African Union Troops Blow The Whistle On Sudan's Brazen Continuation Of Genocide

[NATO AIR]

goddamnit why can't we do something to stop this? this is madness. these poor African Union troops are gonna end up just like the UN peacekeepers in Bosnia (the ones with consciences), fucked up and disillusioned, having to stand by and watch people get slaughtered with impunity.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1100922004

Darfur troops blow the whistle

FRED BRIDGLAND IN JOHANNESBURG

AFRICAN Union soldiers yesterday accused the Sudanese government of brazenly breaching the ceasefire in the Darfur region and continuing to attack villages with a contemptuous disregard for the presence of peace monitors.

AU peacekeepers claim the situation is "falling apart" in Darfur, with the Sudanese not complying with the ceasefire demands.

Their allegations come after the UN Security Council on Saturday approved a resolution threatening oil sanctions against Sudan if the government fails to rein in the Arab Janjaweed militias blamed for killing tens of thousands of black Africans in Darfur.

AU soldiers in Darfur leaked the contents of classified reports sent to the union’s Addis Ababa headquarters, after their superiors refused to publish them. They paint a damning picture of the Sudanese government’s contempt for peacekeeping.

"They [the government] are not acting in good faith," says the AU’s mission chief, Ghana’s Colonel Anthony Amedoh. "Everything is falling apart. There are so many clear violations by the Sudanese government. They’re using aircraft where they’re not supposed to and they’re moving their forces all the time. They are not complying at all, but we can’t stop them from violating the ceasefire, we can just report it. They just deny it and don’t stop what they are doing."

The African commanders say the Sudan government is treating them like fools while its army, acting in close alliance with the Janjaweed militias, continues its ethnic cleansing of the Fur, Zaghawa, Masalit and other black African tribes.

Colonel Barry Steyn, commander of the small South African force with the AU mission, says he counts bodies of Sudan army and Janjaweed victims each week and sends classified reports to Addis Ababa. Describing maggot-infested decomposing skulls, he says: "You believe there’s an inherent goodness in people, but you see some of these villages and it shakes that belief. You look at this stuff and it makes you turn dead white."

Saturday’s Security Council vote was carried 11-0 with four abstentions - China, Russia, Pakistan and Algeria. China, a permanent council member with veto power and huge oil interests in Sudan, said immediately after the vote that it would veto any future resolution that sought to impose sanctions on Sudan. "I told the American government that the position of my government on sanctions is a firm one," said China’s UN ambassador, Wang Guangya. "We always believe that sanctions are not a helpful means to achieve political objectives. It will only make matters worse."

The resolution says the council would have to meet again to consider sanctions against Sudan’s petroleum sector or other punitive measures if the Khartoum government does not act quickly to stop the violence and bring the perpetrators to justice - or if it fails to co-operate with the 480-strong AU monitoring force. The council also ordered an investigation into whether the attacks constituted genocide. A declaration of genocide would oblige the UN to intervene militarily under the Convention on Prevention of Genocide.

The AU commanders decided to break silence and talk freely to visiting South African reporters because of the futility of their task and the AU’s refusal to publish what is really happening in Darfur.

"They [the Sudan Army] say there’s a fuel problem when they want to keep us on the ground," says Major Gordon Schmidt, a South African communications officer. "They don’t want us to take off because they don’t want us to see. It’s a big violation."

Schmidt was speaking as a Sudan army strike helicopter carrying 30 heavily armed soldiers took off on an attack mission from the Darfur town of Nyala. AU monitoring troops from Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Senegal and Egypt were ready to follow in their own choppers. But they are dependent on the Sudan army for fuel and, as flight crew stood ready, an AU soldier reported back: "The Sudanese say there is no fuel." By the time fuel arrived, the Sudanese attack was over. AU commanders and their troops watched from their tents and land cruisers as Sudanese officials welcomed back the attack force with smiles, hugs and multiple signing of forms.

"These people are not truthful, we’re always fighting about these fuel issues," says Sergeant William Molokwane of the South African Defence Force. "We are supposed to know about these movements - troops moving out of the city, attack helicopters flying in and out of the airport. They will only tell us, ‘we are testing them’."

As Sgt Molokwane sighs with frustration, a Nigerian soldier comes in from patrol and tells his commander, Colonel Negabi : "We caught them fighting together red-handed." He said Sudan soldiers and Janjaweed militiamen were jointly attacking civilians in a large refugee camp.

Sgt Molokwane is distraught. "Aside from our small protection force [of 120 Rwandan soldiers] there are absolutely no arms here," he says. "If something happens now, what can we do?"

 

[onedomino]

goddamnit why can't we do something to stop this? this is madness. these poor African Union troops are gonna end up just like the UN peacekeepers in Bosnia (the ones with consciences), fucked up and disillusioned, having to stand by and watch people get slaughtered with impunity.

-------

What in God's name is going on here!? Why did the reports have to be leaked?

"AU soldiers in Darfur leaked the contents of classified reports sent to the union’s Addis Ababa headquarters, after their superiors refused to publish them. They paint a damning picture of the Sudanese government’s contempt for peacekeeping."

 

[dilloduck]

-------

What in God's name is going on here!? Why did the reports have to be leaked?

"AU soldiers in Darfur leaked the contents of classified reports sent to the union’s Addis Ababa headquarters, after their superiors refused to publish them. They paint a damning picture of the Sudanese government’s contempt for peacekeeping."

I'm afraid that there is no one to available to stop them even if UN imposed some sort of worthless sanction. Annan is owned by the muslim states and China could care less. They want the oil--since when did they care about the welfare of people.

 

[NATO AIR]

president bush is the only world leader with the power and the balls to put a stop to this mess and stand up to these mass murderers. i just hope he knows that and has got a plan, because the whole UN idea just went down the tubes with this revelation.

 

[dilloduck]

president bush is the only world leader with the power and the balls to put a stop to this mess and stand up to these mass murderers. i just hope he knows that and has got a plan, because the whole UN idea just went down the tubes with this revelation.

I'm beginning to feel as though Bush is laying TOO low in the days leading up to the election. If he wants to prove he is a man of convictions he needs to act on current problems without fear of liberal criticism.

 

[NATO AIR]

i can understand if he is agonizing over how we'll have to confront iran... no president likes to order troops into battle. but mr. president, we just have to defend lives, not take them (unless it is necessary in the situation). You defend life on abortion all the time, let's defend these people in Darfur.

 

[CSM]

It would seem that there are many countries who believe the UN is pretty much useless, thus fear no consequences for their actions. There is a lot of truth to the old saying that nice guys finish last. Nice guys follow the rules and thus constrain themselves; the bad guys don't even consider the rules. As I have said before on these boards: achieving the moral high ground is poor recompense for surrendering.

I have to ask, where are all those countries so quick to bash the US for being the world's bully? Here is a case where the US can't or won't get involved by applying military force, yet those other countries now merely stand by wringing their hands and criticizing the US for not stopping the genocide. Where is the UN with their much feared sanctions and moral browbeating? Where is the outcry from the ultra left in this country? With their professed concern for humanity, why aren't they clamoring for intervention?

The answers is that they truly dont care.

 

[dilloduck]

It would seem that there are many countries who believe the UN is pretty much useless, thus fear no consequences for their actions. There is a lot of truth to the old saying that nice guys finish last. Nice guys follow the rules and thus constrain themselves; the bad guys don't even consider the rules. As I have said before on these boards: achieving the moral high ground is poor recompense for surrendering.

I have to ask, where are all those countries so quick to bash the US for being the world's bully? Here is a case where the US can't or won't get involved by applying military force, yet those other countries now merely stand by wringing their hands and criticizing the US for not stopping the genocide. Where is the UN with their much feared sanctions and moral browbeating? Where is the outcry from the ultra left in this country? With their professed concern for humanity, why aren't they clamoring for intervention?

The answers is that they truly dont care.

That or they fear that if Bush steps in to stop it , it will help him politically.
(guess you right--they only care about themselves)

 

[CSM]

president bush is the only world leader with the power and the balls to put a stop to this mess and stand up to these mass murderers. i just hope he knows that and has got a plan, because the whole UN idea just went down the tubes with this revelation.

I disagree with that statement. There are plenty of world powers out there who could, if they really wanted to, form a coalition and intervene in a variety of ways. There are many nations out there who decry the US as a super power, tout themselves as far superior to the US morally, economically, culturally, and some even militarily. We have even seen it on these boards where citizens of other countries come here, bash the US and its foriegn policy, tout the greatness of their nations far superior and enlightened thinking, accuse US soldiers of atrocities and so forth.

To try to blame the US for inaction and lay the responsibility soley on the United States is pure BS! Those same countries stood by and watched the Balkans rend itself apart, waited for the US to intervene, and them screeched like the harpies of hell when the US didn't do it the way they thought it should be done. Once the US turned the whole thing over to the UN, those countries stand by once again as the Balkans slowly sink into the depths once again. No, the US cannot and should not be responsible, nor should any US citizen feel guilty for what is happening in Africa today. We should be pointing OUR finger at the UN and the rest of the world and crying "SHAME!"

 

[NATO AIR]

but pres. bush is the only world leader brave enough to take action. the others are either shameful hypocrites (france, germany), allies of the genocide (china, pakistan and egypt) or are in dire political peril (tony blair in britain, howard in australia)

and we americans love to save the day... that's where the "super" in superpower comes from. we've been doing it since the spanish-american war and though it grows tiresome, its in our blood now to be the heroes of liberty and humanity (though we don't get enough credit or support that often)

 

[CSM]

but pres. bush is the only world leader brave enough to take action. the others are either shameful hypocrites (france, germany), allies of the genocide (china, pakistan and egypt) or are in dire political peril (tony blair in britain, howard in australia)

and we americans love to save the day... that's where the "super" in superpower comes from. we've been doing it since the spanish-american war and though it grows tiresome, its in our blood now to be the heroes of liberty and humanity (though we don't get enough credit or support that often)

Yeah, I know where you are coming from. I guess that personally, I am just sick and tired of the US doing all the heavy lifting and then bearing the brunt of all the criticism from those who get us into these things in the first place. I am beginning to feel like not only is the only remainingsuperpower, but has also become the rest of the planet's sole whipping boy.

 

[NATO AIR]

i'm betting anti-americanism is a medal sport at the 2008 olympics

 

[onedomino]

This is an interesting thread.

Does America have the responsibility to stop the madness in Darfur? The ideals of America are liberty and compassion. In my opinion, we cannot point to the weakness of others and complain that it is always America that must defend the world against the forces of darkness. America is the world leader. Not with a telescope can you see number two. America is the first global state of mind. The world knows this and when something bad happens, all eyes are on America.

“The price of greatness is responsibility.” - Winston Churchill

 

[Annie]

This is an interesting thread.

Does America have the responsibility to stop the madness in Darfur? The ideals of America are liberty and compassion. In my opinion, we cannot point to the weakness of others and complain that it is always America that must defend the world against the forces of darkness. America is the world leader. Not with a telescope can you see number two. America is the first global state of mind. The world knows this and when something bad happens, all eyes are on America.

“The price of greatness is responsibility.” - Winston Churchill

I agree! Interesting indeed. My logic says the US cannot be diverted from the ME/ASIA front. At the same time, I believe we have a responsibility regarding the Sudan. Ultimately this Hobbesian choice comes to which is necessary for our safety? No contest. If the UN or a coalition come together, there will be more genocide. Just what I think, sadly.

The Churchill quote is so appropriate.

 

[NATO AIR]

everybody knows where i stand... no mystery there

pres. bush won't let me down, he understands

 

[CSM]

This is an interesting thread.

Does America have the responsibility to stop the madness in Darfur? The ideals of America are liberty and compassion. In my opinion, we cannot point to the weakness of others and complain that it is always America that must defend the world against the forces of darkness. America is the world leader. Not with a telescope can you see number two. America is the first global state of mind. The world knows this and when something bad happens, all eyes are on America.

“The price of greatness is responsibility.” - Winston Churchill

I do not disagree. However, even superpowers have limits. Our military forces are already over-extended with a very high op tempo. Logistical and economic support also become problematic if we intervene in Darfur, especially if we go in with more than a token force. We would definitely have to have support from the world's major powers, both economically and militarily to be successful. Given the international politics and the stance of some countries as evidenced by their position in the UNSC, I do not think we would have the support we need to succeed in Darfur.

 

[NATO AIR]

i respectfully disagree

as i 've noted in the past, the obvious model for an intervention in darfur is operation provide comfort, where we saved the kurds from starvation and disease while protecting them from saddam's vengeful wrath.

in northern iraq, we had US, british and french troops, with NATO airpower providing the neccessary no-fly zone.

in darfur, we would have African Union troops with a 1,000 NATO force augment, Americans, Brits, Aussies, Italians and Czechs. The air power would come from one of three Naval and Air Force bases in Europe, (our base (ROTA) in spain and any one of our several bases in italy and sicily.)

the french have even given their permission to the african union or intervening power to use their premium airfield in chad.

this isn't impossible, and it wouldn't stretch our forces further. Remember, the Army is the only overstretched chapter of the military. The Marines, Air Force and Navy have problems, but they remain as ready for deployments as they've ever been.

We can and must intervene in Darfur.

 

[Annie]

i respectfully disagree

as i 've noted in the past, the obvious model for an intervention in darfur is operation provide comfort, where we saved the kurds from starvation and disease while protecting them from saddam's vengeful wrath.

in northern iraq, we had US, british and french troops, with NATO airpower providing the neccessary no-fly zone.

in darfur, we would have African Union troops with a 1,000 NATO force augment, Americans, Brits, Aussies, Italians and Czechs. The air power would come from one of three Naval and Air Force bases in Europe, (our base (ROTA) in spain and any one of our several bases in italy and sicily.)

the french have even given their permission to the african union or intervening power to use their premium airfield in chad.

this isn't impossible, and it wouldn't stretch our forces further. Remember, the Army is the only overstretched chapter of the military. The Marines, Air Force and Navy have problems, but they remain as ready for deployments as they've ever been.

We can and must intervene in Darfur.

NATO, I posted earlier that logic said one thing, my heart agrees with you. I just don't see this as doable without boots, which is the Army. Now if the French, Africans were to come to, that would be very different indeed. Right now, by ourselves, I just don't see it happening, hope I'm wrong.

 

[NATO AIR]

The African Union is ready to send 4,000 to 5,000 troops "very soon — within days, weeks," African Union Commission Chairman Alpha Oumar Konare told The Associated Press.

But Konare said movement depends on logistical help from "Europe, America and the United Nations especially."

So far, he said, there has been just talk about assistance.

"Sometimes people speak big, but when it is time to give big, they are not willing," Konare said.

He said Nigeria, Rwanda and Tanzania are ready to contribute troops, "but we don't have the means" to move and equip them.

(From my other post on this)

The troops are right there. You augment that with logistics, air support and an augment force of about 1,000 folks, and you've got yourself a no-fly zone and a safe area for the genocide survivors, carved right out of a piece of Darfur.

You also call the Sudanese bluff. Do they really think America would tolerate a Sudanese attack on American/Allied forces? This is where George Bush's reputation wins the day. Nobody in Sudan's leadership is gonna be that stupid to play chicken with Bush.

 

[Annie]

(From my other post on this)

The troops are right there. You augment that with logistics, air support and an augment force of about 1,000 folks, and you've got yourself a no-fly zone and a safe area for the genocide survivors, carved right out of a piece of Darfur.

You also call the Sudanese bluff. Do they really think America would tolerate a Sudanese attack on American/Allied forces? This is where George Bush's reputation wins the day. Nobody in Sudan's leadership is gonna be that stupid to play chicken with Bush.

Well, watch Powell, I think he'd like this done.