Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[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]

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)

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]

  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]

"We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded."  

Unfortunately, we don't have an Armoured Division to come and pull us out.... ^-^

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]

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]

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?