I was reading this article talking about various rallies by actors, politicians and such advocating…something…that the US and the World should do with respect to whats going on in Darfur. The question that immediately sprang to mind listening to the various rich and famous (and some not so rich or not so famous) calling for action is…what should be done? What COULD be done? Specifically what should the US do that its not already doing? What should the UN do that ITS not already doing? Europe? The World™?
Either install a HUGE peacekeeping force there, the UN should do it, not a unilateral US force - huge, because that’s what it would take to have any control.
Either that, or just sit back and let the killing continue. I don’t think any half measures, shows of token presence, or “gestures” will do it.
It should be the UN, because then the US can’t be accused of having “evil intentions” or “imperialism”.
What should be done? A bigger international peacekeeping force should be deployed combined with high quality communications infrastructure and devices to document abuse (videocameras at refugee camps).
I think we should rent Hotel Rwanda and cry and gnash our teeth at the inhumanity, injustice and lack of caring from around the world.
The very first thing I wish we could do, apart from waving a magic wand to make everything alright, would be to confirm that the US is doing everything it can. After reading Shake Hands with the Devil, by Romeo Dallaire, commander of UN forces in Rwanda, I was incredibly sad and disappointed to read how the US, under Clinton, not only failed to do relatively basic things it could do, but actually obstructed support for the UN mission in Rwanda (at least as described by Dallaire).
It would be ideal for a concerted effort on the part of the world to be carried out in Darfur, but we shouldn’t make that the basis for our decisions to act or not. Right is right, and if we can provide anything (logistical support, transportation, communications, peacekeepers…), we must. I suspect, however, that we are repeating the failures of the past.
We should learn from what happened in Central Africa, where low-level local conflicts spiraled out of control, pulled in all the nations of the region, and led to the deaths of some 4 million people. This is not just about Darfur, it’s about Chad, and about every nation bordering Chad that would likely be affected by an exodus of refugees. I agree with the posters above – a muscular UN peacekeeping force is required, augmented by the African Union where necessary.
It’s a bit of a tangent, but I do think there should be a standing peacekeeping army, analogous to the French Foreign Legion, and not made up of national contingents loaned to the U.N. Of course, I realize at this point we’re into One World Government territory, so take that, you Birchers!
Or else regional/continental government – like the European Union – or the African Union, which at present is trying to handle the Darfur situation, and has AU troops on the ground. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1915759
We might worry that the African Union is not a disinterested party in a conflict in Africa. Especially since its constituent parts are not governments of laws, but governments of men – highly corrupt men, in many instances. You’d worry that their loyalties would be for purchase.
Small price to pay. Besides, special forces soldiers risk their lives for incredibly poor reasons sometimes. If you read the book ‘inside delta force’ by Eric Haney he talks about how some of his operations overseas were just to train ‘counterterrorism’ forces in dictatorships that he felt would just be used as tools of oppression. I’m 90% sure he even talked about training a ‘counterterrorism’ force in the Sudan.
In case anyone else missed it, I wasn’t suggesting that we rent Hotel Rwanda for educational purposes. I was pointing out the irony of millions of people getting upset by a movie about an event of the recent past while essentially doing nothing about a very similar current event, from which I don’t exclude myself.
As to Black Hawk Down, I would agree that it suggests what might happen. Of course, if one is driven to inaction by a fear that something bad might happen, that makes one a petrified little whiny ass titty baby crying out to Daddy for protection. We don’t want to be that, do we? Put another way - should we let the Somalis dictate our foreign policy?
This is me agreeing with SteveG1. We need a strong international presence. We simply don’t care about Darfur because there are no resources there and they’re poor. If it happened in Europe, like with Milosevic, we’d take quick action.
You’ve fallen into the same abyss of ingnorance that the powers of the world want you to believe.
Understand this:
Sudan is the second largest foreign supplier of oil to China. The oil wells in Sudan are being protected by Chinese soldiers. The killing that is going on in Sudan is being done with Chinese rifles.
Now this is where you really have to start thinking and putting the pieces together:
China doesn’t get too upset with the US about our folly of invading Iraq. The US doesn’t get too upset about the involvement of China in Sudan.
If you look at almost all of the African conflicts they are essentially about oil and minerals. Sometimes it’s wells, sometimes it’s pipelines (the Ivory Coast, for instance). The powers that be want you to think these conflict are religious, ethnic or tribal. They are not.
Now write a letter to Bush and Cheney and tell them that you don’t think that oil interests should result in an untold number of deaths in Africa. Plug your ears while they laugh at you.
I’d like to take all those refugees, arm them, train them, & drive the Janjaweed all the way into the Red Sea.
There are logistical problems with this idea. Most immediately, the people running the camps don’t want to be attacked, which would certainly happen if they became military camps or funnels into such.