 Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2006 March
2006 February
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
My Links
Home
Sea-Eat
HaitiChildren.com
Adopt A Minefield
Info for Americans living abroad
Jewish Voice For Peace
Gush-Shalom
All Is One
The Hunger Site
Global Exchange
Peace Star Project
Iraq Occupation Watch
Peace Mid-East Dialogue Group
B'TSELEM
Parents Circle - Families Forum
Women's World
P10K
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| What to do about Darfur |
| 05.06.05 (4:56 pm) [edit] |
Brad Plummer at Mother Jones has raised the question many of us ask as we read of the ongoing genocide in Darfur.
He first directs us to the website of Brian Steidle, a former U.S. Marine, who contracted with the African Union monitoring team in Darfur and took hundreds pictures of the devastation there.
"A former Marine, I had arrived in Sudan's Darfur region in September 2004 as one of three U.S. military observers for the African Union, armed only with a pen, pad and camera. The mandate for the A.U. force allowed merely for the reporting of violations of a cease-fire that had been declared last April and the protection of observers. The observers sometimes joked morbidly that our mission was to search endlessly for the cease-fire we constantly failed to find. I soon realized that this was no joke." Brian Steidle
See the children with their backs torn open by bullets. See the villages torched and strafed by government gunships. See the refugees crammed into camps, parched and starving. A few minutes of this is enough to make one scream for someone, anyone, anyone at all to just do something. "What exactly is to be done?" And here's where things get trickier.
The African Union (AU) has said it will increase it's Darfur peacekeeping unit from 2,300 to 3,300 by May and hopefully to 7,700 by the end of September. More importantly they will be granted a mandate to protect civilians in the region. Up until now they have only been able to monitor the ceasefire between the Khartoum government and the rebels.
The US plans to spend an extra $50 to $60 million in support and NATO will "consider" providing logistical support.
The genocide against the people of Darfur has killed an estimated 400,000 civilians. Because many in the AU do not consider what is happening in Darfur genocide they have sat by and done nothing considering the problem one for Sudan to deal with. Some doubt they will follow thorough on the proposed troop expansion.
It will be 4 months before the AU troops are ready and in the meantime starvation and massacres continue. On top of this the rainy season will soon begin which will hinder aid groups from getting in.
The UN estimates 10,000 to 12,000 troops will be needed. Brian Steidle and Gen. Romeo Dallaire, head of the UN Peacekeeping Force during the genocide in Rwanda, estimate the number needed to be between 25,000 to 50,000.
The UN Security Council could, in theory, put in an expanded civilian protection force into Darfur, possibly deploying peacekeepers from other African and Muslim countries. But China—which imports six percent of its oil from Sudan, and has a controlling stake in various Sudanese oil companies—would likely veto any such intervention. Likewise, NATO could step in, but for the fact that France has opposed such a move, arguing that the organization should not be "the gendarme of the world." And other Arab countries have also declined to get involved; Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, for instance, has denounced any possible "internationalization" of the conflict.
For its part, the Bush administration no longer seems willing to put pressure on its allies over Darfur; over the past few weeks the State Department has shied away from calling the situation a "genocide," a word that Colin Powell had been hurling around with authority last year. More recently, Mark Leon Goldberg of the American Prospect reported that the White House was trying to thwart the Darfur Accountability Act from passing Congress, an act which would accelerate AU deployment, authorize an expansion of the UN peacekeeping force, slap sanctions on Khartoum, and use international airpower to enforce a no-fly zone over Darfur and prevent Sudanese gunships from strafing villages. One possible explanation for the shift: The Los Angeles Times' Ken Silverstein reported last week that the U.S. appears to be gaining valuable counterterrorism support from, among other things, Sudan's intelligence chief Salan Abdallah Gosh, who happens to be overseeing the genocidal war against Darfur. "What exactly is to be done?" And here's where things get trickier.
Comment on this entry at Pourquoi Pas
|
|
|
| |
|
|