Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[bossi]

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 ”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 ” 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 ” La Francophonie, the Commonwealth 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 ” 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 “ 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]

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 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 ” 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.