Should the US and EU intervene in Darfur outside the UN?

[CarlosI]

I mean hundreds of thousands of people have died and thousands more are diying almost every month, yet the issue is deadlocked at the UN since Russia and China are resisting the proposal to send an International force to Sudan. And they can't go in unless the very government helping supporting the killings says ok. So can't the US and EU work together on this issue jointly to send a peace keeping force outside of the UN to finally help stop the killing in Darfur?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

There's no oil

[LaoSexMachine]

Realpolitik

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Why don't we intervene in Congo as well? We'll only need a million peacekeepers to wrap that one up. Should be a walk in the park.

[Nano]

No, simply no bad idea getting involved in something you understand little about. The U.S. can place enough economic pressure on China to force the government of Sudan to stop with the slaughter if it really cared. There is no need for our involvement beyond that. I would support arming/training the other side so that they could at least defend themselves, but peace keeping is an idea the West has created of the highest order of naiveness. It simply does not work long term unless you solve the conflict. In cases like these where one side is bent on killing the other for no credible reasons like self-defense, but simply hate/tribal warfare then you arm and train the side getting slaughtered or stay out of it directly. Peace keeping amounts to nothing more than babysitting once you leave the killing starts up again.

[JJPHATX]

There's no oil

Maybe not directly in Darfur, but southern sudan has a lot of it.

The EU already is intervening in Congo with U.N. permission

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Maybe not directly in Darfur, but southern sudan has a lot of it.

The EU already is intervening in Congo with U.N. permission

OK let's send Tony Blair he should be able to sort it out

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

We need to utilize the UN on such issues. Without doing so creates situations like the build up to ww2.

However a UN force, controlled by the UN is a bad idea. But the UN needs to be used as much as possible.

One suggestion is to remove the VETO of the security council and replace it with a simple 2/3rds vote system.

[CMNot]

...but that proposal would just be vetoed.

[Sato]

^^^^

Realpolitic x2...

[lider_r]

keep the US out of it


They'll only contract out to 'private security companies' for 10000000x the price.

[NewsMan]

I see nothing wrong with using air assets to help the victims of this tragedy. This conflict is beginning to spread to Chad and could be a sign of things to come. Nothing wrong with a little preventive maintenance.

[helomech]

Another example of the UN not getting the job done....I'm not a fan of this organization,typical political shennanigans in place,corruption,graft etc....

And the attached image is just a joke,so no need for anyone to get mental!p-)

[phoebus]

From an EU point of view, there are more important issues associated with Europe in general, which need to be addressed right now (Balkans, The Union, Terrorism, etc). So as EU members, instead of showing our hypocritic face of caring plus randomly acting about the situation there, we could simply remember our priorities and solve our own more essential and/or internal "issues". Currently what's being officialy done through EU is enough, more would be uneccessary external intervention; having by default a low budget to get anything significant done, other than raise the public's expectations.

[signatory]

No big protests on the streets here calling for a intervention.

...

[Bert]

No, Europe and America have nothing at all to do in Africa. This is the AU's job, if we go in there we'll simply end up in a mess and limp back with our tail between our leg after causing even more chaos than there already is.

And there is oil in Sudan, which would have to be the only reason the world cares.

[annihilation]

Maybe EU but America no, its bad enough we are in Iraq and stretched to thin in all our operations.

[Freibier]

There should be an intervention but not US style "shock and awe".


I bet a lot of the troublemakers could be bought rather cheap

[lider_r]

Is it me or is the AU basically useless?

[tsuri]

There's no oil
There is Oil in Darfur.At least an extremely high chance. That is one of the reasons for the problems there. Locals wanted 13% of prospective oil profits, Khartoum was naturally opposed to the idea to develop the economy in Darfur.

Various NGOs try to get NATO troops there but with no success. Various Security Council resolutions are blocked by China et al which do not support any action unless Sudan itself wants it. And Sudan is the last country on earth that wants fighting in Darfur to stop.

Too late anyways. Peace agreements have been signed, AU troops are there, US and EU should just send AU some money as they are absolutely incapable to even pay their soldier's salaries. That will prevent cries of Imperialism and outrage once the oil starts flowing ("NATO only got there because of oil" etc)

[Sato]

I bet the Chinese already have some nice oil contracts waiting for them to sign in Khartoum

Btw, as I see it, the AU is spread thin, underequiped and isn't wanted there by the regime of Sudan...

[Brzezinski]

the military industrial complex is always looking to make a quick billion.

[signatory]

Is it me or is the AU basically useless?

It's not you.

[Mobydog]

I think there is an interesting discussion going on about this conflict here...

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=112401&page=2

[SBL]

I bet the Chinese already have some nice oil contracts waiting for them to sign in Khartoum

Btw, as I see it, the AU is spread thin, underequiped and isn't wanted there by the regime of Sudan...

2/3 of Sudan's oil exports already go to China. So it's really no surprise.

[Laworkerbee]

keep the US out of it


They'll only contract out to 'private security companies' for 10000000x the price.

PMC's would be the best possible choice, look how well executive outcomes operated in Africa before the UN took over their job contract.

[oregongrunt]

keep the US out of it


They'll only contract out to 'private security companies' for 10000000x the price.
That's how the US gets around expanding the army, by hiring mercenaries. Maybe for once, some one besides the US should foot the bill.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

the US tried doing the UN's job once already...

maybe the US will sit this one out until the UN makes the "right" move

[roland]

Not everybody agrees that it's a genocide going on in Darfur.
If it's not a genocide it's not our problem as long as it doesn't threaten our interests.

[Windsurfer]

I mean hundreds of thousands of people have died and thousands more are diying almost every month, yet the issue is deadlocked at the UN since Russia and China are resisting the proposal to send an International force to Sudan. And they can't go in unless the very government helping supporting the killings says ok. So can't the US and EU work together on this issue jointly to send a peace keeping force outside of the UN to finally help stop the killing in Darfur?

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/u51.gif to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/u51.gif to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/u51.gif to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/u51.gif to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,


AND FOR THESE ENDS

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/u51.gif to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/u51.gif to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/u51.gif to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/u51.gif to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

source (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html)
Seems to me the UN lost their way a long time ago.

[NewsMan]

No big protests on the streets here calling for a intervention.

...

Yes there has. A worldwide one not long ago.

[afreu]

Is it me or is the AU basically useless?

Yes, it's.


Probably there isn't a genocide in Darfur like there wasn't one in Rwanda. It's just bull**** Realpolitik. Governments are no human entities with a moral consiousness. They're just representing their people. Why should they go somewhere help other people if there's nothing in for them?

[roland]

Probably there isn't a genocide in Darfur like there wasn't one in Rwanda. It's just bull****
In Rwanda it was a genocide. For Darfur we have only media coverage and some dirty pictures to make our opinion. Some who usualy know what they are speaking about say that in Darfur it's not. Not saying they are right, just that you can't say it's just bull**** that easily (no ofense).

[tsuri]

A study done by several NGOs says that no genocide is occuring, despite horrible acts of violence. But you always have to keep in mind that genocide as such is tightly defined in international law and mass killings are just as bad, even if they do not fit the legal definition of genocide.


Is it me or is the AU basically useless?
It is not useless but what do you expect when the poorest of the poor have to take matters into their own hands because the rich cannot be bothered? AMIS has no equipment, no money, no training and no soldiers.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Maybe not directly in Darfur, but southern sudan has a lot of it.

The EU already is intervening in Congo with U.N. permission

A pathetically small ineffective intervention given the scale of the problem. They might as well not bother.

[roland]

A pathetically small ineffective intervention given the scale of the problem. They might as well not bother.

?? The Congo intervention wasn't that small nor ineffective. Don't judge the importance of an intervention from the quantity of media coverage.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

?? The Congo intervention wasn't that small nor ineffective. Don't judge the importance of an intervention from the quantity of media coverage.


Well AFAIK the DRC is not a haven of peace, security and democracy full of happy, well fed or contented people.

Maybe I did not get the memo. :roll:

[roland]

Well AFAIK the DRC is not a haven of peace, security and democracy full of happy, well fed or contented people.

Maybe I did not get the memo. :roll:

ah ok, I see, so you're right: the EU is crappy cause it couldn't make a haven of peace, security and democracy full of happy, well fed or contented people of DRC :roll:

[helomech]

Is it me or is the AU basically useless?
No,it's not you-they are useless;they wanted have an organization to make themselves look like they were a world player,but they're just a bunch of thugs who rule like gangsters.......if they wanted to do something about a problem in their backyard,it would've been done;instead the first that flies out of their mouths is "Money,money,money!"

[roland]

Sorry for the question but what is AU ? :|

[helomech]

http://www.africa-union.org/

[a_very_ex_STAB]

ah ok, I see, so you're right: the EU is crappy cause it couldn't make a haven of peace, security and democracy full of happy, well fed or contented people of DRC :roll:

I didn't say that but if you want to believe the EU is crappy be my guest.

My point is there is no point in doing these things in half-assed way. Better to do things properly or not at all. Resources should be concentrated on the smaller problems/countries that can be helped in a meaningful way and not wasted in trying to put some kind of 'feel good' Band-Aid on a gaping bleeding wound.

[lider_r]

That's how the US gets around expanding the army, by hiring mercenaries. Maybe for once, some one besides the US should foot the bill.

The US can't afford to food the bill because of its own mistakes, nothing to do with the rest of the world.

[Hunterhr]

The US can't afford to food the bill because of its own mistakes, nothing to do with the rest of the world.

Your hard on for the United States is nothing short of amazing.

[JJC]

It's funny, people that march in the U.S. to save Darfur are the same types that marched with signs comparing U.S./Bush to Hitler, demanding we end our imperialism. Can't have it both ways...

[Ddavid]

A pathetically small ineffective intervention given the scale of the problem. They might as well not bother.

Main problem is than it's too little too late. Despise that, situation in Congo is better than it used to be.

[Douros81]

I think that Europe should take care of the problems in all of Africa. Why?
Because they are the counrties that got rich off of raping those counrties and poor people during the Grand Age of Imperialism & Colonialism.

[roland]

I think that Europe should take care of the problems in all of Africa. Why?
Because they are the counrties that got rich off of raping those counrties and poor people during the Grand Age of Imperialism & Colonialism.

???
Even if it was true why does it force us to take care of Africa ? don't see the logic here.

[Douros81]

???
Even if it was true why does it force us to take care of Africa ? don't see the logic here.


I think its ture that the European countires raped Africa, the logic is that Europe did more harm then good in Africa. Plus I think it time that Europe should step up to the plate and take care of problem.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I think that Europe should take care of the problems in all of Africa. Why?
Because they are the counrties that got rich off of raping those counrties and poor people during the Grand Age of Imperialism & Colonialism.


Oh rly
You seem to be in denial about Africans fcuking over each other since time immemorial.
Who do you think was capturing the slaves and making money out of selling them on to European (AND Arab) slavers?

Do you seriously think a few thousand Europeans enslaved millions of Africans without local help? :roll:

Who do you think has been raping the place since colonial powers pulled out 40-50 years ago? Corrupt LOCAL leaders with the Congo being the best example.

Are you looking for compo or something?

[afreu]

You can't put all the blame for the situation of African countries today on slavery and colonialism. But completely ignoring it would be wrong too. Colonialism and slavery dealt a lot of damage. Just think of all the crisis caused by the artifical borderlines created by the colonial powers. And the european nations did nothing to help their colonies after the independence. On the contrary many did the exact opposite. Like Great Britain rigging the first election in Nigeria.

I agree though that many are overratting the importance of the european influence. Nowadays it's up to the Africans themselves to handle their future. Nobody else, not the Europeans, not the Americans, not Bob Geldof and not Bono can do it for them. The one thing the West has to do is to guarantee a real free world market and to end all economic and political measures which aim at improving their own situation at the expense of developping nations (f.e. agricultural subsidies).

Why should they do it, for one because of colonialism and slavery but on the other side because a stable and prosperous third world is in their interest too. It would for instance free them of the impossible task to build a fortress europe against illegal immigrants.

[GromGrad]

I think it is time for Russia to step up. If Putin wants to show the world we matter, here is the chance. How hard would it be for the Russian army to drop in and protect Darfur?

[Wodan]

I think its ture that the European countires raped Africa, the logic is that Europe did more harm then good in Africa. Plus I think it time that Europe should step up to the plate and take care of problem.


Europe???

You know how many countries are part of europe?
You know how many of those countries were in colonialism?

You know that as example germany invested more money there than it could gain trough those colonies?

You know that before europeans came it hadn't even the wheel, and afterwards there was at least some civiliation and a life expectancy over 25???

You know how many former colonists still live?

You know that colonialism was long ago, and they didn't "rebuilt" their nations(how should they, rebuilding them would mean to destroy all infrastrucutre and going back to the forests)
While europe rebuilt very fast post-WW II?

So it is my guilt, as 19 year old german, that africans don't get their stuff done?

We wasted billions of euros on africa, we could also have burned that money, wouldn't have changed anything



If we donate money, it gets to the dictators, they use it to pay for weapons to kill people

If we support HIV infected people, we increase their live expectancy, that leads to more other HIV infected people(those people have more time to infect others)

If USA donates masses of food (in order to subsidy their own agriculture) to african countries, it destroys their farmers
If EU exports masses of cheap food(as it is subsidized) to african countries, it destroys their farmers

If we do free trade with them, they won't be able to compete and build up their own industry

No matter WHAT we do with africa it won't work, either africa gets its stuff done on its own, or it won't change at all..

[roland]

I think its ture that the European countires raped Africa, the logic is that Europe did more harm then good in Africa. Plus I think it time that Europe should step up to the plate and take care of problem.

If it was the case that Europe benefited that much of the colony how come Germany who had little colonies had such a development and how is it possible that le longest period of growth was in the 50s to 70s when we were decolonizing ?
Look like Communist or anti Euro neocon propaganda to me.
Anyway even if it was true how does that mean that we have to help the African now ? I mean you must show an interest or else why would we ?

[afreu]

To answer your question , reasons why Europe has an interest in sustained development in africa:

- Dealing with the economic and political inadequacies in the home countries of the illegal immigrants is the only effective way of dealing with that problem.

- Unstable countries can be breeding ground for terrorists who might attack western countries.

- Sustained economic, political and social developpment of third world countries do not only benefit the people in those countries but also the West since new markets and new investment opportunities will emerge. There's an unbelievable big potential in that area.

(- I could add the moral argument, but since moral and ethic thoughts do not matter in global politics this is probably not important.)

/edit

If we support HIV infected people, we increase their live expectancy, that leads to more other HIV infected people(those people have more time to infect others)

According to your logic we should support the killing of HIV infected people exterminate the whole virus.


No matter WHAT we do with africa it won't work,[...]
Only because the developpment politics of the last 20 years failed, doesn't mean one should give up developpment politic alltogether.

Europe can't just ignore it's neighbour continent.There are ways for European nations to help Africa. I don't think it's even about giving them more money. It needs more measures to encourage the selfdeveloppment of African nations. And Europe needs to abandon politics which discourage developpment in Africa.


And btw there were developped civilisations in Africa before the Europeans came. Idiot!

[Douros81]

If it was the case that Europe benefited that much of the colony how come Germany who had little colonies had such a development and how is it possible that le longest period of growth was in the 50s to 70s when we were decolonizing ?
Look like Communist or anti Euro neocon propaganda to me.
Anyway even if it was true how does that mean that we have to help the African now ? I mean you must show an interest or else why would we ?


I think we should send some troops in, but I don't think it should be a 85% USA job. An army worth a damn could clean it up.

[k98_man]

We should be peacekeeping in Darfur instead of creating wars elsewhere.

[SBL]

I think it is time for Russia to step up. If Putin wants to show the world we matter, here is the chance. How hard would it be for the Russian army to drop in and protect Darfur?

Do you really think Russia can risk getting involved?

[GromGrad]

Do you really think Russia can risk getting involved?

Sure, what is the Sudan going to do? We aren't trying to win hearts and minds we aren't trying to make a regime change just enforce a border and keep the peace. Unlike the UN or Western Countries, Russian troops won't hesitate to fire on locals. Also this doesn't involve urban combat and the Russian air force would have complete air superiority. I am 100% positive our friends in northern Africa would let us use their land to stage what we need to stage considering we have kept their regimes in power and stocked with weapons since the Europeans left. Plus there are oil contracts to be won for Rosneft.

[phoebus]

I think we should send some troops in, but I don't think it should be a 85% USA job. An army worth a damn could clean it up.

It's not that easy even if we sent the men down there and frankly we have better business to do, other than throwing our money in African Wars. Right now EU has 2 (Bulgaria & Romania) new member states which need all the support they can get from the rest of us. So lets concentrate on our "internal" business affairs.

Also sending an army doesn't solve any of the problems down there. European armies should stick on their job of defending the homeland and also support the missions in Lebannon, Afghanistan and the Balkans.

[roland]

To answer your question , reasons why Europe has an interest in sustained development in africa:

- Dealing with the economic and political inadequacies in the home countries of the illegal immigrants is the only effective way of dealing with that problem.

- Unstable countries can be breeding ground for terrorists who might attack western countries.

- Sustained economic, political and social developpment of third world countries do not only benefit the people in those countries but also the West since new markets and new investment opportunities will emerge. There's an unbelievable big potential in that area.

(- I could add the moral argument, but since moral and ethic thoughts do not matter in global politics this is probably not important.)


Ok, since you don't come with moral crap that's starting to be interesting.

There is more to earn with a developped Africa with whom we could do business than exploiting them.
For example one can earn money selling an international airport for the president's village, that is around nowhere, but that empoverish the country and since this airport is paid with debt the'll never pay back, in the end that's us who pay anyway.

Now the question is how they will develop ?

One thing is sure is that it will be NOT thanks to us, even less thanks to our guilt (like Douros81 did) or our pity.

They'll develop thanks to themselves, thanks to there work and intelligence, there way.

Those countries have to make there own history they've been deprieved for too long. The less we mess with it, the better even, if that mean let them solve some very painfull problems like natural disasters, wars or famines. Europe had its share of famines or plague too, that didn't prevent her to develop. Even if at this time there was some powerfull and benevolent countries to help us, like some say we must do to Africa, may be that would have prevented us to develop at all.

Each time some countries mess with other countries that's like when you throw a stone in the water: there is some waves that can have unpredictable effect. The bigger the stone, the bigger the waves. That's why if we have to intervene in Africa, to defend some interests, protect our citizen who emigrated there against racist attacks or avoid genocide, we have to do it with a lot of tact and quietly.
One thing that certainly need to be avoided is getting emotional: it's difficult to let thousand die of starvation without intervening even if you know it's better for those countries in the long run.
imho.

[afreu]

There is more to earn with a developped Africa with whom we could do business than exploiting them.
For example one can earn money selling an international airport for the president's village, that is around nowhere, but that empoverish the country and since this airport is paid with debt the'll never pay back, in the end that's us who pay anyway.

What's your point? That's how developpment politics looked like in the last 20 years. That's not what I was talking about.


There are numerous obstacles for African countries which prevent developpment. A lot of those obstacles are domestic some are imposed by other (Western) nations. You're right that it's mainly up to the African themselves but without any help from Western states there's little hope for success, especially in a globalized world. Imagine how hard it would've been for Germany to rebuild without foreign aid.

[Jobu]

It's terrible that people are dying but we can't just go around putting our military personnel in harm's way over every injustice in the world. It has to be limited to situations which are of vital national interest.

[SBL]

Sure, what is the Sudan going to do? We aren't trying to win hearts and minds we aren't trying to make a regime change just enforce a border and keep the peace. Unlike the UN or Western Countries, Russian troops won't hesitate to fire on locals. Also this doesn't involve urban combat and the Russian air force would have complete air superiority. I am 100% positive our friends in northern Africa would let us use their land to stage what we need to stage considering we have kept their regimes in power and stocked with weapons since the Europeans left. Plus there are oil contracts to be won for Rosneft.

While that sounds very cut-and-dry, I think Russia has neither the political will nor the resources to take on such a mission at present. The last thing Putin needs is to become embroiled in some local African conflict. Willingness to 'fire on locals' won't help, either.p-)