rebel commanders
*Feb 2009*: Army claims its captured key town of Muhajiriya
*Feb 2009*: Khartoum and Jem sign a deal in Qatar
Mixed views on Darfur deal

_*How did the conflict start?*_

It broke out in the arid and impoverished Darfur region early in 2003 after the SLA and Jem began 
attacking government targets, accusing Khartoum of oppressing black Africans in favour of Arabs.

Darfur, which means land of the Fur, has faced many years of tension over land and grazing rights 
between the mostly nomadic Arabs, and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zaghawa communities.

Who are Sudan's Darfur rebels?

_*How did the government respond to the rebellion?*_

It admits mobilising "self-defence militias" following rebel attacks. But it denies any links to the 
Janjaweed, gunmen on horseback accused of trying to "cleanse" black Africans from large swathes 
of territory.

Refugees from Darfur say that following air raids by government aircraft, the Janjaweed ride into 
villages on horses and camels, slaughtering men, raping women and stealing whatever they can find.

The US and some human rights groups have said genocide is taking place - though a UN investigation 
team found that while war crimes had been committed, there had been no intent to commit genocide.

Sudan's government denies being in control of the Janjaweed and President Bashir has called them 
"thieves and gangsters". Trials have been announced in Khartoum of some members of the security 
forces suspected of abuses - but this is viewed as part of a campaign against attempts to get 
suspects tried at the ICC.

Darfur conflict zones map

_*What has happened to Darfur's civilians?*_

The United Nations says more than 2.7 million have fled their homes and now live in camps near 
Darfur's main towns. Darfuris say the Janjaweed patrol outside the camps and men are killed and 
women raped if they venture too far in search of firewood or water.

Some 200,000 people have also sought safety in neighbouring Chad, but many of these are camped 
along a 600km (372 mile) stretch of the border and remain vulnerable to attacks from the Sudan side.
Chad's eastern areas have a similar ethnic make-up to Darfur and the violence has spilled over the
border area, with the neighbours accusing one another of supporting each other's rebel groups.

Many aid agencies are working in Darfur but they are unable to get access to vast areas because of 
the insecurity.

_*How many have died?*_

The United Nations says up to 300,000 people have died from the combined effects of war, famine 
and disease. President Bashir puts the death toll at 10,000.

Accurate figures are difficult to research and have made no distinction between those dying as a 
result of violence and those dying as a result of starvation or disease in the camps. The numbers 
are crucial in determining whether the deaths in Darfur are genocide or - as the Sudanese 
government says - the situation is being exaggerated.

_*Is anyone trying to stop the fighting?*_

Yes.

The Doha meeting where Khartoum and Jem signed an agreement in February 2009 to pave the way 
for broader peace talks were sponsored by Qatar, the United Nations, the African Union and Arab 
League.

The joint African Union-UN peacekeeping mission, Unamid, took over from January 2008 from an 
African peace force. But the mission is currently at only 60% of its mandated strength, with just 
15,000 of the 26,000 planned troops and police on the ground. Some say even the full force would 
not be enough to cover the remote area.


----------



## Yrys

Uneasy peace in Sudan ghost town, Friday, 9 January 2009
 Confessions of a Sudanese deserter
Bashir warrant: Sudanese views
Warrant sparks anger in Khartoum
Dancing Bashir scoffs at Darfur warrant




In pictures: Child drawings of Darfur, 8 pictures






1.The International Criminal Court is accepting supporting evidence of 
children's drawings of the alleged crimes committed in Darfur. This 
sketch by Abdul Maggit depicts a typical scene of destruction.





7. Bakhid was eight years old when he saw his village being attacked 
and burned by Janjaweed forces on horse back and Sudanese forces 
in vehicles and tanks.





8.One young artist named Aisha said: "It is very kind to send us food, 
but this is Africa and we are used to being hungry. What I ask is that 
you please take the guns away from the people who are killing us."


----------



## Yrys

Sudan 'extermination' as aid cut, Saturday, 21 March 2009

The chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court has accused Sudan's President 
Omar al-Bashir of "exterminating" refugees by expelling international aid agencies.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo said that by blocking aid the president was attacking the civilians
in the giant camps that dot Darfur. He called for President Bashir to be arrested as 
soon as he leaves Sudan.

The president is due to attend this month's Arab League summit in Qatar.

Speaking to the BBC's Network Africa, Mr Moreno-Ocampo said that by expelling the 
international aid agencies the president was "confirming that he is exterminating his 
people".


*Arab League summit*

Mr Moreno-Ocampo said that he would work for the arrest of President Bashir as soon 
as he leaves Sudan. Judges at the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for his 
arrest on war crimes charges earlier this month.

Mr Moreno-Ocampo said that entering international airspace would be enough, since UN 
Security Council resolution 1583 urges all UN members to co-operate with the court.

Qatar, which invited President Bashir to the Arab League summit, has not signed the statute 
that brought the ICC into being.

Some Sudanese leaders, concerned about the president's safety, have urged him not to visit 
the annual Arab summit, due to start on 29 March. Earlier this week the Sudanese former 
president Siwar Al-Dahab urged President Bashir to exercise "patience and wisdom" and not 
risk travelling to Qatar "for his safety and the safety of Sudanese people".

The United Nations and the Sudanese authorities concluded a joint assessment mission to 
Darfur to investigate how best to deal with the camps after President Bashir's expulsion of 
the 13 international aid agencies. The UN delegation retuned to Khartoum on Friday and are 
due to meet the Sudanese government for formal consultations.


----------



## Yrys

Expulsion of Aid Groups Raises Risks in Darfur





Relatives prayed Friday over the body of Asha Adam, an infant who died of uncontrollable 
diarrhea. Levels of disease in Darfur’s camps are all but certain to rise.

NYALA, Sudan — The sign outside the clinic in Otash camp reads “8-hour service daily.”

On Friday, Haider Ismael al-Amin lay in his mother’s arms, his 10-year-old body withered 
and weak from dehydration after a night of vomiting. But the door to the clinic was locked. 
After 30 minutes of waiting, his family gave up.

“The white people used to come every day,” said Hawa Hamal Mohammed, a relative of the 
boy. “Now the clinic is closed.”

The American aid group that operated the clinic, the International Rescue Committee, was one 
of more than a dozen aid groups expelled from Darfur this month by President Omar Hassan 
al-Bashir. He accused them of cooperating with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, 
which had issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of war crimes in the conflict that has 
consumed Darfur for years.

Since then, local health workers have been struggling, with almost no medicine, to keep the 
clinic open on a limited basis. Thousands of people in this sprawling camp depend on it for 
primary care. But on Friday it was closed altogether.

The expulsion of organizations that provided clean water, medical treatment, food and shelter 
for millions of Sudanese in the war-racked region of Darfur has thrown the world’s largest aid 
operation into disarray, putting the lives of millions of displaced people at risk.

The Sudanese government has pledged that local aid groups and government agencies will fill 
the gap, and that assistance from the World Food Program and other United Nations agencies 
still operating in Darfur will help avert an immediate crisis of widespread water and food 
shortages.

But the enormous aid effort in Darfur, which costs more than $1 billion a year and requires 
more than 10,000 workers from dozens of organizations, is already slowing, aid officials here say.

Although no one yet knows how the remaining organizations will cope with the gargantuan task 
of keeping the most destitute alive, the levels of disease and misery in the vast camps where 
people who fled their homes in the conflict live are all but certain to rise. Already the most 
vulnerable, the oldest and youngest, are succumbing.

At the edge of Otash camp, a collection of some 30,000 people in South Darfur, the male 
relatives of Asha Adam dug her tiny grave. The infant girl died after suffering from uncontrollable 
diarrhea, her family said. Such illnesses have become common, as water has become scarce in 
the camp and living conditions deteriorate, according to residents. The girl’s father, Ahmed Abdul 
Majid, 55, said he had nine children.

In some highly politicized camps, residents are protesting the government’s actions by refusing 
to accept help from organizations other than the ones that were expelled, aid workers and 
government officials say. Kalma, one of the biggest and oldest camps, with about 90,000 people, 
has been off limits to journalists for weeks, but Sudanese aid workers there have said that a 
tense standoff is brewing.

The water pumps in the camp require fuel, and the fuel is almost gone. United Nations and 
government officials have nearly 50 barrels of fuel, along with other supplies, ready to be 
delivered, but the residents have refused. Four people have been reported dead in a meningitis
outbreak, but camp leaders have barred government health workers from going into the camp
to vaccinate, aid workers said.

Al-Hadi Ahmed al-Najim, the government’s humanitarian coordinator in South Darfur, said that 
Kalma residents had refused all efforts for help. “Kalma is an international red card over our 
government’s head,” he said in an interview. “It is to be made clear that this is an irreversible 
decision. If they want facilities, we are ready to facilitate that. If they refuse, we are not going 
to enter by force.”

The United Nations has tried to fill the gap left by the departure of organizations like the health 
charity Doctors Without Borders, which had to abandon hospitals and clinics in several hard-hit 
areas, and Oxfam Great Britain, which provided clean water and latrines to hundreds of thousands 
of people in camps across the region. Without these essential services, it will be virtually impossible
to control waterborne infectious diseases, like cholera and meningitis, that often arrive with the rains,
which are likely to begin in a few weeks.

But United Nations agencies like the World Food Program and Unicef relied heavily on private aid 
groups to carry out their programs, and while many aid groups remain in Darfur, the loss of some 
of the biggest has made that work increasingly difficult, aid officials said.

“We may not have an immediate crisis on our hands,” said one senior aid official, speaking on the 
condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of operations in Darfur. “But in a few weeks, when 
the rains start and the hungry season begins, that is when the real impact of this decision will be felt.”

Feeding centers for malnourished children were already seeing hundreds of patients a week, and 
those numbers normally quadruple in the lean season before the harvest. Without organizations 
that run the specialized clinics that feed underweight and malnourished children with fortified 
porridge, more children will surely die, aid workers in Darfur said.

The decision to expel the aid groups appears to have been made well before the International 
Criminal Court announcement, and it was carried out with ruthless efficiency, aid groups said. 
Government forces arrived at the offices of several charities and ordered workers to leave, and 
then the forces seized valuable equipment like computers, cars and generators, according to aid 
officials here.

“This was in the works for a long time,” one senior aid official involved in Darfur relief said. “They 
had been waiting for a chance to strike out at these organizations.”

The Sudanese government has long suspected aid organizations of collaborating with the court by 
providing evidence and helping prosecutors gather testimony from victims. But aid groups say that
they have gone out of their way to avoid even the appearance of collaboration.

At the United Nations, Sudan has faced intense pressure from Western countries to allow the aid 
organizations to resume their work. But Sudanese officials are adamant that there will be no change.
“The decision of the government of Sudan is a legitimate sovereign decision which we will never 
reverse, and this should not be an issue for discussion,” Mohamed Yousif Ibrahim Abdelmannan, 
Sudan’s envoy to the United Nations, told the Security Council last week.

_Lynsey Addario reported from Nyala, and Lydia Polgreen from Dakar, Senegal._


----------



## Yrys

U.N. Official Calls Darfur Aid Tenuous, NY Times, March 24, 2009

UNITED NATIONS — A combination of stopgap measures by United Nations agencies and 
the Sudanese government has kept aid flowing in the world’s largest relief program in 
Darfur, but the makeshift effort cannot be sustained, John Holmes, the United Nations 
humanitarian coordinator, said Tuesday.

“These are Band-Aid solutions, not long-term solutions,” Mr. Holmes told reporters, 
summarizing a joint assessment by the United Nations and Sudan last week after the 
government in Khartoum shut down 16 aid organizations. The decision to expel 13 foreign 
organizations and disband 3 local ones immediately followed an announcement on March 
4 by the International Criminal Court in The Hague that it was indicting President Omar 
Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan on war crimes charges in the conflict in Darfur.

Violent flare-ups have plagued Darfur, an arid western province, ever since; a Sudanese 
aid worker was shot dead in front of his family on Monday night. Mr. Holmes said the 
shooting was being treated as a robbery but remained under investigation.

Mark Simmons, Sudan country director for a Canadian organization, the Fellowship for 
African Relief, said the aid worker might have been killed for refusing to give up his 
satellite phone.

In another development, Ayman al-Zawahri, the No. 2 leader of Al Qaeda, urged the 
Sudanese in an audiotape released on Tuesday to undertake jihad against what he said 
was a “crusade” being organized by the West to manufacture a crisis in Sudan as an 
excuse to invade another Islamic land.

Both sides in the Darfur conflict are predominantly Muslim, and Mr. Zawahri said he was 
not defending the Bashir government. Indeed, he said that it was “reaping what it sowed” 
and that it should repent for pandering to the West.

Mr. Zawahri questioned why the International Criminal Court had not issued any arrest 
warrants for Western leaders. He wondered why the United Nations and the international 
community had not reacted to Palestinian suffering the way they had to suffering in Darfur. 
“Why hasn’t the United Nations and the international community intervened to lift the siege 
from Gaza, while it pretends to cry over the people of Darfur being deprived of relief and 
aid?” he said on the 17-minute tape.

On the joint United Nations-Sudan technical assessment in Darfur, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem, 
the Sudanese ambassador to the United Nations, said it showed that “the humanitarian situation 
is fully under control.”

Mr. Holmes noted that although both parties had signed off on the assessment, the United Nations 
had a slightly different long-term perspective on the $1 billion-a-year assistance program, which 
serves many of the 4.7 million people in Darfur. The money for some programs that were run by 
expelled agencies is going to run out. For example, water programs will probably run out of 
financing in a month, Mr. Holmes said. He said Sudan had not supplied enough doctors to staff all 
43 health-care centers that had been run by the expelled groups.

The World Food Program, a United Nations agency that will remain in Sudan, used to deliver food 
through many of the agencies that were shut down. The program delivered food for March and April 
to 1.1 million people by using local committees, but another method will have to be found, 
Mr. Holmes said. The assessment “reveals a huge amount of work to do if the decisions are not 
reversed quickly in order to make sure that there is a sustainable and effective aid operation in 
place,” Mr. Holmes said.

_Jeffrey Gettleman contributed reporting from Nairobi, Kenya._


----------



## Yrys

In pictures: Sudan defiant, BBC News, Thursday, 5 March 2009, 7 pictures
UN fails to agree on Sudan action, BBC News, Saturday, 7 March 2009
Sudan’s President Makes Trip Abroad (to Eritrea) , NY Times, March 23, 2009


Sudan's leader arrives in Egypt





_Sudan's leader is accused of 
war crimes in Darfur _

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has arrived in Egypt on his second trip abroad 
since the International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant for his arrest. Egypt is not a 
signatory of the ICC's charter, which obliges member states to arrest those indicted 
if they enter their territory.

Mr Bashir - who made a short trip to Eritrea on Monday - is to hold talks with 
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Sudan's leader is accused of war crimes in his 
country's Darfur region. It is unclear if President Bashir still plans to attend a 29-30 
March Arab summit in Doha, Qatar. Sudan's highest religious authority, the Committee 
of Muslim Scholars, this week issued a fatwa urging him not to go, citing threats from 
enemies. 

The Egypt visit comes amid a worsening humanitarian situation in Darfur. Khartoum 
ordered the expulsion of 13 international aid agencies in the wake of 4 March arrest 
warrant.

On Tuesday, the United Nations's humanitarian head John Holmes said the Sudanese 
government had not done enough to fill the gaps in aid provisions. "These are band-
aid solutions, not long-term solutions," he said. He spoke at a news conference to 
release a joint Sudanese-UN assessment that found more than a million people in 
Darfur would go without food rations by May unless new aid agencies were deployed. 

A fire at a camp for displaced people in western Darfur destroyed 600 shelters on 
Tuesday. A local official said an "unknown group" had started the blaze at Abuza 
camp, which houses more than 12,000 refugees.

The ICC accuses Mr Bashir of orchestrating atrocities against civilians in Darfur, 
where his Arab-led government has been battling black African rebels since 2003. 
Up to 300,000 people have been killed and 2.7 million have been driven from their 
homes. Soudan denies the charges and says the figures are exaggerated.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A few highlights of some tense moments in southern Sudan, from CEFCOM public affairs:


> The United Nations Military Observers (UNMOs) serving with the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) at the teamsite in Malakal will never forget the last week of February 2009, when the region was engulfed in a battle fought with weapons ranging from small arms to main battle tanks.
> 
> (....)
> 
> At 2230 hours, Major Ahmed Ibrahim, an Egyptian UNMO living in Malakal, radioed the teamsite duty officer to report that he saw troops in town and believed they were SPLA regulars. At about 0830 the next morning, Maj Ibrahim was back on the radio reporting small-arms fire near his house, and the sound of tanks on the move.
> 
> I am the G1 (personnel officer) and one of only two anglophones on the team, so I got on the radio and started calling all 36 UNMOs posted to Malakal. Eighteen of them were in town, concentrated in three houses. They were told to stay indoors and wait to be escorted to safety.
> 
> The small-arms fire continued until 0900, when T-55 tanks deployed by the SPLA along two of the main roads began to fire their heavy machine-guns and main armament. The teamsite’s force protection — provided by the Indian Army — took their three BMP armoured personnel carriers to defend the U.N. air installation at Malakal Airport, where they arrived at about 0930. At 0950, they began receiving small-arms fire, but stood fast until mortar rounds and rocket-propelled grenades began falling on the airport. They then withdrew to defend the teamsite.
> 
> At the teamsite, three kilometres away from the airport, we could see the bombardment and recognize that the fire was very inaccurate. (Later, we learned that some mortar crews simply fired into the air with no idea where the rounds would land.) We put on our flak jackets and helmets. As the attack continued, we received reports of rounds landing in villages on the other side of the Nile, missing the airport by more than a kilometre ....



A tiny bit from the southern Sudanese media:


> The South Sudan Legislative Assembly summoned Upper Nile Gov. Gatluak Deng Garang today to explain the actions of his administration on (February)'s fight in Malakal that SPLA estimates killed about 46 lives.
> 
> Gov. Gatluak denied accusations that he was complicit and knew about the attacks that were triggered by presence of militia leader Gen. Gatwech Chan aka Gabriel Tanginya that SPLA said is backed by Khartoum....



Reminder backgrounder on OP Safari here:


> Task Force Sudan is the Canadian Forces contingent in UNMIS. Commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Gérard Seneschal, *it comprises 34 Canadian Forces members*, including 24 serving as United Nations Military Observers (UNMOs) at team sites across southern Sudan, eight on the staff at UNMIS Headquarters in Khartoum, and two with the Canadian support element in Khartoum.


----------



## OldSolduer

I'm going to tilt at a windmill here but who is as tired as I am when it comes to the world in general saying "STOP" to tin pot dictators and people such as Mr. Bashir and his gang of thugs?
If there was half as much concern for the people of the Darfur area as there is for Angelina Jolie or Paris Hilton, this would have been over years ago.
We are such a trivial continent.

Rant ends and I'll get off the soapbox. :-[ ???


----------



## Kirkhill

OldSolduer:

Keep rantin'.

Maybe one kid, one place, will get it.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> OldSolduer:
> 
> Keep rantin'.
> 
> Maybe one kid, one place, will get it.


Rant continues.
Thank you, it seems that more people are concerned with that stupid bimbo Hilton and her latest crap show, or Brangelina and their twins. Yet none of those "Stars"who are "concerned" with the plight of the people of Darfur, or Iraq or Afghanistan or the Congo...(you name a place) put their money where their big mouths are.
The exception to this...of all people...Madonna and she gets hammered in the press for it. She is actually trying to make the world a better place, and knows that she can't do it all at once.
What the hell do we want? Its frustrating listening to the "Save the World" lot and then when we try the same bunch whines that we are killing people who need to be killed. 
More to follow...Over....


----------



## Yrys

The only concerned that I have for P. Hilton is that she's too much in the news.
She irritates the hell out of me, with her lack of *a* working cell brain!

Threat to kill two Sudan hostages






_Hundreds of thousands of people 
need aid in Darfur_

The kidnappers of two aid workers in Darfur say they will kill them, unless six French aid employees 
convicted of abducting children in Chad are retried. Chad's pardons two years ago for the French aid 
staff, three months after they were jailed, sparked public anger.

The Aide Medicale Internationale staff, a French and a Canadian woman, were seized in south Darfur 
a week ago. The kidnappers have also threatened to target French interests if their demands are not 
met. Armed men kidnapped the pair from their compound in South Darfur's capital, Nyala, about 
100km (65 miles) from the border with Chad on 4 April.

*'Treated well'*

The pair have been named as Canadian Stephanie Joidon and her French colleague, Claire Dubois.  
One of the kidnappers, who named his group as the Falcons for the Liberation of Africa, told Reuters 
news agency by telephone: "We demand France open the case of the Zoe's Ark criminals and judge 
them through a fair court. "If the French government is not serious in negotiations with us and does 
not respond to our request, we will kill the two aid workers."

In 2007, six employees of French humanitarian group Zoe's Ark were convicted of trying to fly more 
than 100 children out of Chad to Europe without authorisation. The group, who denied the charges, 
were sentenced to eight years of hard labour by a Chadian court, but were pardoned in March 2008 
by Chad's president.

The kidnappers allowed one of their captives to speak to media by satellite telephone on Sunday.
Ms Joidon told AFP news agency: "We are being treated well. We do not know where we are. We 
wish [our families] much courage. We hope that all ends well."

It was the second kidnapping of aid workers since the International Criminal Court issued an arrest 
warrant last month for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for alleged war crimes in Darfur. Four 
workers with Medecins Sans Frontieres were kidnapped at gunpoint from their Darfur home on 11 
March and later released.

Sudan expelled 13 aid agencies immediately after the indictment of Mr Bashir.


----------



## The Bread Guy

*Extending Sudan mission, Security Council urges bolstering of north-south peace*
UN News Centre, 30 Apr 09
Article link


> 30 April 2009 –The Security Council today extended the mandate of the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) for another year, urging all parties to fully comply with the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended a 21-year civil war between north and south Sudan.
> 
> In a resolution passed unanimously, the 15-member body underscored the “importance of full and expeditious implementation of all elements of the CPA,” as well as the so-called Roadmap to reduce tensions in the disputed Abyei region.
> 
> UNMIS was established by the Council in 2005 to support the Agreement, which was signed by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A).
> 
> In his latest report on Sudan, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that if the CPA collapsed, a humanitarian catastrophe could ensue, and he called on the international community to remain focused on ensuring its implementation, and for Sudan to reinstate banned aid groups ....



Copy of SecGen's latest report (17 Apr 09) on Sudan here (.pdf)

_More on link_


----------



## OldSolduer

From what I understand, this Bashir fellow has been indicted for war crimes, but will probably never see the inside of a courtroom.
I also understand that the Sudan is a client state of China. What are the chances of the UN having a very positive impact in the Sudan....I would say between slim and none.
Dragons aren't a very friendly creature.


----------



## The Bread Guy

....of the situation in this piece - good reading for anyone who thinks this would be an easier, simpler and more straightforward mission than Afghanistan:


> Gone is the neat division between attacker and defender. Instead there is a messy and poisonous plurality of rival groups, tribes and bandits; some co-operate with the government, others with the assorted rebels. Allegiances are fickle, loyalties easily bought. The two original rebel groups have fragmented into at least 20 factions. The International Criminal Court at The Hague has indicted Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, for war crimes in Darfur. But it has also accused three rebel leaders of similar crimes. Even the notorious janjaweed, an Arab militia that served as proxies for the Sudanese army, are now as likely to fight each other or even to turn on the government if they have not been paid on time. It is wrongheaded nowadays simply to tag the rebels as “good” and the Sudanese government forces as “evil”.


----------



## The Bread Guy

...in the form of APCs for UNAMID - this from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade:


> The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement regarding the delivery of new Canadian-supplied, state-of-the-art armoured personnel carriers (APCs) to peacekeepers with the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID):
> 
> “Canada is pleased that six more new armoured personnel carriers have arrived in Dakar, Senegal, as part of our important contribution to the police units provided to UNAMID by African countries. Senegal has now received 12 APCs, and Burkina Faso and Uganda will also receive six each. Along with the 24 vehicles, we are also providing equipment and basic operator and maintenance training as part of a package valued at over $35 million.
> 
> “Canada is committed to strengthening UNAMID’s capacity by investing in security, diplomacy and aid initiatives, and to playing a leadership role in supporting international efforts to establish sustainable peace and long-term stability in Darfur and all of Sudan.”
> 
> As these APCs are manufactured in South Africa, Canada is also contributing to African economic and industrial growth.



According to CanWest, the APCs are Gila 4x4s manufactured in South Africa.






Certainly explains this post from February.

More on Canada in Sudan here.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the Canadian Press:


> Activists from the Canadian Jewish Congress and several other groups lobbied MPs and senators Thursday, urging stronger Canadian action on the issue of Darfur.
> 
> They want lawmakers to increase pressure on Sudan to end attacks on civilians in Darfur, and hold free elections and a referendum on secession of the southern part of the country.
> 
> They also would like to see Canada offer greater support for the UN mission in the troubled African country.
> 
> Benjamin Shinewald, national executive director of the congress, said that doesn't mean Canadian troops.
> 
> ''We are focusing today on resources such as transport units, a hospital, medical facilities, utility helicopters and that kind of stuff,'' he said.
> 
> The delegates also prodded MPs to set up a sub-committee on genocide and crimes against humanity to monitor troubled areas around the world and keep Parliament informed.
> 
> As things stand, Shinewald said, vital issues can fall between the cracks of the committee system.
> 
> ''It can fall to this committee or that committee, it can fall to Foreign Affairs, it can fall to Defence, it can fall to CIDA, it can fall elsewhere,'' he said.
> 
> ''By unifying genocide and crimes against humanity in one committee, it will create an accountability for parliamentarians and the government of Canada to ensure that we take all the steps we can . . . to end ongoing genocides.'' ....



_- edited to add thanks to the mod who moved this - much appreciated! -_


----------



## sean m

This situation is probably the most serious in the world right now. Yet if the West makes a move it could put us in the sudan for a long time. All the sudanese government and the Janjaweed would have to do would be to call a Jihad, and soon islamic jihadis would be pouring in there in no time and it would be worse for the people of darfur. but I dot know. they are in need of help


----------



## MarkOttawa

Sean m:  you might try to Google before you put fingers to keypad--things actually seem to have rather improved, with a (fragile) ceasefire with a main rebel group:

Truce raises hopes for peace in Darfur
Rebel group, Sudan government set to sign temporary cease-fire (Feb. 22)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35525781/ns/world_news-africa/



> CAIRO - A truce between Darfur's most powerful rebel group and the government of Sudan could pave the way for finally bringing peace to the war-ravaged region weeks ahead of the first national elections in decades.
> 
> Numerous cease-fires and peace deals in this seven-year-old conflict have been short-lived, but this time around increased international pressure and impending elections give this latest initiative a better chance for survival.
> 
> *Despite the ebbing of violence in the last year* [emphasis added], the U.N. estimates that some 300,000 people have died and 2.7 million been displaced since ethnic African tribesman in the vast arid western Darfur region took up arms against the Arab-dominated central government....




Jem Darfur rebels threaten to resume Sudan war 
One of the main rebel groups in Sudan's Darfur region has threatened "all-out war" if its leader is arrested. (May 11)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8675454.stm



> Sudanese officials have asked Interpol to arrest Justice and Equality Movement (Jem) leader Khalil Ibrahim for planning an attack in Omdurman in 2008.
> 
> Jem signed a ceasefire with the government in February but left peace talks earlier this month, claiming the government had launched new raids...



Darfur rebels say 200 killed in clashes with army (May 21)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gSOV_STjrU8kWVembT9dPizwPnvA



> Darfur's most militarised rebel group said on Friday it had killed 200 Sudanese government troops in the western region, but the army denied the toll in the latest fighting to cloud troubled peace talks.
> 
> "The Sudanese army fled the villages of Daeen and Shaariya in the eastern part of south Darfur after we killed 200 of their troops" between Wednesday and Thursday, Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) commander Suleiman Sandal told AFP...
> 
> Khartoum and the JEM have suspended peace talks since the rebel group accused the Sudanese army of attacking its positions last month....



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## sean m

Sry, ur right I should have looked, this is a good thing we'll see how long it lasts.






			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Sean m:  you might try to Google before you put fingers to keypad--things actually seem to have rather improved, with a (fragile) ceasefire with a main rebel group:
> 
> Truce raises hopes for peace in Darfur
> Rebel group, Sudan government set to sign temporary cease-fire (Feb. 22)
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35525781/ns/world_news-africa/
> 
> 
> Jem Darfur rebels threaten to resume Sudan war (May 11)
> One of the main rebel groups in Sudan's Darfur region has threatened "all-out war" if its leader is arrested.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8675454.stm
> 
> _Darfur rebels say 200 killed in clashes with army_ (May 21)
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gSOV_STjrU8kWVembT9dPizwPnvA
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin

sean m said:
			
		

> Sorry, you're right, I should have looked, this is a good thing.  We'll see how long it lasts.


Sean M
Please note the differences in what you wrote and how I fixed it above for you.  Please use proper grammar when posting on this site.  

Thanks

Technoviking

(As Mentor)


----------



## sean m

I deeply apologize viking, I wa not paying attention  sorry. In terms of this peace agreement, this is great now the rest of the world should focus on increasing economic, political and social stability in the country. Help the country develop which will hopefully lead to some democratic actions from this military government.




			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Sean M
> Please note the differences in what you wrote and how I fixed it above for you.  Please use proper grammar when posting on this site.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Technoviking
> 
> (As Mentor)


----------



## George Wallace

sean m said:
			
		

> Sry, ur right I should have looked, this is a good thing we'll see how long it lasts.



You were warned and you did not listen.

One more step up the ladder.

You are now on RECORDED WARNING.


----------



## Marlowe

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Sean m:  you might try to Google before you put fingers to keypad--things actually seem to have rather improved, with a (fragile) ceasefire with a main rebel group:


I wouldn't really say things have improved, rather than they have changed. I apologize in advance, but I have a lot I wanted to relate and little time. This is going to be stream of consciousness and off the top of my head. If anyone would like references, I would be happy to provide later. If I make a mistake with names or acronyms, my apologies.

Right now, the only ceasefire is with the LJM (Liberty and Justice Movement), which is a collection of smaller rebels groups. The Bashir regime tries to pretend that the Sudan Liberation Army has signed the Darfur Peace Accords, but that is actually a splinter, and the SLA-AW (for its leader Abdul Wahid al Nur, who is in exile in Paris) is still fighting. 

The main fighting that has been ongoing since the end of the election has been with JEM (Justice and Equality Movement), whose leader--Khalil Ibrahim--has been having a hard time getting back into Sudan after a trip to Egypt. Chad--which used to support JEM and whose president is actually part of the same tribe as Ibrahim and the majority of JEM supporters--ripped up Ibrahim's passport and refused to allow him to transit through Chad into Darfur. Ibrahim got back to Libya, but is having some issues getting back into the fight. 

Things are looking bad for JEM since Sudan and Chad reconciled. Chad used to support and supply JEM. Recently, the Sudan Armed Forces have taken Jebel Marra, a previous JEM stronghold. Qatar and the UN mediators want to get the peace talks in Doha restarted by June, but JEM has consistently said it won't return to the peace talks until the SAF pulls out of Darfur and there is some stability in the region. 

I can't really say I blame them, as ceasefires in Darfur last about as long as it takes someone to get someone else in the crosshairs. When that happens, JEM or SLA-AW blames the SAF, and they blame the rebels.

And its the civilians that pay the price. Now the UN mission in Chad (part of MINURCAT) will be pulling out. Chad has promised its military will protect the refugee and IDP camps, but I figure that's worth less than the air used in making the promise. Most of those refugees are from the Darfur fighting, but some are from Chad's own internal issues.

It's a mess. And that's not even getting into the situation in Southern Sudan--especially Unity State and Jonglei right now--or the East.

Big. Foxtrot. Mess.


----------



## sean m

Thank you for that information Marlowe it did seem to good to be true. A military regime like that is not going to bow to demand for a peace agreement, when they are not facing tough enough opposition from the rest of the world. This situation seems that it can only be solved with military intervention. The dangerous thing is that I do not believe the people outside of Darfur dislike their government that much. If the outside world were to go in, as I stated prior, all the government of Sudan would have to do would be to call a Jihad then Jihadis from all over the world would come, we would be facing them, the sudanese army probobablywith the majority of support from the population, the Janajaweed and even foreign nations. If we were to go to war, it seems it would be best to do what we did with the Northern Alliance and fight with the various movement in Darfur against the Sudanese government.





			
				Marlowe said:
			
		

> I wouldn't really say things have improved, rather than they have changed. I apologize in advance, but I have a lot I wanted to relate and little time. This is going to be stream of consciousness and off the top of my head. If anyone would like references, I would be happy to provide later. If I make a mistake with names or acronyms, my apologies.
> 
> Right now, the only ceasefire is with the LJM (Liberty and Justice Movement), which is a collection of smaller rebels groups. The Bashir regime tries to pretend that the Sudan Liberation Army has signed the Darfur Peace Accords, but that is actually a splinter, and the SLA-AW (for its leader Abdul Wahid al Nur, who is in exile in Paris) is still fighting.
> 
> The main fighting that has been ongoing since the end of the election has been with JEM (Justice and Equality Movement), whose leader--Khalil Ibrahim--has been having a hard time getting back into Sudan after a trip to Egypt. Chad--which used to support JEM and whose president is actually part of the same tribe as Ibrahim and the majority of JEM supporters--ripped up Ibrahim's passport and refused to allow him to transit through Chad into Darfur. Ibrahim got back to Libya, but is having some issues getting back into the fight.
> 
> Things are looking bad for JEM since Sudan and Chad reconciled. Chad used to support and supply JEM. Recently, the Sudan Armed Forces have taken Jebel Marra, a previous JEM stronghold. Qatar and the UN mediators want to get the peace talks in Doha restarted by June, but JEM has consistently said it won't return to the peace talks until the SAF pulls out of Darfur and there is some stability in the region.
> 
> I can't really say I blame them, as ceasefires in Darfur last about as long as it takes someone to get someone else in the crosshairs. When that happens, JEM or SLA-AW blames the SAF, and they blame the rebels.
> 
> And its the civilians that pay the price. Now the UN mission in Chad (part of MINURCAT) will be pulling out. Chad has promised its military will protect the refugee and IDP camps, but I figure that's worth less than the air used in making the promise. Most of those refugees are from the Darfur fighting, but some are from Chad's own internal issues.
> 
> It's a mess. And that's not even getting into the situation in Southern Sudan--especially Unity State and Jonglei right now--or the East.
> 
> Big. Foxtrot. Mess.


----------



## Marlowe

sean m said:
			
		

> The dangerous thing is that I do not believe the people outside of Darfur dislike their government that much.


Do you mean the people of Sudan outside of Darfur? Because Arman, the SPLM candidate in the North got around 27% of the vote for president . . . and he had boycotted the election! Granted, the SPLM (Northern Sector) had boycotted too late to be removed from the actual ballot, but still, 27% in a thrown fight that one has boycotted ain't too bad.

But seriously, outside of Khartoum State and Northern State, no one in Sudan really likes the government all that much. The pastoral Arabic tribes in the Darfur and Kordofan states back the government because the government pays them. Dafur in the west, the Eastern states like River Nile and Red Sea, and Southern Sudan all oppose the government. Except for Darfur, the Bashir regime has signed peace deals with everyone for now. Southern Sudan will likely secede after the referendum in 2011, and the East is calm for now, but like Darfur, all it takes is a straw to break that camel's back.



			
				sean m said:
			
		

> If the outside world were to go in, as I stated prior, all the government of Sudan would have to do would be to call a Jihad then Jihadis from all over the world would come, we would be facing them, the sudanese army probobablywith the majority of support from the population, the Janajaweed and even foreign nations.


I would strongly disagree with this. 

Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda were all supportive of the SPLA during the civil wars--the first three training and supplying until the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005. While Chad and the Bashir regime have papered over their dislike of each other, that's simply because national interests intersect--Chad wants Sudan to stop supporting insurgents inside Chad, and Sudan wants the same of Chad.

Egypt is Khartoum's big buddy right now mostly because Egypt wants a)stability in the region and b) and ally against the other Nile Basin nations that are looking to implement a new Nile Basin Initiative. What Egypt does NOT want, is a fundamentalist Islamic nation on its doorstep. It's had problems enough with that in the past. Back in the early 90s, Egypt and Sudan were in the middle of a cold war because Bashir came to power in an Islamist coup d'etat. Sudan was even implicated in an assassination plot in Egypt. If Bashir tried importing radical Islamists, his only real ally in the region would be seriously considering popping a cap in his backside.

Bashir can't go Jihad because everyone--and I mean everyone--would either be sending in troops, supporting the 85% if the nation that does not like Khartoum, or providing bases for any international force. Bashir is not stupid. He's moved away from his Islamist base. His National Islamist Front is now the National Congress Party.

If it comes down to a world-wide consensus that we need to militarily invade Sudan, Bashir will cut a deal. And we'll cut a deal with him, because that's what we do.

Besides, China will veto any UN Security Council resolution against Sudan. They don't want anything getting in the way of that sweet, sweet oil!


----------



## Monsoon

Marlowe - are you with SAFARI or SATURN? Which TS?

Outside of Gezira and Northern no one much cares for the NCP, but those are overwhelmingly the largest centers of registered voters. Thus was ever the problem in Sudan. I believe the NCP's 67% victory was legit - they're popular for their economic development work. I don't buy the SPLM's 98% victory in the south.

Bashir was a lukewarm jihadist at best. Now that Turabi's on the fringes politically, he has no reason to keep pressing that button.

As for China, they're diversified their interests into the South now. Guess who's building hydroelectric dams there now? I don't think they're even necessaryily hung up on the oil, which is of low quality and limited in supply. They just want a market for their products in 20 years.


----------



## sean m

excellent post, really great job! you have a lot covered actually everything. \great refernce to \China and the security council.  I forgot that the janjaweed were only paid. So would you suggest intervention? It seems  that Bashir is in a weak state right now,  does not make sense why there is notenough pressure on him.








			
				Marlowe said:
			
		

> Do you mean the people of Sudan outside of Darfur? Because Arman, the SPLM candidate in the North got around 27% of the vote for president . . . and he had boycotted the election! Granted, the SPLM (Northern Sector) had boycotted too late to be removed from the actual ballot, but still, 27% in a thrown fight that one has boycotted ain't too bad.
> 
> But seriously, outside of Khartoum State and Northern State, no one in Sudan really likes the government all that much. The pastoral Arabic tribes in the Darfur and Kordofan states back the government because the government pays them. Dafur in the west, the Eastern states like River Nile and Red Sea, and Southern Sudan all oppose the government. Except for Darfur, the Bashir regime has signed peace deals with everyone for now. Southern Sudan will likely secede after the referendum in 2011, and the East is calm for now, but like Darfur, all it takes is a straw to break that camel's back.
> I would strongly disagree with this.
> 
> Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda were all supportive of the SPLA during the civil wars--the first three training and supplying until the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005. While Chad and the Bashir regime have papered over their dislike of each other, that's simply because national interests intersect--Chad wants Sudan to stop supporting insurgents inside Chad, and Sudan wants the same of Chad.
> 
> Egypt is Khartoum's big buddy right now mostly because Egypt wants a)stability in the region and b) and ally against the other Nile Basin nations that are looking to implement a new Nile Basin Initiative. What Egypt does NOT want, is a fundamentalist Islamic nation on its doorstep. It's had problems enough with that in the past. Back in the early 90s, Egypt and Sudan were in the middle of a cold war because Bashir came to power in an Islamist coup d'etat. Sudan was even implicated in an assassination plot in Egypt. If Bashir tried importing radical Islamists, his only real ally in the region would be seriously considering popping a cap in his backside.
> 
> Bashir can't go Jihad because everyone--and I mean everyone--would either be sending in troops, supporting the 85% if the nation that does not like Khartoum, or providing bases for any international force. Bashir is not stupid. He's moved away from his Islamist base. His National Islamist Front is now the National Congress Party.
> 
> If it comes down to a world-wide consensus that we need to militarily invade Sudan, Bashir will cut a deal. And we'll cut a deal with him, because that's what we do.
> 
> Besides, China will veto any UN Security Council resolution against Sudan. They don't want anything getting in the way of that sweet, sweet oil!


----------



## sean m

Great post as well! What do you think should be done about darfur?



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Marlowe - are you with SAFARI or SATURN? Which TS?
> 
> Outside of Gezira and Northern no one much cares for the NCP, but those are overwhelmingly the largest centers of registered voters. Thus was ever the problem in Sudan. I believe the NCP's 67% victory was legit - they're popular for their economic development work. I don't buy the SPLM's 98% victory in the south.
> 
> Bashir was a lukewarm jihadist at best. Now that Turabi's on the fringes politically, he has no reason to keep pressing that button.
> 
> As for China, they're divested their interests into the South now. Guess who's building hydroelectric dams there now? I don't think they're even necessaryily hung up on the oil, which is of low quality and limited in supply. They just want a market for their products in 20 years.


----------



## Edward Campbell

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> ...
> As for China, they're divested their interests into the South now. Guess who's building hydroelectric dams there now? I don't think they're even necessaryily hung up on the oil, which is of low quality and limited in supply. They just want a market for their products in 20 years.




Quite right, China appears, to me, to have a rather long view of Africa. They recognize significant problems and equally significant opportunities there.

It's important to understand that the Chinese practice what they preach: non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. It is, literally, drilled in to policy makers and diplomats because it is a touchstone of China's diplomatic _defensive_ strategy: they reject any and all Western _interference_ or criticism of anything happening inside China. Do unto others, etc.


----------



## Marlowe

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Marlowe - are you with SAFARI or SATURN? Which TS?


I'm actually not in Sudan and I can't claim the honour of wearing a uniform.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Outside of Gezira and Northern no one much cares for the NCP, but those are overwhelmingly the largest centers of registered voters. Thus was ever the problem in Sudan. I believe the NCP's 67% victory was legit - they're popular for their economic development work. I don't buy the SPLM's 98% victory in the south.


I don't buy it either, but I don't think the victory was completely "legit." The NEC has already admitted that the video of ballot stuffing on Youtube was, in fact, in Red Sea State and is now under investigation. They've admitted to election irregularities (which is more than the SPLM did in the South). I don't think we can call either election, North or South, legit, but I think the NCP was a bit more subtle about it.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Now that Turabi's on the fringes politically, he has no reason to keep pressing that button.


Yeah, and now Al-Turabi has been arrested, and the PCP's newspaper has been shut down. I would argee with you, Bashir is done with that. It served its purpose, now it's just getting in his way.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> As for China, they're diversified their interests into the South now. Guess who's building hydroelectric dams there now? I don't think they're even necessaryily hung up on the oil, which is of low quality and limited in supply. They just want a market for their products in 20 years.


I think they do like the oil, but I totally agree that they are in it for the infrastructure programs, and that they are in it for the long haul. They are extremely pragmatic. Whoever wants to deal, they will deal. 

That's why they are winning over Africa.


----------



## Marlowe

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Quite right, China appears, to me, to have a rather long view of Africa. They recognize significant problems and equally significant opportunities there.


I have to say that this post is right on the money. This is why China is going to win African leaders over, and why they'll be the big winners in the resource battle in Africa.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a useful survey, tacked on to a story about South Sudan, from the _Globe’s_ resident African correspondent:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/africa/africa-poised-to-give-birth-to-new-nation-south-sudan/article1586194/


> Africa poised to give birth to new nation, South Sudan
> *Imminent arrival of newest sovereign country is first real challenge to Africa’s artificial colonial borders half a century after the era’s demise*
> 
> Geoffrey York
> 
> Juba, Sudan — From Monday's Globe and Mail
> Published on Monday, May. 31, 2010
> 
> All day, the tanker trucks rumble up to the White Nile. Young men pump filthy water into the tanks, add a dash of chlorine, and then the trucks rumble off to deliver the tainted water to the mud huts of southern Sudan’s biggest city. As soon as they leave, more trucks take their place.
> 
> With water sloshing out of their tanks, the trucks roar past a pipe that was installed years ago to fill the tankers with treated water from the municipal system. The pipe is broken and abandoned.
> 
> An estimated 80 to 90 per cent of Juba’s household water is taken from the polluted waters of the White Nile, not far from places where foul waste is dumped into the river. As a result, this fast-growing city of a million people is left vulnerable to cholera and other diseases. Cholera outbreaks have erupted almost every year since 2006.
> 
> Southern Sudan is one of the poorest and hungriest places in the world, racked by tribal violence, with rates of child malnutrition and maternal mortality that rank among the worst on the planet. Yet a year from now, this desperate region is likely to become the world’s newest sovereign country.
> 
> Half a century after the colonial era ended, the imminent birth of a new nation in South Sudan is the first real challenge to Africa’s artificial colonial borders. Those borders, drawn up in the 19th century by European officials with no knowledge of Africa’s realities, are still fuelling the wars and conflicts of today. They shape Africa’s future, too, by hampering trade and economic growth.
> 
> But by acting as midwife to the birth of a new nation, is the world repeating the same mistakes that it made 50 years ago? Will this “baby nation” be able to swim in the seas of independence?
> 
> New borders will not fix Africa’s problems. The splitting of Sudan, promoted for strategic reasons by Washington, will fuel a fresh set of conflicts along the new border. It will create a fragile new country, landlocked and impoverished, with a heavy dependence on foreign aid – just like many of the fledgling countries of half a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much of modern Africa is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Seventeen nations, a third of the continent, became independent in 1960. But there is an equally significant anniversary this year: the 125th anniversary of the Berlin Conference, which carved up Africa among the European powers. The decisions of that meeting – the climax of the notorious “Scramble for Africa” – continue to distort Africa to this day.
> 
> As the historian Martin Meredith has documented, the colonial boundaries cut randomly through 190 cultural or ethnic groups that had existed for centuries. Nearly half of these borders were geometric lines that were easy to draw, yet had no connection to reality on the ground. Hundreds of diverse ethnic groups were lumped together or torn apart. Some 250 ethnic groups were thrown together in Nigeria alone. Around 10,000 polities – including monarchies, chiefdoms, empires and other societies – were suddenly amalgamated into 40 European colonies or protectorates.
> 
> “We have been giving away mountains and rivers and lakes to each other, only hindered by the small impediment that we never knew exactly where they were,” British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury admitted as the colonial powers grabbed as much as they could.
> 
> In the late 1950s and early 1960s, these colonial inventions were abruptly given their independence. Ethnic groups, often hand-picked by European powers to administer their colonies, were soon battling for dominance. “Those arbitrary boundaries carried the seeds of much subsequent destruction, notably the terrible national/ethnic wars that have plagued Africa,” said Gerald Caplan, the Canadian activist and author of _The Betrayal of Africa_. “Sudan is a perfect example, Nigeria another.”
> 
> The colonial legacy also paralyzed the economic development of these nations. Because of the colonial borders, 15 of the new nations were landlocked – a heavy barrier to their growth. Most of the new African nations were still oriented to their former colonial masters in Europe, which continued to extract their resources. Even today, only 8 per cent of their trade is within Africa.
> 
> The borders have ensured that Africans are still too disconnected from each other. “We have 53 little countries and we are intentionally determined not to communicate and trade and move goods between each other,” said Mo Ibrahim, the billionaire mobile-phone entrepreneur who has become one of Africa’s most influential business leaders.
> 
> Sudan was a classic example of the illogical colonial borders. Its two halves had been administered separately, yet they were joined together at independence in 1956. The north was largely Arabic-speaking and Islamic, while the southerners were black tribes of diverse languages who followed traditional religions and Christianity. The northerners, who had often raided the south for slaves, dominated the government of the new country and aggressively promoted Islam in the south. The resentments soon erupted into rebellions and wars that killed millions of people until a peace agreement was finally reached in 2005.
> 
> The new nation of South Sudan, almost certain to be born after a referendum on independence in January, would be only the second created in Africa since the end of colonialism (the first was Eritrea). It will become yet another landlocked aid-dependent African nation.
> 
> In some of its villages, nearly half of all children are malnourished – the highest rate in the world. An estimated 85 per cent of all health and education services are provided by foreign aid agencies, not by the government. Clashes between tribes and clans killed about 2,500 people last year, and hundreds more have been killed this year. Nearly 400,000 people were forced to flee their homes because of violence last year – twice as many as the year before.
> 
> “Simply declaring southern Sudan an independent state will not bring peace and stability,” Mr. Caplan said. “This will be a frail new state indeed. The south is left with deep ethnic divisions and divisive borders that are a recipe for big future trouble.”
> 
> Southern Sudan has received $7-billion in oil revenue since the 2005 peace agreement. But corruption has siphoned off much of this money, and the government has given the largest part of its budget to its military and security forces. “The armed forces are way bigger than they should be, and way bigger than anticipated,” said Peter Crowley, director of Unicef’s program in southern Sudan.
> 
> In the capital, Juba, there is no electricity grid, no industry, and scarcely any water treatment. Most people live in mud huts, shacks, tents or other temporary dwellings. When the contaminated water from the White Nile is pumped into the tanker trucks, the workers add a bit of chlorine from a jug, but they admit they’re not sure how much to add. Families must pay up to $4 for a barrel of this tainted water. International agencies such as Unicef have been obliged to provide emergency water supplies to prevent more cholera outbreaks.
> 
> The independence of southern Sudan will create a new military ally for the United States, but it won’t end the illiteracy, malnutrition, maternal deaths, or disease outbreaks. If the impoverished people of southern Sudan don’t see improvement in their lives, the peace pledges could be jeopardized and the tribal violence could escalate.
> 
> “Unless people are able to feel the benefits of peace … the potential of a return to conflict is going to be greater,” Mr. Crowley said. “Why fight to preserve a peace that’s not bringing you any benefit?”




A huge share of the seemingly never-ending strife in Africa is ethnically based and results from the artificial colonial era boundaries. I have been told by people who were "in the loop" at the time, that  was, _circa_ 1960, during the Congo crisis, a small window of opportunity to redraw those boundaries and a few Canadians, from that “golden age” of Canadian diplomacy, apparently tried to convince the UN and the Africans to seize the issue, but they failed and we are, 50 years later, where we are.

A few home truths:

•	“Sorting out Africa” is something that only the Africans, themselves, can do.

•	It (“sorting out Africa”) is likely to be a long, bloody process.

•	The United Nations, acting through a very small handful of countries (China, Egypt, India and South Africa, primarily) can, indeed should, “help” with the sorting out. Western countries, Canada included, have little to offer beyond moral support and money.

•	Despite having nothing much to offer, we, Canada and, specifically the CF, are likely to get sucked in because we, the people in the West, are, properly, horrified at the confluence of poverty, violence and innocent, hungry but oh so telegenic black children.


----------



## Marlowe

And another former SPLA commander has thrown his hat into the ring that is the falling apart of Southern Sudan. A Colonel Gatluak (or Galwak) GAI in Unity state (apparently no relation to Brigadier General John GAI that was originally linked to George ATHOR, but who has since been "unlinked") is now on side with the aforementioned George ATHOR and David YAUYAU, kicking up dust and fighting their former comrades as SSud sinks into chaos. And all this just as the rains are closing in (early rains hitting Malakal, and Juba at the beginning of rainy season) and maneuvers are getting more difficult.

The SPLM/Government of South Sudan is trying to imply that this is all being set up by the NCP and Bashir, while the rebels themselves are saying this is all about the rigged elections. There's even rumours on the wind that this is being set up by those within the SPLM who aren't totally onboard with Salva KIIR's plans for SSud.

Interesting times. . .  not in the good sense.


----------



## Marlowe

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A few home truths:
> 
> •	“Sorting out Africa” is something that only the Africans, themselves, can do.
> 
> •	It (“sorting out Africa”) is likely to be a long, bloody process.
> 
> •	The United Nations, acting through a very small handful of countries (China, Egypt, India and South Africa, primarily) can, indeed should, “help” with the sorting out. Western countries, Canada included, have little to offer beyond moral support and money.
> 
> •	Despite having nothing much to offer, we, Canada and, specifically the CF, are likely to get sucked in because we, the people in the West, are, properly, horrified at the confluence of poverty, violence and innocent, hungry but oh so telegenic black children.


While I can agree to a certain extant with the sentiments, and I can certainly understand them, I have to respectfully disagree that Canada and other western nations have nothing to offer.

We have a lot we can offer, and need to offer, if the circumstances provide us the opportunity. 

While at some point in the future, I believe Africans will be solving African problems, there is still a long way to go until they are in that position. Do we absent ourselves from the task of helping because we fear that we will somehow appear to be shouldering “the white man’s burden?”

The African Union is a step forward from the OAU. It is trying very hard to deal with African problems. In some ways, it is meeting the task. In others, it falls short. In Sudan, specifically, it is not helping. The AU was one of the organizations that considered the elections good enough. One of the comments heard consistently in UNAMID is that the AU Mission in Sudan is good at making the UN look efficient. And I’m afraid there’s nothing to disprove that notion.

As mentors and support, Canada and other western nations can help the AU and its missions to grow, to improve, and to become solutions to African problems. I would rather we do that than to toss them into the pool, hope they swim, and when they don’t throw up our hands and say Africans must solve African problems.

If our help is needed, and the conditions are right (which is another matter entirely, and the main reason I can’t envision ever supporting extensive Canadian commitments to UNMIS or UNAMID), Canada should step up and do what it can.


----------



## Marlowe

Just some more "Southern Sudan is totally frakked" news: it seems that Colonel Gatluak (or Galwak) GAI--the renegade ex-SPLA ex-Southern Sudan Police Service militia leader duking it out with the SPLA in Unity State--was a supporter of Angelina Teny, who got screwed out of the Unity State governorship due to some dubious (if some reports are to be believed, flagrantly so) tactics by the SPLM. Teny happens to be the wife of SPLM VP Riek Machar. Riek Machar used to lead a militia opposed to the SPLM and funded from Khartoum.

Is that less than 6 degrees of separation between armed opposition in Southern Sudan and Bashir in Khartoum?

Oh, yes, this is going to get interesting--though not in a good way. Any bets on if Southern Sudan actually makes it to the self-determination referendum before becoming a failed state?


----------



## Marlowe

Once again reinforcing the fact that Darfur is not exactly the garden spot of Sudan, local independent Radio Dabanga has put the butcher's bill for the tribal violence in the region at over 400. Could mean June will eclipse May as the worse killing in over two years. Add to that, SAF is pretty much out to destroy JEM after driving them out of Jebel Moon, and that UNAMID seems to have been targeted again (3 dead Rwandan PFKs from "unknown" gumen), looks like things are heating up just as Sudan is falling apart.

In other news Col GAI is threatening to attack Bentiu, the capital of Unity State. In this case, I agree with the SPLA, that this is a lot of bluster. Gen ATHOR made the same threats against Bor and absolutely nothing happened. With the rainy season now in full force over the south, I don't think we'll see much more fighting until the rainy season is over.

Oh, this is going to be a fun referendum. Stay safe, anyone over there with UNMIS and UNAMID.


----------



## Marlowe

Khartoum is claiming to have closed the border with Libya. Of course they did.

JEM, making a whole lot of sense for the first time in a while, basically said the Sudanese Armed Forces don't have the manpower for that. Which, of course, they don't.

Khartoum is saying this is about rebels and banditry, but we all know it's all about Khalil Ibrahim, the leader of JEM now trapped in Libya (no passport, and where else to go?). Libya won't hand him over, even though the National Intelligence and Security Service said he was due any day. Those days all ticked by, and no Ibrahim.

It's common knowledge Libya wants more influence in the region. It has mentioned that it could host the Darfur peace process and would be a more fair broker than Qatar--the present host.

Also to consider is that JEM lost its major supporter, Chad. 

JEM needs a patron. 

Libya wants influence.

Khartoum is trying to close its borders.

Anyone else getting ideas?


----------



## GAP

Just one more compelling reason to never step foot in the Sudan....................


Jimmy Carter racing guinea worm to its death; Remote and wild Sudan disease's last stronghold
Article Link
By: Maggie Fick, The Associated Press Posted: 25/12/2010

ABUYONG, Sudan - Lily pads and purple flowers dot one corner of the watering hole. Bright green algae covers another. Two women collect water in plastic jugs while a cattle herder bathes nearby.

Samuel Makoy is not interested in the bucolic scenery, though. He has an epidemic to quash.

Makoy points out to the women the fingernail-length worm-like creatures whose tails flick back and forth. Then a pond-side health lesson begins on a spaghetti-like worm that has haunted humans for centuries.

This fight against the guinea worm is a battle former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has waged for more than two decades in some of the poorest countries on earth. It is a battle he's almost won.

In the 1950s the 3-foot(0.9-meter)-long guinea worm ravaged the bodies of an estimated 50 million people, forcing victims through months of pain while the worm exited through a swollen blister on the leg, making it impossible for them to tend to cows or harvest crops. By 1986, the number dropped to 3.5 million. Last year only 3,190 cases were reported.

Today the worm is even closer to being wiped out. Fewer than 1,700 cases have been found this year in only four countries — Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali and Sudan, where more than 95 per cent of the cases are. The worm's near-eradication is thanks in large part to the efforts of Carter and his foundation.

~~~~

But Carter staff members say ending the disease in Southern Sudan may prove the most difficult, because of how remote the remaining endemic areas are and the fact that the worm is found in semi-nomadic pastoralists who have little education and low sanitation standards.

Another complicating factor: Southern Sudan is scheduled to hold an independence referendum Jan. 9, a vote that is likely to lead to separation from the Khartoum-based north. The process has been peaceful so far, but any conflict that arises would derail eradication efforts.

As Carter put it: "War and good health are incompatible."

"There's no way we can go into an area that is at war," he said.

Although the Carter Center has been fighting guinea worm in Sudan since 1994, its efforts only made significant headway following the signing of a 2005 peace deal that ended two decades of north-south civil war.

The 20 years of fighting prevented the Carter Center and other authorities like the World Health Organization from conducting a comprehensive assessment of guinea worm here until 2006. Since then, eradication programs have reduced the number of yearly cases by about 90 per cent.
More on link


----------



## ptepaul

Once again a small town in Southern Sudan will be on the world stage.  
A small town called Ayod that was once an epicentre of a famine that struck the region in 1993 could now be in the epicenter of a secessionist vote that will directly effect Chinese, American relations as well as potentially the stability of the Horn of Africa.
After  the wholesale rape and war of Christians on Muslims, tribes on tribes, PDF on Janjaweed, blacks on Arabs,  and of course the civilian population always being the worst off in any war..... 

Sudan is on the verge of peace... 
Sudan also teeters on genocide.

Canadian Forces and the Canadian government response to the January 9th, 2011 referendum on South Sudan independence.

]http://mcplpaulfranklin.blogspot.com/2011/01/do-we-sit-by-this-time-and-watch.html[url][/url]


----------



## ptepaul

1.3 trillion in oil reserves in Southern Sudan..... what will China do?
Peace or genocide?


Once again a small town in Southern Sudan will be on the world stage.  
A small town called Ayod that was once an epicentre of a famine that struck the region in 1993 could now be in the epicenter of a secessionist vote that will directly effect Chinese, American relations as well as potentially the stability of the Horn of Africa.
After  the wholesale rape and war of Christians on Muslims, tribes on tribes, PDF on Janjaweed, blacks on Arabs,  and of course the civilian population always being the worst off in any war..... 

Sudan is on the verge of peace... 
Sudan also teeters on genocide.


Evil has been done on both sides.
This is now the time for reconciliation and moving forward....

Canadian-funded helicopters were used in 2007 to evacuate Nigerian AMIS peacekeepers, wounded when their camp was attacked by rebels.(Photo: Stuart Price / Albany Associates)
On January 9th the people of the south Sudan will have an opportunity to vote on succession from the north, effectively splitting Africa's largest country in two.
 Are we in the west prepared for the outcome?
Of course nothing as simple as pure hatred, there is in fact many reasons and one is the location of oil reserves in the area that could be the southern Sudan.  The south has the oil and the transportation and the refinery equipment is located in the north. This has funded a genocide in Darfur and wholesale slaughter of villages, towns and provinces.  Not surprisingly the oil minister is a supporter of Sudanese unity.  Most of the oil is recovered by Chinese companies and they have a direct influence and desire for a unity outcome. We are entering an era of a true oil cold war between Beijing and the West.

This time its actually about the oil, $1.3 trillion in oil reserves
"Beijing has "a vested interest in the continuation of a low level of insecurity. It keeps the other major investors out," charged the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) in a 2002 report. The report argued that China welcomes the absence of real peace in Sudan as enhancing its business opportunities, whatever the cost to southern Sudanese civilians: "There is [on the part of the Chinese] an almost total disregard for the human rights implications of their investments."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p01s08-woaf.html

 Omar Hassan al-Bahsir,  Sudan president with the charges being  "genocide by killing, genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm and genocide by deliberately inflicting on each target group conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction", as well as seven counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. ICC 2010. 
There are currently 26 000 UN/ African union troops in the region and all with the mandate  of ensuring the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (Naivasha Agreement) between the government of the Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement on January 9, 2005 in Nairobi, Kenya.

The Government of Southern Sudan was created by the rebels to develop a constitution and if the referendum on succession is successful to create a new country in Africa.

So what can we do in the west?  Support any Sudanese missions in your country.  Read and study web sites and information about the referendum.  Read the history and support companies that will do business with the South.
Ensure that African issues and especially this African issue does not fall into the history books as another mistake... like Rwanda, like Uganda, like the Congo....

Help Africans help themselves.
ttp://mcplpaulfranklin.blogspot.com/2011/01/do-we-sit-by-this-time-and-watch.html


----------



## brihard

There are any number of countries in equally dire straits.

If we're to commit ourselves to a new mission, we need to ask several things:

Do we have the resources to do it?
Will we be part of a larger mission composed of a coalition with the will, means, and credibility to get the job done?
Would we be part of a coalition with the legitimacy to intervene, and under what mandate?
Could the actual mission be accomplished, or would we be getting sucked into a perpetual conflict?
And most importantly, are there any other missions that fit the same criteria that stand a better chance of success and which better serve our national interests?

With all the countries going to shit, IMO, we need to make sure we commit ourselves to achievable missions with realistic goals, and where we will have the necessary support. I'd rather see us get in on the 'front end' of an emergent conflict that we might actually be able to stop, or in a low intensity one where a relatively small commitment of military resources could get more done.

If we're going to commit to Sudan, we'd best be serious about it, and we're best not be going it alone amongst the major Western powers.


----------



## ptepaul

I think since we already have such a large contingent of equipment... although few boots on the ground.
The mandate of the mission in Sudan is supposed to be over in 2012 as they discuss the outcome of the referendum.

I suggest that this mission may be the right one due to the large oil deposits the historical war crimes committed and the fact that a free and independent Southern Sudan could act as a buffer state between Congo and Somalia.

I personally like the idea of helping equip the African union and the Un mission with high tech equipment that will ensure the peacekeepers are better armed than the "bad guys".

[/url]http://unmis.unmissions.org/[/url]
UN web site on the Sudan
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/po-mp/missions-curr-cour-eng.htm

The Grizzlys have preformed adequatly but the mission needed better protection and one of the cool things they have done is to purchase the South African built MRAP Gila.
http://www.armedforces-int.com/article/mrap-vehicles.html


----------



## PuckChaser

What kind of equipment do we have there again? Oh yeah, obsolete Grizzlies. We're not going anywhere without LAVIIIs now-adays. That means a big airlift capability just to start a mission that we're not allowed to be on because we're not from the African Union.


----------



## brihard

Gucci kit will only go so far. What is really needed amongst many of the AU militaries is more professional soldiers in the ranks, and a greater logistical and command, control, and comms capability.

If you consider that a newly separated element of Sudan would be either 'free' or 'independent', you really need to read up more on Africa's wars.

The first real breakthrough is when you realize how artifical and porous the borders are. Then you need to realize that the conflicts are fought often for barely any good reason at all, and that the axes of the conflicts (tribal, ethnic, etc) are substantially different from anything we're used to considering. The concept of a 'buffer state' is much harder to apply in Africa since A) the conception of a 'state' and the way in which we apply the term is dubious there, and B) the existence of a supposedly sovereign nation doesn't necessarily prevent fighters from moving through territory or staging out of it. I refer you back to the artificiality of Africa's borders.

I share your concerns of genocide, but realistically that's something that's happening in a lot of places, and will probably happen in more. Again, if we have limited resources (we do), what is the greatest good that can be done with them?


----------



## Ignatius J. Reilly

Why should Canadians feel the need to do anything?
That may seem a harsh attitude, but isn't this what the AU forces were designed to do?


----------



## George Wallace

ptepaul said:
			
		

> I think since we already have such a large contingent of equipment... although few boots on the ground.
> The mandate of the mission in Sudan is supposed to be over in 2012 as they discuss the outcome of the referendum.
> 
> I suggest that this mission may be the right one due to the large oil deposits the historical war crimes committed and the fact that a free and independent Southern Sudan could act as a buffer state between Congo and Somalia.
> 
> I personally like the idea of helping equip the African union and the Un mission with high tech equipment that will ensure the peacekeepers are better armed than the "bad guys".



OK Paul

Some good points have already been brought up.  I think you are being very naive.  First of, Sudan has categorically said that it did not want Western troops in country.  It was all it could do that the UN was able to put UN troops in the Sudan made up of African Union troops.  Just because we have 'donated' equipment to the Sudan, does not mean that it is a good idea for us to send troops there.  That whole region is a series of 'failed States' and we really do not need to get involved in some 'feel good' mission that is not going to result in any improvement, even in the long term.  'Feel Good' missions are a disaster.  Our Government feels good for a few months, as do the Canadian Public.  Then when no progress is seen, and it will not be seen in these 'failed States', the Canadian Public show their fickle side and call for the "Troops to Come Home".   

You are doing nothing more than proposing "Feel Good" missions with little real thought as to whether or not they are actually going to benefit anyone.  "Feel Good" does not cut it for very long.


----------



## ptepaul

I am just proposing a question... what do you do when the vultures wait.

Bashir is a vulture, China is as well....
Sure the borders are pourous but a Kenya in disarry a Rwanda that falls back into anarchy all effects us.

The equipment needs to be manned by good quality troops and I know that RCMP is striving to teach the Sudan police services....
Is it worth it?
Does death and destruction in Africa mean we should do nothing?

We could have said that about Afghanistan and yet thats the very thing we did say prior to 9/11.
Central Asia, the Horn of Africa and Canada have little in common and yet a stable central asia and a stable africa is important even if we only give token gestures.


Canadian Talisman energy (out of Calgary) was accused by the Harker mission in 2000, which admonished Talisman for not doing enough to stop human rights abuses by other groups, but did not find that Talisman had actively aided in any atrocities.  So Canada does have some blood on its hand..... Talisman has since divested its investments in Sudan in 2003.  

The negative pressure on Talisman caused the divesture and by some accounts from some NGO's that by having western businessess leave the area the companies that remain have little political or ethical pressure to address issues that come up.


----------



## Edward Campbell

ptepaul said:
			
		

> I am just proposing a question...
> ...




Me too:

1. *How* is Sudan "worse" or more in need than, say, Congo or Ivory Coast?

2. *How* do we - whichever "we" you chose - intervene without the (currently unavailable) approval of the government in Khartoum?

3. While we are on that subject: *Who* is "we?" Does the UN have the military capacity to mount an opposed invasion of a sovereign nation? *Is* it clear to you (because it is not to me) that the AU troops already in place will stay and fight as part of an opposed UN invasion force?

4. *Why* should we, or anyone, intervene? *Does* the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine really go that far? (Hint: many scholars, including several Canadians, say "No! R2P does not give the UN a 'right' to invade a sovereign state.") Beyond R2P: *Do* we really want to go around interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states? *What* happens when someone decides that we, Canada, needs some sorting out? *Isn't* sauce for the goose sauce for the gander, too?

5. Who will pay ... oh well, ptepaul, those are enough questions for today; but I have many more if you can answer these few.


----------



## a_majoor

The more pressing question is how do events in the Sudan affect Canada's national interests?

Afghanistan is at the intersection of several nations/civilizations, many of whom are nuclear armed (Pakistan, India, China, Russia at one remove [the 'Stans]), so ensuring stability there may also damp out instability from spreading through the region. Afghanistan was also used as a training and recruiting base for the AQ to mount attacks on the west, including ones which killed Canadian citizens, something we should not allow. These are pretty compelling reasons since Canada's national interests require a secure and stable international order to encourage Canadian trade and keep our citizens safe.

If you are looking for a compelling flash point which should be engaging our full attention, I suggest you shift your focus south to Mexico, where drug cartels and rampant corruption are creating a failed State very close to us, with lots of social, economic and security issues for Canada should Mexico fail.


----------



## ptepaul

1.   Congo and Ivory Coast are not worse or better they are what a modern Africa still is... primitive.
But the Congo and the Ivory Coast don't have the oil reserves a ICC indicted war criminal in the north... Chinese exploration companies chomping on the bit.

2. I have never said intervene I am simply posing the question of what do we do when genocide starts?
What will our response be?  Light battalion to secure key areas and southern Sundanese government ministry's?

3. as part of the UN mission in Sudan the WE that I am refering is to not just the nations that provide money, logistical, equipment and training support but to all countries.... what is the moral authority to interfer when genocide starts?  Should we interfer?

4. Actually under the Genocide Convention signed in 1948 nations have a right to use military force to protect a population.

The policy of 'anticipatory self-defense'
Rather than a violation of the loosely defined "rules" of international warfare, Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq was, in hindsight, justifiable under the policy of "anticipatory self-defense" established in 1837 by American politician Daniel Webster. Under the policy of anticipatory self-defense, any nation facing a threat considered to be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation," is considered justified in launching an attack before actually being attacked itself.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa091011a.htm

"UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan pointed out last year, “when it comes to laws … we are blessed with what amounts to an international bill of human rights, among which are impressive norms to protect the weakest among us, including victims of conflict and persecution.”
Genocide Convention, signed in 1948. It commits all governments to act to prevent and punish acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and other crimes against humanity. In September 2005, at the UN World Summit, 150 leaders from across the globe reaffirmed that “responsibility to protect,” using all necessary means, including, where appropriate, military force."
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol20no2/202-protecting-civilians.html

5. Who pays for it?
We have to not balance human life with a pocket book.


As for what is good is good for the gander an anticipated invasion of Canada due to precieved injustices is not in the cards... we are talking about genocide... if Canadian government and military and police force were exterminating a certain section of the population and we as Canadians could not stop it then international force is justified and to be expected.


----------



## ptepaul

You talk of the problem with the Mexico drug cartels...

Thats is an issue but I think a greater issues and something that is more important to Canadians is the drug cartels coming to the north.
"CBC- Kamloops   "Dozens of homes and businesses in Kamloops, B.C., have been evacuated as police investigate three suspicious objects found near a downtown building on Saturday morning.
Mounties have found what they call three "items of concern" near the Scotiabank building at 3rd Avenue and Victoria Street — one of which is believed to be leaning against a natural gas meter.  RCMP Const. Rose Dunsmore said the RCMP's bomb squad is flying to Kamloops from the Lower Mainland to assist in the investigation.  Dunsmore said police have cordoned off and evacuated a three-block radius, from 1st Avenue to 3rd avenue and Landsdowne to Seymour streets.  "We do have Terasen [a natural gas distributor in B.C.] gas [officials] on scene as well. They have managed to shut off gas to that particular building and we're still looking at making sure that area stays clear of any kind of public individuals here," she said.
"We want to make sure everyone just stays out of that area in the interest of public safety."
The general public is advised to avoid the area until police determine whether any of the packages pose a threat.  Dunsmore said one long, closed-off pipe was found leaning against the building's gas meter. In the immediate vicinity, police also found a case with wires coming out of it and another carrying case.  Kamloops is in B.C.'s southern Interior, about 250 kilometres northeast of Vancouver."

Another article on cartels coming north
"Already this year in the Vancouver area – nicknamed the gang capital of Canada – there have been 30 shootings (with 12 fatalities) directly linked to the gang shakeout in Mexico and tracked by the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Some 130 gangs operate in B.C., among them Red Scorpions, United Nations, MS-13, Bacon Brothers, Hells Angels and various independents – all with ties of varying degrees to lucrative Mexican cocaine, among other drugs from other places. "Vancouver and British Columbia are unfortunately the focus of the largest number of organized crime groups in Canada," warned Peter Van Loan, federal public safety minister and solicitor-general, in a speech in Langley this year. A few days earlier, a gangster died nearby in a Mexican-style execution by machine-gun fire at the Thunderbird Village Mall.
In Mexico, where nearly 11,000 have died since Mexican President Felipe Calderón launched his government's "war on drugs" in 2006, drug-fuelled gangs impale heads on stakes and dissolve thousands of corpses in acid.  
In Tijuana, a border town almost due south down the I-5 from Vancouver, there are three, maybe four drug murders a day and cartel henchmen take down local cops for sport.
In Vancouver, police are witnessing an escalation in the brutality of killings. Recently, in an apparently targeted hit, a gangster shot a young mother in her car as her 4-year-old sat in the back seat. Once, such actions were forbidden by established drug protocol. Now, collateral damage is routine in the slaughterhouse of gangland hits." Already this year in the Vancouver area – nicknamed the gang capital of Canada – there have been 30 shootings (with 12 fatalities) directly linked to the gang shakeout in Mexico and tracked by the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Some 130 gangs operate in B.C., among them Red Scorpions, United Nations, MS-13, Bacon Brothers, Hells Angels and various independents – all with ties of varying degrees to lucrative Mexican cocaine, among other drugs from other places.  "Vancouver and British Columbia are unfortunately the focus of the largest number of organized crime groups in Canada," warned Peter Van Loan, federal public safety minister and solicitor-general, in a speech in Langley this year. A few days earlier, a gangster died nearby in a Mexican-style execution by machine-gun fire at the Thunderbird Village Mall.
In Mexico, where nearly 11,000 have died since Mexican President Felipe Calderón launched his government's "war on drugs" in 2006, drug-fuelled gangs impale heads on stakes and dissolve thousands of corpses in acid."  Linda Diebel,   The Star, National Affairs Writer'


The drug cartels are a police problem and something we as Canadians have not been good at solving as one can easily read about Vancouver, Windsor, Montreal and the like.

Should there be a military response?
Do we go into Mexico and the help them?
Do we go to the border of the US and Mexico and simply build and Isreali style wall and man the gates?


----------



## Edward Campbell

ptepaul said:
			
		

> ...
> 5. Who pays for it?
> We have to not balance human life with a pocket book.
> ...




While I find the rest of your answers facile, to be kind, this one is completely out to lunch and indicates that you are being totally unrealistic. We *always* have to balance *everything* against our pocket books. You and I and all the other Army.ca members, decide, every days, if our children eat or not, have warm clothes or not, sleep in warm beds or not. How in the name of all that's holy sane is "human life" any different. Simple: it is not.

Now: who pays? America and much of Europe are broke or are on the verge of same; Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and Singapore and a very few others, who have some money, haven't enough, combined, to "save" Sudan, much less Africa. China has a strict policy of non-intervention which they are highly unlikely to break just because "human life" is at stake. 

There is no money and, therefore, nothing can or will happen, and, perhaps, nothing needs to happen because mass starvations and genocidal outages are a fairly common part of our human history - why should Sudan be exempt?


----------



## ptepaul

If you want the easy answer Sudan pays as they sit on 1.3 trillion in oil reserves....
It can be done if there is political will.


----------



## Edward Campbell

ptepaul said:
			
		

> ...
> Do we go to the border of the US and Mexico and simply build and Isreali style wall and man the gates?




That's probably the only useful short and medium term solution. The prospects of it happening are poor, though.

Most likely we will watch as Mexico slides into anarchy and takes much of Latin America with it.


----------



## a_majoor

Sudan pays for it?

The only way that is going to happen is if we mount a full scale invasion and seize the oil fields for our own exclusive benefit (ie we control the sale of oil to the highest bidder/our friends/whoever is nice to us today). I think that might raise a few eyebrows, to say the least....

Given our limited resources, any interventon _*anywhere*_ needs to be strictly focused on how best to achieve aims in support of the national interest. This might even include cutting places like Haiti loose if we need to free up military manpower and resources for higher priority missions, as well as placing the Sudan and the rest of Africa on "ignore".

In the case of Mexico, the problem is so huge that military intervention is probably the last resort, and likely to be a band-aid at that. What can be done isn't clear to me, and evidently not to anyone else as well, although there are probably lots of little steps that can be takenhere and abroad to lessen the negative impact of a slide into anarchy.


----------



## GAP

I seriously think that at some point the US, with us as semi side dish, will offer incorruptible personnel to assist Mexico, especially if Mexico asks for help. It would be a huge blow to their macho image of themselves, but they have to do something, and pretty quick.


----------



## Veovius

ptepaul said:
			
		

> You talk of the problem with the Mexico drug cartels...
> 
> Thats is an issue but I think a greater issues and something that is more important to Canadians is the drug cartels coming to the north.
> "CBC- Kamloops   "Dozens of homes and businesses in Kamloops, B.C., have been evacuated as police investigate three suspicious objects found near a downtown building on Saturday morning.
> Mounties have found what they call three "items of concern" near the Scotiabank building at 3rd Avenue and Victoria Street — one of which is believed to be leaning against a natural gas meter.  RCMP Const. Rose Dunsmore said the RCMP's bomb squad is flying to Kamloops from the Lower Mainland to assist in the investigation.  Dunsmore said police have cordoned off and evacuated a three-block radius, from 1st Avenue to 3rd avenue and Landsdowne to Seymour streets.  "We do have Terasen [a natural gas distributor in B.C.] gas [officials] on scene as well. They have managed to shut off gas to that particular building and we're still looking at making sure that area stays clear of any kind of public individuals here," she said.
> "We want to make sure everyone just stays out of that area in the interest of public safety."
> The general public is advised to avoid the area until police determine whether any of the packages pose a threat.  Dunsmore said one long, closed-off pipe was found leaning against the building's gas meter. In the immediate vicinity, police also found a case with wires coming out of it and another carrying case.  Kamloops is in B.C.'s southern Interior, about 250 kilometres northeast of Vancouver."



I'm not sure if you knew about the update on that, but it turned out that it was some geotechnical equipment......


<from article>
But Const. Rose Dunsmore explains the equipment was actually "a magnetic electrical field sensor, used by geotechnical firms in the mining industry."

The gear was stolen before the bomb scare from the cab of a mining industry truck, but police say they don't know exactly when or where.

The white Ford F-350 with Ontario plates and Quantec Geoscience written on both sides, was first left unlocked at the Kamloops Walmart around 7 p.m. on Friday night. It was later spotted at the Esso Robo Gas station in North Kamloops and then Future Shop later in the evening.

Link : http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/12/16/bc-kamloops-bomb-scare.html


----------



## Edward Campbell

The United Nations Security Council can do absolutely nothing, _nada_, not one damned thing without China's explicit approval and that is not likely to forthcoming if the UNSC wants to intervene anywhere, for any purpose, without an express invitation from the "host nation," Sudan or Ivory Coast of whatever else. It is (remotely) possible that someone can do a _Pearson_ and implement the UN General Assembly's _Uniting for Peace_ Resolution (UNGA Res 377(V)) but it's been attempted a few (10) times and it has actually worked on a couple of occasions, most notably in 1957, but it is unlikely to succeed again - especially not for Africa.

What ptepaul is suggesting sounds to me like a big load of Roméo Dallaire_ish_ BS. Now the good Senator talks a good game but I watch/listen to the Liberal Party with great care and I have heard nothing, especially from Liberal _heavyweights_, like Ignatieff, himself, Brison, McCallum and Rae, that would indicate that there is even a shred of support for a costly military intervention anywhere in Africa. Sen. Dallaire is a celebrity but he is a political _lightweight_ with, as far as I can tell, no following in his party. It's wonderful that he and ptepaul care deeply about mankind and Africa and all that but, ultimately, it is pointless without money, lots and lots of money, and Chinese support.


----------



## ptepaul

The bomb in Kamloops may have been part of some seismic gear....

The reaction of the RCMP and the local police is proof that there is concern on our side of the border about Mexican drug cartels coming up north.

As for the sudan I agree that Chinese support is neccessary.
They are the ones who hold the leases on the oil reserves.

I know that Rwanda genocide is BS ( as per ER Campbell states) but I make no apologies for asking what Canada can do to support the UN mission and if genocide starts I would argue that we have a moral position to intervene.  As for host nation support the Southern Sudanese government would be likely allow a UN AU or NATO force to prevent any atrocities.


----------



## gun runner

We as an armed force are getting ready to stand down from ten years of conflict in a foreign country. We have to consider the fat that we as an armed force need the time to lick our wounds, and shore up our gear. This may take time. If our current government or a newly elected one deems after a reasonable rest period to pitch us back into a mission, then so be it (although highly unlikely). My :2c:. Ubique


----------



## ptepaul

For me I see the equipment issues and the soldiers themselves could easily transferred to a perceived or actual conflict in Africa.

The instructors will probably be using light armoured vehicles (like the Gwagen) in their new role after 2011.

I wish the Sudanese (Southern) would begin using the oil royalties to pay for their own security.
The nut in the wrench is the Chinese companies and the government.

We will see.


----------



## George Wallace

ptepaul said:
			
		

> For me I see the equipment issues and the soldiers themselves could easily transferred to a perceived or actual conflict in Africa.
> 
> The instructors will probably be using light armoured vehicles (like the Gwagen) in their new role after 2011.
> 
> I wish the Sudanese (Southern) would begin using the oil royalties to pay for their own security.
> The nut in the wrench is the Chinese companies and the government.
> 
> We will see.



You are taking a rather simplistic view of the situation in the Sudan.

Have you done any research at all?  Aren't you giving the Sudanese and the various factions in the Sudan and Darfur a lot less credit that they really deserve?

http://www.armyrecognition.com/News/2007/October/Military_Army_News_October_2007_UK.htm



> Twenty African Union soldiers in the Sudan were killed during the attack of the Haskanita base in Darfur.
> 
> An African Union Mission in the Sudan (AMIS) peacekeeper from Nigeria points to the blast point of a rocket-propelled grenade on a destroyed armoured personnel carrier at Haskanita military group site (MGS), October 1, 2007. Twenty AU soldiers were killed or injured and nine missing after a "deliberate and sustained" assault on the Haskanita base in Darfur on Saturday night by armed men in 30 vehicles, who looted and destroyed the base, the African Union said.
> 01 October 2007




Some photos of those Grizzly's that you think will do well and protect our troops should they be sent there:


----------



## ptepaul

Maybe I am simplifing the issue 
Atrocities were committed on each side... as it takes to to dance.

That being said Bashir (Sudan president) is an ICC war criminal...


The pics of the Grizzly are cool and showcase the need for the Gila which i am glad they purchased for use in the Sudan.

LAV's may not be the best choice but they are better than an Iltis of toyota landcruiser.

One  Grizzly was destoryed by an RPG and another was burnt when the main gun failed and the driver rammed a Toyota technical.
www.casr.ca%2Fbg-army-armour-avgp-darfur.htm&date=2009-11-01


----------



## Edward Campbell

ptepaul said:
			
		

> ...
> The nut in the wrench is the Chinese companies and the government ...
> ...




The Chinese are not the problem, they _might_ be the only hope of a humane solution. China is "in" Sudan; it has vested interests in Sudan; it _might_ decide that its interests are sufficient to take an active interest in helping Sudan solve its problems.

There are, as others have said, no Western interests in Sudan and, therefore, no *good* reasons for Western intervention, beyond, perhaps, helping innocent dark folks escape genocide - which few, if any, Western leaders regard as "sufficient" cause to send our troops there.

My guess is that it's China or periodic doses of massacres on the evening news.

----------

*Mods:* There is a perfects food Darfur/Sudan thread here where ptepaul actually started something. May I ask that you merge them so that our _thoughts_, such as they are, are not scattered all over Army.ca?


----------



## ptepaul

The death of innocent (i believe are a concern for all)

The Chinese have a vested interest in the Sudan as the south has the oil and the north has the refining process and port facilities.

Saying that the Chinese is the nut in the wrench simply means that they have a vested interest in the outcomes... both good or bad.


----------



## Edward Campbell

ptepaul said:
			
		

> The death of innocent (i believe are a concern for all)
> ...




But are they, all those deaths, a _sufficient_ concern to spend the lives of Australian, British, Canadian, Danish, and so on troops? My assessment is that they are not in the minds of Prime Ministers Gillard, Cameron, Harper, Rasmussen and so on; and I share their views, as do the (vast) majorities of citizens of pretty much all Western nations. I understand that you, ptepaul and Sen. Dallaire and Messers Gerald Caplan and Stephen Lewis and a few thousand others diasagree - you want to spend allied lives to save others; good luck with that.

My money is on China, if they feel it is in their best interests.


----------



## 57Chevy

I am also putting my :2c: on China. And I do not disregard the ongoing efforts made by the U.S. to avoid conflict.
A long article, but well worth the read  :nod:
          ____________________________________________________________________________
China challenged over Sudan referendum 

As South Sudan's referendum on independence on January 9 draws nearer, the international community is preparing for the possible division of Sudan into two independent states. 

With signs of growing tensions and several issues still to be resolved by negotiations - notably agreements on the demarcation of a north-south border and the distribution of oil revenue - there is a risk of a return to the decades-long civil war fought between the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and the southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) that was ended by the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). 

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called Sudan
a "ticking time bomb" and launched a fresh diplomatic drive aimed at applying pressure on both sides to avoid conflict. 

Amid the uptick in high-level diplomacy, however, the role to be played by China remains a crucial but unexplored factor in discussions about the referendum and beyond. 

China is the key external power in Sudan as a result of the substantial assets that one key state-owned enterprise - China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) - has developed in the country. Yet despite its apparently compelling interest in ensuring stability in Sudan, China has so far adopted a policy of "wait and see" with regards to the referendum. At the root of this hesitancy is a lack of consensus in Beijing about how to balance growing overseas economic interests and international "responsibilities" with China's traditional foreign policy doctrine of "non-interference" in another state's internal affairs. Any renewal of north-south violence in Sudan will likely put that principle under further strain. 

The dilemmas of non-Interference 
Non-interference has been fundamental to Chinese foreign policy since Zhou Enlai articulated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. It was designed to reflect solidarity with newly independent post-colonial states and to indicate respect for territorial sovereignty. 

Although the principle was regularly violated by the support China lent to revolutionary movements across Africa and Asia in the 1960s and 1970s, it reassumed a central position under the "independent foreign policy" of the post-1978 period. China's own sensitivities about perceived external interference, particularly in the context of Taiwan and Tibet, have led it to conceive of sovereignty in traditional Westphalian terms. Today the principle of non-interference remains oft-repeated in official foreign policy rhetoric. 

The policy of non-interference, however, is being complicated by China's expanding global interests. The globalization of its economy has given China a stake in the stability of a number of countries with which it previously only had limited contact. Encouraged over the past decade by the central government to "go out", state-owned and private enterprises have pursued overseas markets and new sources of natural materials, investing an estimated US$178 billion in the process. 

China's rapid economic growth has also led to increasing clamor in Western capitals for it to assume the "responsibilities" requisite with global power status. Rather than "free-riding" on the security arrangements established by the United States and its allies, this argument proceeds, China should take a more proactive stance toward regional and international security issues. These dynamics are stimulating a debate within China about the continuing value of non-interference. 

On one side there is concern about how China's "overseas interests" can be protected in the event of political and economic instability. Concerns are increasingly expressed about the security of the growing number of Chinese citizens working abroad following repeated incidences of Chinese workers being kidnapped - and occasionally killed - as they find themselves caught up in internal conflicts between state forces and rebel groups. 

An estimated 24,000 Chinese citizens are said to work and live in Sudan alone, with comparable numbers in other African states. Solutions proffered to this problem typically focus on providing better consular protection services, engaging more deeply with international legal mechanisms, and building better intelligence about local investment environments. Yet there are calls for the government to play a more direct role, either by using its influence to shape the domestic politics of states in which China has strategic interests or even through the use of military force. The anti-piracy mission of the Chinese navy off the Somali coast is widely perceived as a first step towards developing a more assertive approach to protecting China's overseas economic interests. 

Others urge a re-evaluation of non-interference because it is not a policy befitting a global power with growing international "responsibilities". Some worry that a willingness to partner with regimes that commit flagrant human-rights abuses comes with significant image costs. 

International criticism during the run-up to the Beijing Summer Olympic Games of China's ties with a Sudanese regime complicit in committing atrocities in Darfur was fundamental in this sense. China's subsequent behind-the-scenes diplomacy, which was instrumental in getting Khartoum to accept a joint African Union-United Nations peacekeeping force in Darfur, has since been held up as an example of what a more proactive - and responsible - Chinese foreign policy might consist. 

In that vein, Chinese scholars have since developed new paradigms, such as "creative interference" and "conditional interference", to describe how China could further expand its role in peacekeeping operations or support interventions under the rubric of "responsibility to protect". In this case, the desire to craft a policy "beyond" non-interference is shaped through engagement with international norms rather than by narrow economic self-interest. 

Although the debate about non-interference is now a hot topic in China's foreign policy community, several factors work against there being any dramatic re-evaluation of the official stance. The first is a lack of capabilities and resources. China remains under-experienced in the field of conflict prevention and there exist no domestic academic or policy institutions that conduct in-depth research into these issues. 

The second is a belief that non-interference has been a valuable policy tool in building burgeoning relations with African and other developing world states exhausted by the prescriptions and conditionalities of the West. Beijing is concerned that any step toward playing a more consequential role in domestic politics might be perceived as evidence of China adopting the imperialist dispositions of another "northern" power. 

Responding to the referendum 
Developments in Sudan over the past five years have demonstrated that debates about non-interference have had a mixed impact on policy. China's perceived interests in Sudan stem from the investments that CNPC (and, to a much lesser extent, Sinopec) have been making in its oil industry since Western companies began to retreat in the mid-1990s. 

CNPC now has controlling stakes in the two biggest energy consortiums operating in Sudan, giving it an estimated 60% share of the 480,000 barrels of crude produced daily. It also constructed the 1,500 kilometer pipeline that connects the oilfields of the south, where 85% of reserves are found, to the export point of Port Sudan in the north. CNPC views Sudan as having been a successful testing ground for its overseas investment strategy, with those involved in managing its operations in Sudan since assuming senior positions elsewhere around the world. 

The secession of the south will likely complicate the management of CNPC assets. A number of key leases on oil concessions originally signed with Khartoum, will soon need to be renegotiated. This will depend on the favor of the SPLM - reconstituted as the Government of South Sudan (GSS) under the terms of the CPA - who have traditionally perceived China as having underwritten the rule of the rival NCP. In any renewal of north-south conflict, CNPC-controlled oil fields may feasibly be seized by rival groups and the security of Chinese workers threatened. Since 98% of the south's revenue comes from oil, Khartoum could choose to close the pipeline knowing that the north could function - at least in the medium-term - on alternative sources of income. 

Although China has not embraced the prospect of the south's independence, it has recognized the importance of reaching out to the GSS to safeguard against any damaging implications that may ensue from secession. This has required taking a somewhat pragmatic approach to "non-interference" because the GSS are not yet a formally sovereign entity. 

Relations have therefore largely been cultivated at the party-party level, between the Chinese Communist Party's International Liaison Department and the SPLM. The leader of the SPLM, Salva Kiir, has twice visited Beijing and a Chinese consulate-general was established in the southern capital of Juba in September 2008. The CNPC is in the process of setting up a branch office in the city. Rumors continue to link Chinese investors to the building of a new pipeline that would link South Sudan to the Kenyan port of Luma, potentially offering an alternative export route to the north-south pipeline. 

These efforts to engage the south seem to have had the desired impact. The once antagonistic GSS now urge the importance of building a "very strong relationship" with Beijing. Considering their dependence on oil, the GSS recognizes the necessity of working with China and do not see Western aid as a sufficient substitute for the mixture of loans, infrastructure investment and low-cost construction services that China can offer. 

Despite its close ties with the United States, the huge developmental challenges likely to be faced by the GSS means it cannot afford to exclude potential external partners. Today, Juba remains a "NGO town", where a single Chinese-run hotel stands as the only testament to China's influence, in contrast to the very visible presence in Khartoum. But China is hoping that the ties it is has built with the south will be enough to ensure the security of its assets after the referendum. 

Yet this does not amount to a conflict prevention strategy that might be expected of the external power that stands to lose the most from renewed civil war. Beijing has offered a few "carrots" of varying sizes to both north and south to dissuade them from violence. Some gestures in the direction of public diplomacy are discernible. Yet, the overall impression is underwhelming; China appears content to leave itself hostage to fortune, presuming that Khartoum and Juba will opt for cooperation because of their mutual interest in continued oil profits. 

Most analysts of Sudan, however - including those, one suspects, at CNPC - are less optimistic about the signs in the run-up to the referendum. Both sides continue to disagree over the terms of the referendum and the south has been vigorously rearming, with the closet support of neighboring East African states, in apparent anticipation of trouble. 

The recent history of China's role in Sudan suggests the long-standing policy of non-interference is in a state of flux. Pressuring Khartoum into accepting a peacekeeping force in Darfur and building relations with the quasi-sovereign GSS suggests Beijing can be pragmatic in its understanding of the principle. 

This corresponds with the discussions and debates about the nature of sovereignty, overseas interests and international intervention that can be heard within the academic and policy community in China. Yet the limited gestures China has made in the direction of preventing post-referendum conflict in Sudan point to the limits of this evolution. Even in a country where it stands as the dominant external actor, China remains reluctant to involve itself too deeply in local politics. 

Toward international coordination 
China may come to rue its hesitancy if the referendum leads to a new crisis in North-South relations. Beijing will come under pressure to act if the situation in Sudan deteriorates, not only from the international community, but also from its own corporate groups. 

The relationship between the Chinese political leadership and management of state-owned enterprises is complex. Some claim that state-owned enterprises do not warrant extensive support from the government because they are driven only by profit and, in instances such as Sudan, actually damage the "national interest". 
Most of the oil CNPC produces in Sudan, for example, is not exported to China but sold on the world market. Yet an organization as large as CNPC clearly wields considerable influence in Beijing; its chief executive officer holds ministerial rank within the government and will have been appointed at the highest levels. Any damage to CNPC assets in Sudan will likely increase the pressure on the government to revisit its non-interference policy. 

Should Beijing decide to become more engaged in Sudan, Western governments presumably want China to coordinate its efforts with their own. Barring a few sessions at the United Nations Security Council, however, international diplomacy toward Sudan appears dominated by the United States and United Kingdom. 

Both China and Western governments share a fundamental interest in the maintenance of regional stability. If that point can be grasped, managing the Sudan referendum could become an area of cooperation between the United States and China at a time of otherwise growing tension in the bilateral relationship. 

As China continues to evaluate the value of non-interference in light of its growing global interests, events in Sudan could come to shape the form and content of a new foreign policy doctrine. Others will want to help ensure that if China comes to consider a greater degree of "interference" as legitimate, it conceives of it in multilateral rather than unilateral terms. 

                              (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Chinese are not the problem, they _might_ be the only hope of a humane solution. China is "in" Sudan; it has vested interests in Sudan; it _might_ decide that its interests are sufficient to take an active interest in helping Sudan solve its problems.
> 
> There are, as others have said, no Western interests in Sudan and, therefore, no *good* reasons for Western intervention, beyond, perhaps, helping innocent dark folks escape genocide - which few, if any, Western leaders regard as "sufficient" cause to send our troops there.
> 
> My guess is that it's China or periodic doses of massacres on the evening news.
> 
> ----------
> 
> *Mods:* There is a perfects food Darfur/Sudan thread here where ptepaul actually started something. May I ask that you merge them so that our _thoughts_, such as they are, are not scattered all over Army.ca?



The Chinese absolutely enabled the Arab central government in Khartoum to ethnically cleanse the Darfur region of blacks, whether they were Sunni Muslim, Christian or Animists (it's estimated they KILLED 400,000!).  How anyone could argue after that role that China should now be entrusted with protecting the stability of the region is.....let's go with "questionable".


----------



## Edward Campbell

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The Chinese absolutely enabled the Arab central government in Khartoum to ethnically cleanse the Darfur region of blacks, whether they were Sunni Muslim, Christian or Animists (it's estimated they KILLED 400,000!).  How anyone could argue after that role that China should now be entrusted with protecting the stability of the region is.....let's go with "questionable".




As I have pointed out several times China is reasonably consistent, by the prevailing international standards, in its policy of "non interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states." It is a _golden rule_ (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) sort of thing; China rejects any outside interference in, even criticism of, its "internal affairs" and it, *generally*, does not interfere with others, Viet Nam, etc, notwithstanding.

That's why I said "might." Chine _might_, just as easily, sit back and pump oil while people are massacred; it all depends upon how they see their many and varied interests. But there will be no UN action without Chinese approval and I doubt any "great" power wants to confront China in Africa.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is an interesting graphic that demonstrates why the _separation_ of South Sudan, assuming the vote is carried, will not bring peace:







Source: The Globe and Mail


The border and the ownership of the oil and gas fields are in dispute. But it is a fact that the pipelines all run North to Port Sudan.


----------



## Monsoon

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is an interesting graphic that demonstrates why the _separation_ of South Sudan, assuming the vote is carried, will not bring peace:
> 
> The border and the ownership of the oil and gas fields are in dispute. But it is a fact that the pipelines all run North to Port Sudan.



An agreement has already been put in place governing continued revenue-sharing for oil that flows out through the pipeline, regardless of the result of the referendum. The Southern government has already concluded an agreement with a foreign developer to build a pipeline from Heglig south through Kenya to the port of Mombassa; it's expected to be complete in a year or so (compare to the on-going planning fiasco around Canada's various efforts to build pipelines; the third world will save us all).

Of course none of the various journalist "experts" in the South Sudan have troubled themselves with the limited research required to discover this, and prefer to just speculate that it will be a problem. No doubt their insight exceeds that of the millions of people actually living in and governing the region.


----------



## 57Chevy

South Sudan eyes landslide to secede: 

JUBA, Sudan — Organizers of south Sudan's landmark independence vote were collating the remaining preliminary results Thursday, poised to return a landslide for secession after reaching the simple majority required on just 60 per cent of the ballot.

The final verdict that will set the mainly Christian, African south on the road to recognition as the world's newest state in July is not expected until next month.

But figures gathered by AFP from state and county referendum officials around the south showed that 2,224,857 votes for separation from the mainly Muslim, Arab north had already been returned by Wednesday evening.

That comfortably exceeded the simple majority of 1.89 million votes needed on the 96-per cent turnout of the 3,932,588 registered voters.

In some areas, the vote for partitioning Africa's and the Arab world's largest nation was almost unanimous in a region still ravaged by a devastating 1983-2005 civil war.

article continues....

Read more

                                    (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## GAP

Canadian military likely headed to Sudan: Ex-diplomat
Article Link
By Ian Elliot, QMI Agency  January 23, 2011

KINGSTON, Ont. – A former Canadian diplomat to Africa said Canada’s next military deployment will likely be in war-torn Sudan.

John Schram — who was Canada's ambassador to Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Sudan from 1998 to 2002 — said now that Sudan has completed a referendum, big issues are being raised, and the fractured country will need international support to bring some measure of calm.

Those issues include negotiations on frontiers and oil rights and revenues between country's north and south, a second referendum in the oil-rich Abyei region and the ongoing peacekeeping/peacemaking effort to support the emerging state.

The Canadian military's presence in Afghanistan has prepared it for such a mission, he said.

“We’re going to come under pressure from the Americans who have been in the lead all along,” said Schram, who is a senior fellow in international relations at Queen’s University and who spent almost four decades on the Africa file for the federal department of external affairs.

“However, we also have a skeptical public and a non-interventionist government and there’s a sense of weariness and reluctance to do what the Americans want us to do,” he said. “After Afghanistan, do Canadians have the stomach for another nation-building program?”

Schram thinks Canada's soldiers do. He believes that among the rank and file, although their equipment has been chewed up in the harsh Afghan climate and they are tired and overstretched, there is a belief that Task Force Afghanistan is not a single mission, but the establishment of a permanent expeditionary force always on a mission overseas.

There is already a contingent of nearly 40 military officers in the Sudan monitoring the situation and reporting back to the Canadian government. Such contingents nearly always precede a military intervention to provide intelligence and logistics support.

Even top-level military officers will quietly admit the era of traditional blue-helmet United Nations peacekeeping is over, and never really worked that well, anyhow, Schram said.

Sudan, or any future deployment, will likely be by troops who are armed and with rules of engagement, allowing them to engage the enemy, not stand between warring factions with good intentions and no ammunition, Schram said.

He said a Sudan mission would likely look like Afghanistan, where the military supports and protects vulnerable towns and areas while assisting in reconstruction and negotiations.

Schram said Canada cannot ignore an international effort in Sudan if it wants to maintain its role on the international stage.

But he laments that Sudan, from the genocide in Darfur to the border skirmishes and ineffective national government, is often ignored in Canada.

“With Sudan, we don’t really talk about it all that much. You don’t really hear about what Canada has done there, yet it has been one of our major foreign-aid efforts over the years,” he said.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell

GAP said:
			
		

> Canadian military likely headed to Sudan: Ex-diplomat
> Article Link
> By Ian Elliot, QMI Agency  January 23, 2011
> 
> KINGSTON, Ont. – A former Canadian diplomat to Africa said Canada’s next military deployment will likely be in war-torn Sudan.
> 
> John Schram — who was Canada's ambassador to Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Sudan from 1998 to 2002 — said now that Sudan has completed a referendum, big issues are being raised, and the fractured country will need international support to bring some measure of calm.
> 
> Those issues include negotiations on frontiers and oil rights and revenues between country's north and south, a second referendum in the oil-rich Abyei region and the ongoing peacekeeping/peacemaking effort to support the emerging state.
> 
> The Canadian military's presence in Afghanistan has prepared it for such a mission, he said.
> 
> “We’re going to come under pressure from the Americans who have been in the lead all along,” said Schram, who is a senior fellow in international relations at Queen’s University and who spent almost four decades on the Africa file for the federal department of external affairs.
> 
> “However, we also have a skeptical public and a non-interventionist government and there’s a sense of weariness and reluctance to do what the Americans want us to do,” he said. “After Afghanistan, do Canadians have the stomach for another nation-building program?”
> 
> Schram thinks Canada's soldiers do. He believes that among the rank and file, although their equipment has been chewed up in the harsh Afghan climate and they are tired and overstretched, there is a belief that Task Force Afghanistan is not a single mission, but the establishment of a permanent expeditionary force always on a mission overseas.
> 
> There is already a contingent of nearly 40 military officers in the Sudan monitoring the situation and reporting back to the Canadian government. Such contingents nearly always precede a military intervention to provide intelligence and logistics support.
> 
> Even top-level military officers will quietly admit the era of traditional blue-helmet United Nations peacekeeping is over, and never really worked that well, anyhow, Schram said.
> 
> Sudan, or any future deployment, will likely be by troops who are armed and with rules of engagement, allowing them to engage the enemy, not stand between warring factions with good intentions and no ammunition, Schram said.
> 
> He said a Sudan mission would likely look like Afghanistan, where the military supports and protects vulnerable towns and areas while assisting in reconstruction and negotiations.
> 
> Schram said Canada cannot ignore an international effort in Sudan if it wants to maintain its role on the international stage.
> 
> But he laments that Sudan, from the genocide in Darfur to the border skirmishes and ineffective national government, is often ignored in Canada.
> 
> “With Sudan, we don’t really talk about it all that much. You don’t really hear about what Canada has done there, yet it has been one of our major foreign-aid efforts over the years,” he said.
> More on link




I'm afraid that John Schram is right: we might well be headed for Sudan. I hope that, if he's right about us going, he is also right about the nature of the mission: no baby-blue beret wearing, ineffectual UN _peacekeepers_. I doubt that a US led, essentially Western mission can or will be able to succeed. Maybe with better political and military leadership (Australian? Chinese? Indian? South African?) there might be a chance of success. But, my sense is that Canadians (and Americans, Australians and Brits, too) have little to no patience with "nation building" because, as Thucydides has suggested, *real* "national building" doesn't begin until the young women who are attending those schools we just built graduate from university (with MAs and PhDs) and take leadership roles in business and government. Our fellow citizens want instant gratification and no casualties and, above all, no cost.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The following is about Congo, but just as relevant to Sudan:

The mad demand to send the CF…somewhere
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?cat=33



> Some very wise words from Louis Delvoie in the current issue (p. 28) of _On Track_, the magazine of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute:
> 
> "*What Next for the Canadian Forces? Not the Congo*
> 
> With the end of Canada’s involvement in combat operations in Afghanistan now in sight, the media have begun to publish articles speculating on where the Canadian Forces might next be deployed. Without saying so explicitly, these articles seem to suggest that because Canada now has a well-trained, well equipped and battle hardened army, that army should be sent abroad somewhere once it has finished its Afghan mission. This is rather curious reasoning. It tends to ignore the fact that the Canadian Forces exist to protect and promote the security and interests of Canada and Canadians. In the absence of any threat to that security or those interests, the Canadian Forces should remain in their barracks against the day when such a threat may emerge. To deploy them abroad simply because of their capabilities is sheer nonsense.
> 
> This line of argument is, of course, totally lost on proponents of the so-called human security agenda who advocate using the Canadian Forces to defend civilian populations at risk in civil war situations around the world, even in the absence of any discernible Canadian interest..."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman

Having crossed paths with Schram several times over the past few years, his significant amount of time in Africa has definitely coloured his views. Very few topics cannot be turned to "we need to be in Africa.....now!" 
Perhaps this time he's right.

The stars may be aligning, regarding troop/equipment availability, but I also agree with E.R. Campbell that domestic politics will likely scuttle the mission. To our desire for instant gratification, no casualties, and no cost, I would add the inane babbling of electoral posturing from our various political "leaders."


----------



## CougarKing

an update:

link



> KHARTOUM (Reuters) - *South Sudan voted overwhelmingly to declare its independence in final results of a referendum made public on Monday, opening the door to Africa's newest state and a fresh period of uncertainty for the fractured region.*
> 
> A total of *98.83 percent of voters *from Sudan's oil-producing south chose to secede from the north in last month's referendum, according to a video display of the vote seen by Reuters at the venue of the announcement.
> 
> The referendum is the climax of a 2005 north-south peace accord that set out to end Africa's longest civil war and instill democracy in a country that straddles the continent's Arab-sub Saharan divide.
> 
> (Reporting by Opheera McDoom, writing by Andrew Heavens, editing by Michael Roddy)


----------



## Northalbertan

I tend to agree with the statement that our political leadership is unlikely to endorse another foreign mission.  The big bugaboo with our current government is Arctic Sovereignty.  I think it is much more likely that this is where we are likely to see our defense dollars spent.


----------

