UN Darfur: Preparing To Lose?

[Annie]

http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=989

3/8/2006
UPDATED: Down with USA– Down with UN, too: UN prepares to invade Sudan
Filed under:

* General

— site admin @ 7:18 am

This week’s column mentions the looming US invasion of Sudan’s Darfur region.

Reuters brings together several memes in this report.”

Shouting “Down, Down USA,” thousands of Sudanese protested in Khartoum on Wednesday against any deployment of U.N. troops to the western Darfur region.

“Get out all foreigners, we don’t want you here,” shouted 21-year-old student Zeinab Kheir el-Sir.

“Darfur will be the grave of the conquerors,” said banners carried by the demonstrators.

African foreign ministers are due to decide on Friday whether to ask the United Nations to take over control of their 7,000-strong mission currently monitoring a shaky cease-fire in Darfur. The AU lacks both funds and equipment.

Ahead of their meeting, senior western officials held talks in Brussels with Sudanese leaders aiming to persuade them to agree to the deployment of a robust U.N. mission in Darfur.

Another key graf:

The United Nations is currently deploying about 10,000 troops to Sudan’s south to oversee a separate peace deal signed last year to end more than two decades of civil war there.

But the government and opposition parties have all said they do not want this U.N. force to be extended to Darfur as well.

“In the south they are there to help, but in Darfur this will just be a front for Israel and America to come in to get our oil,” said demonstrator Amal Jaafar.

Sudan produces roughly 330,000 barrels per day of crude, mostly from fields in the south.

U.N. sources say any U.N. force in Sudan’s west is likely to keep the same AU forces on the ground, but change the command over to a U.N. peacekeeping mission.

In Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana met Sudanese Vice-President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha to step up pressure on Sudan to accept U.N. peacekeepers.

“Taha is a key player in the Sudanese government … We hope he hears the message,” an EU official said

“The UN invasion of Sudan” — that’s what replacing the African Union peacekeepers with UN troops (and NATO-supplied troops) will amount to. Why? The Sudan government objects to the change, for many reasons. One reason: the pecekeepers would mo e from monitoring to peace enforcement. NATO troops would serve in strike and rapid reaction units– meaning the militias of all stripes would be out-classed and out-gunned. NATO would provide air strike and air lift support (so far the UN has asked for air lift, but made the request in terms of “air support”). NATO would provide maintenance assistance.

I wonder if critics of the US will appreciate the abundant ironies. Here’s a good one: Al Qaeda-type terrirosts have threatened UN diplomats. I wrote this up for StrategyPage a few days ago. The sources were UN statements, an NGO site, and a Reuters report (which repeated some of Pronk’s UN statement). :

… Jan Pronk, the chief UN representative in Sudan, terrorists (possibly aligned with Al Qaeda) have said that they will attack him and any non-African peacekeeping troops in Sudan. Pronk said that intelligence information had said terrorists present in Sudan would target UN peacekeepers.The Sudan government has rejected UN appeals to increase troops in Sudan’s western Darfur region and move control of the peacekeeping operation from the African Union (AU) to the United Nations.The AU has 7000 troops in the Darfur region. The UN plan calls for at least 20000 troops. On February 25 the Sudan government said that international troops would be “at risk” if they deployed to Sudan.

Anti-western, anti-modern, pro-genocide — hello Salafist/Al Qaeda terrorists.

This BBC link is useful. And here’s the link to StrategyPage’s latest.

UPDATE: Why haven’t we heard about these demonstrations in Sudan’s “Arab street?” The best answers to this question (submitted through the Creators Syndicate email box or on comments) will be highlighted in a post later this week.

 

[NATO AIR]

Nick Kristof reports in his latest column (and I have seen this seconded across the web via Strategy Page and distinguished observers) that Sudan is engaging in some high stakes brinksmanship with the neighboring country of Chad, where many of the Darfur refugees (nearly a million) are now suffering in camps.

Sudan is supporting a rebel force in Chad that is attempting to overthrow the government of Chad. If they suceed, Sudan gets a proxy state in Chad and will make good on its threat to exterminate every surviving Darfur male (child, adult, old men) and rape and enslave the women.

That's a million lives on the line, with the AU, US, UN and EU allowing this to get this crisis to get to this point by "talking, talking" and not taking action.

You're going to see shit (because there will be journalists everywhere covering it as its so politely promised by the Sudanese themselves) out of Chad and Darfur that will look the ENDTIMES, with bodies everywhere and a bunch of Western diplomats claiming they didn't see it coming and were powerless to stop it, even though the intelligence services have been warning of this for three years.

Its sickening to think that our only hope is the French, who consider Chad's government a Francophone ally. I hope GW encourages Chirac and the French to get medieval on the Chadian rebels and their Sudanese allies.

 

[nosarcasm]

the only hope for the christians in Dafur is a Western Alliance force of 20 -30k securing the peace.

These guys have nothing, so its not gonna happen, shame on us.

The African Union and their cries of Imperialism doesnt help either.

 

[NATO AIR]

the only hope for the christians in Dafur is a Western Alliance force of 20 -30k securing the peace.

These guys have nothing, so its not gonna happen, shame on us.

The African Union and their cries of Imperialism doesnt help either.

It would at once both probable and impossible for a Western financed private military force to protect Darfur. There are several companies out there with the ability to pull it off, at a price of maybe 400-500 million for 6 months-1 year.

Better than nothing.

 

[nosarcasm]

I dont claim it inpossible just that the African Union and their Imperialism talk plus the cost keeps the West out. That is shamefull. Fuck Southafrica ( the gorilla in the AU.)

 

[NATO AIR]

the only hope for the christians in Dafur is a Western Alliance force of 20 -30k securing the peace.

These guys have nothing, so its not gonna happen, shame on us.

The African Union and their cries of Imperialism doesnt help either.

well, i wasn't criticizing your post, just noting that a most realistic (but at once unviable) option would be the PMC force.

I doubt a Western Alliance is going to show up to do anything.

You are right about the AU.

Though its almost all Muslims in Darfur, the Christian victims of the Sudanese regime are in the South.

 

[trobinett]

Seems to be something in the air.

The continent of Africa, and any land mass that touches` it, seems` set on self destruction, in one form or another.

Hard to belive, that it`s the cradle of civilization.

I say let em have at each other, sending the UN or the French in would have the same result.

On the bright side, they could learn how to surrender from the French. :teeth:

 

[NATO AIR]

Seems to be something in the air.

The continent of Africa, and any land mass that touches` it, seems` set on self destruction, in one form or another.

Hard to belive, that it`s the cradle of civilization.

I say let em have at each other, sending the UN or the French in would have the same result.

On the bright side, they could learn how to surrender from the French. :teeth:

An obscene but understandable position. I refuse to consider the fall of US credibility and influence on a continent that will be of critical importance in the future to be something to enjoy or smile about.

Nor do I consider the preventable deaths of a million people to be something to be proud of, which is what we're going to get if we sit back and let the region collapse because we lack the courage and the intelligence to get involved at the moment of maximum US leverage and capability.

 

[dilloduck]

An obscene but understandable position. I refuse to consider the fall of US credibility and influence on a continent that will be of critical importance in the future to be something to enjoy or smile about.

Nor do I consider the preventable deaths of a million people to be something to be proud of, which is what we're going to get if we sit back and let the region collapse because we lack the courage and the intelligence to get involved at the moment of maximum US leverage and capability.

The US has credibility ??