I’ve always stood against UN troops coming into Darfur and supported the AU instead. To be honest with you all, I myself am now caught up in this dilemma and I don’t know where to properly stand in regards to it anymore. The latest updates in the situation have me all tensed up and on the edge of my seat. 10,000 people in Darfur protested against the UN’s plan to come in. Surprise to all of you who think all Darfurians will welcome UN troops with wide open arms. Many desperate ones want them but there are others who don’t.
To sum it up, let me present to you an updated version of my famous straight forward equations.
Darfur previously = Disaster
Darfur now = Worsening disaster
Darfur - AU troops = Big fat disaster
Darfur - AU troops + Sudanese troops = I have no freaking clue
Darfur + UN troops = Bigger disaster
Darfur + UN troops + Al Qaeda = HUGE disaster
Darfur + UN troops + Al Qaeda + Sudanese Islamists = One big ass GIGANTIC Disaster
Darfur + AU troops reinforced by UN & NATO = HUGE improvements.
SO… The solution is convincing the AU to stay and strengthening them. It might seem simple and unrealistic to some of you but it is the best solution. The UN troops will bring more misery UNLESS they really can fight well, provide protection for the innocent people in Darfur and maintain control over the region. Whatever happens, one thing is certain. Darfur will become another Iraq. On the other hand, instability in Khartoum is inevitable I’m afraid.
PS: Any Sudanese who’s not worried about these latest developments is a MORON!
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 1 trackback }
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Darfur is at the pit of a vulcano. Hopefully, one way or another, the lava being spewed out when it bursts will fertilize the situation into a standfast, stable situation. I’m afraid this is what this troubled region has to go through, in order to, hopefully, promise a decent future to its people….
(iechs I hate myself for writing these words so easily - from the side, being safe, not -physically- affected by this process)
I think, Drima, in your contemplations about what Sudan needs NOW, you should also keep an eye on the goal - i.e. what will every single different manner of providing help mean for the future…. like - who will, if any, be in power - etc.
Tse.
Why is “Darfur + AU troops reinforced by UN & NATO” so much better than “Darfur + UN troops”.
I fear that the Janjaweed, Khartoum, Al Qaeda and perhaps even ordinary Sudanese will not see such a big difference.
BTW: I have written a post about what to do in Darfur and recommended your post:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/9/7/145936/0104
What are your thoughts on it?
“Why is “Darfur + AU troops reinforced by UN & NATO” so much better than “Darfur + UN troops”.”
Joerg, believe me it’s much much better.
The UN troops will be a target for many people to vent out their anger on. To many they’ll represent the “evil Zionist Crusader invading army”.
Tribal leaders in Darfur oppose them. Many suffering Darfurians also oppose them. The Sudanese Islamists oppose them. Last but defintely not least Al-Qaeda opposes them.
Who opposes the AU troops in Sudan? Hardly anyone opposes them.
They won’t be a target and will be more effective.
Unforunately thanx to history, “white skin” can’t be trusted but “brown or black skin” can be trusted.
That’s the reality. The UN’s intention doesn’t matter. What matters is what people think the UN’s intention is.
I say support the AU troops and keep out the UN troops. I desperately hope that’s will happen but I’m growing increasingly hopeless.
I hope this explanation convinces so you can help in convincing others too.
Peace bro and thanx for caring and blogging about the plight of my people. : )
Tse, I’ll post something soon on what you suggested.
I understand that.
I just thought that “AU troops reinforced by UN & NATO” could look pretty white as well. Or how much “reinforcement” do you mean?
Are there enough AU countries ready to send more troops, if the UN, EU, US etc finance them?
Is the AU ready to disarm the Janjaweed etc.?
The AU realizes that the Darfur conflict can spread to other places in nearby countries. They understand the importance of trying to contain it and calm it. On the other hand the Arab League if pressed might contribute soldiers I believe. (ah that’s my wishfull thinking probably)
The problem is that the UN wants to be the “hero of the day”. If the UN really does care about the innocent ones in Darfur, it would do what it can to help the humanitarian situation. The key is stopping a catastrophe where hundreds of thousands of people can die. The AU can provide the protection needed for civilians and aid agencies so the aid agencies can continue their aid operations.
Politics and pressuring Khartoum can come later. What’s being done now is a waste of precious time. Many many people will die if we don’t act soon to protect them and the aid agencies that aid them.
“Or how much “reinforcement” do you mean?”
By reinforcements I meant financial and military equipment. Maybe just maybe the UN can conduct a naval blockade. However I strongly believe no UN soldiers should set foot on Darfurian soil, especially white UN soldiers.
I didn’t realize that Sudan was such a race-concisous society? Is it not true that when the Janjaweed militias over-ran and burned villages in the Darfur region and during the conflicts in the south of the country, black Africans were called names like “slaves” and much worse before being shot and/or driven into the wilderness? Or you saying that there is a hierarchy within the Sudanese society that discriminates on basis skin color and shade (black = good, brown = acceptable, white = evil)?
A big BIG problem with continuing to use the 7,500 AU troops presently stationed in Darfur is that they have a mandate that does NOT allow them to protect, only to “monitor”. The AU commanders on the ground do not want to continue this peacekeeping operation without the help of the UN and other inter-governmental bodies (i.e. NATO).
On another note Drima, Jörg’s most recent post at the European Tribune about Darfur has attracted a great deal of interesting commentary from European and North American visitors. I am also interested in hearing some of your views expressed at this high-profile European blog. There is also a cross-post of Jörg’s article to the Kossacks (The Daily Kos), one of the Top-10 most read blogs in the world (ref: Technorati.com). Lots of people are following this crisis and almost everyone is very worried.
One of the most interesting pieces that I have read today is the Democracy Now interview with Alex de Waal (Harvard University fellow at the Global Equity Initiative). He is saying that everybody needs to back-off the tough talk and get back to the negotiating table because UN-AU-NATO intervention is a non-starter. Listen to or read the interview transcript at the following URL’s:
Democracy Now website
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/07/1350238
Coalition for Darfur blog
http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/2006/09/darfur-interview-with-alex-de-waal.html
Hat Tip to Jörg for pointing this important interview out to us.
Ooops! That’s conscious… C-O-N-S-C-I-O-U-S. Sorry about all of those grammatical errors in my comment. There are quite a few.
About UN - “Beware the Greeks when they come with gifts”. These guys were unable to stop or even mitigate ONE conflict. My guess would be that these corrupt bureaucrats in silly uniforms want another potentially prestigious and profitable pie to stick their filthy hands into.
No matter what, the AU troops will probably do a better job - it’s their homes that they are defending, in the long run. But limited mandate and limited deployement are a bitch. My guess for a good solution would be a powerful AU force augmented by merc’ auxillaries, combined with an international attempt to browbeat Khartoum into behaving, simultaneous covert undermining of the regime - coupled with massive education programs managed by a third party (preferrably AU with international support) and promotion of democratic notions through said education, ads, NGO actions (monitored by AU as they are known to be easily corruptible), etc. Either way, I think you’re right, Drima - this will not end without massive bloodshed, I recon.
And isn’t the Daily Kos a collection of raving, ultra-psychotic-leftie terrorist supporters? Being crosslinked to them is… hardly showing promise.
Drima - I enjoy your sharp pen. Just found your page through DarfurWatch.
I do however not agree with your Al-Qaeda analysis. Do you really think that an intervention in Darfur, will mean a masive inflow of Al-Qaeda activists and Jihadist? Will these guys have civil support?
The UN-forces on the ground will properly consist mostly of Africans. So I think the race-issue is a minor issue.
With the present mandate AU is of no good. A change in mandate will not likely be accepted by Khartoum. And I wonder wheter the AU has the strenght, logistically and military, to take action on a new mandate.
Tse. Please correct my of I am wrong. Are you writing that you believe that that we should let the fractions fight it out in order to let the problem solve itself? I hope not.
I do not think the UN just want to save the day and be a hero. Right now nobody can work because of the security situation. There is almost none left to help the Darfurians.
Together with DarfurWatch I have discussed this more at my own site “The Oslo Blog”: http://www.akiaby.dk/?p=266 and on DarfurWatch as well. Feel free to drop by. There is also a reference to an Amnesty report which supports an UN and AU mission construction.
I am so glad to read and discover another blog dealing with Darfur. Thanks! My prayers and wishes for all Darfur and those concerned.
Andreas - http://www.akiaby.dk
Hey Joerg,
I folloews your link to eurotrib. Long and extensive discussion. I could not figure out the technical aspects of giving a comment. Thats a bugger!
There was a lot of good points, but those responsible should consider some categories or splitting up the discussions.
But just as a note. They were discussing of there were or are a special representative. Under all circumstances there is the possibility of having a special rapporteur for Human Rights in Sudan. See more here: http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/sd/mandate/index.htm
For special representatives see here: http://www.un.org/News/ossg/srsg/africa.htm
I would have liked to join in - but as I said I could not figure how.
The rest of you should take a look at Joerg’s recommended site: http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/9/7/145936/0104
Andreas - http://www.akiaby.dk - The Oslo Blog
Thank you.
Dailykos is crazy. I am trying my best to get them to care about something else besides Bush-bashing.
That discussion at Eurotrib was interesting, but also confusing. We need more real experts on this matter, like Alex de Waal and others.
I will check out the Olsoblog and Darfur watch.
It would be great to have you participate at Eurotrib. You can sign up in less than a minute here:
http://www.eurotrib.com/newuser
Once you are registered, it’s very easy to post diaries and comments.
Andreas Kiaby, I agree that a change in mandate is defintely necessary but as Alex de Waal put it, people should return to the negotiation table.
Regarding support for Al-Qaeda, yes there will be especially from the various Sudanese Islamist organizations. They’ve already announced that they will accept help from (anyone) who wants to help them. Remember what happened to the US troops back in he 90’s in Somalia? Al-Qaeda had a hand in that.
I think we should take their threats seriously and into consideration.
Joerg, thanx for the link. I’m going to sign up too.
Black River Eagles,
“I didn’t realize that Sudan was such a race-concisous society? ”
Oh yes unfortunately we are. I’ll write a post about racism in Sudan soon.
Leave a Comment