• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Lack of government and humanitarian law in Africa

patrick666

Sr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
The president, Yusuf Ahmed, has asked that foreign peacekeepers be sent to these regions to assist in removing the warlods to develop a new government. Somalia has been without a government since 1991 and it is obvious that foreign militaries are NOT welcomed kindly by the warlords. What do you think should be and will be done? Do you think Canada will play any significant role or are they nudging towards Americans to head south for another tour while they are there?

Personally, I believe something should be done because it is a massacre over there. A government backed militia is roaming the jungles shooting and stabbing their own starving people for what? Guns and money. I know a non-violent answer to this problem is probably slim to none because of the state the continent and countries are in. We have consistently swept these reports under the carpet, atleast the media has not informed us of anything, and I was wondering do you think Canada should step in? What are your opinions on the situation and what could/should be done?

There are obvious international humanitarian laws being more than broken, totally ignored and pissed on. If this were to happen closer to home, we'd be outraged. I don't think people no matter how deteriorated and poor they are should be treated like that and I know some people share the same views. I'm not saying we should go on a crusade or some huge quest to solace ourselves by doing good but a little help can go a long way.

Cheers

 
Patrick H. said:
The president, Yusuf Ahmed, has asked that foreign peacekeepers be sent to these regions to assist in removing the warlods to develop a new government. Somalia has been without a government since 1991 and it is obvious that foreign militaries are NOT welcomed kindly by the warlords. What do you think should be and will be done? Do you think Canada will play any significant role or are they nudging towards Americans to head south for another tour while they are there?

Personally, I believe something should be done because it is a massacre over there. A government backed militia is roaming the jungles shooting and stabbing their own starving people for what? Guns and money. I know a non-violent answer to this problem is probably slim to none because of the state the continent and countries are in. We have consistently swept these reports under the carpet, atleast the media has not informed us of anything, and I was wondering do you think Canada should step in? What are your opinions on the situation and what could/should be done?

There are obvious international humanitarian laws being more than broken, totally ignored and pissed on. If this were to happen closer to home, we'd be outraged. I don't think people no matter how deteriorated and poor they are should be treated like that and I know some people share the same views. I'm not saying we should go on a crusade or some huge quest to solace ourselves by doing good but a little help can go a long way.

Cheers


As far as to the conditions and circumstances in that region, you're a 100% correct.

Peacekeepers, U.N. or what ever intervention name you attach to it, its still results in a Policing Action.
and all the World loves a Policeman, just ask the Americans.

But have you ever considered, that right here in Canada, in all the major Cities, tens of thousands of Canadian
Children are going to School every morning hungry. That there are as many Homeless people wandering the streets and sleeping under stairways. That Women and the Elderly are being murdered in their own homes. I
could go on and on about the injustice's right here in Canada.

You propose that it is our responsibility to heal the World, I say PHYSICIAN HEAL THYSELF. Then Doctor to the masses.


 
Yeah, absolutely, we should take care of ourselves then once we are back up to par we can help other countries! If we do both at the same time both causes will suffer, money will be split and the effectiveness of the programs will be severely   ddamaged The African nations should send their peacekeepers to fix their own problems backed maybe by a ccontingentof support staff by the U.N or even a batallion size force to help with the larger aAfricancontingent! Maybe Canada ccouldsent some HQ guys we seem to have aallotof those lying around!   ;)
UBIQUE!!!!
 
This, from today's Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050305/DARFUR05/TPInternational/Africa did not get discussed at the Liberal Party of Canada convention and Pink Lloyd Axworthy does not advocate doing something, now, to rid the world of the rapists and torturers and slavers because â ?doing somethingâ ? means sending troops to clean out the area, maybe the national government, too, and to impose a new, decent government, ignoring, perhaps the social mores of the region.   That's what Axworthy's human security agenda demands but its advocates are too effeminate to move from pious hand wringing to action.

First the women are raped, then they are jailed, fined

Assaults in Sudan are used deliberately to fragment community, aid worker says

By KATHARINE HOURELD
Special to The Globe and Mail
Saturday, March 5, 2005 - Page A3

BENDISI, SUDAN -- Fatima was 15 when she was gang-raped in front of her mother. Seven months later, the heavily pregnant schoolgirl was arrested by the Sudanese police and charged with fornication. They threatened to whip her if she didn't pay a fine.

"They asked me who was the father of my baby," she said, twisting a piece of paper between her fingers. "I told them I didn't know. There were seven men on horses. Three of them raped me and four of them beat my mother. We had gone to get onions from our farm."

After she had spent three days in prison with no food and nothing to sleep on but the bare earth, Fatima's father collected money from relatives. Last week, he finally paid 12,000 ($60) of the 20,000 dinars that the police demanded. "The police said he must pay the rest by the time my baby is delivered or I will be whipped."

Since 2003, when local African tribes took up arms against perceived neglect and discrimination by the central government, thousands of women have been raped. Many of the victims have been branded to ensure that they never escape the stigma.

Most of the women simply identify their attackers as janjaweed, a generic term for the nomadic, Arabic-speaking gunmen who often work in concert with the Sudanese armed forces.

The nomads have a history of conflict with the African tribes over land rights but the government's twin gifts of impunity and automatic weapons escalated traditional tensions into all-out war.

Médecins sans frontières (Doctors without Borders) has treated nearly 400 Darfur women for rape in the past six months, although they say the stigma of being victims prevents many from reporting the crime.

"Rape is being used as a deliberate way to fragment the family and community," said one local aid worker, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Many of these women are raped by soldiers and police as well [as the janjaweed]."

In Bendisi, a town in the west, hundreds of women like Fatima have been jailed after they became pregnant by their attackers. The police typically demand fines ranging from 15,000 to 25,000 dinars. Often, they rape the women again while they are held in prison, under the pretext of interrogating them.

"The police told me that I could pay 15,000 dinars or I could be raped 40 times," said one 18-year-old, huddled in a corner. "They will take my money now but they never heard my cry when the janjaweed came for me."

Other women confirmed that the police had had sex with them while in prison, promising shorter sentences or smaller fines.

During the day, the prisoners are often forced to work as domestic labour, carrying water, cooking or cleaning for their jailers. The women are charged with having extramarital sex, despite the fact that under Islamic law, a woman who is raped is not considered guilty of a crime.

Some of the women, their houses destroyed and their family dead, have no one to help them. Sixteen-year-old Hawa, gang-raped by three men while collecting firewood, cradles her two-month old son Hamoudi in a ragged green blanket. Her own shawl has several holes in it. She is sleeping rough after her grandmother threw her out because she became pregnant.

"The police held me for 10 days in a cell. They didn't give me any food and there was nowhere to sleep," she whispered, tucking the blanket around the face of her sleeping son.

"I told them I have no money. They whipped me on my chest and my back. I was bleeding a lot." She was eight months pregnant, and terrified.

Even after her punishment, Hawa's troubles are not over. The police are still demanding 20,000 dinars. Four times a week, with her son strapped to her back, she and a group of other women in the same predicament walk several kilometres over a mountain to find gravel.

They load heavy buckets filled with stones onto their heads and return to make cement to sell in the marketplace. So far, Hawa has made 2,000 dinars in two months.

Every time she leaves the confines of the town she is vulnerable again. Many of these women have been raped several times: once when their village was attacked and later when they venture out of the town to gather water or firewood.

"The janjaweed came to my village in August, 2003," said 25-year-old Nadifa. "During the fight, four men came to my tukel [hut]. They said you can choose, we can kill you or we will rape you. Then four of them tied my hands and legs so I was spread-eagled between two beds. They raped me and left me tied up for the whole day. They kept coming back. At the end of the day they let me go and burnt my house."

Still traumatized by the attack in August of 2003, Nadifa joined the other 1.85 million people displaced by the conflict. She fled to nearby Bendisi for security, but last July, she was raped again as she gathered firewood on the outskirts of town.

After she became pregnant, the police arrested her and kept her in a cell for two days. Her neighbours, themselves displaced and impoverished, scraped together 15,000 dinars to release her but the police have kept her name on a list. They promised to visit her again once her baby has been born.

At least some officials in the Sudanese government are aware of what is going on. When a judge visited from Garsila, a nearby town where similar cases have been reported, he merely cautioned the officers to stop recording women's names lest the list should be used as evidence against them. Yet the arrests, the fines and the whippings continue.

"Who will want to marry me now?" asked Fatima, her young eyes filling with tears. "Maybe an old man, more than 50. I am destroyed. I have lost my chance in life."

Canadians, too many Canadians, have too little stomach for solving this problem; ditto the French and Swedes, and, and, and ...

Africa is, as I have written elsewhere, drifting, inexorably, into chaos and savagery of an order not seen in Europe for more than 500 years.   HIV/AIDS, alone, will carve its own, deadly swath through two or three generations of Africans; millions â “ likely tens and maybe hundreds of millions will be infected and die before 2025 according to the latest estimates from the WHO.   We have options: looking away is one, it is likely to be the one we, Canadians, will adopt.   We'll send some money and a few young, idealistic aid workers but the money will be stolen and the aid workers will be overwhelmed.

I think we may need to sub-contract Africa â “ to India (maybe Pakistan and China, too) for a while â “ maybe 200 years.


 
FastEddy said:


As far as to the conditions and circumstances in that region, you're a 100% correct.

Peacekeepers, U.N. or what ever intervention name you attach to it, its still results in a Policing Action.
and all the World loves a Policeman, just ask the Americans.

But have you ever considered, that right here in Canada, in all the major Cities, tens of thousands of Canadian
Children are going to School every morning hungry. That there are as many Homeless people wandering the streets and sleeping under stairways. That Women and the Elderly are being murdered in their own homes. I
could go on and on about the injustice's right here in Canada.

You propose that it is our responsibility to heal the World, I say PHYSICIAN HEAL THYSELF. Then Doctor to the masses.

I agree that there are poor people here, and I should know, I used to be one, but there aren't exactly many people dying of starvation. They definately don't die on a scale comparable to the amount that die in, say, Africa. And people here don't get arrested for saying "maybe we should elect someone else."

The problem is, people either focus on saving the world without saving their own country, or saving their own country without saving the world. I think we could partake in both, without, as Cpl Banks said, splitting money and screwing up the effectiveness. Political and economic pressure is usually enough to make countries back off. It's not like we need gazillions of dollars to send some soldiers here and there when the situation gets too bad.
 
Alright, maybe if someone sent troops but not us, our logistics are overextended as they are. And I agree we could maybe give a little more to the poorer country's but we must take care of ourselves first! Once the problem is solved here we could concentrate our economical weight onto the poorer country's ( not saying we stop giving them money to help and keep it all to ourselves.Mayeb keep the current contribution and add more after we are more socially healed if you will) and send troops when we can. We coudl take our embassador out of the country and get all the expats back but other than that we woudl rely on NATO or the U.N to but the pressure on. My thoughts.
UBIQUE!!!!!!!!!! :cdn:
 
Cpl.Banks(Cdt.) said:
Alright, maybe if someone sent troops but not us, our logistics are overextended as they are. And I agree we could maybe give a little more to the poorer country's but we must take care of ourselves first! Once the problem is solved here we could concentrate our economical weight onto the poorer country's ( not saying we stop giving them money to help and keep it all to ourselves.Mayeb keep the current contribution and add more after we are more socially healed if you will) and send troops when we can. We coudl take our embassador out of the country and get all the expats back but other than that we woudl rely on NATO or the U.N to but the pressure on. My thoughts.
UBIQUE!!!!!!!!!! :cdn:


There seems to be four basic elements common to all of the Troubled Area on the African Continant.

1.    Government Corruption.

2.    Religious Differences.

3.    Tribal Fractions.

4.      The lack of a Truly Legal and Justice System supported by the Police and their Military.

No amount of Foreign Aid to help the masses will ever alleviate their suffering and strife. Such Foreign Aid is only used to purchase military equipment and arms. To pay and feed the perpetrators of those who support
and keep in power their corrupt  Government.

Sanctions, the only pepole who would be effected are the very one's we would be trying to help. Relief Aid and Humanitarian Services would only end up in the hands of the oppressors or at lease controlled by them.

The only way is to remove the cancerous elements causing this strife and conditions. And that my Lad brings us right back to square one. Canada does not have the resources to engage in such a Armed conflict.

Our Hearts and Minds are in the right place. but that all we can do for now.

 
Fast Eddy, you are bang on.

There is no use in spending our blood and treasure in the hopeless swamp that is Africa.

I feel rotten for saying that, but thats the truth. there are very few bright spots over there.
 
how very true, our conscience wants us to act but we all know any effort is futile...sad but true. There are a few African nations that could help such as Egypt? or maybe even*looks at a map of Africa* OK no thats pretty much it...Too bad though maybe if we were a superpower *cough cough-->USA* we could send in a REAL force not just some token mil.observers...anyways thats how i see it
UBIQUE!!!!
 
Rfn said:
There is no use in spending our blood and treasure in the hopeless swamp that is Africa.

This has got to be the most heartless thing I've read on this forum. I guess you'd also like to take homeless people off the streets and execute them? Just because someone's in deep poo-poo shouldn't mean we won't help them.

Anyways... if we ourselves aren't even prepared to act, how can we say Egypt, the US, or whoever, should? But I guess that's just the good ol' Canadian attitude "we won't bother, but the US has to do it!"
 
There is no use in spending our blood and treasure in the hopeless swamp that is Africa.


This has got to be the most heartless thing I've read on this forum

Okay, maybe the statement "all Africa" is too general. there are some bright spots... I am not against financial aid but I would limit any help to African nations that have a history of rule of law and transparent democracy, such as Botswana. Otherwise any aid would be swallowed by the notorious kleptocracies that pass for national governments in some parts of Africa.

Such aid doesn't have to be direct payment, but in the more corrupt parts of Africa it could take the form of dept relief and Medical support (AIDS treatments, pest control etc).

I guess you'd also like to take homeless people off the streets and execute them?

Don't quite know how you extrapolated this little gem, but no I wouldn't. But would you hand over a sack of cash to a homeless person, who could possibly be a drug addict or is simply mental ? No you bloody would not. The analogy works the same way. for any aid to have an effect, the regoin must be stable.

The only way is to remove the cancerous elements causing this strife and conditions. And that my Lad brings us right back to square one. Canada does not have the resources to engage in such a Armed conflict.
Fast Eddy summed it up well here. A non UN type mission could open up a real can of worms...

   1) Charges by critics inside and outside Canada of 'neo-imperialism'
   2) Getting stuck in a quagmire...lives of soldiers and resources and training time and money squandered for no gain.
   3) Distraction of CF from core tasks
   4) Mission creep

I'm also uncomfortable with adopting the 'Law of Reduced Expectations.' That is, the belief that the poor backward natives are utterly incapable of helping themselves, and only we the great white warriors must come like valiant knights and bring enlightenment and civilization.

History tells us a limited UN chapter missions have had mixed success, depending on the mandate and circumstances (Rwanda 1994, Congo 1960-64, Liberia, Eritrea/Ethiopia) Perhaps someone on this forum that has served in Africa can elaborate.

 
Frederik G said:
This has got to be the most heartless thing I've read on this forum. I guess you'd also like to take homeless people off the streets and execute them? Just because someone's in deep poo-poo shouldn't mean we won't help them.

Anyways... if we ourselves aren't even prepared to act, how can we say Egypt, the US, or whoever, should? But I guess that's just the good ol' Canadian attitude "we won't bother, but the US has to do it!"


Maybe you misread "Rfn's" post, but I do not see any suggestion that he endorses or advocates the Execution of Homeless People. But I do see that you have failed to suggest or offer a solution to that problem.

I presume you meant to say, " If Canada is not prepared or in a position to offer assistance of what ever type"
, so how can we suggest that Egypt or the U.S.A. should take up the cause.

"The Good old Canadian Attitude" you mean the Government, well if our Hearts and Minds are in the right place, but our Pocketbooks aren't. The least they can do is to canvass those Nations that are able, to do so.

Although the stats are not that impressive of the Social Ills of Canada as apposed to Africa, They still are of very great concern. Which in turn only seem to promote great promisses from our Politicians.

But our Food Banks are nearly empty, our shelters are bursting at the seems and all of our Services are begging the Public for funds.
 
As an aside, I currently work with a Nigerian exchange officer and I threw the question to him to find out his opinion - what should non-African countries such as ours do to help Africa/African countries.  I too thought military assistance, aid, diplomacy, you know the standard (gag) party line.  His answer to me came back as a question - why is it that rich countries and their companies come into Africa and feel that they can bribe corrupt politicians/military, etc yet wouldn't do it in their own countries? (Okay a few scandals aside)  He felt that money wasn't the answer, simply moral courage on our part to stop doing "business as usual".  In otherwords, sort out the corruption and from there African countries would eventually prosper on their own.

Now having said that, I have a good friend who has done his time in Africa, and has come back ****ed up, so if we don't have the moral courage to give up national treasure to stop the problems...well maybe it is better if we simply stay away, completely, rather than become more of the problem.  (I know I am opening myself up on this one!) Comments?
 
Rfn said:
There is no use in spending our blood and treasure in the hopeless swamp that is Africa.

The economist begs to differ, and also has some good things to say about the effectiveness of UN troops in the area.
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3715904
excerpt:
...
It is tough to mend a failed state, but the fact that some formerly failed states are now doing quite wellâ ”eg, Mozambique and East Timorâ ”shows that it is not impossible. And although treatment is costlyâ ”the UN mission in Liberia costs $800m a yearâ ”the cost of doing nothing is often higher. When governments collapse, it is not only bad for citizens who thereby lose the law's protection. It can also cause regional or even global repercussions.

Lawlessness, it is often argued, creates space for terrorists to operate. This is sometimes true: there are almost certainly al-Qaeda operatives lurking in Somalia and the wilder parts of Pakistan. But the most-cited example, Afghanistan, does not really support this argument. Osama bin Laden used Afghanistan as a base not because it was a failed state, but because its government invited him to.

The chief reason why the world should worry about state failure is that it is contagious. Liberia's civil war, for example, infected all three of its neighbours, thus destabilising a broad slice of West Africa. Congo's did the same for Central Africa.

Lisa Chauvet and Paul Collier of Oxford University have tried to measure the cost of a typical poor country becoming a LICUS, ie, as unstable as Nigeria or Indonesia, but nowhere near as bad as Liberia. They added together an estimate of growth forgone because of instability and an estimate of the spillover effect on neighbouring countries, and arrived at the startling figure of $82 billion.

Since this is more than the world's entire annual aid budget, it suggests that even costly interventions, if they help to stabilise a failing state, are likely to be worthwhile. Looking only at war-torn states, Mr Collier and Anke Hoeffler, also of Oxford, found that three types of intervention were highly cost-effective, even before one considers the value of saving lives.
...
 
What suggestions would you make to our federal government for ways Canada could aid ... ?

I'm not saying we should throw soldiers into the middle of the congo with guns blazing in the name of democracy but there is certainly somethiing humanitarian that could be done.

A lot of people ignore something we have that they dont..... choice. Many parents children are starving because they choose to spend their income on addictions, many homeless people choose not to do anything about their situation, many people choose to be whatever their choice leads them to be...

There is no choice in having a bunch of "rebels" attack your village, rape and dismember your women, steal children, and take food... I would not choose that.
 
squealiox said:
The economist begs to differ, and also has some good things to say about the effectiveness of UN troops in the area.
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3715904
excerpt:


No one is arguing the existing conditions on the African Continent and that Military intervention combined with Foreign Aid does or will not produce results.

However according to your Economists, taking the Liberian Crisis as an example, this took 15,000 Troops and a cost of 800 milion dollars per year. Multiply this by all of the hot spots over there.

When every Country will sacrifice their young men in what ever number to heal the ills of Africa, Canadian
Armed Forces will stand shoulder to shoulder with them, as they have done down through history.

To Deploy any of the CAF's at present to Africa without a strong coalition to satisfy various Humanitarian Groups would be akin to feeding them to the wolves. Although our Troops would Deploy unhesitatingly and without question.

I have noticed that those who protest the loudest usually end up cheering the Troops on from their Ivory
Towers and Armchairs.




 
AIDS is slowly depopulating South Africa.   Fifty years from now, the present white minority may be a majority.   The Russians are drinking and drugging themselves to death, and - when sober - are not even bothering to knock up their women at a rate that will maintain the population.

Yet Canada constantly recruits doctors and professionals from these and other nations who need them.   Perhaps we can't bring ourselves to make the necessary sacrifices here to send help over there, but can't we at least let them try and stand on their own two feet without robbing them of their professional class?

We are such hypocrites.

"When you need assistance, Canada will send you all aide short of actual help!" - Robert F. Kennedy.
 
I dunno, I think what the Canadian government is doing, reducing the total number of countries receiving aid to increase the effectiveness of the program in general (by reducing the number of receiptents hopefully the increased aid to other countries will have more of an effect) is a good start. Of course the best solution would be to increase aid to everybody to where it is really effective, but I think given a limited budget this is the right thing to do.

I would hope that the countries that are chosen are the ones that would hopefully benefit the most from the aid (kind of like triage, except on a larger scale). As much as it breaks my heart to see some countries falling apart and millions of people dying, I would want the money to go where it could do the most good. But that is just my opinion.

 
Money and troops are two different things, we COULD send money but why? Why not keep it to help ourselves, help the homeless, the children who are left orphaned  HERE! Once we are up to a better level, less poverty etc... we could send so much more aid, so yes cutting aid to several country's will help the effectiness of the aid that we send to the countries that need it. Anyways half the time our money and aid get syphoned off by para millitary orgisations and corrupt politicians and warlords. Troops...well we are already over extended so why would we risk more troops especailly now?! Unless we joined a powerful coalition, but with so many hot spots all the different nations we rely on such as France, Germany, U.K and the USA will want to go to different places so why even bother get the African nation troops to work out their own problems with the help of some NATO or UN MLOB's and some logistical staff. Maybe a few combat ready regiment could be sent (600 fighting troops?) and some Mp's and civilian police members? my thoughts...
UBIQUE!!!!!
 
Back
Top