Sudan?

[Trident-za]

I've been pre-occupied with work lately, but saw something about Sudan on the news a day or two ago. Seems to be a very bad situation, especially from a humanitarian point of view.

Anyway, a quick link for you: A million civilian deaths possible in Sudan:

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1537301,00.html

Of course, not being part of the WOT etc, this might be a minor "glitch" in the media's eyes.

Edit: on a side issue - I've seen no posts here about the very recent issues in DRC - is this stuff shown on your news broadcasts?

[Fintin]

about a year ago in march....a guy who had recently graduated from my college came and spoke to us....he had just been in sudan takeing photos...its down right scary whats going on....but whats scarrier is that no one seems to notice

[Tane Angle]

Just last night we had a talk about the Sudan over dinner. (Edit: Sorry bud.) Not a good situation. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Trident-za]

OK - I must admit to being seriously impressed! At the time I edited my post, this thread had had 9 views, and 2 replies. I'm amazed to see such a prompt reaction for issues not concernign Iraq.

Fintin - you are right - the stuff going on in Sudan (and DRC right now) is appalling. And the lack of interest from the rest of the world is amazing.

Tane - don't want to get into a political discussion about this, but I agree with your comments. Sudan is going to be disaster - dry season coming up, no water in the refugee camps etc, on top of the violence issue. Terrible, but apparently not politically important for the rest of the world :(

[Hellfish]

It's the same as with Rwanda - nobody cares because it's seen as the norm in the West, I think. Like: "Another coup in Africa? That's what, the third this year?" It's rarely on the news here and when it is, ghosts of Somalia prevent us from being willing to take any action.

It just doesn't matter to us - hell, I minored in African politics and I still can't say that I really care what happens over there - I'm interested sure, but if there's a genocide in Rwanda or a rebellion in the Congo, I can't say that I care who wins or loses because neither side is any better than the other. Without major, major cultural shifts, this kind of stuff will keep happening long after you an I are dead and gone and there's very little we in the US or Europe can do about it. It's the most tragic result of colonialism, I think.

I think that South Africa is a beacon of hope, but they are still working out their own problems it seems, though I am very happy to see them making an effort in the Congo. I thought Niger and Cote D'Ivoire were also beacons of hope but in the past year both have suffered immensely - Cd'I had a coup (which made the news here in the states) and Niger is dealing with a blooming religious war. Aside from Zimbabwe, I'd say that Southern Africa is the most stable place in the entire continent right now.

What ever happened to those "mercenaries" that were captured in Harare, anyways?

[Trident-za]

It's the same as with Rwanda - nobody cares because it's seen as the norm in the West, I think. Like: "Another coup in Africa? That's what, the third this year?" It's rarely on the news here and when it is, ghosts of Somalia prevent us from being willing to take any action.

It just doesn't matter to us - hell, I minored in African politics and I still can't say that I really care what happens over there - I'm interested sure, but if there's a genocide in Rwanda or a rebellion in the Congo, I can't say that I care who wins or loses because neither side is any better than the other. Without major, major cultural shifts, this kind of stuff will keep happening long after you an I are dead and gone and there's very little we in the US or Europe can do about it. It's the most tragic result of colonialism, I think.

I think that South Africa is a beacon of hope, but they are still working out their own problems it seems, though I am very happy to see them making an effort in the Congo. I thought Niger and Cote D'Ivoire were also beacons of hope but in the past year both have suffered immensely - Cd'I had a coup (which made the news here in the states) and Niger is dealing with a blooming religious war. Aside from Zimbabwe, I'd say that Southern Africa is the most stable place in the entire continent right now.

What ever happened to those "mercenaries" that were captured in Harare, anyways?

You make some good points. Unfortunately, Africa has shot itself in the foot so often, most other countries tend to ignore it. :(

In terms of those "mercenaries"... the case still drags on. Their lawyers are arguing that its impossible to receive a "fair trial" in Zimbabwe (I agree with this) so they they should be extradited somewhere else. The SA government is trying not to make waves in the African Union, so is avoiding the responsibility.... in short, those 70 guys are probably screwed, guilty or innocent .

[Fintin]

i would like to point out...sudan has oil...it hasnt been drilled...but it is there...why am i stateing this...so people cant flip out saying we dont care cause there isnt oil...just an idea...

[Hellfish]

I think the only way to sort out Africa as a continent is to break up the national boundaries and create tiny little tribal lands for each group. The majority of them obviously have a difficult time getting along with each other, so why not keep them seperate?

Naturally, this is impossible, but I don't really see another way unless they all kill each other off (AIDS and war may just do it :( )

[ibstolidude]

There is the reality of strategic gain. These gains are not always in oil, or resources, some are in influence. There is no question that actions in A-stan, Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, DRC, and various other locations had/have the potential to create great stability for the peoples of those respective lands and are often argued on that merit; the major differences lie in the strategic value of those lands. Large amounts of economic and direct food aid is given to many of those locattions, however it is hard pressed for a government (any really, but especially the US) to offer military troops in lands where the people of the nation can not be shown a direct strategic interest. There is no question of the horrors found in Africa, or the need for involvement and resolution; unfortunately it is not an easy sell to the average voter for any US political camp. I fear it will be a long time before we see major effective steps taken in many of these areas- quite frankly I don't see many willing to allocate the resources or finances it would require.

But hey what do I know! - now watch a major troop mobilization just to show me up!

[Hellfish]

I'm pretty sure Sudan's oil has been drilled, but maybe not fully exploited. I think a big part of the war is because of that oil - the Christian Animists didn't think that they were getting a fair share of the oil revenue from the muslims in the north.

[Trident-za]

But hey what do I know! - now watch a major troop mobilization just to show me up!

I hope you are right in this respect! I'd be the first to say that Africa has some major issues to deal with, on their own. But... when this kinda thing happens... the civilians are screwed without outside help.

On a side issue... I met one of the top guys from the official DRC opposition party recently (I don't usually pay attention to "rank" but he might have been the leader of this party, wasn't paying attention) and I found him to be intelligent, sincere, committed and honest, so the latest news from DRC has really struck me hard. The guys that the DRC of the future needs are being sidelined by "military" actions and rambo-wannabes. Sad.

Edit: and before anyone challenges me on meeting a top politican dude - my wife is a political science lecturer, this guy was one of her students (he is SERIOUS about his future job (president of the DRC?)). My wife was even mentioned by name in the DRC parliamentary meetings.









i

[Fintin]

i was just thinking...yesterday i had lunch with a friend parents...who are training in toranto to be missionaries in somalia...there is a large somali population there...but we talked a bit about oct 93...anyone think that the result of that might be why the US is reluctant to step into africa again?

[Old300]

Yes, those issues have been in the news in the US.

It is not true that the US or the rest of the West (if there is such a thing, geopolitically, as the "West" now) will intervene in Africa only when our interests - whether political, economic, or security interests - are threatened.

The British invaded Sierra Leone a few years ago. The French invaded the Ivory Coast. And we invaded Liberia (and Somalia). All of these were undertaken for humanitarian reasons.

I'd guess that the reason we won't invade Sudan is that much of the trouble in Darfur is related to Christian-Muslim antagonism, and we've been excoriated around the world by our moral superiors the past few years for trying to clean up the messes that Muslims make of their own countries.

No doubt the Arab Street (and the upper-middle-class-post-Christian "Western" one, too) would decry our cultural imperialism if we tried to stop the genocide there.

[ELINT]

Havent the proceedings in Sudan recently taken a turn for the better? Wasnt it Kongo that got f*cked up this week?

Alot of work to be done in that region anyway and its also an area where the UN is doing has been doing a good but almost unoticed work.

Edit: As for news from DRC, we have an airbase down there and the personell is totrally stranded because its at the present to dangerous to take of or land.

[Royal]

Don't know much about the DRC other than what I read about in the news, but I bumped into an old colleague yesterday who's working on the situation in the Sudan. It may be lowkey and ultiamtely is certainly down to natural resources, but we are interested.

It seems to be the usual refrain at the moment. Too many wars, too few Operators.

[Hellfish]

Edit: and before anyone challenges me on meeting a top politican dude - my wife is a political science lecturer, this guy was one of her students (he is SERIOUS about his future job (president of the DRC?)). My wife was even mentioned by name in the DRC parliamentary meetings.


When I read something like this, I can't help but shake my head in remorse. So many African leaders have held promise in the past (Mugabe included) and when they came to power, the power always, always corrupted. They are very capable of telling the world and their people exactly what they want to hear but shortly after taking power, their cousins, brothers-in-law and business partners become the people in power. Again, South Africa seems to be an exception - the ANC seems pretty devoid of massive governmental corruption (at least in African terms). I'll remain skeptical, however, and hope your man proves me wrong.

And I don't think he may have any intention of becoming corrupt - I think it will just happen when/if he comes to power. Familial, tribal and societal pressures will cave in his better judgement. His brother might be unemployed and needs a job to provide for his family so his brother the politician helps him out by giving him a police post or some kind of position in a local government. Sooner or later, that brother will abuse the fact that his brother is a politician in power and attempt to increase his own fortune by creating illicit deals and businesses on the side, often using governmental money and resources to do it, and so on.

The politician may have simply thought that he was helping out his brother, but instead the seeds of massive corruption are sewn - look out when the suddenly enriched brother tells his other brothers and cousins and uncles and friends about his own success and they start asking the politician for help as well...

It's almost comically tragic the way this system repeats itself year after year, government after government in the vast majority of African states.

[Hellfish]

Don't know much about the DRC other than what I read about in the news, but I bumped into an old colleague yesterday who's working on the situation in the Sudan. It may be lowkey and ultiamtely is certainly down to natural resources, but we are interested.

It seems to be the usual refrain at the moment. Too many wars, too few Operators.

Yes, but if we go in there will we be making a difference? Did we make a difference in Somalia? Or Liberia? Or Cote D'Ivoire? Sierra Leone? What about when the Western troops leave? Do the NGOs really make a difference?

From all that I've read and talked with volunteers about, the NGOs in Africa are so isolated and so distanced from the very communities they help, that they don't actually solve anything and the Africans become reliant on their aid, losing any hope for self sufficiency. Why work hard when the Red Cross or a missionary organization hands out sacks of rice and mealie-meal? Sure, you may have to sit through a lecture about safe *** or Jesus, but it's worth it to not have to work.

[Hellfish]

Also, this is a shameless self promotion, I've started a website for discussion about politics and warfare in Southern Africa. I'd very much like to see conversations like this develop over there. Yes, the site is a little rough, but the forums work. :)

www.bushfires.org

[Trident-za]

Edit: and before anyone challenges me on meeting a top politican dude - my wife is a political science lecturer, this guy was one of her students (he is SERIOUS about his future job (president of the DRC?)). My wife was even mentioned by name in the DRC parliamentary meetings.


When I read something like this, I can't help but shake my head in remorse. So many African leaders have held promise in the past (Mugabe included) and when they came to power, the power always, always corrupted. They are very capable of telling the world and their people exactly what they want to hear but shortly after taking power, their cousins, brothers-in-law and business partners become the people in power. Again, South Africa seems to be an exception - the ANC seems pretty devoid of massive governmental corruption (at least in African terms). I'll remain skeptical, however, and hope your man proves me wrong.

And I don't think he may have any intention of becoming corrupt - I think it will just happen when/if he comes to power. Familial, tribal and societal pressures will cave in his better judgement. His brother might be unemployed and needs a job to provide for his family so his brother the politician helps him out by giving him a police post or some kind of position in a local government. Sooner or later, that brother will abuse the fact that his brother is a politician in power and attempt to increase his own fortune by creating illicit deals and businesses on the side, often using governmental money and resources to do it, and so on.

The politician may have simply thought that he was helping out his brother, but instead the seeds of massive corruption are sewn - look out when the suddenly enriched brother tells his other brothers and cousins and uncles and friends about his own success and they start asking the politician for help as well...

It's almost comically tragic the way this system repeats itself year after year, government after government in the vast majority of African states.

Intersting comments :) On this note: according to the guy I chatted with, Kabila (spelling?) isn't actually a bad guy - he is honest, and a good politician BUT - he doesn't have the power to stop the military. So, in Africa, being president doesn't necessarily mean anything - its the dude in charge of the big guns who can do whatever the hell he wants. Being president just means you can say stuff.... but, if the guy you are talking too has more guns, and isn't interested in what you are saying.... it starts to sound a bit like global politics?

[Hellfish]

Laurent Kabila?

[born_to_love]

we talked about this a couple weeks ago, The media is ignoring whats going on in Sudan how they are massacring the christians, but when one palestinian die the whole world hears about it and Israel gets condemned

[Hellfish]

For ****'s sake, can't we have one damn thread that doesn't dissolve into some pissant Israel-Palestine debate?

[maw]

http://passionofthepresent.org/

http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ltpeter2002

the human tragedy in sudan is spiraling into a catastrophe. aid/logistics agencies like the jmc, unicef, etc aren't able to effectively extend their reach to darfur. most of the aid is being provided on the chadian side of the border. in addition to the malnutrition and hygene crisis, there is an active tribal retribution/ethnic cleansing campaign being conducted by the khartoum regime in the region.

for the record, this current conflict is primarily muslim on muslim, not that it lessens the suffering or the scale of the atrocity. the previous conflict in the south has been contained, largely due to oil.

oil has been trickling out of the sudan for ages. but the recent (couple of years) discovery of significant reserves south of nuba in a region traditionally held by the spla prompted khartoum to call off their dogs and call a peace with the spla. well the full story is that khartoum was brought under control with the promise of revenue sharing.

it's worth mentioning that the peace was really initiated by international pressure (cough*us interests*cough).

therein lies the real tragedy. all this suffering could be reduced to a non-event by a couple of well placed calls and a visit from the state department. unfortunately it's just not a priority for the us right now.

khartoum listens to washington. it's a combination of fear and greed that motivate ahmad el-bashier and his goons to pay attention when uncle sam speaks. even before we demonstrated how easily we could remove a third world rogue regime off the face of the map in afghanistan, khartoum was eager to please us. the cause probably stems from an incident perpetrated by khartoum back in the early ninties that rubbed someone in washington the wrong way, the result was that a certain organization responsible for implementing us foreign policy gave john garang and the spla $20 million from the petty cash box. a couple more "loose change" contributions would have meant the end of the road for the khartoum regime. the remarkable thing is that they were intelligent enough to recognize this: so they rolled over and called uncle.

btw, off topic (but i can't be bothered to start a new thread), i don't want to go into it but in the war on terrorism, our greatest ally in the middle east is jordan.

[Royal]

Don't know much about the DRC other than what I read about in the news, but I bumped into an old colleague yesterday who's working on the situation in the Sudan. It may be lowkey and ultiamtely is certainly down to natural resources, but we are interested.

It seems to be the usual refrain at the moment. Too many wars, too few Operators.

Yes, but if we go in there will we be making a difference? Did we make a difference in Somalia? Or Liberia? Or Cote D'Ivoire? Sierra Leone? What about when the Western troops leave? Do the NGOs really make a difference?

From all that I've read and talked with volunteers about, the NGOs in Africa are so isolated and so distanced from the very communities they help, that they don't actually solve anything and the Africans become reliant on their aid, losing any hope for self sufficiency. Why work hard when the Red Cross or a missionary organization hands out sacks of rice and mealie-meal? Sure, you may have to sit through a lecture about safe *** or Jesus, but it's worth it to not have to work.

Just for the record, I never said we would go in, only that we were monitoring the situation.

I can't comment on Somalia or Cote D'Ivoire and I've never been to Libedria, but Sierra Leone is a very different place to four years ago - due directly to the intervention of UK troops. From what I understand a similar situation is evolving in the Cote D'Ivoire.

So yes, western intervention can work in Africa.

[martinexsquaddie]

Read a big thick book once the scramble for africa shows the history of the place most of the nations were carved up by the western empires with no notice of local situations on the ground.
Then when it came time to cut and run most were not left with much in the way of viable infrastructe as regards people torun the place.
stir in the cold war CIA and KGB who managed to screw over most of the half decent politicans.
Then the west turns round and arrogantly goes Africa can't run its own affairs :roll:
two things the EU could do crack down massively on "blood diamonds" and do a deal re: argiculture subsdies and aid certain african countries in protecting there fish stocks both those things would bring cash in for african states with cash a goverment can do things :|

[AROUETLJ]

In recent years, a certain kind of setup for humanitarian operations has proved to be quite effective. Look at Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, DR Congo (Op Artemis) and Haiti. Here you had a multinational military force (mandated by the UN though not under UN command) acting as the first echelon, if you like, for a UN blue-helmet force which followed. The lesson learned here is that it is sometimes quicker to send in such a force before a UN contingent can be organised. And having tougher rules of engagement is also helpful in the initial phases. Sierra Leone and Cote d'Ivoire have been success stories for such operations. In the DR Congo, an EU force restored some degree of calm in the Ituri region so that a new (MONUC II) UN force could go in. In the corridors of the EU, word is being floated about that a similar operation might be carried out in the Sudan, under a "framework nation" as in the DR Congo. Of the 5 nations which could realistically act in such a role (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain), the UK and Italy are heavily involved in Iraq. Spain has no experience of the kind, though there's always a first time. Germany has never sent major forces to Africa. Which leaves France, although it might be accused of hogging the limelight with another African mission less than a year after Artemis, and it already has operations going on all over the place. Whichever it is, I hope that we act fast and show that the EU has the will to act.

[Hellfish]

Don't know much about the DRC other than what I read about in the news, but I bumped into an old colleague yesterday who's working on the situation in the Sudan. It may be lowkey and ultiamtely is certainly down to natural resources, but we are interested.

It seems to be the usual refrain at the moment. Too many wars, too few Operators.

Yes, but if we go in there will we be making a difference? Did we make a difference in Somalia? Or Liberia? Or Cote D'Ivoire? Sierra Leone? What about when the Western troops leave? Do the NGOs really make a difference?

From all that I've read and talked with volunteers about, the NGOs in Africa are so isolated and so distanced from the very communities they help, that they don't actually solve anything and the Africans become reliant on their aid, losing any hope for self sufficiency. Why work hard when the Red Cross or a missionary organization hands out sacks of rice and mealie-meal? Sure, you may have to sit through a lecture about safe *** or Jesus, but it's worth it to not have to work.

Just for the record, I never said we would go in, only that we were monitoring the situation.

I can't comment on Somalia or Cote D'Ivoire and I've never been to Libedria, but Sierra Leone is a very different place to four years ago - due directly to the intervention of UK troops. From what I understand a similar situation is evolving in the Cote D'Ivoire.

So yes, western intervention can work in Africa.

I don't mean to sound like I'm personally challenging you on this (there's enough of that BS on this board) but what about when the British troops leave? They can't stay in Sierra Leone forever. Hell, even if they stay there's nothing to guarantee any semblance of calm - Tchad has had two or three rebellions while French troops were in country.

[G1]

Hey Hellfish! Nice to see you here!http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard311/non-cgi/emoticons/smile_o.gif
Well, have a good time.

[moughoun]

I was watching an interesting documentry on the was in Sudan, when this little point came up, guess which 2 Countries are trying to get control of the oil field's and have even put troop's on the ground to "protect" their worker's................................................India and China

[Royal]

I don't mean to sound like I'm personally challenging you on this (there's enough of that BS on this board) but what about when the British troops leave? They can't stay in Sierra Leone forever. Hell, even if they stay there's nothing to guarantee any semblance of calm - Tchad has had two or three rebellions while French troops were in country.

With the exception of the (admitedly fairly large) training team and embassy staff, we have already drawn down from Sierra Leone. The Sierra Leone army and police seem to be doing okay - that's not to say that we don't retain plans to surge back...

BTW the French in Tchad (from what I understand) were largely dealing with the Libiyans - outside countries mixing it hardly helps the area's stability.

[Hellfish]

[quote=Hellfish6]
BTW the French in Tchad (from what I understand) were largely dealing with the Libiyans - outside countries mixing it hardly helps the area's stability.

True, but the French are still there and Libya has not provoked Tchad in some time.