Chadians flee as Darfur crisis spreads

[Txtriathlete]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060420/wl_nm/chad_darfur_dc

You know, in 50 years, I wonder what history will have to say about the superpower of the time. How we neglected a genocide, yet managed to invade Iraq. It would take a fraction of the cost to intervene in Sudan.

There will never be a way for us to count the millions of lives lost in Africa.

[DoyleG]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060420/wl_nm/chad_darfur_dc

You know, in 50 years, I wonder what history will have to say about the superpower of the time. How we neglected a genocide, yet managed to invade Iraq. It would take a fraction of the cost to intervene in Sudan.

There will never be a way for us to count the millions of lives lost in Africa.

More of a failure of the African Union than any superpower.

[Txtriathlete]

More of a failure of the African Union than any superpower.

In that case it would be a failure on the part of the Europeans for leaving it in the state that it was, thus leading to what it is today.

PS. I dont recall anyone blaming anyone in Asia or the Middle East for Saddam's killings. So what gives?

[sardus_pater]

Not to neglect the horrors happening there and the fact the sudanese government helps the "arabs" in darfur but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur

Darfur (Arabic دار فور, meaning "home of the Fur") is a region of far western Sudan, bordering the Central African Republic, Libya, and Chad. It is divided into three federal states within Sudan: Gharb Darfur (West Darfur), Janub Darfur (South Darfur), and Shamal Darfur (North Darfur). The current conflict between the Janjaweed and the non-Arab peoples of the region has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions

(..)

Relations between Arab and non-Arab inhabitants have been tense during much of Darfur's history. It was a center of slave trade when the Fur kingdom exported Africans from other parts of Sudan as slaves to the Arab world. Local Arab and non-Arab inhabitants have differing economic needs: the non-Arab peoples are primarily sedentary farmers, while the local Arabs are primarily nomadic herdsmen; this brought them into conflict over access to land and water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

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 sensationalizing the conflict into one of racial motivations, where some experts instead attribute the causes to competition between farmers and nomadic cattle-herders who compete for scarce resources.

Also

The conflict concerns two distinct groups in the diverse Darfur population; non-Arab black peoples like the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa, and Arab tribes collectively termed Baggara (also black by the standards of most non-Africans), who settled the region from about the 13th century onwards. Both groups are Muslims.

This is interesting because I often read ppl talking about muslims attacking christians to describe the conflict.

Anyway, of course, a peacekeeping intervention by the UN would be needed and great.
I think the main obstacles are the lack of will to "waste" military resources by the western countries and the opposition of the sudanese government to interferences in interior matters.

[sardus_pater]

Same wiki link as above

In early 2003, two local rebel groups — the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) — accused the government of oppressing non-Arabs in favor of Arabs. The SLM is generally associated with the Fur and Masalit, while the JEM is associated with the Zaghawa of the northern half of Darfur.

(...)

The conflict in Darfur began in February 2003 when JEM and SLM rebels attacked government forces and installations.

The government, caught by surprise, had very few troops in the region, and — since a large proportion of the Sudanese soldiers were of Darfur origin — distrusted many of its own units; its response was to mount a campaign of aerial bombardment supporting ground attacks by an Arab militia, the Janjaweed, recruited from local tribes and armed by the government. (The government, however, denies any connection to the Janjaweed militia and calls them "thieves and gangsters" [7].)

While the conflict has a political basis, it has also acquired an ethnic dimension in which civilians were deliberately targeted on the basis of their ethnicity, and an economic dimension related to the competition between pastoralists (generally Arab) and farmers (generally non-Arab) for land and water.

[DoyleG]

In that case it would be a failure on the part of the Europeans for leaving it in the state that it was, thus leading to what it is today.


And how would you claim that?

[The Gribbler]

And how would you claim that?

The national political borders do not reflect the actual groups of people that lived in Africa before the Conferences of Berlin or today?

[The Gribbler]

There is no genocide. The UN said so.

Sudan also has a seat on the Commision on Human Rights.

[Txtriathlete]

And how would you claim that?

You are either pulling my leg or dont know much about colonialism and the borders that were drawn due to it.

[Anthony]

If people are waiting for UN action, forget it. As others have noted, Sudan is now on the UN Human Rights commission. Also, Russia and China have indicated they do not think action is needed.

And the African Union? Forget it too there.

I think something needs to be done. First off, this is a human rights disaster in the making. Second, if you are the type more concerned about "stability" the civil war is starting to spread accross the border into Chad.

Finally, Sudan is the new front in the war against Islamic terror. Yes, the people of Darfur are Moslem. But they (i) are black and (ii) follow a more mystical Sufi influenced version of Islam that is no danger to the West. The government of Sudan generally is dominated by Arab based followers of a Wahhabist influenced Islam.

So what to do? A major invasion is not needed, but we need to get some African troops ready to move in. And to threaten the Sudanese government -- either gain control of the militias or we start arming and training the people of Darfur to allow them to defend themselves.

It is important to note that "bin Laden's" newest hit tape is a call for jihadists to go to Sudan. Not Iraq (apparently he never mentions Iraq) but Sudan. That is going to be the new battlefield.

[Anthony]

This is interesting because I often read ppl talking about muslims attacking christians to describe the conflict.

That was Sudan's OTHER civil war, which seems to be petering out now.

Anyway, of course, a peacekeeping intervention by the UN would be needed and great. I think the main obstacles are the lack of will to "waste" military resources by the western countries and the opposition of the sudanese government to interferences in interior matters.

No, the reason the UN will do nothing is because the UN WILL DO NOTHING. NOTHING is what the UN does best.

[Txtriathlete]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3166797753930210643

Invisible Children

[ForeverRed]

There is no genocide. The UN said so.

That is still very blurred....there is no certainty about a genocide but there is no certainty that there isn't a genocide. What everyone does agree on is the fact that there are human rights violations.

Organizational troops themselfs reported first hand organized and systematic targeting of non-arabs in the south, which was sent to the UN.

Whats funny is that at first the US recognized it as genocide and didn't really do anything, until the agreements with the Sudanese governments as allies in the war against terror, then suddenly the suspected casualties seemed a bit too "high" for the Americans.

I think its very clear whats going on there is a lot more than the government surpressing local rebel groups when you can clearly see specifically non arab villages and people attacked and pretty much wiped out.

It's a f'n tragedy, this is downright embarassing from every which perspective and deserves a hell of a lot more attention than Iraq or Iran.

[Norsk Troll]

First off, this is a human rights disaster in the making. It's well beyond the "making" point. Over 400,000 killed, and 2.5 million displaced.

we need to get some African troops ready to move in.There have been 7,000 African Peacekeeping forces there for 3 years now. They are under-manned, under-equiped, and are ready to pull out because of inability to afford the continuing mission. Looking to African countries to be the major force is not a solution.

Other than that, of course, I'm with you that we should be doing something. For what it's worth, feel free to check out http://www.savedarfur.org/ Send a postcard, at least. Get involved if possible.

[Anthony]

It's well beyond the "making" point. Over 400,000 killed, and 2.5 million displaced.

There have been 7,000 African Peacekeeping forces there for 3 years now. They are under-manned, under-equiped, and are ready to pull out because of inability to afford the continuing mission. Looking to African countries to be the major force is not a solution.

Why not. It is their backyuard and their home. In any event, I think the tack we take should be -- Sudan, get control of the militias or else we are going to start arming and training the Darfurians. And with the French and US Air Forces backing them, you will lose.

But no matter what we do, it will be "wrong" by the international bon pesant class. And it will lead to another complaint by bin Laden.

[Norsk Troll]

Why not. It is their backyuard and their home. So just because they are on the same continent, they are morally obligated to a greater extent than other countries farther away? And for that matter, Khartoum is closer to Rome than it is to Rabat or Pretoria. The reason the African Forces are not the answer in Darfur is because they don't have the man-power, funding, etc., to get the job done.

This is the thing that I hate most about borders. You see someone beating up a young child across the street. What do you do? You cross the street and put a stop to it.

But because an imaginery line was drawn down the middle of that street separating the two sides into separate countries, you now just sit down and drink your latte and try to read your paper, ignoring the kid's screams?

People can hide behind words and euphemisms, and political arguments, but it's the same moral principle, whether you are in the country next door, or across the globe. Why else do we feel guilt over Rwanda? Because we know we didn't do anything to stop it, and we should have.

[Anthony]

So just because they are on the same continent, they are morally obligated to a greater extent than other countries farther away? And for that matter, Khartoum is closer to Rome than it is to Rabat or Pretoria. The reason the African Forces are not the answer in Darfur is because they don't have the man-power, funding, etc., to get the job done.

This is the thing that I hate most about borders. You see someone beating up a young child across the street. What do you do? You cross the street and put a stop to it.

But because an imaginery line was drawn down the middle of that street separating the two sides into separate countries, you now just sit down and drink your latte and try to read your paper, ignoring the kid's screams?

People can hide behind words and euphemisms, and political arguments, but it's the same moral principle, whether you are in the country next door, or across the globe. Why else do we feel guilt over Rwanda? Because we know we didn't do anything to stop it, and we should have.

Who is hiding behind anything? I am the one saying screw the UN and international community (who will complain no matter what the US does) and threaten to start arming the Darfurians (and threaten to start bombing).

As for being closer, well, maybe it is not a moral imperative, but a material one. If things keep as they are in Darfur, the refugess are going to pour accross African borders - -they are not going to suddenly materialize in Rome. Refugees into Chad means trouble for Chad's neighbors and so on.

I was opposed to US intervention in the Balkans not becuase the UN did not give permission and not because the bon pesant class disapproved and not because of the peace marchers (the "rainbow flag people" in Oriana Fallacci's phrase) but because I though Europe should have handled what was in their backyard. In hindsight, having worked with someone who was in the US force that occupied part of Bosnia, I have changed my mind.

In any event, I also think the Africa needs to start taking care of its own problems without asking for somone to take up the "White Man's Burden" (though the US secretary of state is neither (i) white or (ii) a man). Darfur is a good place to start. We will and should help, but they need to start showing they can help themselves.

[ForeverRed]

Answer? Nobody cares about a bunch of arabs killing poor blacks.

And thats precisely the problem in this case and a recurring theme when it comes to Africa...

I mean, isn't Sudan a big exporter of Oil? There are large portions of Oil in the southern areas so there are some incentives, if any, for western countries to get in there and sort some things out.

[ForeverRed]

Who is hiding behind anything? I am the one saying screw the UN and international community (who will complain no matter what the US does) and threaten to start arming the Darfurians (and threaten to start bombing).

As for being closer, well, maybe it is not a moral imperative, but a material one. If things keep as they are in Darfur, the refugess are going to pour accross African borders - -they are not going to suddenly materialize in Rome. Refugees into Chad means trouble for Chad's neighbors and so on.

I was opposed to US intervention in the Balkans not becuase the UN did not give permission and not because the bon pesant class disapproved and not because of the peace marchers (the "rainbow flag people" in Oriana Fallacci's phrase) but because I though Europe should have handled what was in their backyard. In hindsight, having worked with someone who was in the US force that occupied part of Bosnia, I have changed my mind.

In any event, I also think the Africa needs to start taking care of its own problems without asking for somone to take up the "White Man's Burden" (though the US secretary of state is neither (i) white or (ii) a man). Darfur is a good place to start. We will and should help, but they need to start showing they can help themselves.

And there is nothing wrong in asking them to help themselfs, BUT, a hand is needed to get them to that point where they can help themselfs....because they haven't reached that point yet and I doubt they will anytime soon unless major reforms and help is underway.

Of course, there is the viscious cycle of pumping money into Africa yielding no real results because of the distribution and allocation problems of the incoming aid but if a country like the United States goes into Iraq under the precedent of spreading democracy and stopping "evil doers" the situation in Darfur and Sudan as a whole is not too different, if anything it is more urgent. This is where the integrity of the foreign policy of the United States always comes under scrutiny.

I wish the situation wasn't so political but it is, and there is really no getting away from it.

[DoyleG]

There have been 7,000 African Peacekeeping forces there for 3 years now. They are under-manned, under-equiped, and are ready to pull out because of inability to afford the continuing mission. Looking to African countries to be the major force is not a solution.

Don't look for the UN to help since countries aren't going to get drawn into a conflict without an exit strategy (Which peacekeeping missions lack).