The northern faction of Sudan carries out intentional bombing of civilians in the south
http://www.vitrade.com/bombing_of_civilian_targets.htm
http://www.peacelink.it/webgate/africa/msg00525.html
So why does the international community not initiate a no fly zone in the south to protect civilians? Am i missing something, why does the world not seem to mind that civilians are being intentionally targeted in a civil war that has killed 2 million so far?
sorry, i forgot you can’t post political posts on GQ.
I suppose it could be posted if it is a straight logistical/technical question and doesn’t turn into a debate on why we may or may not hold Sudan to a different standard…
I would imagine there are two reasons. One, and someone may correct me big time, I don’t know if Sudan has much of an air force and conducts aerial operations against the southern Christians. If not, there is not much use for a “no-fly zone”. Iraq had a sizable (by regional standards) air force before 1991, and did carry out air assaults against the Kurds.
Secondly, where would the aircraft be based? I don’t know if Sudan’s southern neighbors have the sorts of air bases that Saudi Arabia and Turkey have. I suppose they could be based in Kenya, but I imagine they would prefer to not be dragged into something like this.
On either one of these points I may be dead wrong though…
I did look some stuff up, as I believed Sudan’s air force would probably be cropdusters and surplus 1944 Messerschmidts. They are reportedly flying modified Antonovs as bombers (!)…so I hugely underestimated the scale of the problem.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20626
So I suppose its all a matter of regional and international will.
The Iraqi “no-fly” zone is not endorsed by a UN resolution and therefore not by the international community; the “no-fly” zone was established by the UK and USA. So there is no ‘different set of rules’ for Sudan from the international community’s perspective.
Iraq has oil. Sudan does not. End of story.
If I may hijack for a question which occurred to me last night while watching the news talk about everyone hustling to get the hell out of Dodge (eg, Iraq):
If there is a “no fly zone” in effect, how does everyone get in and out of Baghdad? Do they take trains or drive there from somewhere else? Or does the ban not apply to commercial aviation?
Not true!
According to the CIA World Factbook, Sudan produces 220’000 barrels per day. Not quite as much as Iraq, but still quite a lot.
Sudan actually produces quite a bit of oil, which is one of the catalysts behind the war. The northern (mostly Muslim) regime has spent years trying to drive the southern (mostly Christian) tribes off the land, in order to gain greater control of the oil-producing regions.
I’ve heard about several boycotts of certain oil companies who do business with the Sudanese gov’t (north) – they buy oil with money that finances the attacks against the southern peoples.
This is my general knowledge and I don’t have citations at my fingertips, but I could come up with some if needed.
And to address the OP specifically, I’ve often wondered the same thing. I think the contributing factors are:
– General disinterest in the West (US & Europe) about what goes on in sub-sahara Afirca. Witness all the atrocities in Rhodesia, Uganda, etc. that got pretty much ignored.
– Look what happened the last time we did try to get involved (Somalia).
– The leader of the Sudan never tried to assassinate the current president’s father
– We don’t have strong allies in the area to protect, like Israel in the Middle East
On the other hand, however, there are certain ties between Sudan and terrorism (didn’t OBL used to live there?) and there is oil. And you would think that a majority Christian nation with an Evangelical president would have a certain sympathy for the Christian Sudanese. Guess not though.
Forgive the repeated posting, but here are some links about the boycotts of Sudanese oil, which include accusations of atrocities comitted by the gov’t agains the southern civilians:
http://www.anti-slavery.org/pages/updates/amoco.html
http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000330a.htm
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0004/ZE000411.html#item3
To answer the OP, it’s inarguable that the no-fly zones were put in place in response to the UN resolution after the cease-fire, if not directly created by it. Sudan doesn’t have the same resolution in place – that’s why they don’t have no-fly zones.
Of course, the fact that the Sudanese are black has nothing to do with anything…