I guess Sudan accepting UN troops is old news by now. Don’t get too excited though. I am still skeptical but not as much as I used to be when similar news were announced in the past. I’m only slightly skeptical this time. Maybe this slight skepticism exists in me due to fear… the fear of making an emotional investment only to end up feeling bitter disappointment later on. Even with this slight skepticism, this time I don’t think the Sudanese government (or Omar al-Bashir’s NCP to be more specific) is trying the same old trick of buying more time by saying “yes, no problemo” only to later change their minds and say “whops, sorry but…”
Lately we’ve been witnessing a real push to pressure Sudan and also things that indicate the high possibility of a real push occuring behind the scenes. Firstly, the US of A (whom I thank for playing a vital role in ending the bloody 20 year old Sudanese North-South civil war) indicated that it will seriously consider building up the capacity of the SPLM’s army (aka SPLA) as part of Plan B, something which will present a real threat to the northern NCP. Secondly, the “Genocide Olympics” movement seems to be gaining momentum, something which has the potential to cause a real headache for China. Thirdly, during the recent Arab League Summit, Saudi Arabia announced that it was working on convincing Sudan to accept the UN force in Darfur. It looks like they weren’t lying and that they actually have something to do with the recent Sudanese acceptance/”acceptance”. Fourthly the Sudan divestment campaign is also gaining momentum in America. Moreover new sanctions is something Sudan defintely doesn’t want. Believe me when I say this, the NCP doesn’t want bad relations with America. On the contrary, what they want (and what I myself and many Sudanese want too) is for Sudan to be removed from the terrorism sponsoring states list, lifting of sanctions and normalization of relations. This is just a simple example of what I mean and what peope hoped the North-South peace agreement would achieve. Fifthly, when Negroponte himself and not some small time lousy diplomat goes all the way to Khartoum to discuss Darfur, something is defintely cooking. Sixthly, the new alliances forming in Darfur against the government might be a factor. I’m not so sure about this one as I haven’t really read much about it.
The above mentioned points are just some of the developments I’ve been reading about. The rhetoric in various cases isn’t as vague as before. Now, even if this acceptance is 100% genuine, I strongly believe it’s only an acceptance of phase 2 which would only require allowing 3000 UN troops into Darfur. Accepting phase 3 will be the killer that the NCP would hate as it would mean allowing 20,000 UN troops into Darfur. 3000 troops with consent from Khartoum is a good start.
On another note though, I’ve got to say that Bush has been really patient with Omer al-Bashir all along. Hell, the man even offered to meet al-Bashir personally. What would have Bill Clinton done if he was still president? Bomb more pharmaceutical factories, ops I mean highly crazy super dangerous chemical weapons production facilities? In regards to Sudan, the Elephant response has been better than the Donkey response during Clinton’s time. No? *Stones, tomatoes and eggs flying towards Drima*.
UPDATE: An article by the CMS states points similar to mine:
International pressure from the United Nations, Arab leaders, and the United States played a role in Sudan’s concession this week to allow 3,000 UN peacekeepers into the country’s troubled Darfur region.
So, apparently, did the image concerns of China – both one of Sudan’s biggest commercial partners and an increasingly outgoing international power – as it prepares to host the 2008 Summer Olympics.
…For some observers, Sudan’s decision reflects China’s growing pressure on Khartoum to respond to growing pressures from the international community.
“It shows that one thing is more important to the Chinese than their access to Sudan’s oil, and that’s the success of their Olympic Games,” said actress and Darfur activist Mia Farrow in comments to the Associated Press.
And as usual, Alex De Waal states the obvious.
De Waal says the janjaweed, the pro-government Arab militia terrorizing the Darfur population, will never be disarmed by peacekeepers – that will take an internal Sudanese political solution.
De Waal says the danger of Sudan’s latest agreement is that what he calls the “more-has-to-be-done crowd” will be enthralled by it, instead of looking for more viable solutions.
“It’s not ‘we need to do more,’ ” he says, “but at this point we need to rethink and say ‘maybe we need to do things differently.’ “
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Alex De Waal is one of the few people being quoted in the Western main stream media who actually knows the real facts and understands the situation well enough.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 1 trackback }
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey there,
The Sudanese govt said “NO” to the int’l forces/UN troops. khalas, end of discussion, we’ve been through this half a dozen times in the past year.
If the int’l community really cares then they might as well FUND the underfunded AU troops!
Sudan will never allow non-african troops “American” troops to be more specific to come to Sudan. The whole world doesn’t like the US interventions to be honest. Their interventions are not always useful, they make things worse sometimes (afghanistan/iraq/nicargua etc…)
The US announced this week that they will impose severe sanctions on Sudan. lol wait a minute, the US never lifted the sanctions they imposed on sudan years ago, did they now? We are still a terrorism-supporting nation and we are still blacklisted.
honestly, I dont think that the US administration cares about Darfur or the people suffering there however, the american people do care (atleast some of them), they formed many organizations and did alot of things.
Thanks for your (as always) insightful commentary - I posted on it at my blog, http://www.livesinthebalance.com. It’s interesting that you are now somewhat hopeful given your previous fears of UN troops making the situation worse - do you think that the other hesitant factions you mentioned (esp. Al Qaeda) won’t cause trouble now that the GoS has agreed?
What’s with the suspeciously automatic-looking trackbacks?
Anyway, it should be interesting to see how this develops further. By the way, Kizzie, why would the UN force be a US one? I would hardly expect the US to even be in this one, to tell you the truth, even in a secondary role. And there are plenty of other UN members likely to contribute troops, though like last in the previous relevant post I think they’d be rather ineffective, possibly counter-productive even.
Roman: I would expect the US to play a secondary role. There would be a need of troop transport, and logistics is something that the US military excels at compared to the other members of the UN. But I agree with you that it is unlikely that US boots would be on the ground, unless George Clooney is in them.
I still agree that the AU needs more support, however the fact that Bashir won’t allow “US/Western troops into Sudan” is evidence that more political pressure needs to be applied. I understand that this is the situation but I have yet to hear from those in blogging land as to whether or not they support/don’t support UN troops for the same reasons that Khartoum hasn’t so far. Do Sudanese see this as a throwback to colonial control?
You’re right about that, Mark, that was a secondary role that I didn’t consider when writing that reply.
Roman, there is a possiblity that the troops will be US troops. Afterall, America is the world’s police and they intervene in alot of conflicts. Plus, the American people really want their troops to go to Darfur ( there are groups and invididuals calling for the pull-out of american troops from Iraq and taking them to Darfur)
I think that the world should just support the AU troops and ofcourse, Al Bashir needs to implement a proper peace agreement.
Additionally, even the Sudanese people don’t want European and American intervention. Its really funny how sudanese people hate the govt so much and when our president said “no”" to foreign intervention, all of a sudden he is a national hero and people r supporting his decision!
i think yoo are true , the acceptance of sudan government to the UN plan is only a temporary adiscion to stop the huge presure from the us vice secratary , but i after he leave to his country you hear another speech …
the secret planing to remove the Darfure people and put others instead is ongoing now properly , when it end at that time we can see othe discions
thanks
Kizzie, the US won’t be leaving Iraq, simply because such a move will result in total collapse of the country, a bloodbath that will make Darfur look like a day at the beach, and Sadr becoming the new dictator.
Then you have the fact that the last thing the US administration wants is to be tied down in yet another foreign country, especially in one that can turn very hostile very fast.
No, the US will let others go to the field. Why do you think Bush has been so diplomatic all of a sudden?
Roman,
Bush has been so diplomatic because he knows that he desperately needs to look like he’s accomplished something for US foreign policy after his turd of a presidency.
I don’t want US troops going anywhere but home.
The mere act of war is total failure of intelligent diplomacy. My country seems to have a hard time putting itself in another country’s shoes.
I personally wish the US could climb out of the enormous debt generated from this war, and contribute to useful things for all of Africa, such as sustainable food supplies, clean water systems and disease control. Why can’t we invest our tax $$$ on these things?
Neither democrats OR republicans have the answer to Darfur. Dems are spineless (I’m convinced at this point, they have no idea who their audience is), and republicans have transformed into some kind of mutant neocon faction. However, the GOP are always good for exploiting people,goods, etc, keep this in mind before shaking hands.
“Bush has been so diplomatic because he knows that he desperately needs to look like he’s accomplished something for US foreign policy after his turd of a presidency.”
That too.
Hadn’t he sworn that he would divorce his wives if UN troops were to set foot on Darfur?
Roman, I agree with you! The troops cant pull out now, the world will never let them do so, “you ruined it, you fix it!”.
Well, I reslly think that the US should stop intervening, they have bad intervention records (Somalia,Nicargua etc…)
Noone wants them to intervene, was America ever at peace? They always have US troops somewhere!
Questions: If America is the world’s police then how come they don’t intervene in certain places? They were very selective when it comes to foreign intervention, mmmm, interests mabye? oh I remember now, there is oil in Darfur, great reason for the US intervention.
Kizzie-
The US has not directly intervened in Darfur and if they do…it won’t be about oil. Like Somalia…it will be about a whole whole lot of public pressure. If if US did not get involved…then we would be racists uncaring about blacks…intervene…it is about oil. What a bunch of shit that is.
USA has both a good and bad track record…We saved Europe from Nazis, wore down the Soviet Union…helped save Iran from Russia in 1945, saved Muslims in Bosnia, did a good job against the Japanese and against the communists in Korea. We helped save Israel’s ass in 1973…and have gotten the Israeli’s off the Arabs asses on occasion.
We screwed up in Vietnam and in Iraq…but you want the communists, Nazis and imperialist Japan back?
So we have done good and bad…while I think a lot of countries did a lot of bad and bad…or just completely looked after the very narrowest of their own interests…like modern day Sudan as an example.
Interests? Is a country NOT supposed to work for their interests. I think a country should be about advocating for important values…but politics are not a warm fuzzy world…it is a matter of degree. In terms of degree…I think the USA has done a decent job…ask some Southern Sudanese how they feel about it…or even many from Darfur…including the many many many refugees with have taken in.
Kizzie, I’m afraid that many would let the US abandon Iraq, be it due to ignorance of the long-term consequences or simply due to not caring about them.
And I’m always amused by the oil argument. Any profit is far outweighed by the war costs, and the only relevance of it is for stability of countries with resources that have a global impact.
Hey Kizzie. I am not what part of the world you are in but if you want to get a “different” understanding of American foreign policy.. check out this film.. here is trailer..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gf1CDmn8q0M
description
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight_%282005_film%29
You can watch in Youtube for free in four parts…
Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gf1CDmn8q0M
It definitely gave me a different view on American foreign policy beyond the “spreading democracy/ “fight for freedom” vs “it is all for oil” type of point view.
Oh! I forgot add… that US has
“The U.S. also maintains as of 2006, over 702 bases in 135 of the 195 sovereign independent nations of the world”
That is after 14+ years since the Soviet Union collapsed…
Jonah,
Great point on bringing up that film, after I saw it so many of my fears and suspicions to my government’s foreign policy practices were confirmed. I also learned a ton that I did not know. I would highly recommend taking the time ( if you have the bandwidth ) to watch it.
Aaron
Hello Howie,
Well,I agree with you. The civil society in the US is very concerned about Darfur (David Rubenstein, save darfur cooalition etc..) Not to mention George Clooney who toured the world last year for the purpose of spreading awareness about Darfur,
I hate the “noone cares about Dafurians becoz they are black” argument!
Its ridiculous.
I know that the American intervention was useful sometimes but people are not going to forget Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nicargua etc…
I conducted a small survey this year, I asked Sudanese people I know if they think that the American intervention is going to solve the Darfur conflict and their opinion about it. Most of them said that they don’t want their country to be another Iraq. Sadly, alot of people will always remember America’s bad intervention record.
The AU troops are doing a good job in Sudan(although, they are underfunded). I don’t mind the UN troops coming to Sudan ( they will include American troops) ok, no problem. However, the government should solve the conflict first and stick to proper peace agreements and the troops should only make sure that people are safe and secure so the Darfurians can return back to their homes.
I agree with you. We have alot of probs in Sudan, in fact , its the number 1 failed nation (according to forbes). Sudan is not a super power but America is, so the whole world is watching America and every move they take is analyzed and talked about.
A country is supposed to work for their interests…mmm ok. But if you are going to intervene in any country because of your own interests then don’t say you are helping people, exporting democracy or nuclear weapons.
I enjoyed reading your reply, thank you:)
Hello Roman,
I disagree, many countries…especially in the arab world would want the US to stay in Iraq. It’s not a war betwen the Iraqi’s and the Americans now its a civil war.
Well the oil argument is valid. However, the US is spending billions everyday, I wonder how this is affecting the American population (education and health care systems etc..)
Hello jonah84,
thanks.
I’m going to watch it tonight.
Hello Drima,
Thanks for the update.
Yes, I agree. Alex De Waal knows alot about Sudan and really understands Darfur and the north/south conflict.
You should read his books.
Kizzie, the simplistic oil argument fails because the US administration has to look at a much larger picture. It is not ruled by oil companies, or by people who get large sums of money from oil companies, but rather by people who are held accountable for every semicolon of their actions.
And sadly, many people in the ME fail to see beyond “humiliating America”, so they would be delighted to see it “run away”. And then you have the ultra-liberal camp in the US and Europe that wants the US out of Iraq.
Leave a Comment