Un Deployment To Sudan
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Sudan given 30 days to reign in forces</div> <a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10298788%255E401,00.html' target='_blank'>News link</a>
Summery: The United Nations has voted to send international forces into Sudan to stop what has been described as the worst humanitarian disaster in the world today. The Sudanese government has been given 30 days to reign in it's forces and end the bloodshed, after which action will be taken.
Discuss.
Summery: The United Nations has voted to send international forces into Sudan to stop what has been described as the worst humanitarian disaster in the world today. The Sudanese government has been given 30 days to reign in it's forces and end the bloodshed, after which action will be taken.
Discuss.
Comments
i don't approve of the use of force on much, this seems to be an exception
Action? Like what? They'll sit around and talk about doing something again?
Here's a nice little gem:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Meanwhile, French President Jacques Chirac this morning ordered the immediate mobilisation of French troops stationed in Chad because of the "seriousness of the humanitarian situation" in Darfur, just across the border.
"Without waiting for the response of the interational community the defence ministry" had taken several steps, including the deployment of an "observation force already in place" on the Chadian side of the border with Darfur, said a statement from the president's office.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
France taking action without the approval of the UN? Those insolent bastards!
This is really pathetic. There should have been thousands of troops (from everywhere) removing those genocidal maniacs months ago. Instead we get to watch the UN's fat **** flop around like a fish out of water.
And sanctions? Yeah, here we go again.
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040730/wl_nm/sudan_darfur_un_dc' target='_blank'>Yahoo News</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 13-0 vote, with abstentions from China and Pakistan, came after the United States deleted the provocative word "sanctions" from the resolution and substituted a reference to a provision in the U.N. charter that describes various forms of sanctions.
No specific measures were identified to punish the Sudanese government. The resolution also placed a weapons embargo on armed groups in Darfur.
Whether sanctions ever will be imposed is questionable. The United States and its European allies in the Security Council faced considerable opposition on the resolution and had to reword the sanctions threat to attract enough votes.
...
The measure, co-sponsored by Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Chile and Romania, demands that the Sudanese government disarm and prosecute within 30 days militia known as Janjaweed, or the Security Council would consider punitive measures.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great! 30 days will pass and then it'll take another 2 weeks to create a real resolution that actually mentions sanction!
The inaction here by the UN is pathetic. Its taken too long for them to even get this far.
I'm embarrassed that their HQ is here in America. Be nice.
As far as Sudan goes, let’s wait and see, this might scare them. If it doesn’t that might scare the UN. A messy guerrilla war in Sudan could be too much for them to stomach.
Of course, even if the SC decides to do something, I don't see it being effective. The U.S. would probably provide only a token force. Even if more troops were sent, it seems unlikely that African rebel factions would respond well to European and American forces. Given the results of actions in Somolia and Rwanda, I don't see U.N. intervention actually preventing any problems.
Any outside invasion force would find themselves fighting both the army and the rebels.
--Scythe--
Diplomacy?!
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Any outside invasion force would find themselves fighting both the army and the rebels.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The trouble is the U.N. hasn't done <i>anything</i> of value in relation to Sudan and Darfur. The resolution they passed is nothing more than a strongly worded statement saying that they need to stop the violence or the U.N. might bring sanctions against Sudan. As such, I would say that they're doing a poor job. The U.N. effectively gave Sudan another month to keep fighting, rather than take action. While I'm not a fan of the "guns a-blazin'" approach, I think that something would have been done.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wasn't the UN originally meant to be a peace-keeper and a "neutral ground" where countries and groups could use ... dare i say it ...
Diplomacy?!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The U.N. is a diplomatic ground for resolving disputes between two nations. In Sudan, the problem is internal. The rebels aren't a nation and they have no representative in the U.N. Diplomacy also makes the assumption that both sides wish to negotiate. It's unlikely that the Janjaweed militia has any interest in talking. If they wanted to talk, they probably wouldn't be killing the local population.
There's also a problem with the peace-keeper role. Both the Sudanese government and the militias are likely to be hostile towards an outside force. Particularly since any force would likely be composed of Western troops. You'd have a white force in a mostly Islamic nation. There's also the problem of U.N. history when it comes to interventions in Africa.
The U.N. has shown itself to be reluctant when it comes to getting involved in African affairs. While food drops and medicine shipments have always been commonplace, it is unlikely that the U.N. will actually push to deploy soldiers given the current situation. The lack of action, in spite of the fact that 50,000 have been killed and more than 1,000,000 driven from their homes, is a prime example of how the U.N. conducts business. Will the problem have to reach the same level as the crisis in Rwanda before the U.N. actually decides to take action?
It's a shame this sort of stuff still goes on this day in age.
Diplomacy?!
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Diplomacy is the act of saying "Nice Doggie" until you can find a rock<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ty Finch
No seriously, diplomacy only works if both sides know that if and when peace talks fail, you are willing to go to war. Otherwise you are negotiating without any sort of power to back up your demands. Which is why the UN is basically a joke, because they are <u>so</u> anti-war they can generally be ignored by "bad" nations and punishment is very slow in coming.
The UN gets bashed because it deserves it. You simply cannot be an instrument of peace if force is not an option. Still, we must keep it around - where else will the anti-Semite nations of this world get to clothe their hatred in the respectibility of international law if not in the General Assembly?
This is so very true. I'm glad others see it this way.
The UN was actually a respectable organization back in the 40's, 50's and 60's. They helped to rebuild Europe and keep the Cold war from becoming a "hot" one. They were very useful in heping to repel N. Korean invaders in the Korean war and stationed peacekeeping forces around the globe. I don't know why their stance has changed so much...If they lose Us and British support, the UN is in danger of going the waay of the League of Nations.
I'm glad France is preparing to intervene, but shouldn't the UK be getting involved? They take a lot of the blame here as the Sudan was their former colony.
The UK has basically said the same thing as France. Tony Blair said that Britian is prepared to used force and is considering sending up to 2000 troops if it deems it necessary.
France's mobilization has only consisted of putting 200 troops on Chad's eastern border. According to a BBC article, it would take 15,000 to 20,000 troops to secure only Darfur. Even if France sent all of its soldiers from Chad and African nations supplied the troops they promised, that would still only amount to 1,300 soldiers. A far cry from the thousands that would be needed. England's 2,000 troops, while helpful, wouldn't be enough. The two largest military nations in the world are China and the U.S. and China has already made its apathy towards African affairs clear enough with its abstention in the vote.
Darfur also has the problem of being a remote African region. Kosovo is in Eastern Europe and NATO aircraft had easy access from European bases and the sea. Darfur on the other hand would require flying over Sudan, which isn't keen on the idea of foreign troops or it would require basing aircraft in an African nation like Chad. The trouble with that idea though is that it runs the risk of having the conflict spill into other nations. Chad and Darfur have similar ethnic make-ups and it wouldn't take much to get Chad involved in the war.
There's also the problem of Sudan being a largely Islamic nation. Given the problems in Iraq, it's unlikely that the U.S. and U.K. would want to place a large number of troops in a remote part of Africa. Any significant deployment from the U.S. would probably involve pulling troops out of Iraq, which seems unlikely.
All of this is a moot point really. I don't see the U.N., even the Security Council, bringing military action against Sudan. Kosovo had military headquaters and installations. Darfur simply has militias that are just roving bands of gunmen on horseback. Airpower would be of minimal effect given the remote location and the trouble in finding targets.
My analysis of the situation is that things are going to get much worse for the people of Darfur before they get any better.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is why China will be the best world power ever.
/me waits.
CWAG, if you can't contribute meaningfully to the Discussion forum, you'll soon find yourself not contributing to it at all.</span>
what would you suggest they do, sit down and talk about it over a cup of tea?
Please, outline a plan that does not envolve violence. Keep in mind the current government is behind the ethnic cleansing. Do you honestly believe that those behind these atrocities would give up their power so easily?
For those not familiar with what is going on in Sudan, here is an article written March 24 calling for action.
<a href='http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/0324again.htm' target='_blank'>link</a>
Self Nuked flaming of CWAG, however greatly he deserved it.....
So then I think about a UN that tries things only diplomatically, like the current one, and seems too afraid to act with military force until it is utterly too late. While I think that it may save many lives, soldiers and civilians, I wonder about if the possibility of that outweighs the fact this UN fails to save many people anyway. Slow to act, cumbersome and almost afraid to enter a war, all it does is stand around and talk over tea while people in Sudan (for example) die of starvation.
Both pretty much suck as options and I then wonder if we really need a UN after all. I wonder if all we really need is just a group, or groups of countries to come together under the banner of 'common sense' and agree to help the people of a country like Sudan.
But common sense would be far too much to ask for, especially of a body of people who think like this of the UN.
So then I think about a UN that tries things only diplomatically, like the current one, and seems too afraid to act with military force until it is utterly too late. While I think that it may save many lives, soldiers and civilians, I wonder about if the possibility of that outweighs the fact this UN fails to save many people anyway. Slow to act, cumbersome and almost afraid to enter a war, all it does is stand around and talk over tea while people in Sudan (for example) die of starvation.
Both pretty much suck as options and I then wonder if we really need a UN after all. I wonder if all we really need is just a group, or groups of countries to come together under the banner of 'common sense' and agree to help the people of a country like Sudan.
But common sense would be far too much to ask for, especially of a body of people who think like this of the UN. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But nations, all nations, inherently do whatever they think is in their best interest. You simply cannot have a working collective if each is striving for its own benefit. "Common sense" doesnt exist - common interest is law for alliances.
I have no doubt that in 100-200 years time, historians will look back at us in complete amazement, to a time when Western nations, with vast economic and military resources, who never shut up about the evils of murder, torture and genocide, failed to remove even the most pathetic of tin pot dictators.
We have the money to support and sustain aid, both military and economic, we have the beliefs to condemn the actions of other nations, the military to enforce it, and the utter spinelessness and selfishness to twiddle our thumbs and watch cause hell, they didnt attack us.
I thought for a while what it would be like if the US broke off with a few key allies and set up a body that could actually do something in this world - but realised that eventually it would succumb to the same problems of the UN. Too many cooks....
Self Nuked flaming of CWAG, however greatly he deserved it..... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Feel free to pm me the insult, if it would really make you feel better I'll listen to the vent <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Just to let you all know. France is not apart of NATO. It withdrew from NATO durring the 50's when De Gaul took power. I suppose France wanted to independently organize their "security" <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> forces to defend itself from the USSR.